HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-11-01 ACTIONS
Board of Supervisors Meeting of November 1, 2000
November 2, 2000
,AGENDA ITEM/ACTION
1. Call to order.
4. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBUC.
John Martin, representing Citizens for Albemarle, invited Board
members to a population forum scheduled for November 9~,
....... City Council Chambers.
NonAgenda. Mr. Tucker introduced Mr. Ron White, the County's
. newly hired Chief of Housing; .
5.1 Thomas Jefferson Planning Distdct Commission's 2001 Draft
Legislative Program.
· Ms. Humphris suggested adding legislation to request the
General Assembly the right to establish a revolving fund for
histodc preservation.
· APPROVED.
5.2 Resolution to accept Garden Gate Court in Garden Gate Farm
Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways.
· ADOPTED.
5.3 Hiring of Adult Protective Service Worker - Department of
Social Services.
· APPROVED to be funded in the current year with existing local
and state resources. Additional funds for the position to be
incorporated into the FY 2002 recommended budget.
5.4 Set public hearing for proposed FY 2001 Budget Amendment
to Appropriate $592,000 in donated funds to the Esmont Park
Project.
· SET public hearing for December 6th.
5.5 Appropriation: Various Funds, $590,914.39 (Form #99088)
· APPROVED.
5.6 Appropriation: Electoral Board, $20,677.02 (Form #20017).
. APPROVED.
5.7 Appropriation: EMS Development Block Grant, $3,000 (Form
0018).
· APPROVED.
5.8 Appropriation: Education, $500 (Form ~20020).
· APPROVED.
5.9 Appropriation: Capital Improvements Program, $9,773,278.01
(Forms #20019, 20026, 20027, 20028, 20029).
· APPROVED.
7. Transportation Matters.
· Mr. Mills, Acting Resident Engineer, said VdoT has received
approval to paint double yellow lines on Ricky Road,
B,=-'qnnington Road and West Park Drive.
· Mr. Mills provided an update on Route 693. He has met with
the largest landowner. He and Ms. Thomas met with a nearby .
ASSIGNMENT
Meeting was called to Order at 9:03 a.m., by t.he
Chairman. All BOS members present.
Clerk: Acknowledge comments.
County. Attomev: Look into and report back to the
Board.
Lod Spencer: Communicate Board's approval to
Dave Blount.
Clerk: Forward signed resolution to Engineering
(Attachment A).
None.
Clerk: Advertise for public hearing.
Clerk.: Forward signed appropriation form to Melvin
Breeden and copy appropriate persons.
Clerk: Forward signed appropriation form to Melvin
Breeden and copy appropriate persons.
,Clerk; FonNard signed appropriation form to Melvin
Breeden and copy appropriate persons.
Clerk; Forward signed appropriation form to Melvin
Breeden and copy appropriate persons..
Clerk; Forward signed appropriation forms to
Melvin Breeden and copy appropriate persons.
Cle~: Forward comments in letter to Mr.i Mills.
resident earlier. The resident brought to their attention some
safety issues. To address those safety issues, VdoT would
need some dght of way agreement with that largest landovmer.
This landowner seems to be in support of the project. VdoT
plans to do some temporarily things as far as the widening of
the pavement. He also plans to meet with one more property
owner. VdoT has not received an estimate for the project, but
they are working on it.
Regarding Route 760, Mr. Mills said VdoT is working on that
project. They are sending out letters to try to generate some
. interest.
· Mr. Mills said VdoT will be receiving project bids this month on
Route 791, in the Batesville area, and Route 605, near Greene
County. They have also received bids on the Grassmem Road
project, but a contract has not been awarded at this time. He
has been told the bid is within $100 of the previous bid.
· Mr. Mills said VdoT will be installing a deer warning system
consisting of light reflectors on the interstate on November 2"~.
There are three locations in Albemarle County VdoT is looking
at and would like Board reaction and support before installing
the reflectors. The locations are Route 250, between ivy
Commons shopping center and Turner Mountain Road;
between the west end of Route 738 Route 240; and on Route
654 near Colthurst Farms. These reflectors have already been
installed in Madison County. When a car light hits the
reflectors, it creates a wall of light that deer will not come
through. These reflectors have been used successfully in
Maryland. He suggested the Board take a look at them on the
interstate and provide comments before VdoT installs them on
other County roads.
· Mr. Mills said the County will start to see significant project cost
increases in the Six Year Road Plan because of inflation.
· Mr. Dorrier said the decel lane going north on Route 20 into
Green Mountain Country store at Keene also goes right in front
of the turnoff for the store. This is a dangerous situation. He
suggested VdoT install signage to help the situation.
· Ms. Thomas said the residents of Dick Woods Road want the
speed limit sign installed at the beginning of the road. She is
not sure a centerline is the solution.
· Ms. Thomas mentioned a meeting with some residents of
Whippoorwill Hollow;, they are interested in traffic calming.
They would also like information from the speed study and
traffic volume counts.
Mr. Bowerman mentioned a letter from Joan Graves to Mr. Mills
regarding the McDonalds at Shoppers World. Ms. Graves
expressed concern about the existing conflict between
permitted U-turns from northbound Route 29 onto southbound
Route 29 at the Fashion Square/Shoppers World intersection.
The drivers needing to be in the right hand lane of Route 29 in
order to reach their homes in Berkeley and Four Seasons, as
well as the First Citizens Bank, make it imperative that they
have the right-of-way over driyers leaving the business area
because they only have the one block in which to maneuver.
She asked VdoT to change the sequence of lighting at the
intersection in order to make the U-turn less hazardous to life
and limb. When the light is green for the U-turn it is also green
for fight turn out of Shoppers Wodd. Ms, Graves thinks a yield
sign there should be considered. Mr. Mills said he is aware of
this situation and he has supported a change but the traffic
engineers have not agreed with him. He is continuing to work
on the issue.
Mr. Martin said there is a lot of traffic backing up and stacking
in the median at Advance Mills Road and Route 29. He asked
that VdoT do a traffic count at the crossover to see if a light is
warranted,
~, Mr. Martin mentioned the widening of Proffit Road from Route
29 to the new elemental7 school. He said the County needs to
do whatever it can to move this project up in the I~ority list. Mr.
Benish mentioned that staff has had preliminary discussions on
the Six Year Road Plan and that project is one of the items they
have identified to move up in the list of priorities. Hopefully
staff can bring the plan to the Board around the beginning of
2001.
Mr. Martin asked Mr. Mills to give him a call within the next
week, if he does not call him, about items left over from
discussions with Angela Tucker.
8. Presentation: Rivanna River Basin Roundtable.
· Ed Imhoff presented a resolution expressing appreciation to the
Board for authorizing the release of water from the Sugar
Hollow Reservoir into the Moormans River.
None.
9. Presentation by Jack McHale, Chesterfield County Board of None.
Supen~isors, Strategic Planning.
· Received; no action.
!0. e,.r,,,,~ =,,,,,,~ D,~.~,,~,,~;,,,, (Removed from agenda)
11. FY 2001 Revised and FY 2002 Estimate General Fund
Revenues/Budget Guidance.
· APPROVED the proposed FY 200t/02 allocation of new
revenues to the Capital Program, as recommended by the
financial advisors, and to the School Division and General
Government for operating needs.
· DIRECTED staff to incorporate in its report anticipated growth
and inflation projections.
12. Presentation: Esmont Park Master Plan and Naming of Park.
· SUPPORTED the name Simpson Park for the new perk to be
built in Esmont.
Work Session: CPA-98-03. Post Office Land Trust/Theater.
SET public headng for December 13~. Work session on
transportation component to come to the Board on December
13.
14. Closed Session: Personnel Matters.
At12:41 p.m., the Board went into closed session to consider
appointments to boards and commissions, and to discuss with
legal coun .sel and staff the issue of the transition of
Melvin Breeden/BudRet Mana~ler: Proceed as
directed by the Board.
Clerk: Advertise public hearing.
Planning staff: Proceed with work session on
December 6th.
None.
Charlottesville to town status.
15. Certify Closed Session.
The Board reconvened into open session at 1:50 p.m., and
certified the closed session.
Clerk: Prepare appointment letters.
16. Appointments.
· REAPPOINTED Mr. Vernon Jones to the Industrial
Development Authority, as the VVhite Hall District
representative, with term to expire on January 19, 2005.
· REAPPOINTED Mr. John Miller to the James River Alcohol
Safety Action Program, with term to expire on January 1, 2004.
· REAPPOINTED Mr. Stephen F. Ashby to the Single-Occupant
Vehicle Alternatives Committee, with term to expire on January
... 12, 2003.
17. Work Session: CPA-2000-04. Historic Preservation (deferred
from October 18, 2000).
* ADOPTED CPA-2000-04 as recommended by the Committee.
· DIRECTED staff and the Committee to bring back to the Board,
at its earliest convenience, their top ten strategies beginning
with voluntary measures and incentives to form the basis for
implementing a Historic Preservation Plan. Staff to include in
the information that comes back to the Board the budgetary
implications.
18. Discussion: Amendments to the FY 2000-01 operating budget
(deferred from October 18, 2000).
APPROVED Appropriation Forms ~20021, #20022, #20023,
· 20024 and ~20025.
19. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board.
· Ms. Thomas handed Mr. Tucker a copy of a letter concerning
removal of the Stonewall Jack commemorative sign at
Mechum's River.
,, Ms. Thomas handed Mr. Cilimberg information she received on
the Virginia Land Consewation Fund Grant Program which may
open up some money for the ACE Program. Mr. Cilimberg
commented that staff has been keeping track of this
information. He believes that the County can make application
in next year's cycle. He added that the grant cannot be used
for .a general program; it must be used for specific acquisitions.
20. Adjourn to November 8, 2000, 4:30 p.m., for Joint Meeting with
School Board.
· At 2:45 p;m.,, the.meeting .was adjourned until November 8th.
Plannin.q staff; 'Proceed as directed by Board to
bring back information at earliest convenience.
Clerk: Forward signed appropriation forms to
Melvin Breeden and copy appropriate persons.
Cle~: Forward copy of letter to Mr. Mills.
/ewe
Attachment A - Resolution for Garden Gate Farm Subdivision
CITIZENS FOR ALBEMARLE
Pepulaliea Femm
TII6
Citizens for Albemarle
believes ongoing growth
of our regional popula-
tion cannot be sustained
without severe impact on
our quality of life. Please
join us in our search for
acceptable means of
limiting growth. Steps
we consider to this end
will be laden with
environmental, ethical,
economic and legal
implications. We intend
this free forum to be an
Bobate:
Taking Charge of Our Destiny
Thursday, Hovetuber 9,
City Council Chambers, Charlotsville City Hall
on the Downtown Mall (605 East Main)
Featuring Eben F0d0r-
:
Mr. Fodor is the author of "Better Not
Bigger: How to Take Conlxol of Urban
Growth and Improve Your Community."
Eben Fodor is a community planning
consultant based in Eugene, Oregon. He is
a naliona!ly recognized authority on
consequences of growth and local govern-
ment strategies for dealing with it. Mr.
Fodor will be discussing myths surrounding
growth and steps other localities have taken
early step in the search to control it. Visit his Web site fo re
for possibilities. information (www. fodorandass m)
·
Jon Cannon is director of ' '
Environmental I .aw Sl~,die~ ~ ¢. ~,~
at Ihe tJ,:i~ersi~v of Virgini:~~ ..,
R'ee to the ,,,;,~ i. ,.,,..~ .,.,~.,,~:,~ '~;: .!.,.
,.,~ .......
.M ..
..2. %"i>~ '.;.:':.
!:tlr n~.ort~ irlli)rr!l;lliorl. ~:'t..
please conlaci Rich Collins i.~ :l I.,:'~ i.- I>l'¢}l'~:~,-t~| :11 ':"' ' .
i!"..c {, r:i~ crsil v t~l' x,.'ir,,ini:i'...";cho,~l ~1
'li)m Olivler al .\k'hilcclt,re;:,s ~ eli':l~ linmdc. r of ihc
804-831-24(18, or h:.-lilulellwl.:nxiron'ncnl:d Ne.,-olialh)n. '
em.'iil him :,
lolivier(:jecslone.ncl Francis F'ili: ~ II~e pasl m:ixcn ol (."l:arlotl:.~
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
TJPDC 2001 Legislative Program
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of the draft TJPDC 2001 Legislative Program
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, White, Spencer, Blount
AGENDA DATE:
November 1, 2000
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
Yes
BACKGROUND:
The Thomas Jefferson Planning district Commission works with the County and other Planning distdct members
each year to develop a legislative program for the General Assembly session. The attached draft of the 2001
TJPDC Legislative Program is before the Board for approval and will form the basis of the county's future
discussions with our local legislators.
DISCUSSION:
The Draft 2001 Legislative Program follows the same format as in prior years, with six broad categories of
general policy and legislative requests and a section highlighting some of the most important issues. The six
broad sections have been marked to show the changes from last year, with the new information being
underlined. The County's major issues recommended to VACO are included in the draft program. (A copy of
the County's VACO submittal is also attached for reference.) The approved TJPDC Legislative Program will be
sent to our local legislators prior to our meeting with them on December 14, 2000.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board approve the attached Draft 2001 TJPDC Legislative Program, with the understanding
that suggested changes from the Board will be reflected in the final version of the regional legislative program.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of County Executive
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5841 FAX (804) 9724060
July 7, 2000
Mr. James D. Campbell, CAE
Executive Director
Virginia Association of Counties
1001 East Broad Street, Suite LL 20
Richmond, Virginia 23219-1928
Dear Mr. Campbell,
Based on Albemarle County Board of Supervisors discussion on July 5, we are submitting the following
proposals to be considered for inclusion in VACo's 2001 Legislative Program:
State Funding for Education - Request legislation that will raise the Standards of Quality
(S.O.Q.s) and increase percentage of state funding for programs to assist localities to
successfully meet the requirements of the S.O.L.s. Request the state strengthen commitment to
school construction funding.
Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) - Request that the state enhance CSA funding.
Growth Management - Request legislation to provide high-growth jurisdictions with growth
management tools, including changes to VDOT road standards, and to provide statewide funding
for the Purchase of Development Rights program for localities that establish and locally fund such
a program.
E911 Request that state not erode localities' ability to levy a surcharge for emergency
telecommunication services.
Scenic Protection and Tourist Enhancement_ - Continue to request enabling legislation to provide
for a scenic protection and tourist enhancement overlay district. As the County pursues options to
protect the visual quality of land as an aesthetic and economic resource, this legislation would
provide localities with a method to ensure full consideration of visual resources and scenic areas
when the County or State makes land use decisions in designated areas.
Virginia Retirement System (VRS) - Request that the state stabilize the VRS rates and reimburse
school systems for VRS-related costs for positions that exceed those required by the current
SOQs' regulations. -.
Photo-red Traffic Liaht Proaram - Request that the state pass legislation to enable counties to
establish traffic light signal photo-monitoring programs.
Passenger Rail Service - The County supports and endorses the provision of passenger rail
service from Bristol, VA to the Richmond, VA and Washington, DC areas with links to
communities along the way. - ~
Mr. James D. Campbell, CAE
July 7, 2000
Page 2
Income Tax - The County supports legislative revisions which would require the state to retum
a portion of the Virginia individual income taxes collected in each city and county in Virginia to
the locality.
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this important process. Please feel free to contact me at
(804) 296-5841 if you have any questions concerning these proposals.
Sincerely,
Lori S. Spencer
Executive Assistant
LSS\
00.001
CC:
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Ms. Roxanne W. White
Mr. David C. Blount, Legislative Liaison, TJPDC
LAND USE AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville,
and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson
The Planning District and its member localities oppose any preemption or
circumvention of existing local authority to regulate land use, as has been done in
recent years through legislative action. We also support enabling legislation that
would provide local governments with various additional tools (such as impact fees,
adequate public facilities ordinances, changes to VDOT road standards, and
transfer and purchase of development rights) to manage growth.
Background.' During the 1990's, various General Assembly actions reduced localities'
authority to enforce their comprehensive plan or to regulate land use. These actions
included vesting ofproffered rezonings, final approved site plans, and subdivision plats
(1990), vesting of preliminary subdivision plats and site plans (1998), and removal of
local government authority to use special exceptions or use permits in residential districts
(1999). Recent proposals would mandate a specific clustering plan for residential
development and amend the Uniform Statewide Building Code (USBC) to allow local
zoning ordinances to be superseded. Local governments had an opportunity this past year
to express their growth-related frustrations and desires at public hearings held by a state
legislative committee. Further, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has
established guidelines for construction of monopoles or towers on VDOT rights-of-way
which appear to sidestep a 1999 Virginia Supreme Court decision that subjected such
actions to local government review. In Washington, Congress is acting favorably on the
Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA), which would funnel additional funding to
states for the preservation of open space and recreation lands.
Recommendations: The General Assembly should preserve existing authority for
localities to regulate land use, and should approve legislation to 1) preclude VDOT from
allowing the construction of commercial, mobile, and land-based telecommunications
facilities, such as monopoles or towers, without prior approval of the affected locality's
governing body; and 2) enable localities to enact scenic protection and tourist
enhancement districts.
The legislature should increase state money for land preservation and related
measures to purchase and preserve open space and recreation lands, including directing
the bulk of any available federal funding to localities. Further, the General Assembly
should resist legislation to mandate a specific plan for clustering residential development
and to make changes to the Uniform Statewide Building Code that would override local
zoning ordinances.
TAX STRUCTURE AND REFORM
Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville,
and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson
The Planning District and its member localities believe the General Assembly
should broaden the revenue sources available to localities, rather than capping,
removing or restricting taxing authority or user fees. Should the legislature preempt
or remove local tax or revenue authority and sources, then localities must be
provided replacement revenue that both produces the same level of revenue growth
over time and is not subject to future state reductions.
Background.' The Planning District and its member localities recognize that financing
government projects and programs should be a partnership between the state and
localities. However, the level of support from the state is not keeping up with the demand
for services. With our limited ability to raise funds, we often are unable to meet services
required by our residents and those mandated by the state and federal governments. The
Commission on State and Local Tax Structure and the Senate Finance Committee, both
of which are examining tax policy issues and possible reforms, have recognized this
dilemma. They are conducting their studies at a time when future state revenues are
projected to grow at a slower pace, when the state general fund must absorb about $1.7
billion in costs for transportation projects and for reimbursing localities for the personal
property tax, and as potentially costly issues loom related to Internet taxation policies.
Meanwhile, a consultant's report has revealed how localities would stand to benefit from
the state sharing a portion of the income tax with localities. If 10% of income tax
revenues was returned though a formula that considers a base amount, where taxpayers
reside and where wages are eamed, localities in our region would receive the following
amotmts:
Charlottesville $5,387,097
Albemarle $12,843,857
Fluvanna $1,604,343
Louisa $2,027,089
Nelson $1,145,860
Recommendations: The state should broaden revenue sources available to localities in
the form of the following possible options: a remm of a portion of the income tax to
localities, a reduction in the number of sales tax exemptions, a local option income tax or
a local option sales tax. The General Assembly should not cap, remove or restrict any
revenue sources, taxing authority or user fees available to localities, including the local
tax for enhanced emergency telephone service (E911 ). Also, the state must ensure that
implementation of electric utility restructuring is revenue neutral to localities and that any
necessary stopgap appropriations to adversely affected localities are fully funded. Finally,
the state should oppose efforts to preempt the ability to tax electronic commeme sales.
TRANSPORTATION
Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville,
and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson
The Planning District and its member localities support development of a
comprehensive statewide, multi-modal transportation plan that recognizes diverse
transportation needs in urban, suburban and rural areas, and that is
environmentally sound and promotes economic development. We appreciate the
state's efforts this past year to enhance transportation funding and believe the state
should establish additional revenues for Virginia's transportation infrastructure,
including consideration of increases in state transportation-related taxes and fees,
without heavy reliance on the general fund.
Background.' The Virginia Transportation Act (VTA) of 2000 approved by the
legislature and Governor this past spring adds and accelerates $3 billion for state
transportation projects over the next six years. The General Assembly will continue to
focus on transportation, as members have called for additional funding for this program
that also gives legislators new authority in determining priority transportation projects.
Concern also has been expressed this year with provisions in the VTA that would
automatically transfer transportation revenues exceeding official forecasts into the
Priority Transportation Fund. This could have the effect of reducing the amount offrinds
otherwise available for secondary roads. Meanwhile, the state's new six-year road
building plan, the Virginia Transportation Development Plan, has been divided into two
parts. One part lists projects that are in the planning stages or are being considered (a
feasibility phase), while a second part lists projects that the state will finance and build (a
capital improvement program phase).
Recommendations:
In addition to supporting additional state funding of Virginia's transportation
infrastructure, we also recommend the following items:
1) State transportation planning must be better coordinated and conform to local land
use planning, especially in rapidly growing areas;
2) We support relaxing state standards to give localities more flexibility regarding
road construction in neighborhoods and traffic calming measures;
3) State funding for public transportation capital and operating costs should be on
par with the level of support for road construction and maintenance; and
4) We support development and funding of the TransDominion Express with stops at
Oak Ridge and Charlottesville, and request ftmds tofstudy economic tie-ins to
communities along the way. We also support policies that encourage the increased use of
railroads for the transport of freight, in order to enhance public safety, and to reduce the
wear and tear on existing highways and the need for new road construction.
STANDARDS OF QUALITY FUNDING
Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville,
and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson
The Planning District and its member localities support the Joint Legislative Audit
and Review Commission (JLARC) study of the proper role for the state to share
funding of education beyond the minimum state requirements. We believe the state
should fund its share of the realistic costs of meeting the Standards of Quality
(SOQ) and the actual educational needs and practices employed by school divisions
across the Commonwealth.
Background.' The state's interest in educational excellence is shared by our localities,
and we believe that increased state funding for providing quality public education is a top
priority. The JLARC study of education funding focuses on the discretionary dollars that
localities spend above the amount required by the SOQ. As evidence of this strong local
priority on areas such as teacher salaries, staffing ratios, facilities and technology,
Virginia local govemments annually spend $1.1 billion more on education than required
by the state. This represents 23% of total education expenditures. When local capital and
debt services expenditures are added in, the figure jumps to 34% of total education
expenditures. Localities also report that the revised Standards of Learning (SOL) and
Standards of Accreditation (SOA) are driving local expenditures, since school divisions
are striving to ensure that students and schools meet established testing pass rates when
the SOA are fully implemented in 2007. Although we appreciate state efforts the past two
years to funnel money to school construction, localities still face a backlog facility needs.
Localities in Planning District have $100 million in estimated school construction and
renovations on the books through the end of this fiscal year.
Recommendations: The General Assembly should increase its share of responsibility for
funding the realistic costs of local prevailing educational practices and actual
programming, including those related to implementing the SOL and SOA. The state also
should increase funding for school construction costs and establish a permanent funding
formula for the Virginia Public School Construction Grants and lottery proceeds
programs.
In addition, we support the following items: 1) that the Virginia Retirement
System (VRS) stabilize employer contribution rates and reimburse localities for VRS
costs for positions filled in excess of SOQ requirements; 2) that a mechanism for
appealing the Local Composite Index (LCI) to the state be established; and 3) that
funding for the at-risk four year olds program be increased, so that grants are available
for 100%, rather than 60%, of those unserved children.
COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT
Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville,
and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson
The Planning District and its member localities support full funding of
Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) costs included in the state's base budget with
allocations based on realistic anticipated levels of need, calculated on a three-year
rolling average. Further, the state should tap into allowable federal Medicaid
dollars to the fullest extent possible and should allow local flexibility in the use of
Medicaid and other funding sources to maximize the services provided through
CSA.
Background.' Since 1994 (two years alter the inception of the Comprehensive Services
Act), caseloads have increased an average of nine percent per year, while the average cost
for serving each child has increased about six percent per year. Every year during that
period, initial appropriations for CSA have not adequately accommodated growth in
caseloads and costs. Shortfalls are likely to occur again in the current biennium, requiring
significant additional state funding during the 2001 legislative session. Further, some
localities have spent enormous amounts of money on severely disturbed children, whose
treatment costs can exceed $150,000/year. In addition, despite legislative changes
enacted this past year to give higher profile to family assessment and planning team
recommendations, we remain concerned about judges making unilateral placements.
The use of Medicaid dollars to offset state and local costs for residential and
therapeutic foster care likely will not reach budgeted levels this biennium. Collection of
less federal revenue than originally estimated also will require appropriation of additional
state and local funds.
Recommendations: The state should cap expenditures for a locality serving a child
through CSA and should establish a contingency fund to help pay for high-cost, long-
term cases. We support increased state funds to defray local costs of administering CSA
and for early intervention and prevention projects supported by the Comprehensive
Services Act Trust Fund.
Concerning cooperation between the state and localities on CSA, we request that
1) state agencies collaborate and adopt common procedures and guidelines before
instituting local administrative requirements, 2) state and local governments work
together to ensure the greatest degree of coordination between Individual Education Plans
and CSA service plans, and 3) the state allow local governments to use other funding
sources such as state funds from the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act for
CSA needs in order minimize the local dollars that are spent on CSA. Local governments
also should be given the option of using Medicaid funds for case management but should
not be responsible for the cost of any child eligible for Medicaid funds unless the local
government has identified the child as CSA eligible.
PUBLIC SAFE TY
The Planning District and its member localities recognize that the prime responsibility for
law enforcement, criminal justice activities, emergency medical care and fire services
rests at the local level. However, these needs can be met only with continued state and
federal support.
· We support continued state funding for the HB 599 law enforcement program.
· We support increased state funding to assist with the capital costs associated with
establishing E911 services.
· We support state assistance for programs that provide increased workforce
training and substance abuse treatment for local jail inmates.
· We support legislation to increase court fees to pay for courthouse maintenance,
renovation and construction. These costs should not be placed on the general population.
· The state should pay 50% of the costs to construct regional jails and should also
increase its share of the operational costs of such facilities. The state should not adopt
language that would disallow exemptions from the federal prisoner offset.
· We oppose having the state assume the operation of local and regional jails.
· We support continued increases in funding for services required under the
Community Corrections and Pretrial Services Acts.
· We support legislation that will enable additional localities to install and operate
traffic light signal photo-monitoring systems.
LOCAL GO VERNMENT STRUCTURE AND LAWS
The Planning District and its member localities believe that since so many governmental
actions take place at the local level, a strong local government system is essential. Local
governments must have the freedom and tools to carry out their responsibilities.
· We support legislation to relax the Dillon Rule to the cxtcnt necessary, in order to
enhance the ability of local governments to provide services required by their citizens and
to allow local governments to meet their responsibilities in state/local partnerships.
· We oppose intrusive legislation involving purchasing procedures, local
government authority to establish hours of work, salaries and working conditions for
local employees, matters that can be adopted by resolution or ordinance and procedures
for adopting ordinances.
· We oppose Virginia Freedom of Information Act provisions which further limit a
local governing body's ability to meet in closed session or to confer privately with its
counsel on probable litigation. We also oppose limiting the list of records currently
exempt from disclosure under FOIA and requiring creation of customized computer
records for commercial and other uses.
· We support enabling legislation that authorizes localities to require contractors. as
a condition of public contracts awarded through the procurement process, to pay
employees a living wage.
· We oppose additional disclosure requirements on local governing bodies in land
use proceedings.
· We support legislative or budget action that reduces the costs to localities for
conducting elections.
HEAl, TH AND HUMAN SER FICES
The Planning District and its member localities recognize that special attention must be
given to developing circumstances under which people, especially the disabled, the poor,
the young and the elde~y, can achieve their full potential. In achieving this end, however,
the limits of government must be recognized. The delivery of health and human services
must be a collaborative effort from federal, state and local agencies.
· We oppose any changes in state funding or policies that result in an increase of
the local share of costs for human services. including changes that would require
additional local contributions for indigent care.
· We oppose any new state or federal entitlement programs that require additional
local funding.
· We support additional state funding for local social services facilities and for local
departments to maintain adequate office space to deliver services.
· We support state funding for local Disability Services Boards.
· We support the state assuming 100% responsibility for funding the auxiliary grant
program.
· We support the expanded operation and enhancement of early intervention and
prevention programs that can make a difference in children's lives, such as the Child
Health Partnership and Healthy Families programs.
· We support Virginia's welfare reform program and encourage efforts to promote
family preservation and work requirements. We support initiatives and funding to help
former VIEW participants maintain continuity in childcare and oppose any initiatives to
shift traditional federal and state childcare administrative responsibility and costs to local
governments. We support state efforts to expand access to education and training needed
by welfare recipients to become employed and self-supporting. We also support a
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) plan that takes into account and fully
funds state and local implementation and support services costs.
I HOUSING
The Planning District and its member localities believe that every citizen should have an
opportunity to afford decent, safe and sanitary housing. The state and local governments
should work toward expanding and preserving the supply and improving the quality of
affordable housing for the elderly, the disabled and low-income and moderate-income
households. Regional housing solutions and planning should be implemented whenever
possible.
· We support renewed funding of the Virginia Housing Partnership Fund from both
the general fund and VHDA.
· We support state-enacted incentives that encourage rehabilitation and preservation
of historic structures.
· In addressing the lack of input that local governments have concerning housing
issues, we support local government notice provisions for all proposed low and moderate
income housing projects seeking federal tax credits, including VHDA.
· We support VHDA criteria for funding which encourages rehabilitation of
existing housing and discourages new construction in close proximity to existing
subsidized housing.
ENVIR ONMENTAZ QUALITY
The Planning District and its member localities are committed to the protection and
enhancement of the environment. This commitment recognizes, however, the need to
achieve a proper balance between environmental regulation and the socio-economic
health of our communities. Environmental quality should be promoted through a
comprehensive approach and address issues of air and water quality, solid waste
management, protection of sensitive lands and sound land use policies. Such an approach
requires regional cooperation due to the interjurisdicational nature of many
environmental resources and adequate funding to match local efforts.
· The state should be a partner and advocate for localities in water supply
development. The state should undertake water supply planning which encompasses
water conservation, a determination of needs and how they can be met, including
emerging technologies.
· The state should develop, with local government involvement, fair and objective
criteria concerning corrective action for or closure of land fills.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
The Planning District and its member localities recognize economic development and
workforce training as essential to the continued viability of the Commonwealth. We
support policies that closely link the goals of economic development and workforce
development and that result in an increased standard of living for all residents.
· The state needs to clarify its positions on growth and development by enhancing
the state economic development plan to more clearly define the responsibilities of the
state and of local governments.
· We support development of the Economic Development Strategic Plan for the
Commonwealth that includes new tools for local governments to use in attracting
economic development opportunities such as a capital pool to construct improvements for
new or expanding businesses, tax increment financing, a grant or loan program dedicated
to enhancing local infrastructure systems and an expanded Enterprise Zone Program.
· The state needs to recognize the disparity in rewards of economic development
between the state and localities, as well as between host locality and surrounding areas.
· We support additional funding for youth employment services through the
Workforce Investment Act.
· We support legislation that would allow localities within the Planning District to
take part in regional industrial facility authorities.
· We support additional funding for the Regional Competitiveness Act to provide
meaningrid opportunities for regional projects to move forward. Fair and proportional
funding should be provided to all regions of the state.
Thomas Jefferson .Planning ,District Commission -'
300 East Main Street, 1st Floor Mall Entrance
PO Box 1505, Charlottesville VA 22902-1505
(804) 979-PD10 (7310) + FAX (804) 979-1597
City of Charlottesville
Kevin Lynch
Nancy Damon
Albemarle County
Walter F. Perkins
Sally H. Thomas
Fluvanna County
Thomas E. Payne, Chair
Len Gardner
Greene CormW
Steve Catalano
Philip Arms
Louisa County
Fitzgerald A. Barnes
Jane H. Poore
Nelson County
Harry S. Harris
Fred Boger
Executive Director
Nancy,, K. O'Brien
October 5, 2000
TO:
Members, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County Executive
FROM:* David C. Blount Legislative Liaison
TJPDC Legislative Program
Enclosed you will find a draft of the 2001 TJPDC Legislative Program. TJPD
Commissioners and staff developed five position papers this year which address the
following issues:
1) Land Use and Growth Management
2) Tax Structure and Reform
3) Transportation
4) Standards of Quality Funding
5) 'Comprehensive Services Act
As in years past, the legislative program draft also contains sections that
highlight ongoing local government positions. Many of the locally-requested items are
found in these sections. New language in these sections is underlined, while language
proposed for deletion is stricken.
Iwill plan to attend your November Ist meeting and will be available at that
time and until December 1 st to receive any suggested changes or additions to the draft
program. Thank you.
Recommended Action: Approve the TJPDC draft legislative program, understanding
that suggested changes to the draft may be incorporated into the final copy.
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 1st day of
November, 2000, adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Garden Gate Farm Subdivision described on the attached Additions Form SR-
5(A) dated October 13, 2000, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Cierk's Office
of the Circuit Court of A!bemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that
the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department
of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemade Board of County Supervisors requests the
Virginia Department of Transportation to add the road(s) in Garden Gate Farm Subdivision, as described on the
attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated October13, 2000, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to
§33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Re<~uirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a dear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described,
and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
Recorded vote:
Moved by: Ms. Themas.
Seconded by: Mr. Bowerman
Yeas: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
Nays: None.
Absent: Mr. Dorrier
A Copy Teste:
BEIla W. Carey, Clerk, cMc
olard of County Sup
bbrm SR-5{A)
SECONDARY ROADS DIV.
NO.
ADDITIONS FORM SR-5 (A)
Attachment to (check one only)
- PROPOSED ADDITIONS TO THE SECONDARY SYSTEM OF STATE HIGHWA.Y. 8
BOard of Supervisors Resolution
Name of Subdivision: Garden Gate Farm Subdivision
8treat Addition Tarmini
rz~m: Interseo~Lon of Rt.712 (station 0+00 at centerline)
To: cul-de-sa~ {s~tioR 5+73.45 at end Of cul-de-leo)
Plat Re~rciedDate:l/24/1997 Deed Book: 1612 Pages: 388-394
Plat Recorded Date:10/6/2000 Deed Book: 1959 Pageit 321
R-O-W
Width ( ft. )
50'
Fr~n:
To:
Plat Reaorded Date: Deed Book: Pages:
From:
To:
Plat Re~orded Date: Deed Book: Page:
From:
Plat Recorded Date; Deed Book: P~ge:
from:
To:
Plat ReooEded Date: Deed Book; Fags:
Notes: Guaranteed width of right-of-way exclusive of any necessar~ easements for outs, fills, and drainage.
CERTIFICATION OF ATTACHMENT
This attaobment is certified as a part of the document indicated above=
To~al Mileage
0.11
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Adult Protective Service Worker - Department of Social
Services
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval to hire a new Adult Projective Service
Worker in the Department of Social Services
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, White, Ralston
AGENDA DATE:
November 1,2000
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
IN FORMATION:
/
BACKGROUND:
During the FY01 budget worksessions, the Board of Supervisors approved an additional 1FTE Adult Protective Services social
worker in the Department of Social Services budget pending the availability of state matching funds. The local match approved
for the position was $5,143. According to the Virginia Department of Social Services, caseload standards used by the state
to allocate positions, the department is understaffed by 2.4 social workers for the size of the mandated caseload.
DISCUSSION:
The General Assembly did not provide the anticipated funding for these positions and, therefore, the department did not fill
the position approved by the Board even though the caseload size has not changed. In order to provide better customer
service, the department proposes to utilize several other revenue sources to fund the position. These include other state funds
and local matching funds allocated for Adult Protective Services for administration or purchase of service, the County's local
match for the approved position and other local funds already in the budget for additional hours for the Companion Services
worker. These funds would fully pay for the position plus start up for this year effective December 1.
Adult Protective Services
10 hours from Companion Worker position
20% local match for approved AdUlt Social Worker
Total
State Revenues Local Revenues Total
$10,608 $2,652 $13,260
$8,416 $8,416
$5,143 $5,143
$10,608 $16,211 $26,8t9
The department anticipates a repeat request to the 2001 General Assembly to provide additional staff support to local social
service departments with increasing Adult caseloads. In the event the state does provide additional funding, the department
would use that funding to continue this position. However, if state funding was not forthcoming, the department would utilize
the same state and local dollars shown above to continue the position but it would require new local support in the amount
of $19,178 in the FY02 budget if state dollars do not increase in order to fund the position for twelve months. This would bring
the total local commitment in FY 02 to $35,391 to support one FTE.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of a new Adult Protective Services social worker for the Department of Social Services to be
funded in the current year with existing local and state resources. Although the Board approved the position in theFY01 budget
with a local match of $5,143 for the current year, the position will have an additional cost of $19,178 in the next fiscal year
if the state does not fund the position. If the position is approved, these additional funds would be incorporated into the
recommended FY02 budget.
00.228
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY01 Proposed Budget Amendment - Esmont Park
Appropriation
AGENDA DATE:
November 1, 2000
ACTION:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request a public hearing for a proposed FY01 budget
amendment to appropriate $592,000 in donated funds
to the Esmont Park Project.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Ms. White, and Mr. Mullaney
BACKGROUND:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
NO
On December 2, 1998 the Board authorized the County Executive to execute purchase agreements for the Esmont
Park property. On February 2, 2000 the Charlottesville-Albemarle Community Foundation announced a $500,000
gift, made possible by the Dave Mathews Band and an anonymous donor, to fund construction of the park.
DISCUSSION:
During the final design process the donors asked the project architedt and County staff to consider the feasibility
of adding a water related feature in the park design. The architect designed a spray garden. This feature includes
four different fountainheads in a 55-ft x 40-ft area. The water will drain and be recycled. There will be no standing
water which will eliminate the need for lifeguard supervision. The additional cost for the fountain is estimated at
$92,000. The donors have agreed to fund the additional cost bringing the total gift amount to $592,000.
The project is scheduled to be put out to bid in November. Construction will begin in December with a mid summer
completion schedule. The park construction contracts can not be signed unless funding is appropriated. The
County Attorney's Office is drawing up an agreement between the County and the Charlottesville-Albemarle
Community Foundation. Under the terms of that agreement the County will pay the bills and then submit bills to
the Foundation for reimbursement. The Charlottesville Albemarle Community Foundation will reimburse up to
$592,000.
Based on Virginia Code Section 15.2-2507, the County must advertise and hold a public hearing for any
amendment to the FY01 budget over 1% or $500,000, whichever is the lesser. Since the requested appropriation
is over $500,000, the Board must comply with the State Code provision.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff requests that the Board set a public hearing on December 6t~ for a FY01 budget amendment on the proposed
appropriation of $592,000 in donated funds to the Esmont Park project.
00.233
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE S U M MARY 'i.,-- ~ -~: :i ,:~i: ~ ·
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - Various Funds
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of Appropriation #99088 to
appropriate funds for FY 1999/00 over-expenditures
AGENDA DATE:
November 1, 2000
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Breeden; Ms. White
A'I'I'ACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
DISCUSSION:
Operations for FY 1999/00 resulted in over-expenditures in several areas that require approval and supplemental
appropriations.
Over-expenditures occurred in the following:
· Commonwealth Attorney $ 4,500.00
A change in staff resulted in salaries exceeding budget due to pay-off
of leave time. Also, the new employee elected health insurance that
was not previously budgeted for the previous employee.
· Sheriff $ 120,000.00
Salaries were over-expended due to the extended illness of one
employee for eight months prior to disability retirement. The
major item over-expended was reimbursable overtime that was
under budgeted. All reimbursable overtime was recovered in
revenues. The new Sheriff has implemented some changes which
resulted in additional expense for police supplies and vehicle
operations.
Fire Prevention and Operations
Start-up costs for expanded operations exceeded budget primarily
for salaries and overtime.
Regional Jail
Per diem charges from the jail exceed projections due to
Increased prisoner population.
$ 59,000.00
$ 91,000.00
Tourism Transfer
County ordinance requires 60% of Hotel and Motel Tax revenue
be allocated for tourism. Due to excess revenue, the amount
budgeted for transfer to the Tourism Fund must be increased.
$ 113,000.00
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - Various Funds
November 1,2000
Page 2
· Soil &Water Conservation $ 100.00
Minor over-expenditure for office supplies.
· Tax Refunds $ 2,000.00
Tax refunds have increased primarily as a result of the State
Personal Property Tax Relief Program. Lease vehicles are
often determined to be eligible after receiving payment from
the leasing company.
· Education $ 198,000.00
Total School operations were $600,000 under appropriation.
However, several appropriation categories were over-expended
and must be offset from the Instruction category.
· Grants $ 21,190.46
Several law enforcement grants exceeded appropriation but
were fully reimbursable from grant revenue.
· United Way Day Care Program $ 38,458.83
Expenditures incurred in FY 1998/99 were not recorded until
FY 1999/00. The offsetting revenue was recorded in FY 1998/99.
· Vehicle Operation $141,565.10
This is a central service fund for all non-school vehicles normally
serviced and fueled at the Vehicle Maintenance Facility. All
expenses were offset by additional charges to the user
departments.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the over-expenditures, totaling $590,914.39, as detailed on
Appropriation #99088.
O0.232
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR:
99/00
NUMBER
99088
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO
X
FUND:
VARIOUS
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
APPROVAL OF FY 99/00 OVEREXPENDITURES.
CODE
1 1000 22010 110000
1 1000 22010 231000
1 1000 31020 110000
1 1000 31020 120000
1 1000 31020 129900
1 1000 31020 210000
1 1000 31020 601000
1 1000 31020 605001
1 1000 31022 120000
1 1000 32013 120000
1 1000 32013 600900
1 1000 32015 110000
1 1000 32015 600400
1 1000 32015 800100
1 1000 33020 700002
1 1000 79000 930209
1 1000 82030 600100
1 1000 92010 580301
EXPENDITURE
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY SALARIES
COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY HEALTH INSURANCE
SHERIFF
SHERIFF
SHERIFF
SHERIFF
SHERIFF
SHERIFF
SHERIFF-SCOTTSVILLE
FIRE PREVENTION
FIRE PREVENTION
FIRE OPERATIONS
FIRE OPERATIONS
FIRE OPERATIONS
REGIONAL JAIL
TOURISM TRANSFER
SOIL AND WATER
TAX REFUNDS
SALARIES
OVERTIME
OVERTIME-REIMBUR.
FICA
POLICE SUPPLIES
VEHICLE OPERATION
OVERTIME
OVERTIME
VEHICLE OPERATION
SALARIES
SUPPLIES
EQUIPMENT
OFFICE SUPPLES
$1,200.00
3 300.00
13 000.00
8 000.00
74 000.00
6 000.00
7 000.00
12 000.00
100.00
10,000.00
6,000.00
23,000.00
13,000.00
7,000.00
91,000.00
113,000.00
100.00
2,000.00
1 2100 62110 223000
1 2100 62220 113110
1 2433 64600 331200
1 2100 61101 112100
ADMINSTRATION
ATTENDANCE & HEALTH
BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS
INSTRUCTION
116,000.00
3,500.00
78,500.00
(198,000.00)
1 1523 31010 930009COPS GRANT
20,386.55
1 1536 31013 120000 DCJ BLOCK GRANT
329.15
I 1537 31013 120000 DCJ BLOCK GRANT 474.76
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE S U M MARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - Electoral Board
AGENDA DATE:
November 1,2000
ITEM NUMBER:
S U BJ ECT/P RO POSALIREQU EST:
Request approval of Appropriation #20017 in the amount of
$20,677.02 for an Electoral Board Assistant
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
IN FORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, White, Harris
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
At the October 4t~ meeting, the Board approved funding for a new Electoral Board Assistant to provide support to the Electoral
Board. This additional staff member will take on many of the duties previously performed by the retiring Electoral Board
Secretary, such as election day preparation, recruiting poll volunteers, and assisting during the redistricting process.
DISCUSSION:
This position has an effective starting date of November 1.
$20,677.02.
Total salary and benefit costs for the eight month period are
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Appropriation # 20017 in the amount of $20,677.02
00.226
'APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR:
00/01
NUMBER
20017
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL X
TRANSFER
NEW X
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO X
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FUNDING FOR ELECTORAL BOARD ASSISTANT.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 1000 13020 110000 SALARIES-REGULAR $15,885.33
1 1000 13020 210000 FICA 1,215.23
1 1000 13020 221000 VIRGINIA RETIREMENT SYS. 1,464.63
1 1000 13020 231000 HEALTH INSURANCE 2,023.33
1 1000 13020 232000 DENTAL INSURANCE 64.67
1 1000 13020 270000 WORKER'S COMPENSATION 23.83
TOTAL $20,677.02
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1000 51000 510100 GENERAL FUND BALANCE $20,677.02
TOTAL $20,677.02
TRANSFERS
666 6tr','6~'~-~ ,66666,'..~..~ ~'/~'k'k~'k"A'~"~"t 'k~'t'k~'~"i~t'k'.t~".i"~'/fi"~t,A"/~'~'t',6~6666666~6~6~**~, ,'A"A'~666'A,-k.~.k.A..t~.k.k~,-A.~,..i'~,~6 6~',',","/f~,'k6"k~,li'~6'~66','
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
COUNTY EXECUTIVE
APPROVALS: SIGNATURE DATE
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
OCT. 9, 2000
//-z
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation EMS Development Block Grant
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of Appropriation 20018 in the amount of
$3,000.00.
AGENDA DATE:
November 1,2000
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Ms.White, Cavaliere
Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Waiters, Pumphrey
BACKGROUND:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY: .~~
/
The Virginia Department of Health, Office of Emergency Medical Services, has approved a mini-grant providing funds to
purchase an Automated External Defibrillator.
DISCUSSION:
The purchase is funded by a $3,000.00 Office of Emergency Medical Services grant. There is no local match.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Appropriation 20018 in the amount of $3,000.00.
00.220
'APPROPRIATION REC~UEST
FISCAL YEAR: 00/01
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
FUND:
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FUNDING FOR AUTOMATED EXTERNAL DEFIBRILLATOR.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION
NUMBER
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
YES
NO
GRANT
X
X
X
20018
AMOUNT
1 1555 32015 800100 MACH. &EQUIPMENT $3,000.00
TOTAL $3,000.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1555 24000 240425 EMSGRANT $3,000.00
TOTAL $3,000.00
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER: FIRE/RESCUE
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
SIGNATURE
DATE
OCT. 9, 2000
//-z
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - Education
AGENDA DATE:
November 1, 2000
ITEM NUMBER:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
SU BJ ECT/P ROPOSALIREQU EST:
Request approval of Appropriation #20020 in the
amount of $500.00, to receive and disburse a donation
from WaI-Mart Foundation.
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Castner, Breeden; Ms. White
BACKGROUND:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
At its meeting on September 28, 2000, the School Board approved the following appropriation:
· Cynthia Fischer, reading teacher at Western Albemarle High School, received a donation from WaI-Mart
Foundation in the amount of $500.00. This donation is to support the reading program at WAHS.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the appropriation, totaling $500, as detailed on Appropriation
#20020.
00.224
'APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCALYEAR:
00/01
NUMBER
20020
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO X
FUND: SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
DONATION TO SCHOOLS BY WAL-MART FOUNDATION.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
· i'Y~t~i"k~ ,'~'A'-A'~'lttr'k~ ~,t~'~'~,l~,· '~'lt'k'l~'/~i'~i't"k'l~'lc'k'/~'/~~~W~ i"i"k~l~t"ki-'t"k~'k'k'k'/~,t~'l~'l~'k'/~ i'~'/~'~'/¢'~'A'~t'tr~c'l~'/~lt'/~'/~'~'l~tt
2302 61101 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES $500.00
TOTAL $500.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation $500.00
TOTAL $500.00
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OFFINANCE
BOARD OFSUPERVISOR
SIGNATURE
DATE
OCT. 17, 2000
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - Capital Improvement Program
AGENDA DATE:
November 1,2000
ACTION:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of Appropriations #20019, 20026, 20027,
20028, and 20029, totaling $9,773,278.01 to reappropriate
Capital Improvement Program project balances.
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
IN FORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Breeden; Ms. White
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY: ~
/
DISCUSSION:
Several capital project funds require reappropriation of project balances from FY 1999/00 to continue these
projects into FY 2000/01. These funds are as follows:
General Capital Projects
School Capital Projects
Storm Water Projects
Emergency Communications Center
Tourism Projects
$ 3,722,128.98
2,799,785.15
592,591.19
1,629,317.69
1,029,455.00
Total $ 9.773.278.01
An itemization of the projects is included on the attached appropriation forms.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the reappropriations totaling $9,773,278.01 as detailed on
Appropriation #20019, 20026, 20027, 20028, and 20029.
00.231
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR:
00/01
NUMBER
20019
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO
X
FUND:
C.I.P.-GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
REAPPROPRIATION OF PROJECTS FROM FY 99/00
CODE
1 9010 11010 800750
I '9010 12140 950004
1 9010 12200 800700
1 9010 21000 312343
1 9010 21000 331000
1 9010 21020 800100
1 9010 21050 331000
1 9010 31000 800306
1 9010 31000 800915
1 9010 31010 800910
1 9010 31040 800650
1 9010 32010 800523
1 9010 32010 950092
1 9010 32010 950110
1 9010 41000 312700
1 9010 41000 800690
1 9010 41000 800960
1 9010 41000 950035
1 9010 41000 950039
1 9010 41000 950059
1 9010 41000 950061
1 9010 41000 950090
1 9010 41000 950091
1 9010 41020 950024
1 9010 41020 950051
1 9010 41020 950068
1 9010 41020 950081
1 9010 43100 800687
1 9010 43100 950042
1 9010 43100 950102
1 9010 71000 800665
1 9010 71000 800668
1 9010 71000 800949
1 9010 71000 950003
EXPENDITURE
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
BOARD OF SUPV
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
INFORMATION SERVICES
COURT FACILITIES
COURT FACILITIES
GENERAL DISTRICT COURT
JUVENILE COURT
PUBLIC SAFETY
PUBLIC SAFETY
POLICE DEPARTMENT
ECC-OPERATIONS
FIRE DEPARTMENT
FIRE DEPARTMENT
FIRE DEPARTMENT
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
PUBLIC WORKS/MAINT.
PUBLIC WORKS/MAINT.
PUBLIC WORKS/MAINT.
PARKS & RECREATION
PARKS & RECREATION
PARKS & RECREATION
PARKS & RECREATION
LAND ACQUISITION
ASSESSMENT SYSTEM
ADP EQUIPMENT
SPACE NEEDS STUDY
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
COMPUTER AIDED DISPATCH
PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY
FIRING RANGE
BUILDINGS-CONSTRUCTION
FIRE PUMPER-REPLACEMENT
FIRE HOUSE/AERIAL FIRE AP
RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYS.
PROF. SER. CONSULTANTS
SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROG
STREET LIGHTS
NORTH BERKSHIRE ROAD
MEADOWCREEK PARKWAY
KEENE LANDFILL CLOSURE
MEADOWCREEK PATH
IVY ROAD
BARRACKS RD SIDEWALK
LANDSCAPING-29 NORTH
AVON ST RT 20 CONNECTOR
WAKEFIELD ROAD IMP.
REVENUE SHARING ROADS
COB - CHILLER REPLACEMENT
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK
C.O.B.-PARKING LOT
ADA STRUCTURAL CHANGES
ADA CHANGES-SCHOOLS
MAINTENANCE PROJECTS
CROZET PARK IMPROVEMENTS
$8,000.00
48,259.94
484.64
55,000.00
30,044.17
5,000.00
58,854.42
600 408.64
25 717.97
30 000.00
24 110.11
250 000.00
361 790.12
43 791.81
50 000.00
99 122.50
76 994.21
3,079.00
24,275.41
191,893.30
20,000.00
51,667.00
46,933.25
81,941.55
6,600.00
22,937.50
553,476.90
63 419.00
1954.85
50 202.16
61729.51
4 074.00
17 492.07
128 107.49
1 9010 71000 950009
1 9010 71000 950028
1 9010 71000 950033
1 9010 71000 950034
1 9010 71000 950044
1 9010 71000 950050
1 9010 71000 950064
1 9010 71000 950070
1 9010 71000 950079
1 9010 73020 800700
1 9010 73020 800949
1 9010 73020 950076
1 9010 73020 999999
1 9010 81010 950053
1 9010 81010 950108
PARKS & RECREATION
PARKS & RECREATION
PARKS & RECREATION
PARKS & RECREATION
PARKS & RECREATION
PARK8 & RECREATION
PARK8 & RECREATION
PARKS & RECREATION
PARKS & RECREATION
LIBRARIES
LIBRARIES
LIBRARIES
LIBRARIES
PLANNING
PLANNING
SCOTTSV COMMUNITY CENTER
RED HILL RECREATION IMP
WALNUT CREEK REC PROJECTS
TOWE PARK REC PROJECTS
ATH. FIELD STUDY/DEVEL.
SOUTHERN PARK DEVELOPMENT
IVY LANDFILL DEV'L
BROWNSVILLE REC. IMP.
STONE ROBINSON REC. IMP.
ADP EQUIPMENT
MAINTENANCE PROJECTS
NORTH BRANCH LIBRARY
CONTINGENCY FUNDS
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
GREENBRIAR PED./BIKE PATH
1,891.03
7,400.57
9,395.50
135,304.75
43,022.66
41,811.47
30,000.00
12,655.00
537.17
47,500.00
89,980.43
4,223.10
58,883.00
67,162.78
75,000.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION
TOTAL $3,722,128.98
AMOUNT
2 9010 18000 189916 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE CHAMBER OF COM./29 NORTH $6,775.90
2 9010 24000 240231 CATEGORICAL AID-STATE VA. DEPT.OF TRANSPORTATION 75,705.53
2 9010:24000 240430 CATEGORICAL AID-STATE VDOT-250E LANDSCAPING 5,572.84
29010 51000 510100 TRANSFERS APPROPRIATION-FUNDBAL 3,033,666.07
29010 51000 512023 TRANSFERS FROME911 600,408.64
TOTAL $ 3,722,128.98
TRANSFERS
1 4101 93010 930010 TRANSFER TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 600,408.64
2 4101 51000 510100 E911 FUND BALANCE 600,408.64
REQUESTING COST CENTER: FINANCE
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
SIGNATURE
DATE
OCT. 26, 2000
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 00/01
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
NUMBER
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
20026
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO
X
FUND:
SCHOOL CIP
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
REAPPROPRIATION OF ONGOING PROJECTS FROM FY 99/00
CODE
1 9000 60100 800665
1 9000 60100 950051
1 9000 60203 800200
1 9000 60203 800605
1 9000 60204 800673
1 9000 60210 312350
1 9000 602~0 800901
1 9000 60211 800987
1 9000 60212 800605
1 9000 60214 800605
1 9000 60217 312350
I 9000 60217 800750
1 9000 60217 950074
1 9000 60251 950062
I 9000 60253 800901
I 9000 60254 800901
I 9000 60255 800200
I 9000 60301 800605
I 9000 60302 312350
I 9000 60302 800605
I 9000 60303 800901
I 9000 60304 312350
I 9000 60304 800120
1 9000 60304 800200
1 9000 60304 800605
1 9000 60410 800605
1 9000 60410 800665
1 9000 60410 800686
1 9000 60510 800901
1 9000 61101 800700
1 9000 61101 800707
1 9000 62190 800700
1 9000 62190 800707
1 9000 62420 312310
EXPENDITURE
DESCRIPTION
SCHOOL BOARD
SCHOOL BOARD
CROZET ELEM
CROZET ELEM
GREER ELEM
STONE ROBINSON ELEM
STONE ROBINSON ELEM
STONY POINT ELEM
WOODBROOK ELEM
CALE ELEM SCHOOL
NORTHERN AREA ELEM
NORTHERN AREA ELEM
NORTHERN AREA ELEM
BURLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL
JOUETT MIDDLE SCHOOL
WALTON MIDDLE SCHOOL
SUTHERLAND MIDDLE SCH
ALBEMARLE HIGH SCHOOL
W ALBEMARLE HIGH SCHOOL
W ALBEMARLE HIGH SCHOOL
MURRAY EDUCATION CENTER
MONTICELLO HIGH SCHOOL
MONTICELLO HIGH SCHOOL
MONTICELLO HIGH SCHOOL
MONTICELLO HIGH SCHOOL
C.A.T.E.C
C.A.T.E.C
C.A.T.E.C
VEHICLE MAINTENACE FAC.
CLASS/INSTRUC-REGULAR
CLASS/INSTRUC-REGULAR
ADM.-TECHNOLOGICAL
ADM.-TECHNOLOGICAL
FACILITY MAINT-BLDG
AMOUNT
ADA STRUCTURAL CHANGES
AVON ST RT 20 CONNECTOR
FURNITURE & FIXTURES
CONSTRUCTION
HVAC IMPROVEMENTS
ENGINEERING/PLANNING
BUILDING RENOVATIONS
PARKING/PLAYGROUND
CONSTRUCTION
CONSTRUCTION
ENGINEERING/PLANNING
PURCHASE OF LAND
RECREATION FACILITIES
LIBRARY RENOVATIONS
BUILDING RENOVATIONS
BUILDING RENOVATIONS
FURNITURE & FIXTURES
CONSTRUCTION
ENGINEERING/PLANNING
CONSTRUCTION
BUILDING RENOVATIONS
ENGINEERING/PLANNING
EQUIPMENT/MATERIALS
FURNITURE & FIXTURES
CONSTRUCTION
CONSTRUCTION
ADA STRUCTURAL CHANGES
COSMETOLOGY LAB.
BUILDING RENOVATIONS
ADP EQUIPMENT
TECHNOLGY GRANT EQUIP.
ADP EQUIPMENT
TECHNOLGY GRANT EQUIP.
A & E ROOF REPLACEMENT
$208,487.80
3,216.79
7,431.01
5,571.33
19,317.27
4,953.42
32,559.45
24,438.69
502.00
1 613.90
908 739.40
373 257.78
300 000.00
297 009.00
10 711.65
30 393.07
1 249.33
10 193.98
3 072.07
77 162.25
13 341.03
1 241.42
10 000.00
9 000.00
67 076.11
1 402.98
14 000.00
7,087.28
8,354.81
137,807.10
115,459.25
5,097.78
78,336.00
5,668.20
I 9000 62420 800672 FACILITY MAINT-BLDG CHILLERS 6,033.00
TOTAL $2,799,785.15
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 9000 18100 181112 DONATIONS AND GIFTS WAHS-BASEBALL PRESSBOX $8,358.00
29000 24000 240265 CATEGORICALAID-STATE EDUCATION TECH. GRANT 237,870.70
29000 51000 510100 TRANSFERS APPROPRIATION-FUNDBAL 2,553,556.45
TOTAL $2,799,785.15
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER: FINANCE
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
SIGNATURE
DATE
OCT. 23, 2000
//- 2
'APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCALYEAR:
00/01
NUMBER
20027
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED?
YES
NO X
FUND: STORMWATER
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
REAPPROPRIATION OF UNCOMPLETED PROJECTS FROM FY 99/00.
EXPENDITURE
CODE D ESCRI PTION AMOUNT
1 9100 41000 800975 ENGINEERING STORM WATER CONTROL IMP $259,282.62
I 9100 41000 950093 ENGINEERING DRAINAGE STUDY/PLAN 43,001.72
1 9100 41035 312400 FOUR SEASONS BASIN PROF. SER. ENGINEERING 2,915.54
1 9100 41035 800975 FOUR SEASONS BASIN STORM WATER CONTROL IMP 937.58
I 9100 41036 312400 BIRNAM/WYNRIDGE BASIN PROF. SER. ENGINEERING 8,391.45
I 9100 41036 800750 BIRNAM/WYNRIDGE BASIN PURCHASE OF LAND 91,750.00
I 9100 41036 800975 BIRNAM/WYNRIDGE BASIN STORM WATER CONTROL IMP 51,147.28
I 9100 41049 800975 WOODBROOK CHANNEL STORM WATER CONTROL IMP 28,035.00
I 9100 41056 800975 BROOKMILL STORM WATER CONTROL IMP 107,130.00
TOTAL $592,591.19
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 9100 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE $592,591.19
TOTAL $592,591.19
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER: FINANCE
APPROVALS!
DIRECTOR OFFINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
SIGNATURE
DATE
OCT. 26, 2000
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 00/01
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
NUMBER
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
YES
NO X
E.C.C.-CAPITAL PROJECTS
FUND:
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
REAPPROPRIATION OF UNCOMPLETED PROJECTS FROM FY 99/00.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION
20028
AMOUNT
I 4105 31061 800306 COMPUTER AIDED DISPATCH $1,629,317.69
TOTAL $1,629,317.69
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 4105 16000 160502 CHARGES FOR SERVICES CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE $780,769.04
2 4105 16000 160503 CHARGES FOR SERVICES COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE 705331.64
2 4105 16000 160512 CHARGES FOR SERVICES UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA 143217.01
TOTAL $1,629,317.69
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER: FINANCE
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OFFINANCE
BOARD OFSUPERVISOR
SIGNATURE
DATE
OCT. 26, 2000
//- z
'APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCALYEAR:
00/01
NUMBER
20029
TYPE OFAPPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED?
YES
NO X
FUND:
TOURISM PROJECT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
REAPPROPRIATION OF UNCOMPLETED PROJECTS FROM FY 99/00.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 1810 72030 568901 TOURISM VISITOR'SBUREAU-MAINT. $12,000.00
1 1810 72030 568905 TOURISM TOURISMPROJEGTS 447,455.00
1 1810 72030 950026 TOURIBM RIVANNA GREENWAY 35,000.00
1 1810 72030 950055 TOURISM RT 250/616 TURN LANE 110,000.00
1 1810 72030 950056 TOURISM IVY ROAD BIKE LANES 5,500.00
1 1810 72030 950107 TOURISM RIVERACCESS IMPROVEMENTS 30,000.00
I 1810 72030 950111 TOURISM GREENBELT-BOATACCESS 374,500.00
1 1810 72030 950112 TOURISM GREENBELT-FREEBRIDGE 15,000.00
TOTAL $1,029,455.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1810 18000 181108 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE CONTRIBUTIONS-DEVELOPER $10,000.00
2 1810 24000 240500 CATEGORICALAID-STATE GRANTREVENUE-STATE 25,000.00
2 1810 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE 994455
TOTAL $1,029,455.00
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER: FINANCE
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OFFINANGE
BOARD OFSUPERVISOR
SIGNATURE
DATE
OCT. 26, 2000
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
CHARLES D. NOTTINGHAM
COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 ORANGE ROAD
CULPEPER, VA 22701-3819
October 11, 2000
DONALD R. ASKEW
DiSTRiCT ADMINISTRATOR
Route: 250
Project: 723-G
County: Albemarle
PMI #: 6293
Former Property of Nancy P. & Ronald Tree
and F. J. & Ruth C. Fox
Parcel: 002
Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC
Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Ms. Carey:
This is to provide notice under Section 33.1-223.2:2, Code of Virginia (1950), as
amended, that the Virginia Department of Transportation is in the process of reviewing a
request from Emmanuel Episcopal Church for the disposal of real property. This
property is shown marked in RED on the attached copies of Plan Sheet 3.
You may contact me at 1-800-275-9202 (ext. 7590) regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Roger L. Clatterbuck
Trans. Asst. R/W Mgr. Sr.
Attachments
cc: Mr. S. A. Waymack
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
: t~~utt tp~t
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Employee Traffic Reduction Plan Update
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Information provided on the Employee Traffic Reduction Plan
AGENDA DATE:
November 1,2000
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION: X
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Foley, Spencer, Cilimberg, Benish, Wade
BACKGROUND:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY.'~~/
Albemarle County encourages employees to participate in activities that promote traffic reduction. These efforts include:
.. The number of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) spaces in the carpool area has been increased from four to eight.
· Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS) tickets can be purchased at discount at Finance window.
· Flex-time is available on a department by department basis which helps reduce the number of employees who are
required to travel at peak traffic times.
· Bike racks are provided near the main entrance.
· County employees participate annually in the "Give Air A Brake" campaign.
· A transportation survey of County employees was conducted in the spring of 2000. Half of the respondents to this
survey indicated they would be interested in carpooling one or two days a week.
· Albemarle County Office building will be a stop on a new shuttle service for downtown employees sponsored by
Charlottesville Transit Service.
DISCUSSION:
County administration and staff intend to promote and expand on these efforts. We intend to:
· Establish a traffic reduction strategy/plan policy that will be shared with all employees
· Appoint County Employee Traffic Reduction Coordinator
· Appoint department coordinators who will receive training periodically about traffic reduction strategies
· Explore additional ways to encourage employees to use alternate forms of transportation
· Provide information about the County's traffic reduction options to new employees during orientation
· Place traffic reduction options on the County's Intranet
· Place traffic reduction articles in Bits and Pieces throughout the year
· Research the feasibility of telecommute and teleconferencing possibilities for employees
· Look for additional ways to provide free or further reduced CTS bus passes
· Update this strategy frequently with employee input
Recommendation:
This iF~formation is provided to the Board of Supervisors so that they are aware of the efforts being undertaken to reduce
the number of single occupant vehicle trips made by County employees.
OO.222
James S. Gilmore, III
Governor
John Paul Woodley, Jr.
Secretary of Natural Resources
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIR 0 NMENTAL QUALITY
Valley Regional Office
Street address: 44l I Early Road, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22801
Mailing address: P.O. Box 3000, Harrisonburg, VA 22801-3000
Telephone (540) 574-7800 Fax (540) 574-7878
http://www.deq.state.va.us
October 19, 2000
Dennis H. Treacy
Director
R. Bradley Chewning, P.E.
Valley Regional Director
Mr. Charles Martin, Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
County Office Building
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Mr. Martin:
This is to inform you that the Department of Environmental Quality has received an application
for a Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDESypermit from Keswick Utilities, Inc.
The applicant proposes to discharge treated wastewater from a sewage treatment facility located at
Club Drive, Keswick.
The Department will review the application and may draft a permit for this discharge. If the
Department drafts a permit, a notice will appear in the Daily Progress announcing our intention to issue
the permit and inviting public comment on its content. This public comment period will run for 30
days from the date the notice first appears in the newspaper. In the meantime, the public is welcome to
review the permit application at our office during normal business hours.
Please feel free to call me at (540) 574-7817 if you have any questions about this notification.
Sincerely,
./lr
CC:
Permit Processing File
Environmental Enginee~ ;Senior:
BOARD OF gUPERVISORS
CHARLES NOTTINGHAM
COMMISSIONER
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
701 VDOT WAY
CHARLOTTESVILLE, 22911
October 25, 2000
A. G. TUCKER
RESIDENT ENGINEER
Transportation Matters
October 4, 2000
Ms. Ella Carey, Clerk
Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Ms. Carey:
Please find responses to Board members' concerns of October 4, 2000.
1. As of this date, a meeting with Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Martin has not been held to discuss
their concerns.
2. The pedestrian signal in Crozet is operational as of October 20, 2000.
3. We have reviewed the roads in Earlysville Heights for potholes and this subdivision was last
paved in 1997.
4. Route 726 is an 18 foot paved road with narrow shoulders and ditches. Placement of
material will be scheduled at a couple of locations where the ditches are too deep. In
addition, we will schedule further brush cutting. Any improvement to this road will require
that it be placed in the Six Year Plan.
5. Upon its completion, Route 637 (Dick Woods Road) will be reviewed to see if it meets
warrants for placement of centerline (latest traffic count was only 70 vpd).
6. Ms. Humphris' concems about Hessian Hills and Old Garth Road were addressed in an e-
mail to her on October 13, 2000, and basically referred to line painting.
If you have any questions, please advise.
Acting Resident Engineer
HWM/smk
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
David P. Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dottier, Jr.
Charlotte Y. Humphfis
Ja~ Jouett
COUNTY OF A[ REMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Cha~ottesviih; Virginia 229024596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Chades S. Martin
Rivanna
Walter E Perkins
White Hall
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Mille~
November 6, 2000
Mr. H. W. Mills
Acting Resident Engineer
701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Dear Mr. Mills:
At its meeting on November i, 2000, the Board of Supervisors took the following actions and
comments regarding transportation matters:
· Adopt a resolution to accept Garden Gate Court in Garden Gate Farm Subdivision, into the State
Secondary System (resolution will be forwarded to VdoT from the County Engineering
Department).
· VdoT has received approval to paint double yellow lines on Ricky Road, Bennnington Road and
West Park Drive.
· You provided an update on Route 693. You and Ms. Thomas have met with the largest property
owner who seems to be in support of the project. VdoT plans to do some temporarily things as far
as for the widening of the pavement. You also plan to meet with one more property owner. VdoT
has not received an estimate for the project, but they are working on it.
· Regarding Route 760, VdoT is working on that project. They are sending out letters to try to
generate some interest. ..
· VdoT will be receiving project bids this month on Route 791, in the Batesville area, and Route 605,
near Greene County. They have also received bids on the Grassmere Road proiect, but a contract
has not been awarded at this time. You have been told the bid is within $100 of the previous bid.
· VdoT will be installing a deer warning system consisting of light reflectors on the interstate on
November 2na. There are three locations in Albemarle County VdoT is looking at and would like
Board reaction and support before installing the reflectors. The locations are Route 250, between
Ivy Commons shopping center and Turner Mountain Road; between the west end of Route 738
Route 240; and on Route 654'near Colthurst Farms. These reflectors have already been installed in
Madison County. When a car light hits the reflectors, it creates a wall of light that deer will not
come through. These reflectors have been used successfully in Maryland. You suggested the Board
take a look at them on the interstate and provide comments before VdoT installs them on other
County roads.
· You indicated that the County will start to see significant proiect cost increases in the Six Year Road
Plan because of inflation.
· Mr. Dorrier said the decel lane going north on Route 20 into Green Mountain Country store at
Keene also goes right in front of the turnoff for the store. This is a dangerous situation. He
suggested VdoT install signage to help the situation.
Printed on recycled paper
Mr. H. W. Mills
November 6, 2000
Page 2.
· Ms. Thomas said the residents of Dick Woods Road want the speed limit sign installed at the
beginning of the road. She is not sure a centerline is the solution.
· Ms. Thomas mentioned a meeting with some residents of Whippoorwill Hollow; they are interested
in traffic calming. -They would also like information from the speed study and traffic volume counts.
· Mr. Bowerman mentioned a letter from Joan Graves to Mr. Mills regarding the McDonalds at
Shoppers World. Ms. Graves expressed concern about the existing conflict between permitted U-
turns from northbound Route 29 onto southbound Route 29 at the Fashion Square/Shoppers Word
intersection. The drivers needing to be in the fight hand lane of Route 29 in order to reach their
homes in Berkeley and Four Seasons, as well as the FirSt Citizens Bank, make it imperative that
they have the right-of-way over drivers leaving the business area because they only have the one
block in which to maneuver. She asked VdoT to change the sequence of lighting at the intersection
in order to make the U-turn less hazardous to life and limb. When the light is green for the U-turn
it is also green for right turn out of Shoppers World. Ms. Graves thinks a yield sign there should be
considered. You indicated that you were aware of this situation and he has supported a change but
the traffic engineers have not agreed with you, but you are continuing to work on the issue.
· Mr. Martin said there is a lot of traffic backing up and stacking in the median at Advance Mills
Road and Route 29. He asked that VdoT do a traffic count at the crossover to see if a light is
waxranted.
· Mr. Martin mentioned the widening of Profit Road from Route 29 to the new elementary school.
He said the County needs to do whatever it can to move this proiect up in the priority list. Mr.
Benish mentioned that staff has had preliminary discussions on the Six Year Road Plan and that
proiect is one of the items they have identified to move up in the list of priorities. Hopefully staff
can bring the plan to the Board around the beginning of 2001.
· Mr. Maxtin asked you to give him a call within the next week, if he does not call you, about items
left over from discussions with Angela Tucker.
· Ms. Thomas handed Mr. Tucker a copy of a letter concerning removal of the Stonewall Jack
commemorative sign at Mechum's River. Mr. Tucker said he would forward it to you. (Attached is
a copy of the letter.)
/EWC
Attachment
cc: Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
"~lla W. Carey, Clerk, CLC~'
Members, Board of Supervisors.
From: ' fA
Subject:
Dale: October 27, 2000
August 9, 2000
September 6, 2000
September 13, 2000
September 20, 2000
Mr. DoWer
Pages I - I I - Mr. Martin
Pages I I - end - Mr. Bowerman
Pages I o I5 (Item #9)- Ms. Thomas
Pages 15 (Item #9) - end - Mr, Perkins
Pages I - 12 (Item # I O) - Mr. Dorrier
Pages 12 (Item # 1 O) - end - Ms. Humphris
/ewc
ROUNDTA.BL~
Members
Judy Bancw~
Donna Bennett
Jim Bennett
David Booth
Arthur Bulger
Nick Evans
lames Ford
Jason Halbert
F, dgar Imho ff
Frank Kessler
Brooks Marshall
:oy Matthews
C1LriS McLean
Leslie Middleton
Bunny Murray
Russell Perry
JOhn Rhett
Kay Slaughter
Babett~ Thorpe
John Walsh
Project Staff
Nancy O'Bfien,
Executive Director
Roebelle Garwood,
Enviwnmental Planner
Mr. Charles Martin
Chair, Albemarle County BOard of Supervisors~
401 Mclntire Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
September 25, 2000
Dear Mr. Martin:
The Rivanna River Basin Roundtable would like to request five minutes on the Board of
Supervisors' agenda at their earliest convenience, in order to make a presentation to the
Board.
Rochelle Garwood '
Environmental Planner and staff to the Roundtable
cc: Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive '!
A Project of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District co~-~issioB OARD OF SUPERVISORS
300 East Main Street, Charlottesville, VA 22902-1505
Tel: 804-979-7310 Fax: 804-979-1597
E-mail: tjpd@state.va.us '
ROUNDTA1~t.S
Members
Judy Bancroft
Donna Bennett
Jim Bennett
David Booth
Arthur Bulger
Nick Evans
James Ford
hson Halbert
Edgar Imhoff
?rank Kessler
3rooks Marshall
Joy Matthews
Chris McLean
Leslie Middleton
3unny Murray
Russell Perry
Zohn Rhett
Kay Slaughter
Babette Thorpe
~ ohn Walsh
Project Staff
Nancy O'Brien,
Executive Director
Rochelle Garwood,
Environmental Planner
EXPRESSION OF APPRECIATION TO THE ALBEMARLE
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR AUTHORIZING
THE RELEASE OF WATER FROM THE SUGAR HOLLOW
RESERVOIR INTO THE MOORMANS RIVER
WHEREAS the Moormans River is a Virginia State Scenic River;
WHEREAS the MoormanS River has been significantly dry downstream of the Sugar
Hollow Reservoir during the summer and fall for the past seven years;
WHEREAS the dry conditions jeopardize the health of the macroinvertebrates in the
Moormans River and the higher forms of aquatic life which depend on them as well as upon
'a regular flow of water;
WHEREAS the release of water into the river enhances its scenic beauty and reestablishes
the aquatic life of the Moormans;
THEREFORE the Rivanna River Basin Roundtable does express its appreciation to the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors for authorizing the release of water from the Sugar
Hollow Reservoir into the Moormans River.
A Project of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
300 East Main Street, Charlottesville, VA 22902-1505
Tel: 804-979-7310 Fax: 804-979-1597
E-mail: tjpd@state.va.us
Jack McHale
Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors
Guest Speaker Nov. 1
Biography: J. L. "Jack" McHale III has served the Bermuda District on the Board of Supervisors since 1992,
twice as chairman, September-December 1994 and in 1995, and once as vice chairman, in 1994. McHale is
vice president of McHale & Associates, Inc., a business consulting firm.
He received a bachelor's degree in social sciences from John Carroll University in Cleveland, Ohio, and a
master's of business administration from Tulane University in New Orleans, La.
McHale is a United States Army veteran. He served as a Transportation Corps officer in various leadership
assignments in the United States and overseas, including two tours of duty in Vietnam.
After completing studies at Tulane and a one-year assignment in Central Pennsylvania, McHale was assigned
to Fort Lee, Va., and except for a three-year tour of duty overseas he has lived in Central Virginia continuously
since 1973.
He is a member of the boards of the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission, Crater Planning District
Commission and Appomattox Basin Industrial Development Corporation and the Carpenter Center. He also is
vice chair of the General Laws and Policy Committee of the Virginia Municipal League. He has served on the
Taxation and Finance Steering COmmittee of the National Association of Counties and the Community and
Economic Development/Rural Affairs Steering Committee of the Virginia Association of Counties.
McHale is past president of the Chesterfield Lions Club, of which he has been a member since 1982.
Jad~ M~Hale
PO Box 40
Chesterfield, VA 23832-0040
Office: (804) 748-1211
Home: (804) 748-3167
Voice Mail: (804) 768-7398
Fax: (804) 717-6297
E-Mail: mchalej~co.chesterfield.va.us
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY2001 Revised and FY2002 Estimated General Fund
Revenues/Budget Guidance
AGENDA DATE:
November 1, 2000
ITEM NUMBER:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
SUBJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Revenue Discussion and Proposed Distribution of New
FY02 ReVenues to General Government and the
School Division
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, White, Breeden, Cavaliere
BACKGROUND:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:~
In October, the Department of Finance prepares preliminary revenue projections for both the current and
upcoming fiscal years. These revenue estimates are the first step in the budget process and form the basis
of the recommended budget to come before the Board of Supervisors in March. Based on these preliminary
revenue estimates, the Board also at this time allocates the revenue growth, first to committed expenditures,
such as capital and debt service, and then to General Government and School Division operations.
DISCUSSION:
REVENUE REVISIONS/ESTIMATES
Attachment A provides both the revised projections for FY2000/01 and preliminary estimates for FY2001/02
General Fund revenues. Overall, FY01 or current year revenues are expected to be approximately $3.3 million
(2.8%) over budget, which continues to reflect a healthy economy and an additional $1.1 million in real estate
revenues due mainly to an estimated 5.5% annual average or 11% biennial average 2001 reassessment
compared to the original 7% biennial (3.5% annual) estimate. Although the reassessment is effective for
calendar year 2001, the first 2001 collection to include the reassessment increase will be in June 2001, which
is in the current fiscal year, FY00/01. The estimated revenues for FY02 exceed the current year budget by
$8,579,045 (7.1%), the majority of which reflects increased real estate revenues of $4.9 million (10.4%), again
due mainly to the reassessment.
The individual revenue increases are described below and an explanation of Attachment A is located at the end
of the executive summary:
REAL ESTATE
The additional FY 00/01 revenue of $1,104,532 results from the following:
1. Substantial new construction is included
in the December 2000 actual bills but
is below our original projection
2. June 2001 new construction
3. Biennial reassessment originally projected
at 7% (3.5% annual) compared to current
projection of 11% (5.5% annual)
$ (154,000)
338,532
920,000
$ 1,104,532
AGENDA TITLE:
FY2001 Revised and FY2002 Estimated General Fund Revenues/Budget Guidance
November 1, 2000
Page 2
Estimated revenue for FY 2001/02 includes approximately $3 million additional revenues resulting from the
reassessment, plus $816,900 in additional new construction. The reassessment appears to indicate an annual
average rate of 5.5% resulting in an overall biennial rate of 11%, with specific neighborhoods ranging from 8%
to 20%. This increase in the biennial reassessment reverses the general downward trend the county had
been experiencing since 1991 when biennial reassessments increased by 22.5% and then decreased 11.2%
in 1993, 5.2% in 1995, 2.3% in 1997 and up slightly 3.5% in 1999. Albemarle's 11% biennial increase mirrors
increases in other jurisdictions around the state for the two-year period between 1999 and 2000, e.g.
Charlottesville, 10%, Spotsylvania 12%, Loudoun 18%, and Roanoke, 7%.
PUBLIC SERVICE
The assessments for Public Service Corporations are performed by the Virginia Department of Taxation and
the State Corporation Commission. The additional FY 2000/01 revenue of $227,800 includes $90,000 as a
result of the $.04 tax rate increase, the remaining $137,800 is increased assessments over our projection.
State assessments of this property can be very volatile since they are based on depreciated values.
Equipment acquisitions or dispositions can move the assessments up or down, therefore, we have
conservatively projected only a $26,000 increase for FY 2001/02.
PERSONAL PROPERTY
Vehicle sales are continuing to show significant increases and FY 2000/01 revenues are projected to be
$661,900 over budget. This increase is based primarily on the actual amount of December 2000 tax bills.
Trends for the last several years indicated an 8.1% increase in tax revenues for FY 2001/02 amounting to an
additional $1,901,000. Discussion with several local automobile dealers showed significant differences of
opinions on future sales ranging from 10% increase, about the same, and 5% decrease.
It would appear that the State's Personal Property Tax Relief program is having a positive impact on
collections. Since revenue projections take into consideration collection percentages, the increased revenue is
not totally based on increased assessments. In future years, this will have an impact on delinquent tax
collections.
MOBILE HOMES - MACHINERY & TOOLS - PRIOR YEAR - PENALITY AND INTEREST
There are no significant changes in FY 2000/01 projections or FY 2001/02 estimates. The primary increase
results from penalties for late payments. As tax amounts increase so do the penalties for late payment.
SALES AND USE TAX
Receipts for the first three months of FY 2000/01 show a minor decrease compared to the first three months of
the prior year. This seems to be consistent with state data, therefore, we are currently projecting a reduction
of $39,300 in FY 2000/01 revenues.
FY 2001/02 receipts are projected to increase by 3.5%. There seems to be a general consensus that the
economy is slowing, therefore, it would be unwise to project more than an infiationary increase.
BUSINESS LICENSE FEES
License fees are primarily based on the businesses' prior year gross receipts. Based on the actual growth in
fees from last year and the relatively good economy for the year 2000 to date, we are projecting a 12.6%
increase for FY 2000/01 in the amount of $750,700.
2
AGENDA TITLE:
FY2001 Revised and FY2002 Estimated General Fund Revenues/Budget Guidance
November 1,2000
Page 3
Due to-the uncertainty of the economy, we are projecting only a 0.5% increase for FY 2001/02 fees, which will
be based on calendar year 2001 gross receipts. The major concern is a decrease in building permits, which
could result in reduced contractor license fees that would offset growth from other sales based licenses.
MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSES
Based on FY 1999/00, receipts for FY 2000/01 are projected to increase an additional $48,915. Due to the
uncertainty of vehicle sales, only a 2% increase is being projected for FY 2001/02.
UTILITY TAX
FY 2000/01 revenues included a projected $300,000 for recovery of prior year taxes from cellular telephone
companies. Negotiations on this issue are not proceeding as quickly as anticipated but may still be completed
during the fiscal year. FY 2001/02 estimates include a normal 3% increase over FY 2000/01 projection.
MEALS TAX
Substantial surpluses have been experienced in the meals tax for several years as a result of conservative
estimates on a new tax. Continued growth is anticipated, however, some leveling should be expected after
the first several years of implementation and enforcement.
HOTEL & MOTEL TAX
Actual receipts for FY 1999/00 were down by $50,000 from FY 1998/99 due to a change in the payment
schedule, and would indicate a slight over projection for FY 2000/01. Additional hotel space in the City may be
having an impact on the County. This item will be monitored for possible revisions.
OTHER LOCAL REVENUES
The only significant item is investment income resulting from increased cash balances.
action, the FY 2001/02 estimate may need to be decreased.
Depending on Board
STATE & FEDERAL
Currently there is some question of revenue primarily related to Social Services. A potential shortfall should
have an offsetting reduction in expenditures.
BUDGET GUIDANCE
Based on the preliminary revenue estimate provided by the Department of Finance, the Second step in the
budget process is the allocation of new local tax revenues, first to committed expenditures, i.e. capital and debt
service, and then to general government and school division operations on a 40/60 basis.
Attachment B shows a $8,960,256 increase in local tax revenues over FY01 budgeted revenues followed by
the reductions in committed new expenditures. The first item shown on the right is a proposed one-cent tax
rate reduction in FY01 that reduces available local taxes for FY02 by $713,020.
rNote: A proposed one-cent tax reduction will impact revenues in the current year by $356,510, since the'2001 I
tax rate set in April will be in the June 2001 tax collection (current fiscal year), due to split billing.
The second section of committed expenditures subtracted from local tax revenues is capital outlay and debt
service totaling $1,017,890. This capital sub-total reflects a 6.6% growth rate in the current contributions to
school and general government debt service, a 6.6% growth rate in the ongoing capital transfer, a projected
decrease of $576,980 in the capital reserve fund based on the proposed 1 cent tax rate reduction and a 0.5%
(half percent) of the 6.6% operating revenue growth to capital projects, the formula was proposed by the
financial consultants to fund the County's ten-year capital program.
3
AGENDA TITLE:
FY2001 Revised and FY2002 Estimated General Fund Revenues/Budget Guidance
November 1, 2000
Page 4
Note: The 6.6% increase over the current year capital commitment reflects the overall county revenue growth
with a one-cent tax rate reduction. A revenue growth rate of 7% is shown on the revenue analysis, Attachment
A.
Prior to the financial consultant's recommendation to increase current debt and capital contributions by the rate
of revenue growth, programmed increases in debt service and the capital transfer had been roughly based on
a 5% increase or between a $400,000-$600,000 increase each year. The financial advisors are currently
reviewing the FY02-FY06 capital budget requests from both the School Board and general government to
determine a manageable and equitable allocation of the increased capital reserves.
The next two committed expenditures subtracted from the increase in local tax revenues are an increase of
$76,370 to the Board's Reserve for a total reserve of $200,000 and a $7,100 increase in refunds.
Based on the remaining $7,145,876 in uncommitted local tax revenues, 60%, or $4.3 million is allocated to the
School Division and 40%, or $2.9 million is allocated to General Government. This allocation provides an
increase of approximately 7.6% in local tax revenues to the School Division and a 6.6% increase to General
Government to address baseline costs, fixed costs and additional operating costs associated with growth and/or
capital projects.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board approve the proposed FY2001/02 allocation of new revenues to the Capital
Program, as recommended by the financial advisors and to the School Division and General Government for
operating needs.
UNDERSTANDING ATTACHMENT A
Attachment A provides both the revised General Fund revenue projections for FY2000/01 and preliminary estimates for FY2001/02.
Column A provides the current year budgeted revenues as of July 1, 2000. The revised revenues are in Column B with Column B-A
being the difference between Column A, July 1, 2000 budget and Column B, the October revised projection. To determine the total
increase in current year revenue estimates, you will see Column B-A shows a $3.3 million dollar increase or a 2.8% change over the
budgeted amount.
Column C shows the preliminary revenue estimates for FY2001/02, which are estimated to increase by $5.2 million or 4.2% (shown
in Column C-B) over the FY01 revised revenues in Column B. Column C-B is the difference between Column C, the preliminary FY02
estimate and Column B, the FY01 revised projection.
The FY01 budget to FY02 budget revenues are shown in Column C-A, which is the difference or increase between Column C, the
preliminary FY02 estimated revenues and Column A, the FY01 budgeted revenues. Column C-A shows that budget to budget revenues
are projected to increase by $8.6 million (7.1%), which is a combination of the 2.8% increase in current year revenues and the 4.2%
projected growth rate over the current year revised revenues. One can see on the chart that the overall $3.3 million increase in the FY00
revised revenues is combined with the $5.2 million expected growth for the estimated $8.6 million dollar revenue increase for FY02.
Each individual revenue source can be analyzed in this same manner as a way of understanding the basis of the projected budget to
budget increase, e.g. real estate 2.3% revised FY01 increase plus FY02 projected growth rate of 7.9% for the 10.4% budget to budget
increase.
Cc: Dr. Kevin C. Castner, Superintendent of Schools
00.234
County of Albemarle
Preliminary General Fund Revenue Projection
Attachment A
Property Taxes
Real Estate
Public Service
Personal Property
Mobile Home
Machinery & Tools
Prior Year Collections & Fees
Subtotal Property Taxes
Other Local Taxes
Sales & Use Tax
Business License Fees
Motor Vehicle Licenses
Utility Tax
Meals Tax
Hotel & Motel Tax
Other
Subtotal Other Local Taxes
Other Local Revenue
Subtotal Local Revenues
State Revenue
Federal Revenue
Subtotal State & Federal Revenue
Subtotal Revenues
Transfers & Fund Balance
Total General Fund
Revenues & Transfers
Appropriated
Budget
FY 00101 (t)
47,201,368
1,744,200
22,923,300
71,400
1,121,800
1,490, 100
74,552,t 68
9,750,000
5,954,200
1,660,885
5,867, 100
3,325,000
1,400,000
1,330,600
29,287,785
4,751,120
108,591,073
7,314,872
3,285,794
10,600,666
t19,t91,739
1,298,820
120,490,559
(B) (B) - (A) (C)
Revised Preliminary
Projection Projection less Budget Estimate
FY 00101 (2) $ Inc/(Dec) % Inc/(Dec) FY 01102 (2)
48,305,900
1,972,000
23,585,200
62,500
1,120,200
1,461,976
76,507,776
9,710,700
6,704,900
1,709,800
5,606,600
3,535,000
1,350,000
1,315,600
29,932,600
5,212,373
111,652,749
7,290, 159
3,043,800
10,333,959
121,986,708
1,840,256
123,826,964
1,104,532 2.3% 52, 122,800
227,800 13.1% 1,998,000
661,900 2.9% 25,486,200
(8,900) (12.5%) 68,700
(1,600) (0.1%) 1,140,500
(28,124) (1.9%) 1,590,600
1,955,608 2.6% 82,406,800
(39,300) (0.4%) 10,050,600
750,700 12.6% 6,741,000
48,915 2.9% 1,744,000
(260,500) (4.4%) 5,775,500
210,000 6.3% 3,711,800
(50,000) (3.6%) 1,383,800
(15,000) (1.1%) 1,366,600
644,815 2.2% 30,773,300
461,253 9.7% 5, 137,800
3,06t ,676 2.8% 1 t 8,317,900
(24,713) (0.3%) 7,581,204
(241,994) (7.4%) 3,O27,300
(266,707) (2.5%) 10,608,504
2,794,969 2.3% t 28,926,404
541,436 41.7% 143,200
3,336,405 2.8% t 29,069,604
(C) - (B)
Estimate less Projection
$ Inc/(Dec) % Inc/(Dec)
3,816,900 7.9%
26,000 1.3%
1,901,000 8.1%
6,200 9.9%
20,300 1.8%
128,624 8.8%
5,899,024 7.7%
339,900 3.5%
36,100 0.5%
34,200 2.0%
168,900 3.0%
176,800 5.0%
33,800 2.5%
51,000 3.9%
640,700 2.8%
(74,573) (1,4%)
6,665,t51 6.0%
291,045 4.0%
(16,500) (0.5%)
274,645 2.7%
6,939,696 5.7%
(1,697,056) (92.2%)
5,242,640 4.2%
(c) - (A)
Estimate less Budget
$ Inc/(Dec) % Inc/~_De¢)
4,921,432 10.4%
253,800 14.6%
2,562,900 11.2%
(2,700) (3.8%)
18,700 1.7%
100,500 6.7%
7,854,632 t 0.5%
300,600 3.1%
786,800 13.2%
83,115 5.0%
(91,600) (1.6%)
386,800 11.6%
(16,200) (1.2%)
36,000 2.7%
1,485,515 5.1%
386,680 8.1%
9,726,827 9.0%
266,332 3.6%
(258,494) (7.9%)
7,838 0.1%
9,734,665 8.2%
(1,155,620) (89.0%)
8,579,045 7.1%
(1) July 1, 2000 Appropriated General Fund FY00/01 Budget.
(2) Finance Department Preliminary Revenue Projections 10/18/00.
County of Albemarle
Preliminary General Government & Schools Split of New Local Tax Revenue
Attachment B
Change in Revenues over FY 00101
Property Taxes
Other Local Taxes
Projected Revenue Increase
Less: Hotel & Motel Tax to Tourism (3%)
Less: Revenue Sharing
Net Projected Local Taxes
Proposed $0.01 Tax Rate Reduction
Committed New Non-Departmental Expenditures
Capital Outlay (Transfer to CIP) - 6.6% growth (reflects proposed $0.01 tax rate reduction)
Debt Service - School Division - 6.6% growth (reflects proposed $0.01 tax rate reduction)
Debt Service - General Government - 6.6% growth (reflects proposed $0.01 tax rate reduction)
Capital Reserve - (FY01 reflects $0.02 on tax rate; FY02 reflects proposed $0.01 on tax rate)
0.05% of Net Operating Budget Revenue Growth to Capital Budget
Capital Outlay & Debt Service
Board Reserve Fund
Refunds
Total Committed New Non-Departmental Exp.
Appropriated
Budget
FY 00101 (1)
74,552,168
29,287,785
103,839,953
(840,000)
(6,093,101)
96,906,852
3,124,500
8,850,000
750,000
1,290,000
14,014,500
123,630
34,300
14,172,430
Preliminary
Estimate
FY 01102 (2)
82,406,800
30,773,300
113,180,100
(830,280)
(6,482,712_)
105,867,108
3,330,717
9,434,100
799,500
713,020
755,053
15,032,390
200,000
41,400
15,273,790
$1nc/Dec
7,854,632
1,485,515
9,340,147
9,720
(389,611)
8,960,256
206,217
584,100
49,500
(576,980)
755,053
1,017,890
76,370
7,100
1,101,360
$ Inc Over
FY 00101
8,960,256
(713,020)
(1,101,360)
Total Available Net New Local Tax Revenue
Proposed Preliminary Distribution:
Available New Revenues to School Division Operations @ 60%
Available New Revenues to General Government Operations @ 40%
FY 2001102 Operational Budgets
School Division (Transfer from General Fund)
General Government Operations
(1) July 1, 2000 Appropriated General Fund FY00/01 Budget.
(2) Finance Department Preliminary Revenue Projections 10/18/00.
56,673,555
43,551,473
60,961,081
46,409,823
4~28~526=
2;858;350:
7,145,876
4,287,526
2,858,350
C:~fy02budvevenues~[fy02 revenue projections 11_1 $0.01 rate reduction ~nal.xls]prelim 11_00 bdgt guidance
10/27100 9;09
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Esmont Park Master Plan and Park Naming
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Presentation of the Master Plan and name selection for
the new park to be built in Esmont.
AGENDA DATE:
November 1, 2000
ACTION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT{S):
Mr. Tucker, Ms. White, and Mr. Mullaney
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Esmont Park project will be sent out to bid in November with the completion expected in mid summer. The
firm of Heyward, Boyd, & Anderson developed the master plan for the park. The facilities shown in the plan were
selected based on information received from a survey of the Esmont community. The Southern Albemarle
Organization and the parks and recreation staff have provided on going consultation during the plan development.
The plan has been reviewed and modified based on meetings with the community, neighboring property owners,
the Planning Commission, and the donors. At the November 1 meeting Mr. Bob Anderson, of Heyward, Boyd,
& Anderson will present the master plan to the Board.
One outstanding issue is deciding on a name for the park. The Southern Albemarle Organization has been
instrumental in supporting the need for the park and in providing advice to the Parks and Recreation Department
in the planning process for the location and development of the park. The Department asked the Southern
Albemarle Organization to develop a list of potential names for the park to be considered by the Board of
Supervisors. The SAO submitted three potential names with the favored name being Simpson Park. The other
names submitted were Porters Road Park and Esmont Park.
Review of the history files in the County Real Estate Office shows Simpson family ownership of the property from
at least 1895 until the sale to Habitat for Humanity in 1994. The County bought the property from Habitat for
Humanity in 1998 along with the two adjoining parcels that make up the park, The two adjoining parcels were
purchased from heirs of the Simpson family with those parcels also being part of the original Simpson family
property.
John Redick of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Community Foundation has shared the recommended park name
with the donors and asked for any comments or other suggestions. Mr. Redick is satisfied that name is acceptable
to the donors. Mr. Mullaney has discussed the name with Mr. Dorder. Mr. Dorrier feels the SAO is representative
of the Esmont Community and favors the name Simpson Park.
RECOMMENDATION:
Unless other Board members feel further public input is desired, staff recommends the name Simpson Park be
approved for the new park to be built in Esmont.
OO.227
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Work Session: CPA 98-03, Post Office Land Trust
(Hollymead Town Center)
S U BJ ECTIP RO POSAL/REQU EST:
Proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan land use
recommendations for a 180-acre area in the Hollymead
Community. The change would be from Industrial Service,
Office Service, and Regional Service to a new Town Center
designation.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Foley, White
AGENDA DATE:
November 1,2000
ITEM NUMBER:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
INFORMATION:
Yes
BACKGROUND:
This is a proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan land use recommendations for a '180 (approx.) acre area located west
of Route 29, south of Airport Road, east of the Deerwood Subdivision, and north (and east) of an unnamed stream. This area
is generally located across Route 29 from the Forest Lakes commercial and the Holly Memorial Garden cemetery. The
proposed change is from Regional Service, Office Service, and Industrial Service designations to a new Town Center
designation.
This amendment has been under review by the Commission for two years. Two public hearings and numerous work sessions
have been held to discuss the proposal. Attachment A is a map indicating the location of the proposed Town Center area.
Attachment B is the current land use map for Hollymead. Attachment C is the Planning Commission's recommended
amendment to the text of the Hollymead Community Profile. The Commission has recommended adoption of pages 1-6 of
Attachment C. The Commission is still reviewing pages 7-8, entitled Transportation Improvements, and a recommendation on
this section will be forthcoming. Also attached is a staff report from a September 12, 2000 Planning Commission work session
which includes the minutes from the Commission's June public hearing (Attachment D). The minutes from the Commission's
second public hearing on October 17 are not available at this time but will be provided at the Board's work session.
DISCUSSION:
This amendment proposal originated as a public request to change the land use designation for approximately 20 acres from
Office Service to Regional Service. The Commission recommended further study of this request for a larger area of the
Hollymead Community in order to establish a more unified and comprehensive set of recommendations that establish the
expectations for development in this area.
Initially the Commission studied an area that included the entire southwest quadrant of the Hollymead Community, totally
approximately 650 acres. As the study progressed, the Commission refocused their review on the 180-acre area that is subject
to .this amendment proposal. The Commission's position was that the general patchwork of current land use
designations/recommendations for this area would not lead to efficient and desirable development and, therefore, were in need
of re-evaluation.
The Town Center concept proposed for this area is intended to provide the first center for the Hollymead Community and be
developed in a manner consistent with the County's development/design principles. Those principles include encouraging a
greater mix of uses (commercial office and residential), more pedestrian orientation in development design, and interconnected
and neighborhood friendly streets. The Town Center concept generally encourages a higher density, more urban scale design
and mixed use development pattern as opposed to a low density suburban type sprawl development pattern, which is more
typical of what has taken place in areas further south on Route 29, and in other communities around the state and country.
The uses permitted are similar to those recommended in the current Plan. The Town Center proposal does recommend that
residential areas be developed as pad of the Town Center area, while no residential development is recommended for this area
in the current Plan. It also emphasizes Community Service level commercial uses rather than Regional Service commercial
AGENDA TITLE:
Work Session: CPA 98-03, Post Office Land Trust (Hollymead Town Center)
November 1,2000
Page 2
uses now recommended in the Plan, although compatible Regional Service type uses may be appropriate if they are designed
and developed in a manner consistent with the Town Center development/design recommendations. Large scale, low -density,
land consuming uses are discouraged in this area.
The type, character and scale of future road improvements to the Route 29 corridor are a critical issue that could impact the
feasibility/success of the Town Center concept, and the larger Hollymead Community. Therefore, the Commission is currently
reviewing recommendations for transportation improvement for the Hollymead Community, with a specific focus on
recommended improvements for the Route 29 corridor. Once complete, the Commission's recommendations will be forwarded
as an additional Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Hollymead Community Profile.
RECOMMENDATION:
This work session is to present and discuss the Commission's proposed amendment.
scheduled prior to Board action on this amendment proposal.
A public hearing will need to be
00.229
f
PREPARED BY OFFICE OF MAPPING. GRAPHICS
AND iNFORMAT[ON RESOURCES (OOMGAIR)
MAP F
COMMUNITIES OF
HOLLYMEAD AND
PINEY MOUNTAIN
O^Tr: | 011112000
FEET
1500 3000
1 '=3000'
3
Chrls
Locke
GFeene
eN COMMUNITY DF
HOLLYMEAD
)
%
%
/'7 .o~.~,.. AV~CHMENT B
IELOI'
,~/
LLYMEA
',.MAP F
cOMMuNITIEs OF
HOLLYMEAD AND
PINEY MOUNTAIN
11112/96
LEGEND
FOR
AREA
LAND
USE
NON - RESIDENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL
NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE
COMMUNITY SERVICE
NEIGHBORHOOD DENSITY
(RECOMENDED 3-6 DU/AC)
REGIONAL SERVICE
OFFICE/REGIONAL SERVICE
OFFICE SERVICE
TRANSITIONAL
INDUSTRIAL SERVICE
URBAN DENSITY
(RECOMENDED 6.01-34 DU/AC)
OPEN SPACE
PARKS AND GREENWAYS
INSTITUTIONAL
SEE DEVELOPMENT AREA PROFILE
TEXT
NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARIES
PROPOSED
ROADWAY/IMPROVEMENTS
NOTES:
- sities shown on this map may not be approved unless infrastructure/hciliti ,~s are adaqu. ate to sup oft develo men[
9iqthin any existin subdiv,sion. he, develop, merit shall be in ke~ ing ,ith sea e/de i yo suehe ,slin subdi~sion.
· -Adiaeengt properties shall be developed at h.gher dens. Bes to suppor: Inf{IY levefopment :~olic~.
Z
PREPARED BY ALBEMARLE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JULY 1996 --I
ATTACHMENT C
Proposed Language to be added to the Hollymead Community Profile,
Recommendations (page 78, Land Use Plan)
The area designated as Town Center west of Route 29 and south Airport Road is
intended as a mixed use, high-intensity area containing a mixture of businesses,
services, public facilities, residential areas and one that attracts activities of all kind.
Nearby residential development will be of high enough densities to support many of
these uses.
This designation replaces the previous patchwork of regional service, office service
and industrial service areas in an effort to establish a more unified planning and
development process.
The Town Center should adhere to the following twelve design principles as further
defined in the General Development/Design Guidelines: 1) pedestrian orientation, 2)
Neighborhood Friendly streets and paths, 3) interconnected streets and transportation
networks, 4) parks and opens spaces, 5) neighborhood centers, 6) buildings and
spaces of human scale, 7) relegated parking, 8) mixture of uses, 9) mixture of housing
types, 10) redevelopment rather than abandonment, 11 ) site planning that respects
terrain, 12) clear edges.
General Development/Desi~,n Guidelines
The following are general guidelines for the entire area designated as a Town Center in
the Hollymead community.
LAND USE and DENSITY
· A mix of residential and non-residential land uses shall be provided within the Town
Center, including Urban Density Residential (6 to 34 du/ac.), Office Service,
Community Service, Public/Institutional uses including parks and greenways, and
compatible Regional Service and Industrial Service uses.
· Uses not considered desirable for this area include heavy industrial and
manufacturing uses, and other traditionally large land consuming uses, such as
warehousing (including self storage facilities), auto dealerships and larger scale
highway-oriented regional commercial uses located in a free standing, big box
concept with large expanses of parking.
· Commercial development densities should consist of a minimum floor area ratio
(FAR) of .75, with higher FAR encouraged (1.0 or greater) (31/2 to 4 floors and
shared or reduced parking).
· Low FAR uses of more than 65,000 square feet are generally not approphate.
However, compatible uses larger than 65,000 square feet shall be multi-story
structures and otherwise meet recommended development criteria (up to 65,000 sq.
ft./floor).
9
ATTACHMENT C
· .A significant residential component is anticipated within the designated Town Center
area, both mixed with other commercial/office uses and within walking distance
(approx. ¼ mile from core commercial center
· Development of this area shall be pursuant to approval of an overall development
plan for the Town Center area. Approval of Development Plans for a portion of the
Town Center Area may be necessary and appropriate in certain situations, but is less
desirable.
SITE DESIGN
· All building facades visible from a public road shall continue design elements present
on the front of the building.
', Orient buildings to street (parking behind buildings or within parking structures).
· Building should not appear monolithic. Massing, architectural features and
component structures (pods or multi-story) should be used to reduce the size,
footprint and presentation of large buildings. Uninterrupted facades should be
avoided.
· Site development should incorporate multi-story structures to conserve land and allow
development of a 'critical mass' of uses; residential is an appropriate use and is
encouraged above commercial/retail. Stand-alone residential also appropriate in an
urban form.
· Site development should respect the terrain and use appropriate design techniques to
minimize clearing and grading activities.
· Ro0fdesign shall mitigate the visual impactof larger scale structures and associated
buildings, especially considering the general location of this area along a ridgeline.
· Special attention should be given to the visibility of development from Route 29.
· Loading docks, trash collection facilities, outdoor storage and related facilities shall
be incorporated into building design so they are not visible.
· Metal buildings not permitted in Core Area
· A system of walkways and bikeways shall be included in site design.
· Parking:
-All parking areas shall be limited to that required by the Zoning Ordinance.
-Parking should be centralized where appropriate. Cooperative parking arrangements
are encouraged where feasible.
-On-street parking shall be incorporated into road design.
-Large parking areas should be divided into smaller components and distributed
around or behind buildings, with trees and other landscaping material used to
minimize visual impacts and heat generated by large areas of pavement.
-Avoid locating parking areas between streets and buildings.
· The General Development Design Guidelines apply to this area.
In addition:
-Development at a higher FAR (Floor Area Ratio) shall be encouraged to conserve
land and increase available open space for public use. A more compact urban design
approach, incorporating public space and is strongly encourage
-Building shall be "inward" oriented to internal road system serving the Town Center
(north-south stre6t and/or east-west street) and not oriented to Route 29.
10
ATTACHMENT C
-A minimum one hundred (100) feet undisturbed vegetative buffer shall be
maintained along Route 29 North, from just south of the Timberwood Boulevard
extended to Hollymead Drive intersection. Augmentation of this buffer may be
necessary with development of this area. The purpose of the buffer is to provide
separation of the Town Center development from Route 29 and encourage an inward
orientation of development as opposed to a highway orientation, The buffer also is
intended to maintain and augment the wooded character of this segment of the Route
29 corridor. Other means of meeting this intent may be considered under an ultimate
development proposal.
TRANSPORTATION, TOWN CENTER AREA
(See also the TRANSPOR TA TION IMPR 0 VEMENT section for specific.
recommendations for improvements along the Route 29 Corridor)
· Transit service should be provided as soon as operation is feasible and site design
shall accommodate future transit service.
· All roads should be designed with the intent of providing pedestrian friendly
neighborhood oriented streets. All roads in this area, including the north/south
parallel road, should be constructed as an urban cross-section, with sidewalks, bike
lanes and street landscaping. Lower design speeds and minimizing road width
(number of through lanes) should be encouraged. However, on-street parking should
be encouraged where appropriate.
· The road network for the Town Center should consist of a system of interconnected
streets forming a network of blocks. The network should consist of a minimum of
two (2) .north-south roads with crossing streets creating a block pattern. Shorter block
lengths consistent with the intent of creating a walkable community should be
provided. The desirable block lengths would be between 200 and 300 feet.
· The Town center road network shall include grade-separated crossings of Route 29 at
Timberwood Boulevard, Hollymead Drive and minimum of one at-Fade mid-point
access (without a cross over) between the Hollymead and Timberwood connections.
Access shall be provided to Airport Road at two (2) locations: 1) the future North
Fork Research park access on Airport Road; and, 2) a future cross over located just
west of the U. S. Post Office Building.
· The north/south parallel road should be designed as a "Boulevard" or "Main
Street"(as defined in the DISC report), recognizing that while carrying a higher
volume of traffic, it also serves as important Neighborhood Street within the town
center 'concept. As such, the road needs to accommodate pedestrians, cyclists, transit
service and contribute positively to the character.of the area. Other streets in the
Town Center Area may be designed as a "Main Street," "Avenue," "Neighborhood
Street,".or "Way" depending on the character and intensity of development in the area
(Attachment C, 1-5).
· Pedestrian and bicycle systems and transit access shall be provided throughout the
town center, with a continuous walkway and travel way provided from Airport Road
and Route 29 North.
ATTACHMENT C
· Pedestrian activity is encouraged. Sidewalks on both sides of streets built 10 feet wide
or greater shall be provided in high-density areas; with six feet minimum width
elsewhere.
· A park and ride lot shall be established near the tom center area and may utilize
existing facilities (shared facilities).
· A network of subsidiary cross streets linking all major roads in a street block system
shall be established throughout the larger site. Linkages shall be made to existing
developed areas where possible (Deerwood, Forest Springs).
· Access points to Route 29 North shall be limited to Timberwood Boulevard
"extended", the intersection at Hollymead Drive, and a minimum of one midpoint
access in between, with no median cross over (intersection). Exact location to be
determined.
· Grade separated vehicular crossings of Route 29 are recommended at Timberwood
Boulevard and Hollymead Drive. Bicycle/pedestrian facilities shall be provided as
part of grade separated crossings to provided pedstrian eonnectivity between the east
and west sides of Route 29. Sidewalks and bike facilities shall also be provided to
link to planned facilities along Airport Road.
PUBLIC SPACE AND PUBLIC FACITIES/SERVICES
· Open space, recreation areas and public spaces shall be provided to serve patrons,
employees, and community residents. Development of public open space/features
such as a public square, traffic circles, and "pocket park(s)" are throughout the town
Center area.
· A .greenway shall be established along the stream forming the western and southern
boundary of the Town Center designation and should include walking and bike trails
and other featureS/amenities. This greenway and associated trails should extend
across Route 29 to link to the residential areas east of Route 29 and ultimately to the
proposed greenway along Powell Creek.
· The Community Facilities Plan indicates a need for a public library and police
substation in the Hollymead Community. These facilities would be appropriate in the
Town Center area. Parking for the Library could be used as a public parking lot.
· Space shall be made available for a recycling center (not counted against square
footage limits).
ENVIRONMENT
· Regional stormwater facilities shall be established to serve this portion of the
Hollymead Community.
· Exemplary specimen or old growth trees that may exist in this area shall be preserved
to the extent practicable.
· Area landscaping shall minimize water requirements
· Principles of sustainable design shall be incorporated to a significant extent in site
development, including use of natural lighting within buildings, green roof
technology, energy efficiency.
12
ATTACHMENT C
[This section is under review by the Planning Commission and has not
been recommended for approval at this time. For information only.]
· Transportation Improvements (additional language added to p. 80-81 of Hollymead
Community Profile)
-Recommended improvements along the Route 29 Corridor:
>' Road design and aligmnent improvements to Route 29 shall be in keeping with
the emerging community, a rapidly urbanizing community consisting of
residential neighborhoods and commercial and employment centers.
Improvements related to upgrading Route 29 should be consistent with an overall
network of roads that balance the need serve both the local and regional
transportation demands.
} Any system of parallel roads to augment Route 29 shall be constructed as an
urban cross-section design (curb/gutter) with sidewalks and bike lanes. This
creates a system of roads more in keeping with a neighborhood street system and
more consistent with the character of the adjacent neighborhoods.
} Recommendations for road design/classification for he parallel roads are taken
from the Albemarle County Neighborhood Model as recommemded by the
Development Area Initiatives Study Committee (DISC) Report. Road design
should be an "Avenue/Residential Blvd," or "Neighborhood Street" design on the
eastem parallel road from Polo Grounds Road to Hollymead Drive; a "Main
Street" design on the eastern parallel road from the cemetery to Proffit Road; a
"Boulevard" or "Main Street" design on the western parallel road in the proposed
Town Center transitioning to "Avenue/Residential Boulevard" or "Main Street"
south to Hollymead Drive.
> The eastern parallel road system should extend to Polo Grounds Road (Route
643).
> Parallel roads on the western side of Route 29 shall coincide with the road
network and design proposed for the Hollymead Town Center area.
>' Hollymead Drive and Timberwood Parkway should be designed with grade-
separated crossings of Route 29, without ramps, to connect with the road system
on the western side of the route 29 and accommodate east-west vehicular,
pedestrian and bicycle movements. Pedestrian and bike facilities shall be
provided with the grade separated crossings.
} Provide a grade-separated crossing without ramps at Airport Road to
accommodate east-west vehicular and pedestrian/bike movements. Pedestrian
and bike facilities should be provided on the crossing.
>' East-west connecting roads should be curb/gutter design (sidewalks/bike laneS)
and the design should be "Avenue/Residential Boulevard" or "Main Street"
design.
~' If grade separation is not possible at the above locations, then these should be at-
grade, signalized intersections with separate grade-separated bicycle/pedestrian
overpasses/underpasses provided to accommodate east-west movement.
} In the long term, consider establishing an east-west connection from Route 29 to
Earlysville Road (Route 743) as recommended in Charlottesville Area
13
A'I'FACHMENT C
Transportation (CATS) by :extending Hollymead Drive to Earlysville Road. This
road location and design design should be coordinated with the relocation of
Dickerson Road (Route 606).
Intermediate accesses, without crossovers, from the parallel roads to the Route 29
should be provided on the east and west sides between Ashwood and Timberwood
Boulevard.
Stop east parallel road at Hollymead Drive and access undeveloped land north of
Hollymead dir~tly from Route 29, without a crossover. This will avoid
significant impact to existing homes in Hollymead.
14
The Neighborhood Model: Building Block for the Development Areas
A. Neighborhood Thoroughfares
ATTACHMENT C, /
!
.,
Boulevard
Definition: A boulevard is a multi-lane thoroughfare separated by
several medians. Taken from the Latin word, "bulwark." which
means the wall surrounding ancient European cities, boulevards are
"~and avenues" built in the space left behind when the European
walls were tom down. A boulevard would transform a highway on
the Edge of a Development .;M'ea into an urban street in a General
Area or Center.
Features of Boulevards:
· Design speeds of boulevards should be 35 mph.
· The side medians separate slower traffic and parking activity, at
the edges from the throu~-rraffic in, the center lanes. This
arrangement creates an alternative to the "strip highway." by
allowing building frontages. sidewalks. and pedestrian activity
right at the edge of the right of way.
Appropriate locations: Centers and where a "seam" is created
between adjacent neighborhoods
F(gure 5:6
Figure 5:7
CounW of Albemarle, Department of Planning anti Communery 0evetopmel
15
The Neighborhood Model: Building Block for the Development Areas
ATTACHMENT
Avenue or Residential
Boulevard
Definition:
An avenue or residential (small)
boulevard has c~nter medians r. hat
break the thoroughfare into
discrete channels of movement.
Features of Avenues or Residential
Boulevards:
· In Centers, the median may be
wide enough to hold monu-
ments (see Monument Avenue
in Pjchmond, V'~ima).
· In General Areas, medias may
be planted formally with trees
or landscaped reformally, to
create the appearance of a
linear park.
Appropriate locations:
Centers and General Areas
5:9
County of AIDemarle. Department of Planning ancl CommunstY DeveloP~
16
The Neighborhood Model: Building Block for the Development Areas
ATTACHMENT
Main Street
(COmmercial Street) .....................
L
Definition: A m-l- street or commercial
sircot accommodates two-way u-.ft:ic and
parallel parking. Diagonal parking may be
allowed and is appropriate for commercial
buildings with ground-floor retail space.
Features of Main SWeets:
· Main streets have raised curbs and
closed storm. dramage.
* Sidewalks are adjacent to curbs at a
maximum width of 10 - 13 feet
e Trees can block views to storefronts
and are therefore not always desir-
able. When used, they should be in
planters and have clear trunks and
high canopies. A single species
should be used and a series should be
planted in alignment.
e Street furniture is desirable.
Appropriate location:
Centers
Figure' 5:ll
17
County of AIDemarie. Department of Ptanmng an<3 Community Ceveiopment
ATTACHMENT C, ~'
The Neighborhood Model: Building Block for the Development Areas
. ,.Neighborhood Street or Road
Definition: A neighborhood street or road is
a local slow-movement thoroughfare. A
neighborhood street is urban in character
and a road is rural in character.
Futures of Streets
· Streets have an "urban" cross section
which includes curb, gutter, street trees,
and sidewalks.
· Streets are used to establish an "urban
form" which supports densities
dwelling units per acre or greater.
· Parallel parking is allowed along the
shoulder of streets.
Building fi'onts are aligned with small
setbacks.
· Drainage system is closed.
Appropriate location:
Edge, General Areas and Centers
Features of Roads:
· Roads use a "rural" cross-section
which includes open drainage ditches
and no curbs.
· Paths instead of sidewalks are used
adjacent to the drainage ditches.
· Setbacks can be irregular.
· Roads are used to characterize a more
"rural form" and are used in areas with
ve~ low traffic volume.
· Roads are the "exception" rather than
the rule m the Development .~M-eas.
Appropriate location:
Edges with density. of tess than 3 dwelling
units per acre
Figure 5:12
18
Tortl Gal|as and Partners , CHK, Inc. .Doclson Assocsates Center for Watersl~ecl Protection McGulre Woocls Battle ancl Boothe. LLP
The Neighborhood Model: Building Block for the Development Areas
ATTACHMENT C~ 5'
Figure 5:14
Way (Small Street also known as a Queuing Street)
Definition: A way is narrower than a street or road: it is desi_m'ted for "yield" movements
Features of Ways
* Ways are designed for very. slow traffic movement - l 5 mph.
· 'i'hey may be one- or two-way.
* They are never striped.
, One car must pull over to allow tier oncoming traffic to pass.
· W'ays are appropriate for minor neighborhood streets: however, they should extend for no more
than two to three continuous blocks before ending at a T-intersection.
Appropriate location:
Edges and General ,-M'eas: at Centers on a lirmted basis
County of Atbemarle. Department of Planrang and Commumty C)eve|o
ATTACHMENT D
STAFF PERSON:
DATE:
DAVID BENISH
SEPTEMBER 12, 2000
RE: Worksession, CPA 98-03, Hollymead Town Center proposal.
BACKGROUND
On June 27th, the Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Town Center
concept for the Hollymead Community. Based on the input received at that meeting the
Commission agreed to discuss the proposal at an additional work session. The
Commission identified several issues which they wanted to further discuss in the
worksession. Staff has provided additional information and comment regarding these
issues. The minutes from the public hearing are Attachment A. The recommended text
amendments presented at the public hearing are Attachment B.
As further background, it may b e help ful to re state staff' s understanding o f the purp o s e o f
this amendment proposal and extent of the changes from the existing Land Use Plan
recommendation. Currently, the area under consideration for the Town Center is
designated for a combination of regional service, office service and industrial service
uses. Residential uses are not currently recommended for this area of the Land Use Plan.
However, development standards within the current Land Use Plan and the vision
proposed by DISC encourage a greater mix of uses which provides for residential
opportunities near commercial and employment areas, and designed in a way which
creates a.quality living environment.
The proposed Town Center concept is intended to permit a mix of uses generally
inclusive of those currently recommended in the Land Use Plan, but provides enhanced
guidelines which articulate the County's expectation for the development of this area. It
discourages disjointed, piecemeal, strip development and encourages a more cohesive,
integrated development pattern which creates a more defined/identifiable destination
point; one that is more pedestrian friendly and would include residential development.
The proposed new standards address desired road design and network connections,
building orientation and scale, and also focus on pedestrian orientation and scale
(walkways/bikeways, public spa~es, building scale/massing orientation, etc.). The most
significant impact of the proposed amendment to uses permitted under the current Land
Use Plan recommendations would be regarding very large land-consuming
buildings/parking areas with a low FAR. The amendment discourages this type of
development. However, if the use is considered compatible with the Town Center
concept, then the use can be permitted if developed consistent with design/development
standards established in the amendment.
DISCUSSION
Staff provides the following comments regarding primary issues discussed by the
Commission:
2O
ATTACHMENT D
Additional Public Input: The Commission expressed interest in knowing what capacity
there is to incorporate an expanded public process into the design of this area.
Staff has identified three approaches to providing additional public input into the town
center concept beyond the normal public hearing process already held.
Deny or defer this amendment to the Comprehensive Plan until completion of the
Neighborhood Plan for Hollymead. Public input and participation is a key
component of the neighborhood plan development. If Hollymead were selected
as the first community to undergo such a Neighborhood Plan, it would not be
started any sooner than the end of this fiscal year and could take a year or more to
complete. It would provide the most comprehensive study and plan of the entire
Hollymead Community. However, the Commission has spent the better part of
two years discussing this amendment proposal. There will be continued pressure
to develop these areas while the Neighborhood Plan is being developed.
Undertake a master planning process specific to the town center area. Either the
County or the developers/property owners in the Town Center area could
undertake this process. Community input/participation into the master plan
development could be a part of the planning process. To date, there has been
some interest with two property owners in developing a plan for their properties,
particularly for review as part of a rezoning request for the area. There does not
appear to be willingness: among all of the various other-property owners to
instigate this type of process at the comprehensive plan stage. Staffs ability to
undertake a master planning project is limited due the current workload and
available staffing. Currently there is no funding appropriated for this type of
study. A consultant would need to be hired to conduct the study and nm the
public input process. This process could take six months to a year to fully
· complete.
Conduct one or more additional community meetings in the Hollymead area to
present the current amendment proposal and receive public comment. These
would likely be facilitated meetings to generate .constructive public input and
recommendations on the proposal. Due to the current workload and staff
availability, consultant assistance may be needed to undertake this effort. This
may be the quickest to complete of the three options but, depending on the
number of meetings, will take one to three months to organize and conduct. It
would be the least comprehensive in nature, but would allow additional
opportunities for the community to become familiar with the proposed changes
and provide comments/suggestions.
100-foot tree buffer along Route 29 - The Commission wanted to further discuss the
recommendation for the 100-foot tree buffer along Route 29 and whether it should be
maintained or modified. Questions were raised as to whether the 100-buffer could be
provided on-site and allow sufficient area for development of the properties which front
21
ATTACHMENT d
on Route 29. Staff recognized that there may be difficulty in providing the full-100 foot
buffer depending on the topography of the area and certain aspects of the development
proposal (finished grades, scale of development, etc.). The intent was to try to
provide/maintain, to the extent feasible, the wooded character of the road corridor and
provide a visual buffer that would mitigate the visual impact of development within the
Town Center area adjacent to Route 29. There may be other measures which could be
used to meet the intent of the proposal (berming and landscaping, building orientation,
scale, elevation design, etc.) and reduce the width of the buffer.
Staff would recommend that the amendment language be modified to continue to
recommend a 100-foot buffer where possible, but to also recognize that some flexibility
may be needed in the width of the buffer, or alternatives to maintaining to buffer, to allow
some properties to develop. The purpose of the buffer should also be clearly articulated
so altematives to the 100-foot buffer can be evaluated as to its ability to adequately
address the pertinent issues.
Town Center vs. Neighborhood Center -The term Town Center has caused some
confusion, particularly as it relates to neighborhood centers as discussed in DISC. The
Town Center area is envisioned to be of a scale and intensity of development greater than
anticipated in a typical neighborhood center as described in DISC. The Town Center Will
have uses that not only serve immediate neighborhoods and residents, but also the larger
region. It is intended to provide an alternative to the more traditional sprawling style of
development that could otherwise occur under the current Land Use Plan for this area.
Other (multiple) smaller neighborhood centers, as described in DISC, would develop
within,-or adjacent to, neighborhoods in the Community. These could be other small
commercial areas, public park, church, or othe.r similar use that support public activity.
Other comments/clarifications -
· There was confusion regarding the recommendations for floor area ratio (FAR). The
intent of the proposed amendment is NOT to cap FAR, but to encourage higher FAR.
Staff will modify the text to clarify this point.
· Staff will amend the text to include stronger recommendations for providing
pedestrian and bicycle access, particularly improvements for crossing Route 29.
· Staff will amend the text to include recommendations for road design/classification
for Town Center streets as recommended in DISC.
SUMMARY
This is provided as a follow-up to the Commission' s June 27th public heating and
questions arising at that meeting. Provided that the Commission does not feel that an
expanded public process is necessary for this proposal and agrees with the above noted
changes to the Comprehensive Plan amendment, staff.will incorporate these changes into
Attachment B and provide the final language for commission approval.
22
· ,, ATTACHMENT A
especially children.
ATTACHMENT D
Mr. John Marston, a lifelong resident of Albemarle County, addressed the Commission. He said
that this proposal is a good oppommity for a well-rounded neighborhood that will bring the
· commtmit3, together.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Thomas asked about the location of the property within Forest Lakes.!
Ms. EchoIs explained that while the property. is located within the Forest Lakes Commanit3,, it is
not zoned for Forest Lakes, is not zoned PUD, and has not been proposed for development in the
past. She emphasized that it does not carry the designation Of Forest Lakes.
Mr. Rieley said that he finds the proximity of the church and its green space to nearby
neighborhoods and schools ideal, as it would compliment existing development. He suggested
adding an eighth condition that states "impervious parking spaces shall not exceed 1 space for
even: 2 seats in the church at any time."
Mr. Rooker commented that that would permit parking on grass if there were an overflow.
Ms. Hopper stated that the additional condition seems reasonable. ::
MOTION: Mr. Thomas moved, Ms. Hopper seconded approval of SP-00-007 with staff
conditions and an additional condition stating:
8. Impervious parking space shall not exceed I space for every 2 seatsin the church.
The motion passed unanimously.
CPA-98-03 Post Office Land Trust/Theater - Amend the Comprehensive Plan land use
designation for approximately 175 acres within the commumty of Hollymead (an existing
development area), from Industrial Service, Regional Service, and Office Service to a "Town
Center" designation. This area is located on the west side of Rt. 29N (Seminole Trail) and south
· of Rt. 649 (Airport Road).
Mr. Cilimberg presented the 'staff report, noting that this proposal would change the land use
designation for approximately 180 acres of land from Regional Service, Industrial Service, and
Office Service to a new Town Center designation. He presented maps that show the current
Land Use Plan, and the proposed Town Center. Mr. Cilimberg reported that the purpose of the
Town Center concept is to provide for a pattern of development which is consistent with the
principles of DISC, and to provide a central place for the Hollymead Community. He mentioned
that the Town Center concept generally encourages a higher density, more urban scale design
and development paUern as opposed to a low-density suburban sprawl development.
Albemarle County Planning Commission - 6/27/00 23
Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff recommends that "Attachment A" be incorporated into the
Hollymead Community. profile to be presented for approval at a subsequent meeting. He
referenced correspondence sent to the Commission from Clifton McClure (on behalf of Wendell
Wood, a property owner in the area), and from 3ohn Oliver (a Forest Lakes resident). Mr.
Cilimberg indicated there was an issue raised by Mr. McClure regarding "vested rights," and the
Zoning Administrator determined that there is nothing in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment
that affects vested rights. He mentioned that that finding has been shared with Mr. Wood.
Mr. Rieley asked about the mix of Regional Service versus Commumt.' Service versus Industrial
Service in the existing area. He asked if staff has a specific mix in mind.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that staff tried to specify floor area ratio under the Land Use & Density.
He noted that staff found that uses of more than 65,000 square feet - which would be Regional
Service scale uses - are generally not appropriate; however, compatible uses that are larger than
65,000 square feet should be multi-story and otherwise meet the recommended development
criteria. "We didn't break down how much residential there should be, how much office, how
much various scales of commercial... I think we wanted to leave as much flexibility as possible
[v,~th] the idea that [the plan] was particularly about design and building type and the form."'
Ms.-Hopper commented that one way to better define that is to restate the 12 principles of DISC
· in the CPA .somehow, especially the definition of the Neighborhood Center.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that DISC was referenced in several places in the CPA.
Mr. Rieley mentioned that the term Town Center has been used for the last six months, but the
attachments refer to Neighborhood Centers.
Mr'. Cilirnberg said that TownCenter.was used because .of the;:regional.components .of the.plan,
and DISC referred to Neighborhood level services. "The Town Center concept I guess is a step
up from that in terms of the potential of the services that would be provided...this is in an area
where we don't have immediately surrounding at least a large neighborhood - it's across 29."
Mr. Cilimberg added that as DISC is implemented, there will be centers designed within large
residential areas, rather than independently.
Thomas wonder red if the term ~'compatible" Regional Service may 5be too restrictive.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that in a Town Center concept, a Regional Service use might include a
deparm~ent store rather than a car dealership.
Ms. Hopper commented that the term compatible using the DISC model seems to eliminate big-
box type department stores.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that the traditional one-floor, large parking area model is being
avoided.
Albemarle County Planning Commission - 6/27/00
24
Mr. Rooker pointed out a statement in the proposed Town Center language that references ~'large
land-consuming uses" as being inappropriate.
Mr. Rieley asked if it was wise to cap the FAR if a great proposal is presented.
Mr. Cilimberg answered that the statement is trying to give a lower end to the FAR, where it
might start.
Mr. Rieley suggested putting wording in that states "at least .5".
Mr. Thomas asked about the 100-foot buffer between the highway and the front of the stores.
"I feel like 100 is maybe too much."
Public comment was invited.
The applicant, Katorah Rowell, addressed the Commission.
Mr. Rowell reiterated his plans for the area, which will include retail, hotel, office, and
entertainment uses. "It covers a wide variety of uses, and it's only the entrance or approach to
this neighborhood center." He mentioned that he would like to include a minimal mount of
parking, which wilt be cooperative parking, adding that the emphasis is on pedestrian-friendly
development, with sidewalks, street trees, etc. Mr: Rowell said that the 100-foot buffer is "a
good range," which varies from 120 feet to 65feet as.it crosses.the.frontage, allowing for
VDOT's expanded right-of-way on Route 29. He acknowledged that there will be some traffic
on the through street that might require vehicles to wait at stoplights, which is expected in a
downtown-type area.
Mr. Rowell emphasized that his plan promotes internalized growth'& development, rather than
strip development. "I hope that this effort is in line with the DISC report, and the neighborhood
development concept."
Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. Rowell's map presented shows just the 37 acres intended for
development.
Mr. Rowell confirmed that his plan shows 37 of the 180 acres designated, adding that additional
acreage would eventually be integrated into the plan.
Mr. Rooker asked if his intent would be to come forward with a joint rezoning request.
Mr. Rowell responded that in cooperation with Mr. Runkle, he would like to see a cohesive plan
developed and put forth.
Mr. Thomas asked, "How about with the other property owners?"
Mr. Rowell replied that those individuals may make their parcels available, as developers will be
interested in them.
Albemarle County Planning Commission - 6/27/00
Ms. Hopper asked, "Have you consulted with Mr. Wood about this property?"
Mr. Rowell answered, "We've had some conversations about it. I know he's certainly in favor
of his Regional Service property, and doesn't want to be disturbed as to what he has spent years
and years working on - his mobile home park, his entrances on 29, and his Regional Services."
Mr. Rowell added, "There are very, very few areas in this count)' where a Home Depot or a
Target... [can go] .... I think the Commission and the Board should have very serious
considerations as to where they can provide those uses for the community."
Mr. Rooker asked if there have been discussions with landowners other than the Kessler Group
about an integrated plan for the property.
Mr. Rowell replied that there have not been any direct discussions with other owners regarding
the big picture. He added, "Most of the uses that are intended there are anxiously awaiting their
oppommity to proceed with their projects forthwith."
Mr. Rieley noted that he is concerned that a decision on the CPA is not necessarily an
endorsement for any specific applicant' s proposal.
Mr. Cilimberg respondeel, "What you are looking at would certainly have an affect on those
landownei% that have more specific ideas .... but it's not a review of specific proposals that they
might hav~: That would come at the rezoning stage, and ideally it would come as the Comp.
Plan Ameiidment suggests, through a consolidated plan where a combination of landowners
could get together and present something. We can't force that, obviously... an application would
be reviewed under the parameters that are being established here."
Mr. Rieley emphasized that the Commission' s discussion will not be an endorsemere of a
specific proposal, but will be geared more toward the general principles of the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment language.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that there is an area that has been identified beyond this applicant's
particular area of interest, which covers parcels of land and several owners. "If for any reason,
there are any pieces that you don't want include as pan of the amendment, we need to know
that... they would basically stay with their existing land use designation."
Mr. Thomas asked what would happen to the areas now zoned Regional Service.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that predominantly, a large pan of the land is zoned Rural Area, and is
currently designated in the Plan for different types of use that would come in through zoning. A
zoning application in the future would be reviewed under the principles in the CPA. "It would
not affect the ability of any property that's currently there to develop according to the zoning it
has... the Comprehensive Plan can't change that."
Ms. Hopper asked how muchof the land is currently zoned rural.
26
Albemarle County Planning Commission - 6/27/00
Mr. Cilimberg answered that he is not certain of exact acreage, noting that the area closer to the
Airport Road/29 intersection is zoned Commercial. He mentioned that the original applicant was
looking to change lower scale commercial zoning to higher scale commercial zoning.
Mr. Rooker asked if there was any public comment.
Ms. Florence Toms, a resident of the Deerwood area, addressed the Commission. She
emphasized that the neighborhood is currently very' family-oriented. She expressed concern that
the town center will generate more traffic in the area, and more noise. Ms. Toms mentioned that
the post office trucks now generate a lot of noise. Ms. Toms stated that a lot of Deerwood
residents feel this way.
Mr. Eugene Rader, a 27-year Deerwood resident whose property backs up to this center,
addressed the Commission. He stated that he agrees with the Town Center designation if a
buffer of at least 100 feet is kept at the back of the property to protect the stream. Mr. Rader said
he prefers Light Industry and family dwellings to heavier commercial uses.
Mr. Bruce Applegard, Transportation and Land Use Planner for the Southern Environmental
Law Center, addressed the Commission. He stated that the SELC supports developers who want
to work together to design their properties so that they become more livable environments. He
added that they approve of the initiative to incorporate the DISC principles into the
Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Applegard questioned whether this was We best location for a town
center for the Hollymead area, noting that the location is isolated .from the commanil3, it is meant
to serve by a high-speed highway, especially with the expansion of:Route 29, which will prevent
pedestrian access.
Mr. Applegard noted that the designation of this site as the town center may preclude the
developmenl of a more appropriate center on the eastern side of Rt. 29, more accessible to the
commUmty it will serve. He suggested that the county undertake a master plan process for the
entire growth area that identifies appropriate sites for a town center. Mr. Applegard that the
proposed development is likely to be a "scattershot, auto-oriented development," adding that a
16-screen theater is out of scale with the needs of the community, given that there are currently
only 18 screens in the Charlottesville/Albemarle area.
Mr. Applebard emphasized that the SELC does feel that developing the 175 acres under the
guiding principles of DISC has some merit. He provides some suggested changes to make the
plan more consistent with DISC principles:
1. Change designation of these 175 acres from town center to neighborhood center so that this
site is not seen as the sole center of the community;
2. Allow higher FARs than 1. This amendment specifies a FAR range of .5 to 1. Increasing
this cap will permit development more in line with the DISC model.
3. Strengthen requirements for mixed-use development to insure that residential units are
included in the development of this site.
4. Strengthen pedestrian and bicycle requirements. The current amendment does not adequately
. address the need for better pedestrian access across Rt. 29. Require the developers to work
Albemarle County Planning Commission - 6/27/00
with VDOT to ensure that an effective link is constructed from this site to the
Hollymead/Forest communities,
Mr. Jeff Wemer of the Piedmont Environmental Council addressed the Commission (see
handout for comments).
Mr. Tom Loche addressed the Commission. He stated that the DISC process maximizes
community input, and a public process is needed to work with the development community to
establish a plan for this area.
Mr: Wendell Wood addressed the Commission, requesting that the Commission read the
minutes of Sept/Oct 1992 minutes, which included a Comprehensive Plan Amendment that
designated these areas. He noted that this land was chosen to be Regional Service, because of
the highwa3: system, and potential for water/sewer. "If you read those minutes, you'It see very
clearly that we proffered entrances [on 29]." He added that it is in the minutes that a master plan
had to be submitted for the area, and the county' conditioned that there had to be 100 mobile
homes built before the applicant could apply, there had to be 3 entrances on 29 before the
applicant could apply [for Regional Service].
Mr. Wood emphasized that there are 13 parcels involved in the entire area, and I 1 have never
been included:in any discussions. He added that this is not a good location for a Town Center for
a community when the commtmity you are trying to get to go there is located on the other side of
the highway. "People are not going to walk from Hollymead across a bridge or through a runnel
to that. It's just not logical, it's not going to happen .... You need a large piece of property under
common ownership. You're penalizing [with] a 100-foot buffer along 29, when there are
property owners there whose propert3' is only 300 feet deep. Mr. Wood emphasized that it is
"unreasonable to expect this many diverse propert), owners to get together when you have such a
diverse plan to try to do a Town Center... ii's no equitable way that you can ask someone to give
up 30% of their property for the benefit of someone behind them."
Mr, Wood concluded, "A Town Center is a great idea, but this is not the location for it."
Mr. Rooker clarified that this is a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and any change in rezoning
would have to go through the rezoning process
Ms. Hopper emphasized that this is not about the approval of a multiplex theatre, it's about the
principles in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Steve Runkle stated that the Kessler will soon own land in the area comprising about 30
acres. He said that as a member of DISC, he sees a lot of misunderstanding about the
conclusions of DISC and how they relate to aDISC neighborhood center. '$i'~6I~:DISC~
ncigh~_o,rh~ center... there.'would.be,multiple'neighbofllll~!~'.mtt~-rs ~within ~t~tq-I611yn4'~ii:a
;.go~oi~""H6 'ield(d'lh~Z:haraetonmes,of:,ti~r~'.~,for...momltaaaesaltm~ typically
,.part:of the::-DISC.;neighborhood,.e.~-mer~ .9artieularlyg,h_.~:Jandbem, eea.~the:~'ontttge'a, oad and Route
·. 29. Ivlr.:,Rtmkle :said that, the'l~tfitt hi ~tmying wilt :~be:,slated .¢for, dense:zesidential'
28
Albemarle County Planning Commission - 6/27/00
development. "I don't think we've envisioned anything having a 180 [acre] center." He -
emphasized that the:characteristic of the center involves more of=a~e, ore area than wlmI~DISC has
envisioned-as a'neighborhood center..: He~so'~offered~'sit down ,.with:'anyone who wants to
make a multi-party proposal. ='
There being nO further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
~ Ri~l~;,mentioned the 'advantages of ha~gbj~.ad~r~,p~..u~,,lic c, onsiderafioln.~..~.-~and
area. "Do we have a mechanism to engage public process?"
Mr. Cilimberg replied that the DISC recommendations include a recommendation that the count3.,
initiate a public process in each of the development areas. "'We anticipate that this is going to
mean staff involvement, and probably the assistance of a consultant, and a lot of pretty diligent
work with those.communities." He noted that the city's plan involvingl0 square miles for
neighborhood plans has been very intense. "We do not have the staff to do this master plan in
ever3, commumty in the tuban neighborhood, and there's not enough money for enough
consultants to do it all in the next year or two years." Mr. Cilimberg continued that there is a
decision that needs to be made by the Board on how much it wants to undertake in terms of
staffing and consultants.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that Planning does not have the .'staff to. deal :with ,master planning of the
entire 175 acres. "We've done as much as we can do in trying to :bridge::a time that started 2
years ago when all of this was being brought to you, and where we are now with DISC being a
very immediate and real scenario for all the development areas." Mr. Cilimberg emphasized that
the clock does not stop for developers, even though it is most desirable to have a larger plan.
He noted that the current Comprehensive Plan and zoning requirements do not reflect well what
is recommended by DISC. "We've got people who are going to want to develop land, and they
may not be willing to wait a year or two years or three years for that to happen."
Mr. Rieley said he is happy to pursue this as a hybrid in which we are trying to bring principles
to bear without the framework in place. He added that it would be good to figure out a way to
focus public attention on this specific site that is fair and possible within the limits of staff
manpower.
Mr. Rooker noted that this particular proposal started 2 years ago, long before DISC was out of
committee. "We early on, in our conversations and in our worksessions, tried to work in a
number of principles that we thought might come out Of DISC." Mr. Rooker emphasized that
there are a variety of landowners, and in order to make any plan work, there needs to be
participation of those landowners.
The Commission and staff discussed the 100-foot buffer, and what the buildings would look like
from the highway and any internal roads.
Mr. Rieley expressed his support for the 100-foot buffer.
20
Albemarle County Planning Commission - 6/27/00
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that the count3' has fairly restrictive sign requirements, noting that
many signs on Route 29 would not be allowed under present regulations.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that Route 29 is an Entrance Corridor, and any developmere will be
subject to ARB review.
Commissioners agreed that there needs to be an additional worksession when most
Commissioners are present. They agreed that there has not been significant public input until
tonight, and an additional worksession would be helpful in incorporating public input. Any
action can then take place after the worksession.
Ms. Hopper mentioned there may be something else. needed in addition to the specification of
buffer width to further the goal of limited visibility from Route 29.
Mr. Thomas commented that the elevation is as much of a factor as the buffer width, noting that
a 65,000 square foot building on a hill will be visible from 29.
Mr. Rooker said, "I don't think it would be possible to develop tha'~ site and hide the buildings
from Route 29... the idea is to ultimately end up with something that has an internal focus, that
doesn't announce itself as a billboard-type presentation for the community.."
Noting Mr. Runlde's comments, Ms. Hopper said that the name Town Center, or Neighborhood
Center, needs to be revisited.
Mr. Rieley said it may be helpful to disassociate the DISC language from this.
Ms. Hopper said that the proposed CPA language which states ,'low FAR uses of more than
65,000 square feet are generally not appropriate" may leave the door too open to larger
developments than 65,000 square feet.
Mr. Rooker suggested that it might be best to save language changes for the worksession when
all Commissioners are present.
Mr. Rieley commented ihat Mr. Benish and Mr. Cilimberg did an excellent job on this item.
The Commission agreed to hold a worksession, and take action at a later date.
The Commission took a 1 O-minute recess.
Mr. Cilimberg introduced Joan McDowell, a new county planner.
ZTA-99-007 Keswick - Proposed ordinance amendment by Keswick Corporation to Section
10.2.2.27 to allow expansions or enlargements of restaurants and inns to a maximum of 75
additional rooms and for uses and amenities incidental and related to the primary use with
approval of a special use permit.
Albemarle County Planning Commission - 6/27/00
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT D
Proposed Language to be added to the Hollymead Community Profile,
Recommendations (page 78)
The area designated as Town Center west of Route 29 and south Airport Road is
intended as a mixed use, high-intensity area containing a mixture of businesses,
services, public facilities, residential areas and one that attracts activities of all kind.
Nearby residential development will be of high enough densities to support many of
these uses.
This designation replaces the previous patchwork of regional service, office service
and industrial service areas in an effort to establish a more unified planning and
development process which implements the vision for development established
through the Development Area Initiative Study (DISC) process. (Attachment B, 1-
5-DISC volume 1, p. 35)
General Development/Design Guidelines
The following are general guidelines for the entire area designated as a Town Center in
the Hollymead community.
LAND USE and DENSITY
· Internal developed pattern within the Town Center area should generally follow the
principles the transect concept of the DISC neighborhood model (Attachment B,6
DISC volume 1, p. 35)
· A mix of residential and non-residential land uses shall be provided within the Town
Center, including Urban'Density Residential (6 to 34 du/ac.), Office Service,
Community Service, Public/Institutional uses including parks and greenways, and
compatible Regional Service and Industrial Service uses.
· Uses not considered desirable for this area include heavy industrial and
manufacturing uses, and other traditionally large land consuming uses, such as
warehousing (including self storage facilities), auto dealerships and larger scale
highway-oriented regional commercial uses located in a flee standing, big box
concept with large expanses of parking.
· Commercial development densities should consist of floor area ratios (FAR) between
a .5 to 1.0 (31/2 to 4 floors and shared or reduced parking) (Attachment B, 7--DISC
Volume 1, p. 97).
· Low FAR uses of more than 65,000 square feet are generally not appropriate.
However, compatible uses larger than 65,000 sq. ft. shall be multi-story structures and
otherwise meet recommended development criteria (up to 65,000 sq. ft./floor).
· A significant residential component is anticipated within the designated Town Center
area, both mixed with other commercial/office uses and within walking distance
(approx. ¼ mite from core commercial center
31
Development of this area shall be pursuant to approval of an overall development
plan for the Town Center area. Approval of Development Plans for a portion of the
Town Center Area may be necessary and appropriate in certain situations, but is less
desirable.
SITE DESIGN
· All building facades visible from a public road shall continue design elements present
on the front of the building.
· Orient buildings to street (parking behind buildings or within parking structures).
· Building should not appear monolithic. Massing, architectural features and
component structures (pods or multi-story) should be used to reduce the size,
footprint and presentation of large buildings. Uninterrupted facades should be
avoided.
· Incorporation of multi-story structures to consex:ve land and allow development of a
'critical mass' of uses; residential is an appropriate secondary use and is encouraged
above commercial/retail. Stand-alone residential also appropriate in an urban form.
· Site development should respect the terrain and use appropriate design techniques to
minimize clearing and grading activities.
· Roof design shall mitigate the visual impact of larger scale structures and associated
buildings, especially considering the general location of this area along a ridgeline.
SpeCial attention should also be given to the visibility of development from Route 29.
Loading docks, trash collection facilities, outdoor storage and related facilities shall
be iilCorporated into building design so they are not visible.
Metal buildings not permitted in Core Area
A system ofwalkways and/bikeways shall be included in site design.
Parking:
-All parking areas shall be limited to that required by the Zoning Ordinance.
-Parking should be centralized where appropriate. Cooperative parking arrangements
are encouraged where feasible.
-On-street parking shall be incorporated into road design.
-Large parking areas should be divided into smaller components and distributed
around or behind buildings, with trees and other landscaping material used to
minimize visual impacts and heat generated by large areas of pavement.
-Avoid locating parking areas between streets and buildings. '
This area is located adjacent to Route 29 and east of the proposed parallel road
The General Development/Design Guidelines apply to this area.
In addition:
-Development at an increased FAR (Floor Area Ratio) shall be encouraged to
conserve land and increase available open space for public use. A more compact
urban design approach, incorporating public space and is strongly encourage
-Building shall be oriented to the parallel road, or mid-block road.
-A minimum one hundred (100) feet undisturbed vegetative buffer shall be
maintained along Route 29 Noah, from .just south of the Timberwood Boulevard
extended to Hollymead Drive intersection. Augmentation of this buffer may' be
necessary with development of this area.
TRANSPOR TA TION
· Transit service should be provided as soon as operation is feasible and site design
shall accommodate future transit service.
· All roads should be designed with the intent of providing pedestrian friendly
neighborhood oriented streets. All roads in this area, including the north/south
parallel road, should be constructed as an urban cross-section, with sidewalks, bike
lanes and street landscaping. Lower design speeds and minimizing road width
(number of through lanes) should be encouraged. However, on-street parking should
be encouraged where appropriate.
· The north/south parallel road should be designed as a boulevard or commercial main
street, recognizing that while carrying a higher volume of traffic, it also serves as
important Neighborhood Street within the town center concept. As such, the road
needs to accommodate pedestrians, cyclists, transit service and contribute positively
to the character of the area (Attachment B, 8-10 DISC, Volume 1, p.p. 59,61).
· Pedestrian and bicycle systems and transit access shall be provided throughout the
town center, with a continuous walBvay and travel way provided from Airport Road
and Route 29 North.
Pedestrian activity is encouraged. Sidewalks on both sides of streets built 10 feet wide
in high-density areas; six feet minimum width elsewhere.
A park and ride lot shall be established near the town center area.
A network of subsidiary cross streets linking all major roads in a street block system
shall be established throughout the larger site. Linkages shall be made to existing
developed areas where possible (Deenvood, Forest Springs). ~ The established block
system shall utilize "walkable" blocks (Attachment B, 5-DISC Volume 1, p. 100-
101).
Access points to Route 29 North shall be limited to Timberwood Boulevard
Extended, the intersection at Hollymead Drive, and a midpoint in between (location
to be determined).
PUBLIC SPA CE AND PUBLIC FA CITIES/SER VICES
· Open space, recreation areas and public spaces shall'be provided to serve patrons,
employees, and community residents. Development of public open space/features
such as a public square, traffic circles, and '~pockct park(s)" are throughout the town
Center area.
· A greenway shall be established along the stream forming the western and southern
boundary of the Town Center designation and should include walking and bike trails
and other features/amenities. This greenway and associated trails should extend
across Route 29 to like to the residential areas east of Route 29 and ultimately to the
proposed greenway along Powell Creek.
· The Community Facilities Plan indicates a need for a public library and police
substation in the Hollymead Community. These facilities should be provided in the
Town Center area. Parking for the Library could be used as a public parking lot.
· Space shall be made available for a recycling center (not counted against square
footage limits).
55
ENVIRONMENT
· Regional stormwater facilities shall be established to serve this portion of the
Hollymead Community.
· Exemplary specimen or old growth trees that may exist in this area shall be preserved
to the extent practicable.
· Area landscaping shall minimize water requirements
· Principles of sustainable design shall be incorporated to a significant extent in site
development, including use of natural lighting within buildings, green roof
technology, energy efficiency.
ATTACHMENT D
COMMENTS ON POST OFFICE LAND TRUST/THEATRE PROPOSAL
Public Hearing-Albemarle Planning Commission
June 27, 2000
Bruce Appleyard
Southern Environmental Law Center
Good evening, my name is Bruce Appleyard, I am the transportation
and Land Use Planner for the Southern Environmental Law Center.
SELC strongly supports DISC and its vision of vibrant, mixed
use, pedestrian-friendly communities. We also support the
concept of a town center for the Hollymead/Forest Lakes area that
is appropriately scaled, easily accessible and thoughtfully
designed. Further, we support developers'that want to.work
together to design their properties so that they become more
livable environments. And finally, we applaud your initiative to
incorporate'the DISC principles into the Comprehensive Plan in a
timely manner.
We are deeply concerned, however, that theT csu~posed r .
amendment before you will not achieve the promise of DISC, but
instead will lead to the development of a substantial auto-
oriented regional shopping area. Such development would
overwhelm the area with traffic and growth, rather than provide a
viable town center for the' Hollymead community. We are equally
concerned that a development built according to DISC in name only
will undermine DISC's ability to successfully guide the future
growth of the county.
A central question we need to ask ourselves aboht this
proposal is whether this is the best location for a Town Center
for the Hollymead area. Our concern is that this location is
effectively isolated from the community it is meant to serve by a
high-Speed highway. Route 29, which KDOT plans to widento as
many as 1t lanes, will effectively prevent pedestrian access to
this center, violating the first principle in the DISC
Neighborhood Model. While there is a subterranean crossing.
specified in the CPA, this would be an indirect and insufficient
link.
Moreover, the designation of this site as the "Town Center" may
preclude the development of a more appropriate center on the
eastern side of 29 that is more accessible to the
Hollymead/Forest Lakes communities. We suggest, as DISC outlines,
that the County undertake a master plan process for the entire
growth area that identifies, among other things, more appropriate
sites fora town center.
~.- -, under both current zoning and the proposal before you,
the development permitted is likely to be scattershot and auto-
oriented. We are concerned that a 16-screen multiplex is out of
H:\Word\LCP - Virginia\Albemarle\POLT-pubhrg-com2
35
scale with the needs of this community. To put this in
perspective, right now Charlottesville and Albemarle have a total
of 18 screens. Clearly, this use would attract people from the
entire region, causing tremendous traffic impacts and requiring
substantial space for parking.
We ~ believe that developing the 175 acres addressed by
the amendment before you in a comprehensive fashion under the
guiding principles of DISC has merit.
If you decide topursue the amendment before you, here are some
suggested changes to make this more consistent with DISC
principles:
Change designation of these 175 acres from Town Center
to Neighborhood Center so that this site is not seen as
the sole center of the community.
Allow higher FARs than 1. This amendment specifies a FAR
range of .5 to 1. Increasing this cap will permit
development more in line with the DISC model.
Strengthen requirements for mixed use development to
insure that residential units are included in the
development of this site
Strengthen pedestrian and bicycle requirements. The
current amendment does not adequately address the need
~.:for better pedestrian access across Route 29. We suggest
~mlhatyou require the developer to work with VDOT to
.~ensure that an effective link is constructed from this
site to the Hollymead/Forest Lakes community.
Thank you
2
ATTACHMENT D
John D. Oliver
3009 Copper Knoll Rd
Charlottesville, VA 22911
To:
Mr. Charles Martin
Ms. Tracey Hopper
Mr. David Bennish
Dear Sirs/Madam:
As a resident of Forest Lakes and current Community Association Board Member, I have
been extremely interested and involved in CPA 98-03 since I first heard about it last year.
I am writing to relay my comments since I will be unable to attend the Public Hearing on
27 June.
The Forest Lakes area currently has a wonderful quality of life. My primary concern is
that this quality of life is going to decline as inevitable development overruns and
overcrowds this area. Without proper planning, this will likely occur.
I have reviewed the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA 98-03) and the
proposed language to be added to the Hollymead Community Profile (dated May 23).
The plan is to designate approximately 640 acres as a "Town Center". :.While I believe
the Town Center idea is sound and would complement this area nicely if implemented
correctly and to the appropriate scale~ I have the following concerns and
recommendations:
Local vs. Regional Attractions - Ideally, the Town Center should serve the local
population, rather than serve as a regional draw. The proposed 16-theater
megaplex that was the impetus for this Comprehensive Plan Amendment is a huge
regional attraction that will draw traffic from surrounding counties and from all
over Albemarle County. Traffic is going to be bad enough when this area is fully
developed. Do we need to make it worse by encouraging development such as
this? A smaller-scale theater of say 4 or 5 screens would certainly be ideal for a
local Town Center and be more in-line with the pedestrian-friendly design that is
envisioned. The first establishments in the Town Center should set the tone for
the types of development that are desired in the future. A megaplex doesn't fit
that role. I recommend that you establish and enforce guidelines that will prevent
regional attractions such as this, with their large expanses of parking, from
locating within this area.
,
Open Space - I am concemed that the development density of this area will be
increased to the point where aesthetics and open, green spaces will be sacrificed.
Is it a wise decision to try to cram as much development into the growth areas as
possible? The majority of residents in Albemarle will live and work in these
areas. By sacrificing all or most of the existing forests and open/green space, you
· 37
will create an ugly concrete and asphalt landscape where no one wants to live or
work. As a result, the high quality of life we enjoy today will decline. I
recommend that you require a substantial amount of open or undisturbed space in
the Town Center and enforce this requirement in all subsequent development
applications. Along the same lines, I recommend that you maintain the
requirement for a minimum 100 foot undisturbed vegetative buffer along Rt. 29.
Without such a buffer, this area will look exactly like the existing commercial
strip along Rt. 29. While the size of the buffer may have to vary in certain
circumstances, it is best to plan for the desired state, rather than waver at the
beginning.
3. Roads - An efficient network of roads will be necessary to support the planned
density. Don't plan for minimum road sizes based on unrealistic expectations of
mass transit usage. Mass transit is simply too inconvenient in many cases, so 'like
it or not private cars are going to be the transportation mode of choice for the
foreseeable future. Furthermore, unless a pedestrian bridge or tunnel is built
across or under Rt. 29, vehicular traffic will be virtually the only option. As such,
please plan the roads accordingly and also recommend to VDOT that a pedestrian
bridge/tunnel be considered. Charlottesville and Albemarle already have enough
traffic woes due to inadequate road infrastructure. If dense development in the
growth areas is the plan, then you must build the road infrastructure to
support it. To do otherwise is simply bad planning and will result in unnecessary
......... traffic congestion and pollution.
,: 2lhope you will consider my input during this process. If you have any questions,
please contact me at 980-7956. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
/s/John D. Oliver
M. CLIFTON McCLURE
ROBERT M. CALLAGHAN
D. MICHAEL ATKINS
KENNETH P. BUCCI
ATTACHMENT D
THE LAW OFFICES OF
McCLURE, CALLAGHAN & ATK1NS
SUITE 200
415 FOURTH STREET, N.E.
P.O. BOX 1333
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902
June 21, 2000
RECEIVED
JUN 2 2 2000
PLANNING AN5
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TELEPHONE
(804) 977-6222
FAX
(804) 977-8190
E-MAIL
MCALBCSTONE.NET
Mr. Wayne Cilimberg
Director of Planning
Cohnty of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Re: CPA-98-03 Post Office Land
Trust/Theater
Dear Wayne:
Wendell Wood has asked that I respond to his conversation
with you today. He states that he does not wish to participate
in the above request unless his existing underlying designation
of Regional Service will be recognized. As you are aware, he
made several proffers (i.e.'agreed to build affordable housing in
the form of the mobile home park; agreed to limit his entrances
and exits on U.S. Highway 29 to three and constructed the sewer
line to the Airport at a savings of $300,000.00 to the County) in
order to obtain the regional service designation. If you will
check your file, Mr. Wood was asked if he would build the mobile
home park without these conditions and he said he would not.
These properties which are being considered for a "town
center" are under multiple ownership and, therefore, he believes
it would be highly unlikely that this could be developed with one
overall plan. While the "town center" may look good on paper,
Mr. Wood believes it would be practically impossible to achieve.
Mr. Wood has two major concerns with the new concept.
First, a one hundred foot (100') undisturbed buffer from U.S.
Highway 29 is an economically unfeasible burden. Some parcels
are only three hundred feet (300') deep and this would place
twenty-five percent (25%) of the land in the setback area. It is
unfair for the owners of the frontage to give up twenty-five
percent (25%) of their land to benefit the property owners behind
them, who give up none. Secondly, if the size of the stores is
limited this concept becomes too restrictive. Already, there are
few, if any, sites that will allow for a large department store.
Mr. Wood would be willing to modify his position if these items
could be addressed.
39
Mr. Wayne Cilimberg
June 21, 2000
page 2
The proffers Mr. Wood made in 1992 were made in good faith
and he has fulfilled all of his commitments and has implemented
his agreements in his plans for eight years.
Mr. Wood sincerely hopes the County will abide by his
proffers.
Very truly yours,
M. ClifDon McClure
MCM/ap
ATTACHMENT D
Piedmont Environmental Council
~ ~ tit ~H ~ ' )c I I ~rc H~ '< 'iH ~f] tl ~' 1 ~i~ 'c ~1 ~ ~, H ~ t'~ ,'ctl ~ '('~, ~ n ~ ~/. l ~c H~ ,'c H t'~ ~5c ~t n'c '~ % hi~t~ ~l'~ f <, )c I t ~ '~ I~ ~t~ )
Amendment to the Community Facilities Plan
CPA-98-03 Post O~ce Land TrusSheater
Statement to the Albemarle County Planning Co~ssion - June 27, 2000
I am Jeff Wemer and' I represent the Piedmont Environmental Council. The PEC was created in 1972 to protect the
rural landscape of Albemarle and the Piedmont. Recehtly, the PEC participated directly in the County's DISC
effort.
This proposed CPA was, without a doubt, intriguing when first reviewed. However, we are concerned that the
DISC lexicon within the text is inappropriately applied. The Staff Report touts the intent of this new land-use
designation as one that is "consistent with the principles of DISC." The DISC process is designed around
community involvement and the master planning process. Neither appears to have occurred here. In the pamphlet
Planning Livable Albemarle Neighborhoods--A Closer Look at DISC the principles of DISC 'are outlined. In it are
also reviewed the following eight steps for community involvement and the master planning process required to
apply the Neighborhood Model.
1. Conduct a Community Visioning process.
2. Assemble a group of residents, property owners, etc. to develop a Master Plan based on the Community
Vision.
3. Identify existing conditions and features including natural and man-made landscape.
4. Identify existing neighborhoods and locate (emphasis added) neighborhood centers.
5. Review and assess relationships of existing neighborhoods to the undeveloped properties, etc.
6. Decide what is desired for the undeveloped properties and the Development Area.
7. Create a detailed Development Area Master Plan.
8. Provide implementation strategies.
We do not suggest that the development of this site or that the complete application of DISC principles in that
development is not worthy of discussion and consideration. We simply suggest that as this proposal is currently
worded there have been no DISC processes applied. This site will simply be designated the community's "center."
From the perspective of what could happen on this site, there are models in Virginia and in other 'communities for a
suburban, mixed-use town center. Using models like Reston and the Village at Shirlington as case studies for this
type of modern town center complex, this 175-acre site could conceivably yield an enormous square footage of new
buildings--and an incredible level of new vehicular traffic. Should the plan be to move away from the Reston and
Shiftington models then this town center would move towards reduced density versus its potential. A low-density
town centei' that uses 175 acres of Growth Area land is, again, contrary to DISC. Within the range of possibilities,
where will this project fall?
The rudimentary use of a grid and an allusion to general mixed-uses without a public broad visioning process does
not constitute an application of the DISC model nor, for that matter, the creation of any true town center. A letter
attached to the Staff Report discusses one owner's concern that the current Regional Service designation be
maintained under this new plan. This is a plan for an automobile destination and not a pedestrian or multi-modal
destination for the residents of the adjacent subdivisions. Quite simply, then, this CPA is not DISC.
We are in no way offering opposition to the applicant's right to develop these parcels in any manner or under any
description they choose that is within the limits of the current Code or within a reasonable zoning amendment. The
allusion to DISC is our concern. There are three parts of DISC. The processes, the principles and the promise of
what DISC can do. There is a responsibility that one must adhere to when applying DISCs twelve principles to any
project. How have they been addressed within this CPA? When the criteria required by DISC has been met then
this CPA will warrant a more enthusiastic response from the PEC as a means to apply DISC. Otherwise, this CPA
should be called what it is. Not a community's center or a town's center but, simply, a suburban mixed-use zone.
RO. BOx 460 · Warrenlon. Virginia · 20188 ° 540-347-2334 · Fax 540-349-9003
t I I I Rose Hill Drive · Suite One * Charlottes;'ille, Virginia ,, 22903 ° 804-977-2033 ,, Fax 804-977-6306
130 west Main Sir°el ° St tile 2OG ° P.C). P, ox 2GG · C)ran,Qe. Vir.~inia 22960 ° 540-672-O141 ° Fax 540-672-62(~5
ATTACHMENT D
Work Session
....... CpA .9~03 post, office. Land T~st
Mr. Cilimberg presented the staff report, noting that the area under consideration for the
Town Center is intended to be ~signated for a combination of uses - regional, office,
industrial, residential - which is not currently recommended for this area in the Land Use
Plan. He explained that staff has tried to provide enhanced guidelines which articulate
the county' s expectations for development in this area, which encourages a more
cohesive development pattern, and discourages piecemeal strip development to create a
more defined more pedestrian-friendly destination point that includes residential
development. Mr. Cilimberg said that the most significant impact of the proposed
amendment to uses permitted under the current Land Use Plan recommendations would
be regarding very large land consuming buildings and parking areas with low floor-area
ratio; the amendment discourages this type of development.
Mr. Cilimberg said that at the last meeting, the Commission asked staff to come back
with input on the county's capacity to incorporate an expanded public process in further
review of the proposal. Staff outlined three approaches: not doing anything until the
Hollymead Neighborhood Plan iS done; undertaking a master planning process for the
Town Center area similar to what is recommended by DISC; and conducting additional.,
community meetings in Hollymead to present the current amendment proposal and
receive public comment. He noted that due to funding, staff workload and availability,
the last:two options would take several months to one year to execute.
Mr. Cilimberg continued that Commissioners had raised concerns previously about
requiring a 100-foot tree buffer along Route 29, and questions were raised as to whether
it could be provided on site and allow sufficient area for development of the properties
which front Route 29. He said that the staff recommends that the amendment language
be modified to continue to recommend the 100-foot buffer when possible, but also
recognize that some flexibility may be needed in the width of the buffer, or there may
need to be alternatives to maintaining the buffer to allow some properties to develop.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that staff has provided recommendations for designation as a Town
Center versus a Neighb. orhood Center.
Mr. Rooker commented that in the context of DISC, this proposal doesn't call for any
more intense development than what DISC illustrates.
Mr. Cili'mberg said staff is trying to contrast Town Center, which is on a somewhat more
regional scale - to a Neighborhood Center, which is a little more local. "Certainly, under
the Development Area Initiatives approach, you're going to have to have some places
that are regional in nature."
Mr. Cilimberg emphasized that the important thing to remember is that the Town Center
proposal is intended to provide an alternative to the traditional sprawling style of
Planning Commission - September 12, 2000
543
42
ATTACHMENT D
development that cotrid otherwise occur under the current Land Use Plan for this area.
"It's really intended to identify a different form for these.types of uses than we have seen
along 29, particularly south of the river."
Mr~ R6oker c0mm~nte'd; "One ofthe'things ~e'i'e Ii~oka~tg at, obviously,' is' an inward ' '
focused development, rather than a development that' s focused toward the highways."
He added that his understanding is that the DISC model can accommodate a variety of
uses - some very intense, some not as intense. "I haven't. certainly forseen anything
we've done so far as necessarily precluding most kinds of commercial development in
some form .... we don't necessarily see that if DISC is adopted, you will never see another
large department store built in Albemarle County, it's just that ifa large department store
is built, we would expect to see it take a certain form and fit into the community perhaps
in a certain way."
Mr. Finley asked, "What is the town, though, would the town have a name?"
Mr. Cilimberg replied, "It's not really identifying a town, it's identifying a center for an
area, and the area is Hollymead here .... it's a large development area in our Comp. Plan
that is - in some sense - expected to be a center for employment-generating uses,
residential development, and commercial development. The Town Center becomes one
the focal point areas wihtin that kind of commtmity, which is what is designated in our
plan."
Mr. Rooker commented that he understood the area in question to~be ,approximately 180
acres, which is about the size of the neighborhoods considered in the DISC model. He
asked about the original 641 acres originally considered with this CPA.
Mr. Cilimberg responded, "The 641 [acres] really was that southwest quadrant of the
Airport Road/29 intersection, and as we refined this in your work, we really got into this
more specific area of 180 acres." He added that the Post Office Land Trust application
was actually much less than that initially.
Mr. Rooker suggested that the exact acreage in question be clarified prior to a formal
public hearing.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the Commission did hold a formal public hearing in their
last review of this, so there is not a requirement for that; the Board will have to hold one.
Mr. Finley asked if in the future, when Neighborhood Models are employed, if this will
be called Town Center.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that what it's called now in the DISC model is "Center," and
what it will eventually be labeled will be a function of the master plans done for each
neighborhood and community.
Planning Commission - September 12, 2000
544
43
ATTACHMENT D
Mr. Rooker pointed out that this is a potential change to the Comprehensive Plan as it
exists today, and this was going to be called a "Tom Center," and if DISC is adopted,
the name may change.
....... 'Mr~ Cilimb~i~g responded ~a~'thii 'Sbiiai~C"pioiioiiil'2'Giffi' iti'/nix'o~ uiei inclUdini .....
residential, pedestrian access, and street network - takes on the characteristics of small
center tom area.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that staff needs to adjust statements regarding floor area ratio, so
that the .5 to 1 is not the only range offered. He added that staff also wants to include
language that has recommendations on how pedestrian bicycle access can be provided
within and leading to the Town Center. Mr. Cilimberg said staff also wants tO amend the
text to include recommendations for road design and classification for Town Center
streets. He emphasized that there has been some concern that VDOT's plans for parallel
roads and Route 29 may not mesh with this proposal. He suggested that through
amending the plan, the county can establish a network of streets and a classification of
streets to be proactive with VDOT.
Mr. Rooker agreed that establishing a road pattern is highly important, and stated that it is
vital to articulate a vision before VDOT's location hearings on Route 29 North
improvements in December.
Mr. Cilimberg concluded that provided the COmmissiOn will not have an extended public
proce-~:s~; and is agreeable to the points that have been made, staff can bring the CPA back
to thel:Commission and move it onto the Board of Supervisors. "One thing that ultimately
getting'this adopted does for us not only gives us something we can work with developers
on with their proposals, but it gives us something the county has adopted that we can tell
VDOT 'this is our plan. "'
Mr. Finley asked if the road system would be ~nalized by the developer then brought to
Planning staff.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that the roads would first go into the plan, then as development
proposals come in, a street network will have been identified and worked within. He
indicated that the plan will also require VDOT to work their road alignments within that
accepted pattern.
Mr. Rieley said that it is important to be specific that thepedestrian/bicycle access needs
to extend across Route 29. "We should think about the pedestrian and bike access in the
same systematic way that we are thinking about the road network... in order for the
strategy that you outlined... to be effective, we need to be very specific with the location
of the roads. They need to have a feasible vertical and horizontal alignment that' s
defensible, and they need to be a solid, identifiable location on the ground, and not open
to a lot of interpretation."
Planning Commission- September 12, 2000 545
ATTACHMENT D
Mr. Rooker said that there was a pedestrian access study done along 29, and there is a
long range plan that includes potential pedestrian overpasses. "There has to be some way
to get people from the east side of the road to the west side of the road without them
haying to get into their car and..d~f.ve a m~e to get b~k imoa cent .er_ ~_at__may be ~00
yards away."
Mr. Cilimberg responded that the Board of Supervisors is expected to receive a
presentation on the 29 pedestrian plans in October, noting that 29 itself is going to cut
through the heart of Hollymead.
Mr. Rooker commented, "For too long, Route 29 has been the Great Wall of China in the
community. We need to find ways to improve on that; this is a great place to make a start
on that."
Mr. Rooker said he felt fai~y satisfied with the 'changes as recommended for the text in
this CPA, and added that it is very important to continue to move forward with this
process, especially in light of VDOT's plans. He agreed that staff could come back with
some draft language with the points discussed at this meeting, and asked fellow
Commissioners if there should be a public hearing on the final text. ~
Mr. Rooker noted that he would be in favor of having one more public hearing on the ',
proposed final language. "I don't think that we should drop back into... an early part of
DISC procedural aspect with this, and all of the sudden deploy a process that has not yet
been adopted as the process for moving forward with changes to the ComprehensiVe Plan
yet. I think that would put this back to some point where, we were perhaps 2 years ago,
when we were trying to decide with respect to this area~ the sizeof the area we would
look at, the various considerations that should be included, including transportation and
other things .... I'm not in favor of adopting one of these three procedures that would put
us back to a point where we were some time ago on this particular matter."
Mr. Finley asked what would have to happen for Planning to proceed with development
of road systems, etc.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that the first step is a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and the
inclusion of this in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Thomas agreed with Mr. Rooker's comments, and said he appreciated the 100-foot
buffer change to include "where it can be done."
Mr. Rieley commented that the 100-foot buffer was never suggested as a mechanism to
limit development, but was intended more to provide Separation and to establish character
of that section of 29. "As we make modifications in order to allow a particularly narrow
piece of property to be developed, I think we should keep in mind that we need to utilize
other mechanisms to achieve the same goal of separation of 29 and inward orientation of
the development."
Planning Commission - September 12, 2000 546
ATTACHMENT D
Mr. Craddock agreed with Mr. Rooker'~ suggestion for one more hearing on the
proposed final language.
Mr. Cilimberg said that staff will provide final language for adoption, which could be
brought before 'the 'C~mmission on the same ni~t'aS the final pUbliC hearing. ........
Mr. Rooker stated that there must be time for input into what goes into the VDOT
December public hearing. "I would hope that ottr plans for the area might also get
presented at that public heating."
Mr. Finley asked if a motion was needed.
Mr. Cilimberg said no, adding that staff will go ahead and get the hearing advertised,
probably by the middle of October.
Fellow Commissioners agreed.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
V Wa~erg
' ' Secr~
Planning Commission - September 12, 2000
547
46
SoutherI1
Environmental
Law Center
201 West Main Street, Suite 14
Charlottesville, VA 22902-5065
804-977-4090
Fax 804-977-1483
selcva@selcva.org
October 30, 2000
The Honorable Charles S. Martin, Chair
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Dear Mr./~tin:
I am writing each member of the Board out of concern that
almost all discussion of the proposed Albemarle County Historic
Preservation Plan at the public hearing last week and in the press
has been based on misunderstandings of the nature of the decision
the Board is being asked to make at this time, as well as
misunderstandings of the nature of private property rights.
The Southern Environmental Law Center, which works to promote
sensible growth and to protect the resources of this region,
strongly supports the proposed plan. It is imperative that the
County act to protect its unique, irreplaceable cultural and
historic resources in order to help preserve our heritage, protect
our rural character, foster a strong quality of life, and promote
healthy economic growth. I was pleased that virtually every speaker
at the public hearing recognized the importance of historic
preservation and the overall preservation plan. My purpose in
writing, however, is not to expand upon the reasons supporting
adoption of the plan. Instead, I would like to address briefly two
sources of confusion that have dominated much of the discussion-.
The Nature of the Preservation Plan
First, as you noted in opening the public hearing, what is
before the Board at this time is a preservation plan rather than a
specific ordinance. More than a dozen speakers at the public
hearing, as well as numerous statements reported by the press, fail
to recognize the significance of this distinction and appear to
confuse and to conflare the two, criticizing the plan because they
claim it takes a "heavy-handed," "mandatory" approach that would
impose "enormous burdens" upon property owners.
The plan that has been proposed does discuss the need for a
historic district overlay ordinance that would contain mandatory
provisions, and it recognizes the weakness of purely voluntary
preservation controls. The footnote on page 38 that has been cited
Carolinas Office: 200 West Franklin St., Suite 330 · Chapel Hill, NC 27516-2520 · 919-967-1450
Deep South Office: The Candler Building · 127 Peachtree St., Suite 605 · Atlanta, GA 30303-1800 · 404-521-9900
I00% recycled paper
as the primary cause of concern with the plan states in relevant
parts that "The Historic Preservation Committee believes that a
preservation program that relies solely on voluntary action is
inherently inadequate" and that the "Committee concludes that
voluntary measures are necessary and the plan encourages their
continued and expanded use, but as several other localities in
Virginia have already learned, they are not sufficient to
effectively protect the broad spectrum of our cultural heritage."
These statements reflect the conclusions and recommendations of the
Committee, but do not either constitute or guarantee adoption of
any particular ordinance. The Committee has merely carried out the
County's charge and the language of the Historic Resources section
of the County's current Comprehensive Plan that there be a study of
and recommendation regarding the need for a local historic overlay
district and a local historic district ordinance.
The other language in the plan that has been criticized is the
statement that "The most important recommendation of this Plan is
that Albemarle County should adopt a Historic Overlay District
zoning ordinance to ensure protection of its outstanding collection
of historic and cultural resources." (p.. 29). Yet as the wording
of this statement clearly indicates, this is merely a
recommendation that an ordinance be adopted.
No ordinance language is before you at this time. There is
nothing to prevent the Board from adopting the proposed plan and
later deciding not to adopt an ordinance or to adopt a purely
voluntary ordinance. Far from imposing mandatory requirements on
property owners, if you adopt the plan before you, there will not
be a single additional regulation of a single parcel of land in the
County as a result of that action.
The Nature of Private Property Rights
The sweeping statements that have been made that the plan ~
and/or a subsequent ordinance would impermissibly violate private
property rights seem to be based upon misconceptions about the
nature of these rights in our society. There are legitimate
concerns with the appropriate scope of any ordinance that involves
private property; however, it is also important to recognize and to
properly characterize the exeensive legal protections and doctrines
that exist in the United States and in the Commonwealth of Virginia
to protect private property rights.
Several comments at the public hearing and in the press
reflect-an absolutist view of private property rights that
individuals should be able to do whatever they wish with their
property and that any infringement upon this right is improper.
This position finds absolutely no support in the law. Private
property rights have never been absolute; they cannot be used in a
way that would harm or injure neighboring property owners, and they
may be regulated to protect and promote the public health,
2
education, and welfare. Although courts and legislatures struggle
to strike the appropriate balance between private and public
interests, there should be no question that there is a balance to
be struck.
Governmental provisions often limit what can be done with
private property. For example, I cannot build a skyscraper on my
property in a residential neighborhood, or open a toxic waste dump
there; commercial buildings are required to install fire
sprinklers; and in dozens of counties, cities, and towns throughout
Virginia, property owners must adhere to a historic preservation
ordinance.
The proposed Albemarle County Historic Preservation Plan, as
well as an ordinance based on the recommendations in the plan,
would not impermissibly interfere with private property rights. In
Penn Centra] Transportation Co. v. New York, 438 U.S. (1978), the
United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of New
York City's historic preservation ordinance. It specifically
upheld the purpose of the regulation, eliminating any question that
zoning for historic preservation is permissible.
In short, the proposed plan does not constitute an ordinance.
The details of any specific provisions must be worked out in the
future. Moreover, in crafting a preservation ordinance, provisions
such as protecting historic resources from demolition without a
permit and requiring approval of new construction in historic areas
are entirely permissible. Of course, the balance the County
chooses to strike between historic resource protection and the
interests of individual property owners will require careful
consideration.
I appreciate your attention to these important issues. Please
contact me if you have any questions about this letter, or would
like to discuss any of these issues further.
Sincerely,
Trip Pollard
Senior Attorney ~
Land and Community Project Leader
cc:
Bob Tucker
Larry Davis
UNITED LAND CORPORATION OF AMERICA
October 31, 2000
Mr. Charles Martin, Chairman
Members of the Board
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: CPA 98-03
Ladies and 'Gentlemen:
I represent the interests of 11 out of the total 13 land owners whose property is ·
included in the proposed Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. While I support the
efforts of the Post office Land Trust in rezoning ~what I understand is approximately 20
of 180 acres mentioned in the 'proposal, I do not support the CPA insofar as it affects
property owners whom I represe. nt. '.
I am not opposed to DISC. I am not opposed to a generalized, integrated plan of
development for this area. I am not opposed to the efforts of the Post Office Land :Trust,
and others to rezone their property for commercial uses. I am opposed to this proposal
because it is premature, impractical, and incomplete. ..
1. Reliance on the 1996 Plan. Most of you will recall that in 1995, I sought and
obtained a rezoning in this area for a mobile home park. That proposal was supported,
even encouraged, by this Board in order to provide affordable housing in Albemarle
County. As a material inducement for my developing affordable housing, the land use
designation for approximately 50 acres West of Ronte 29 was designated Regional
Service.. (See pages 79-83, Land Use Plan, adopted June 5, 1996).
In1996, I also agreed t° limit the number of Route 29 entrances to the 50-acre
property (made up of a total of 11 parcels, 8 of which have Route 29 frontage) to 3,
thereby relinquishing 5 other entrances that those properties could have maintained, by
right. Also, developing ihe 50 acres under Regional Service was to be delayed until 100
mobile home sims were built. The owners of those properties and others with a real
financial stake, relied on those 1996 actions. Obviously, I would not have agreed to those
concessions and relied to my detriment, if I had expected the use designation to change as
it is proposed in CPA 98-03.
(804)'975-3334 (804)975-0267
PiO. Box 5548 [] Charlottesville, Virginia 22905 · (81a,l~lll:l Fax k~g3g4~~
I did not request this CPA. As far hs I carl t~ll, the. Board did not initiate this
CPA. What has changed to prompt the Board to abandon its long-standing, and reliable
procedures for CPAs? . ::. . .. ...: .. ,.:
2. Public Input.' Where is the wisdom in proceeding with so sweeping a ch~ge
without the public input Albemarle residents have come:~ e:~pect? ': i am speakin~ fo'~
least 11 property owners with direct interests in this matter. None of these owners
received formal notice of this proposal. This is a major departure'from Countyland"
planning procedures.
The County' s own staff admits that it may be appropriate to defer action on this
overall plan amendment until after completing a Neighborhood. Plan for Hollymead.. (See
page 21, Exhibit D of your packet). "Public input and participation iS a key component
of the neighborhood plan development." Id. Obviously, the Board should defer
consideration of this matter at least until the neighborhood plan can be developed.
3. Town Center. The proposal incorporates the elements of DISC, without the
benefit of any practical consideration at this location. It seems odd that the references to
"DISC" have been removed from the proposal. Yet, the principles of DISC remain.
(Compare pages 31 and 33 to pages 9 and 11). Is there a reason for this?
The FAR recommendations for commercial development will not work. For
example, a .75 FAR for a grocery store would require parking decks. in order to meet
parking needs. How will grocery customers get their purchases to their cars? I have
contimed with experts in urban planning with real-life experience in developing retail
centers, and these FARs at this type of location will not work. I would ask that you
consider the views of experts with actual experience in this type of development before
proceeding.
In addition to parking decks, the recommended density, coupled with a 4:1
parking requirement, will likely result in, at a minimum two-story retail structures. This
will effectively eliminate the likelihood of a supermarket or other retail anchor stores
from locating in this area. Multi-story supermarkets and retail anchor stores, with
parking decks, in addition to being expensive to build, are completely inappropriate
except in high density, populated areas.
Fundamentally, is this the best location for a Town Center? The predominately
residential uses are on the East side of Route 29. Is it realistic to expect that Forest
Lakes residents will walk to the West side of Route 29 to shop when they drive to the
Food Lion on the East side now?
Would it not-be more appropriate to examine the Town Center concept in its first
impression in an'area that is at least somewhat densely developed, closer to the more
urban center of Charlottesville, than the Airport Road area? Are there not areas, with
more realistic prospects. for; compatible, reSidential/commercial development, where
people will actually 'walk to shop?
The Town Center would be more appropriate where one owner controls a large,
unified tract. When you have as many as 13 property owners, as is the case with this
CPA, how do you fairly allocate the uses among property owners? Which property
owner receives the commercial or high density zoning, and which property receives the
"right" to build a park? Who gets to build the fire'station?. "'
The restrictive design criteria, in their current version, are not likely to succeed at
this location. Wouldn't it make more sense to introduce some of the Town Center
concepts in those areas where. there would be.less likelihood of failure? ·
4. Transportation improvements. The proposal is severely lacking in realistic
solutions to future transportation needs. The proposal recommends that the north/south
parallel road should be designed as a "Main Street" as defined in DISC. Yet, VDOT's
Route 29 corridor plans call for a major collector in this location. Even assuming that a
developer wanted to build what DISC recommends, who would invest in such a plan for
development, with VDOT's current position being what it is?
The proposal recommends grade-separated crossings at Timberwood Blvd.,
Hollymead Drive, and one more at the mid-point of these two intersections. Who is going
to build these? The County? VDOT?
The proposal contains no recommendation on such fundamental planning issues
as Route 29 corridor improvements. Would this be prudent planning to proceed without
authoritative analysis on this major element?
5. Conclusion. I am not opposed to DISC. I am not opposed to a generalized,
integrated plan of development for this area. I am not opposed to the efforts of the Post
Office Land Trust, and others to rezone their property for commercial uses. I am
opposed to this proposal because it is premature, impractical, and incomplete.
Sincerely,
Wendell W. Wood
President
NOVEMBER I, ~000
CLOSED SESSION MOTION
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD GO INTO CLOSED SESSION
PURSUaNt TO SeCtiON 2. i-344(a) of the CODE Of VirgiNia
· UNDER SUBSECTION (I) TO CONSIDER APPOINTMENTS TO
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.
David R Bow~rman
Lindsay G. Dottier, Jr.
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
COUNTY OF AIREMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mdntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Walter E Perkins
Whi~e Hall
Salh; H. Thomas
Samud Miller
November 2, 2000
Mr. Vernon W. Jones
Rt. 2, Box 357
Crozet, VA 22932
Dear Mr. Jones:
At the Board of Su pervisors meeting held on November 1, 2000, you were reappointed to the
Industrial Development Authority, with said term to run from January 20, 2001 through January 19, 2005.
I have enclosed an updated roster for your convenience.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for
your willingness to continue to serve the County in this capacity.
CSM/lab
Sincerely,
Charles S. Martin
Chairman
Enclosure
cc: James L. Camblos, III
Larry Davis
Shelby J. Marshall
James B. Murray, Jr.
Printed on recycled paper
David P. Bowerman
Lindsay G. Dottier, Jr.
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
COUNTY OF ALB~
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4595
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Rivatma
Walter E Perkins
White Hall
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miger
November 2, 2000
Chief John Miller
401 Mclntire Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Chief Miller:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on November 1. 2000, you were reappointed to the
James River Alcohol Safety Action Program, with said term to run from January 2, 2001 through
Jan!Jary 1, 2004.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for
your willingness to continue to serve the County ,in this capacity.
CSM/lab
Sincerely,
Charles S, Martin
Chairman
cc: James L. Camblos, III
Larry Davis
Rita Moore
Printed on recycled paper
David P. Bowerman
Rio
LindsayG. Dottier, Jr.
Charlotto Y. Hurnphris
Jack Joue~t
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Nlclntire Road
Charlottesville, V~rginia 229024596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804} 296-5800
Chade~ S. Martin
Rivarma
Walter E Perkins
Wl~te
Sally H. Thomas
November 2, 2000
Mr. Stephen F. Ashby
3023 Colonial Dr.
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Dear Mr. Ashby:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on November 1, 2000, you were reappointed to the
Single-Occupant Vehicle Alternatives Committee, with said term to run from January 13, 2001 through
January 12, 2003.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for
your willingness to continue to serve the County in this capacity.
CSM/lab
Sincerely,
Charles S. Martin
Chairman
Enclosure
cc: James L. Camblos, III
Larry Davis
Nancy K. O'Brien
Printed on recycled paper
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Members of the Board of Supervisors
Laurie i~t~,~,CCi~rMi~C~
Senior
October 27, 2000
Vacancies on Boards and Commissions
I have updated the list of vacancies on boards and commissions through
January 31, 2000. Please advise me if you want me to advertise any of the vacancies.
Thank you.
cc: Bob Tucker Larry Davis
Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce
BOARD OR COMMISSION
JORDAN DEVELOPMENT
CORPORA TION
I(Readvertised; applications due
11/22/00)
! JAUNT BOARD
· i'l~'a'~tised; applications due
11/22/00)
(Readvertised; applications due
11/22/00)
COMMISSION ON CHILDREN
AND FAMILIES
(Applications sent under separate
COVEF)
ARCHITECTURAL ;~EVi'~'l~'
BOARD
(Applications sent under separate
COVeF)
(Not readve~ised - Reappoint?)
(Applications sent under separate
COVeF)
JOINT AIRPORT COMMISSION
"~ity will adve~ise vacancy and
make recommendation)
CHARL ~TTESVILLEALBEMAR~E
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
MEMBER
......... :' T. Paulson
Dawd
R~<~'F~ White
Margaret Borwhat
Meredith S. Gunter
Rudolph A. Beverly
Timothy M. Michel
Bethany C. Puopolo
....... William J. Kehoe (Joir~i' ......
City/County appointee)
(City will advertise vacancy and ..........William J. Kehoe (Joint ........
City/County appointee)
make recommendation)
EQUALIZATION BOARD
(Applications due 11/22/00)
TERM EXPIRES
NEW TERM
EXPIRES
08-13-00" 08L'~'~'O 1
09-30-00 09-29-03
WISH TO BE
RE-
APPOINTED?
No
No
09-30-00 09-29-03
No
Resi~r~'a ......
11-14-00 11-14-04 No
11-14-00
11-14-00
12-01-00
11-14-04 No
11-14-04 No
12-01-03 Not eligible
12-01-00
12-01-03 Not eligible
George R. Larie 12-31-00 12-31-01 Yes
Albert O. Humbertson, Jr. 12-31-00 12-31-01 ? (no response)
James E. Clark, Jr. 12-31-00 12-31-01 Yes
Michael G. Stewart 12-31-00 12-31-01 No
MAGISTERIAL
APPOINTMENT?
Jack Jouett
White Hall
Scottsville
Rio
BOARD OR COMMISSION MEMBER
HOUSING COMMITTEE
...... (Applications due 11/22/00~ .................'lL:~igh B, Middleditch, Jr.
(Applications due 11/22/00) Howard Allen
PUBLIC RECREA'~i'O~L , .......................
FACILITIES AUTHORITY
CApplications due 11/2~!o_o2 ............. Montgomery
RIVANNA SOLID WASTE
AUTHORITY
(City will advertise vacancy and
make recommendation)
RIVANNA WATER & SEWER
AUTHORITY
(City will ad{,ertise'{/'~'~y and
make recommendation)
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON AGING
(Applications due 11/22/00)
John F. Marshall (Joint
City/County appointee;
serves on this committee by
virtue of serving on RWSA)
John F. Ma'F~"~ii iSee
RSWA)
Edward L. Strickler, Jr.
MONTICELLO AREA
COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY
(Applicatio'~s du~'l 1/22/00)
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ......
AUTHORITY
JAMES RIVER ALCOHO'~'
SAFETY ACTION PROGRAM
SINGLE-OCbUPANT VEHiF;'i'E
AL TERNA TIVES COMMITTEE
Leslie M. Durr
Vernon W. Jones
John Miller
Stephen F. Ashby
TERM EXPIRES
12-31-00
12-31-00
.... ;1~-~1~:i50
12-31-00
12-3'1-00
05-31-01
Open-ended
o1-19-01 ....
01-01-01
01-12-01
WISH TO BE
NEW TERM RE-
EXPIRES APPOINTED?
12-31-03
12-31-03
Not eligible
12-13-03 I No
12-31-02 No
............. '~2-31-02
05-31-03 (to Resigned
fill balance of
term & serve
one full 2-year
term)
I Resigned
01-19-05 I Yes
01-01-04
01-12-03
Yes
MAGISTERIAL
APPOINTMENT?
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of the Board of Supervisors
FROM: Laurie Bentley, C.M.C. ~//
Senior Deputy Clerk
DATE: October 27, 2000
RE: Applications for Boards and Commissions
I have attached the applications received for vacancies on various Boards/Commissions. Thank
you.
Attachment
cc: Bob Tucker
Larry Davis
BOARD OR COMMISSION NEW TERM
EXPIRE
DATE
COMMISSION ON CHILDREN 06-30-01 (to fill
AND FAMILIES out Meredith
': Gunter's term)
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW , 11-14-04
BOARD ;
APPLICANT/
INCUMBENT
...... ~/-~-~jy"~n~itn Car~Gi'i .................
Mark D. Kindler
M'~'~Ci '& 'El-Banna ...........
Clifford H. Fox, Jr.
Kathryn Hobbs
I NTE RVI EW,
IF
SCHEDULED
%
County of Albemarle
Office of Board of County Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Char!otteswille, VA 229024596
(804) 296-5843
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE
(Please type or print)
(2otn Cq- i
B oard/Commission/Committee
Applicant's Name
Full Home Address
Home Phone
q "7 g'
MagigeH~ Dig~ ~ wNch yo~ home residence is located
Employer :~~g .~-
Ye~s Resident ~ ~bem~le Co~ ~ l~ ~eC&% Spouse~
Education pegtees gd Gra&=ion Dates) 3R ~ ~d · ?~
Members~ps ~ Fratem~, B~ess, Ch~ch gd/or Soci~
hbHc, CMc gd Ch~table Office rod/or
Reason(s) for Wis~g to Sere o~ gord/Cogssion/Co~=ee
S' '~P~°Z~O
un~ Sup~isors
401 McIntke Road
Ch~lo~e~iHe, VA 22902-4596
Fg: (804) 296-5800
County of Albemarle
Office of Board of County Supervisors
401Mchtire Road
Charlotte,wFlle, VA 229024596
(804) 296-5843
Board/Commission/Committee
Applicant's Name
Full Home Address
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE
(Please type or print)
L4~ ~P,,V~ b.44J 10/'Q'/qO2-oa'Fd Home Phone(,~b~
Magisterial District in which your home residence is located $~zo~'c://~'~
Business Address
Occupation/Tide --/~"d r_X. C~
Years Resident in _abemarie County
Previous Residence /'v'/,4
Education (Degrees and Graduation Dates) ~5'
Memberships in Fraternal, Business, Church and/or Social Groups
Date of Employment
Number of Children
Public, Civic and Charitable Office and/or Other Activities or Interests
Reason(s) for Wideroe on Ss Bc, ardlCommission/Commircee 7'
Return to:
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Albemarle County
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
F.~L'(: (804) 296-5800
Boarc~ of Supervisors
County of Albemarle
MARK DAVID KINDLER
DS4 Thomas Jefferson Parkway
Clmrio~svffie, Vh'ginia 22.2
Home ~ (804) 971-86~2
OBXECTIVE: I believe in the statement, "knowledge is power". As a life-long learner, I have experienced
all levels of education from elementary to high school, either as a teacher or administrator, and also have
worked in the private sector in a school for children with special needs. I see education, in whatever forms
it might take, as a means for me to share knowledge with developing children, our resource for the atture.
QUALIFICATIONS
My experience is extensive. I am endorsed as a teacher in elementary education (pk-8), special
education (learning disabilities & emotional disturbance), and actministration at the elementary and high
school levels. My special education experience has taught me how to be flexible, creative, and meet
individual children's needs. As an administrator at all levels I have learned how to multi-task, deal with
discipline issues, work with teams of teachers, parents, and the community. Other responsibilities in my
jobs have included working with custodians and paraprofessionals, building maintenance, evaluation of
teachers, building and grounds, class coverage and arranging for substitute teachers. All of this experience
has helped me develop a flexible problem-solving approach in making sound decisions.
EDUCATION
1998
1994
1978
Ed. D., Administration & Supervision, University of Virginia
M. Ed., Special Education, University of Virginia
B. S., Elementary Education, Penn State University
EMPLOYMENT
1997-2000
1989-1997
1988-1983
1978-1983
Assistant Principal, Prospect Heights Middle School
Orange County Public Schools, 200 Macon Road, Orange, VA 22960
Assistant Principal, Central Elementary School & Fluvanna County High School
Fluvcmna County Public Schools, Rt. 1 Box 29, Palmyra, VA 22963
Teacher, Special Education, Charlottesville High School
Charlottesville Public Schools, 1562 Dairy Road, Charlottesville, VA 22903
Supervisor, Counselor, Teacher, New Dominion School, Inc.
New Dominion School, Box 540, Dillwyn, VA
RELATED EXPERIENCE
Phi Delta Kappa, member since 1989, Delegate 1998-99
Endorsements: K-3, 4-8, El), LD, Elementary & Secondary Administration
Eagle Scout, 1969
Vice President of Board, First United Methodist Preschool, 1994-1995
Choice Theory Certified, 1993, William Glasser Institute, Canoga, CA
Member, Superintendent's Committee on Equity and Diversity
REFERENCES
Dr. John Burks, Superintendent, Rockbridge County Schools (jakeb~ahoo. corn)
Nicholas Smith, Principal, Ivy Creek Scheol,(804) 978-403 1 (nsmith@albemarle.org)
Becky Yellets, Orange County Schools, Director of Special Education (540) 672-0539
(ryellets~yaltoo.com)
Wayne Guenther, Director of Education, Fluvarma County Schools, (804) 589-83 18
Eve Solomon, BoxerLearning, (804) 296-1511 (solomoneve~hotmall.com)
Dr, William Abbott, Win. Glasser Institute, (804) 823-4680 wabbott228~aol.com)
Dr, Suzan Cain, Dean, Shenandoah County Schools, (540) 933-6142
County of Albemarle 9/29/00 1:24 PAGE 2/2
'O:Naged Elbanna COMPANY:
RightFAX
County of Albemarle
Office o£ Board of County Supervisors
40 1 Mchtire Road
Cha~tesville, VA 229024596
(~) 29~ss4s
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITtEE
(Please type or pri~)
Board/Commi.sion/Comm.kt~
Applicanfs Name J4 ~ ~/F- D
VullHomeAd&css 2So C~/o.naq/e Dv':.,t4 d~z l,.
Cka~/of~eq t, ille~ Vtl 22q0~
H~ Pho-~ (5' 0 49 q · 4-
Magisterial District in which your home residence is located
vho4~,90/4-)
Occupation/Tide .T) e ~ i ~ n g
Years Resident in Albemarle Conroy
Date of Employment
5 Spouse's Name
Previous Residence
Education (Degrees and Graduation Dates )
Number of Chaldmn
Memberships in Frauzlal, B~siness, Church and/or Social Groups
de l~an ~a~
lg 'z
Publi~ Civic and Charitable Off~ anti/or Other Activities or Interests
The inform-t/on pro: o ' ' ' ed to the tmbl/c upon request
~erve
Clerk Board of County Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
FAX: (804) 296-5800
~()?~RD OF SUPERVISORS
804 823 7501 PoOl
Oct-ll-0O IO:Z2A Foxf,~,r'e gnl:,er'l~rise'=
TO:Cli~£ Fox COMPANY:
County of Albemade
Relllrttl~,:
County of Albemarle
Office of Board of County Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Char!otteswille, VA 229024596
(804) 296-5843
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE
Magisterial District in which your home residence is located G
Employer, ~d~t_~i,~ Phone
Business Address
HomcPhon: vQT --'75"P(2
Occupation/Title Date of Employment
~ ] N~ber of Ch~&en
~embE~ps ~ Vratem~,,~m~ess, Ch~ch rod/or Soci~ Groups ~dL ~~ P~~
Reason s) forWis~g to Sere on t~s Bo~d/Cogssion/Cog~ee ~~ z"
~e ~fo~a6on pro~ ed on ~s appE a6on ~ be released to ~e public upon re ue~.
Date OARD OF SUPERV/S
Remm to: Cl~k, Board of Coun~ Sup~isors
.~b~le Coun~
401 McIntke Road
Ch~lo~esviHe, VA 22902-4596
Fg: (804) 296-5800
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY01 Budget Amendment Worksession
AGENDA DATE:
November 1,2000
ITEM NUMBER:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
S U BJ ECT/P RO POSALIREQU EST:
Worksession on the proposed FY01 $6.3 million
Budget Amendment
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, White, Breeden, Cavaliere
BACKGROUND:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
The proposed FY01 $6.3 million budget amendment was first brought before the Board of Supervisors on
September 20th with a request for a public hearing on the proposed appropriations on October 18th. A follow-up
work session was also provided to the Board on October 4th with additional information and the opportunity for the
Board to raise questions on specific projects. The proposed FY01 budget amendment was advertised on October
1st and October 8th and a public hearing was held on October 18t~.
DISCUSSION:
In summary, Attachment A provides information on the overall FY00 surplus, comprised of a $5,083,985 revenue
surplus and $1,549,611 expenditure savings. Approximately $217,019 of those anticipated revenues was used
to balance the FY01 budget leaving net available revenues of $6,416,577. The chart below breaks out these
revenues, as well as the requested appropriations by category into $371,058.33 for outstanding purchase orders,
$543,449 for reappropriations of FY00 uncompleted projects, $299,675 in projects reviewed and approved during
FY01 budget worksessions, $3,114,732 in new projects and $2,000,000 to the Capital Reserve Fund.
Avail&ble Resources
FY00 Prelliminary Excess Revenues **
FY00 Expenditure Savings
Total FY00 surplus
(less surplus already used to balance FY01 budget)
Net available Surplus
$5,083,985
1,549,611
$6,633,596
217,019
$6,416,577
Estimated Expenditures
Outstanding FY00 Purchase Orders
Reappropriations for FY00 uncompleted projects
Projects recommended for carry-over in FY01 budget worksession:
New Projects
Capital Reserve
Total Budget Amendment Request
371,058;33
543,449.00
299,675.00
3,114,732.00
2,000,000.00
6,328,914.33
6,328,914.33
Fund Balance Remaining after Budget Amendment
$87,662.67
**An explanation of how $3.5 million of the $5 million dollar surplus has already been incorporated into the
FY01 revenue base is provided on Attachment A.
AGENDA TITLE:
FY01 Budget Amendment Worksession
November 1,2000
Page 2
The first two categories of reappropriation requests, $371,058,33 in Purchase Orders, and $543,449 in
Reappropriations, are top pdority items, since they reflect commitments from the approved FY00 budget. Purchase
Orders are FY00 authorized purchases, which were not able to be delivered prior to the end of the fiscal year.
Reappropriations shown on Attachment B are for projects that were approved and funded in FY00, but were not
completed pdor to the end of the fiscal year. Several of these projects have contracts that extend over the fiscal
year, such as the tax map/parcel conversion project and the Development Area Initiatives Study.
New project requests total $5,414,407, $299,675 of which is requested for projects or items discussed and
approved for carry-over during the FY01 budget worksessions. Of the remaining dollars, $3,114,732 is for new
needed projects and $2,000,000 is dedicated to the Capital Reserve Fund. Attachment C, provides the Board with
an alternative to funding all of the requested new projects. Staff has attempted to prioritize the new projects into
three categories, Urgent/Committed, Necessary and One-time Operational Needs.
Urgent Projects total $1,946,072 and include some projects that have already been approved by the Board or
are the result of a prior commitment or cdtical need. Prior commitments include the Department of Social
Services relocation expenses, Towe field upgrade (based on prior SOCA agreement), Juvenile Court renovations,
Planning part-time wages (ACE program coordinator), Howardsville River access, Meadowcreek Parkway
design, and the financial advisor. The new HR payroll system has already been initiated and partially funded and
the Scottsville Community Center roof needs immediate replacement due to excessive leaking. Property
acquisition funding is considered urgent if the property is to be secured for land banking purposes, however,
please see the School Board's request.
Necessary Projects total $1,156,448 and include those projects that will improve productivity, make needed
infrastructure improvements or address imminent needs that would be difficult to defer. Productivity improvements
include the financial management system, the mail machine replacement, conversion of the registrar space and
new digital recording software. Infrastructure improvements would include the planimetric mapping, aerial
photography, stormwater drainage area studies, hydrogeologic study, transfer to CIP for various projects and the
Development Areas Study. Imminent needs include the presidential election expenses for the registrar's office,
the COB security improvements and the County Attorney's temporary staffing needs.
Other One-Time Operational Needs total $311,887. These are needed projects, but ones that could be deferred
without serious consequences. These projects are also listed on Attachment C.
Project descriptions for all the projects are again supplied on Attachment D.
Alternative Scenarios
One alternative would be to fund only the Urgent/Committed and Necessary projects and put the remaining
$311,887 in a rainy day fund or add to the Capital Reserve.
A second alternative would be to fund only the Urgent projects and reserve the remaining $1,468,335 for a rainy
day fund or the Capital Reserve Fund.
A third alternative would be to consider the projects requested by the School Board to determine if they are a
higher funding priority than some of the previously requested general government projects. As you know, the
School Board has officially requested a 65% share of a $5.5 million dollar surplus or $3,575,000, which includes
$1.2 million for the property acquisition, 65% of the $2 million capital reserve ($1.3 million), and three other
projects, $245,000 for additional textbooks, $430,000 for bus replacement and $400,000 for maintenance projects.
In response to the capital reserve request, the 65% percentage share was based on an historical average of
school projects to general government projects over the past 7 years of the Capital Improvement Program.
2
AGENDA TITLE:
FY01 Budget Amendment Worksession
November 1, 2000
Page 3
However, since the financial advisors are currently analyzing both general government and school division capital
project requests to develop a manageable and equitable capital resource allocation plan for the next ten years,
it would be premature to make that allocation at this time.
In response to the School Board's request to fund the three project requests ($1,075,000) not included in the
current budget amendment, the Director of Finance's preliminary estimate shows that the School Board has
approximately $1 million in their own fund balance that could be used to fund these projects. The School Division
should also have surplus funds available in the current year, since slightly under $1 million dollars was budgeted
for growth based on 230 new students, while actual September 30, 2000 enrollment growth was only 50 new
students. Some of these revenues am expected to be used for increased fuel costs.
In response to requests at the public hearing to return the surplus to the taxpayers, not only is it illegal, but
implementing such a reimbursement would be extremely difficult due to the number of revenue sources that made
up the surplus.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Appropriation #20021 in the amount of $371,058.33 for FY00 purchase orders and
Appropriation #20022 in the amount of $543,449 for FY00 reappropriation requests. Staff also recommends that
a minimum of $2,000,000 dollars be transferred to the Capital Reserve Fund leaving a balance of $3,414,548 to
the Board's discretion based on the above alternatives.
For accounting purposes, the attached appropriation forms are broken down as follows:
#20021 $371,058.33
#20022 $543,449
#20023 $299,675
#20024 $577,205
#20025 $4,537,527
FY00 Purchase Orders
FY00 Reappropdations for approved, but uncompleted projects
FY01 Appropriation for projects approved during budget process
FY01 Appropriations for new projects in the Operating Fund
FY01 Appropriation for new projects in the Capital Fund
cc: Kevin Castner, Superintendent of Schools
00.230
3
ATTACHMENT A
In response to questions about the nature of the revenue surplus, i.e. one-time surplus or ongoing
revenues, the chart below provides a look at the major revenue sources that compdse the $5 million
surplus and attempts to explain how at least $3.5 million of the surplus was accounted for in the FY01
revenue projections.
For example, under local sales tax, column A shows the FY00 appropriated or budgeted amount of
$8.5 million dollars with column B showing the revised sales tax projection of $9.4 million. The revised
estimate was completed in January. The projected January 2000 increase shown in column B~A was,
therefore, a 10.9% increase over what was budgeted for FY00. However, one must understand that
the FY00 budgeted revenues that begin the fiscal year on July 1, 1999 were ~nalized for budgeting
purposes back in January 1999, a year prior to the revised January 2000 estimates that are shown in
column B.
Column C shows the January revised estimate for FY01, which is a 3.7% increase over the FY00
projection or column C-B. The final columns C-A shows an actual budget to budget increase in sales
tax revenues of 15%, which is a combination of the 10.9% increase from FY00 budget to FY00
revised projection, plus the 3.7% increase from the FY00 revised projection to the FY01 estimate. The
combination provides the rationale for the 15% budget to budget increase.
This is the process by which the Department of Finance bases all the revenue projections. One can
see that the next fiscal year revenue estimates already have some of the anticipated surplus built into
the base.
At the bottom total line, the increase from the FY00 budget to the FY00 revised projection shows the
$3.5 million anticipated surplus that was built into the overall 10.2% revenue increase from FY00
budget to FY01 budget.
County of Albemade
FY 2NO/01 Revenue Projection Process
Personal Property - Current
Local Sales & Use Taxes
Real Estate- Current
Business Licenses
Motor Vehicle Usenses
Hotel & Motel Room Tax
Meals Tax
(A) ($) (B) - (A) (C) (C) - (B)
Appropriated Revised Revised
Budget Projection Projection less Budget Estimate Estimate less Projection
FY 99Y00 (1) FY 99100 (J) i; Incl(Dec,I % IncqDec) FY 00/01 {~) S Inc/(Dec.I % Inc/(Dec)
20,465,000 21,477,000 1,012,000 4.9% 22,923,300 1,446,300 6.7%
8,476,400 9,400,000 923,600 10.9% 9,750,0(X) 350,000 3.7%
41.487,700 42,087,000 599,300 1.4% 44.631,000 2,544,000 6.0%
5,251.100 5,736,300 485,200 9.2% 5,904,200 167,900 2.9%
1,390,000 1,618,385 228,385 16.4% 1,660.885 42,500 2.6%
1,141,200 1,350,000 208,800 18,3% 1,400,000 50,000 3,7%
3,098,500 3,230,(XX) 131,500 4.2% 3,325,000 95,000 2.9%
Total 81,309,900 84,898,685
(1) July 1, 1999 Appropriated General Fund FY99K)0 Budget,
(2) Finance Department Revised Revenue Projections 1112100.
3,588,785 4,4% 89,694,385 4,696,700 5.5%
(c) - (A)
Estimate less Budge
2.458,300 12.0%
1,273,600 15.0%
3,143,300 7.6%
653,100 12,4%
270,885 19.5%
258,800 22.7%
226,500 7.3%
8,284,485 10.2%
~..'%rt~v~nn~%~l Irl(',;=T%hHfIH~fI'I1~ATTA~NIUII=IdT A1 dnt-
REAPPROPRIATION REOUESTS
Projects Approved in FY00 Budget but not completed by June 30, 2000
Community Resources
Neighborhood Team Grant
]uman Resources
Compensation, benefit costs plus several operating and capital equipment costs budgeted in the
FY00 budget for Quality Improvement Coordinator. This position was funded as of
January 1, 2000, however, was not filled until July, 2000.
General District Court
To purchase a new chair for the Judge's Bench in the courtroom. The old chair will be given to
Judge Helvin upon his retirement at the end of this year.
Circuit Court Clerk
Audit cost for FYO0 that has not been completed.
Police Department
Insurance deductibles for three pending cases
Communications - Replacement
Ammunition
Uniforms- New
Uniforms- Specialty
Vehicles & Equipment
Vehicles & Equipment Repairs
Engineering and Public Works
Groundwater Study
Forestry Grant - "Living with Water" project
Automart - performance bond proceeds
Parks and Recreation
Purchase of slope mower
Planning and Community Development
Work Study - intern/part-time planner assistance
Aerial Photography/Topography
Development Area Initiative Study
Consultants - Wireless Policy Manual and Joint Fire Station Study
Printing of Comprehensive Plan Sections
Travel - Education - training and professional development workshops/conferences
Machinery and Equipment - revamping of filing system
Furniture & Fixtures -replacement of worn furniture
E911 / Planning
Contract Services - county-wide tax map/parcel conversion (contract pending)
Printing of E911 Map Book publication and wall map
Education - Software training- Pilot Parcel Conversion
$ 15,000
8,000
4,000
2,900
2,300
3,600
3,900
$ 35,000
500
3,170
$ 11,276
32,017
109,716
29,834
8,991
2,246
14,139
3,227
$ 200,000
7,500
5,000
Attachment B
$ 2,000
$ 16,333
$ 1,300
$ 3,000
$ 39,700
$ 38,670
$ 18,500
$211,446
$212,500
Total Requested $543~449
Summary Listing of New Projects
Project Priority
New Projects
Supported in FY01
Adopted Budet
A. UrQenUCommitted PrOjects
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
A9
A10
Social Services Relocationfftenovations
HFUPayroll System
Property - Monticello High School V'minity
Meadow Creek Parkway Phase I
Bcoftsville Community Center - Roof Replacement
Planning Part-time Wages
Towe Bermuda Grass Fmld
Juvenile Court Renovations
Financial Advisor
Howardsville River Access
Subtotal Urgent Projects
B. Necessary Projects
B2
B3
B4
B5
136
B7
B8
B9
B10
Bll
B12
B13
Corfract Services - Planimetric Mapping
High Resolution Digital Aerial Photography
COB Security Improvements
Mail & AIIocator Machine Replacement
Transfer to CIP for Various Projects
Stormwater Dminange Area Studies
Hydrogeologic Study
Conversion of Former Rogislmr Space
Presidential Election Expense
New Digital Recurding SelLware and Hardware
Development Areas Study
Financial Management System
County Attomey's Office - Temporary Employee Wages
$100,000
$20,000
$50,000
$10,948
$180,948
C. Other One.Time Operatina Needs
Cl County-wide Customer Stavey
C2 New Office Equipment - Scanner
c3 New Photographic Equipment for Zoning Enforcement
C4 Tipping Fees
C5 2 Thermal Imaging Cameras
C6 Board Room Renovation
C7 UndonNater Recovery Team
C8 Police Patrol
c9 Animal Confrol
C10 Firearms Training Unit
C11 Engineering - Consultants
Cl 2 Social Service - Replacement Vehicle
Cl 3 Inspections - Replacement Vehicle
Cl 4 Legisla6ve Redistricting Expense
c15 Registrar - Office Renovation
C16 Inspections - Replacement Work Station
Cl 7 VA Coop Extension Services - Part Time Wages
C18 Data Processing Software
C19 Clerk of the Ckcuit Court- Machinery/Equip. Replacement
C20 Clerk of the Circuit Court - Part-time wages
C21 Clerk of the Circuit Court -Fumiture & Fixtures Replacement
c22 Clerk of the Circuit Court - Office Supplies
C23 Clerk of the Circuit Court - Repairs/Maintenance Office Equip.
C24 Clerk of the Ckcuit Court - Binding of Records
C25 Clerk of the Circuit Court - Copy Expense
C26 General District Court - Various Projects
C27 Real Estate Reassesment Expenses
D Capital Reserve Fund
$13,430
$6,110
$1,869
$`2,110
$19,500
$10,836
$4,800
$1,078
$'24,994
$118,727
Attachment C
New Projects
Recommended
$300,000
$60,000
$1,200,000
$140,000
$150,000
$27.000
$12,000
$14,527
$30,000
$12.545
$1,946,012
$44,000
$40,000
$500,000
$100~00
$30,000
$30,000
$6,500
$`20,000
$190,000
$15,000
$975,500
$20,000
$6,000
$2,000
$25,000
$75,000
$20,000
$19,000
$2,000
$1,100
$8,300
$5,200
$1,700
$1,500
$1~0o
$1,000
$1,000
$1,360
,.,._,$!~3,160.,
$2,000,000
TOTAL NEW PROJECTS $299,675 $5,114,732
Attachment D
Appropriations 2000/2001
Brief Descriptions of New Projects
A. - Urgent/Committed Projects
$1,946,072
A1
Social Services Move ($300,000) - Funds recommended to relocate the Social Services department to Charter
House on Millmont Street, renovate select areas of Charter House, and renovate the spaces in the County Office
Building currently utilized by Social Services. The relocation of Social Services is needed due to a deficiency of
space in the County Office Building. A breakdown of estimated costs includes network connection in the Charter
House ($75,000), phone system in the Charter House ($75,000), moving expenses ($10,000),
utilities/custodial/maintenance ($24,000), and COB/Charter House space renovations ($116,000).
A2
HR/Payroll System ($60,000) - Funds to replace the County's 18-year old mainframe Human Resource/Payroll
software. Technology is demanding that the County move toward a network environment and away from
mainframes as the current system is becoming increasingly expensive to maintain and will soon be obsolete. Total
anticipated cost for this project is $350,000. During FY00 approximately $187,000 of costs for licenses,
support/maintenance, training and implementation has been shared by Finance and Information Services (IS) out of
their approved operating budgets. During FY01 Finance and IS expect to contribute approximately $103,000 from
current savings in their budgets. The remaining need of $60,000 is recommended to be funded from carryover.
A3
Property - Monticello High School Vicinity ($1,200,000) - Funds recommended to support the purchase of land for
a future elementary or middle school site in the southern region of the County, as recommended by the School
Board.
A4
Meadow Creek Parkway Phase I ($140,000) - Recommended funds will be used to hire a consultant to support the
design of the Meadow Creek Parkway, Phase I from Melbourne Road to Rio Road. Scope of work and fee
negotiations are currently on-going with the top ranked firm in an effort to reduce this cost.
A5
Scottsville Community Center ($150,000) - Funds to replace the roof at the Scottsville Community Center, which
was last replaced in 1987. There are several leaks that run onto existing light fixtures, over bleachers and onto the
playing floors. The gym is used every evening and on weekends for the Scottsville youth basketball program. This
roof was scheduled to be replaced in FY03/04, but the worsening condition warrants replacement as soon as
possible.
A6 Planning - Part-time Wages ($27,000) - Funds recommended for the Planning Aide and ACE Program
Administrator to support the ACE program recently approved by the BOS.
A7 Towe Bermuda Grass Field ($12,000) - Funds recommended to convert a second field to Bermuda grass at Towe
Park. As part of the negotiations with SOCA on the recent donation for the first field conversion, the City and County
expressed intent to convert one additional field per year. The City is expected to reimburse the County $4,236 or
35.3% of the project cost.
A8 Juvenile Court Renovations ($14,527) - Additional funds recommended for Juvenile Court renovation and
upgrading of the holding cells. The additional costs result partially from several change orders recommended by the
Sheriff for additional closed circuit TV equipment and cameras, and a modification to the juvenile court entrance.
Total additional costs are $38,653; County costs shared 50% with City.
A9
Financial Advisor ($30,000) ~ Funding for financial advisors to assist the county in developing a long range capital
financing plan, which will provide a blueprint for the community on capital needs and projects to be funded in the next
ten years. Total includes FY00 and FY01 anticipated costs.
A10
Howardsville River Access ($12,545) - Funds recommended to cover the transfer of responsibility for the
Howardsville River Access from the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries to the County Parks &
Recreation Department. Costs include part-time wages ($3,090), lease/rent ($650), rent property ($2,400), security
($5,405) and repair/maintenance supplies ($1,000).
C:\roxannexBUDGETXbudget01haew projects summary 11_1 format2.doc 1 Of 4
Attachment D
B. - Necessary Projects
$1,156,448
B1 Contract Services ($100,000) - Funds supported for Planimetric Mapping.
B2
High Resolution Digital Aerial Photography. ($44,000) - High resolution digital aerial photography of the County's
urban areas will be used to increase the accuracy of Enhanced 911 address mapping and parcel mapping initiatives.
Precision, accuracy and dependability of the data will improve for staff and the public.
B3 COB Security Improvements ($40,000) - Funds recommended to facilitate the improvement of security and
customer service at the County Office Building.
B4 Mail & AIIocator Machine Replacement ($20,000) - Supported funds will be used to replace the present mail-
processing machine which has exceeded its useful life and requires frequent maintenance.
B5
Transfer to CIP for Various Projects ($500,000) - Funding recommended for transfer to the CIP in support of
various capital projects that will be prioritized with other CIP project requests. These projects include Entrance
Corridor Improvements, Ivy Road Drainage Improvements, Corville Farm Road and Corville Central Water System.
The Entrance Corridor Improvements will provide inbound/outbound roadway signs and landscape gardens to
welcome travelers and emphasize the historic, cultural and natural resources of the County. Ivy Road Drainage
improvements will replace underground stormwater piping to correct flooding problems. Corville Farm Road
Improvements will repair a public road in Greenwood so it can be accepted by VDOT for future maintenance.
Corville Farm Central Water System Improvements will repair the underground drinking water piping to provide an
adequate quantity and quality of water for the residents.
B6
Stormwater Drainage Area Studies ($100,000) - Funds recommended to provide stormwater drainage area master
plans in support of the Land Use and Water Resources objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and the Water
Protection Ordinance. The master plans will provide proactive stormwater planning and implementation for
designated Development Areas and will work in concert with DISC. The cost of this study can be recovered through
pro-rata contributions from developments using the stormwater facilities.
B7
Hydrogeologic Study ($80,000) - Supported funds will be used to conduct a hydrogeologic study within the
watershed of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. This study will further develop an understanding of groundwater
resources as they relate to existing and possible future development, particularly in areas where there is sole and
intensive reliance on groundwater for household water supply. The current request of $80,000 is based on a more
definitive scope of work and cost negotiations with the top ranked consultant and is $30,000 higher than supported in
the FY01 Budget.
B8 Conversion' of Former Registrar Space ($30,000) - Funds recommended to cover costs associated with
conversion of space formerly occupied by Registrar.
B9
Presidential Election Expense ($10,948) - Supported funds for additional part-time wages, election officials,
printing and binding, advertising, postage and other expenses associated with the 2000 Presidential Election.
Increased expenses are anticipated due to historically higher voter turnout for presidential elections.
B10 Judge of the Circuit Court - New Digital Recording Software and Hardware ($6,500) - Funds recommended for
new digital recording software and hardware to replace aging equipment in the main courtroom.
Bll Development Areas Study ($20,000) - Funds recommended for consultant assistance in undertaking one
Neighborhood Master Plan, as recommended by DISC.
B12
Financial Management System ($190,000) - Replacement of the County's mainframe financial management
system, which was developed by Newport News in 1982. The system has been modified substantially to
accommodate reporting requirements and mandated changes, but the current technology is out of date and this
replacement software will move the County from the mainframe to the required network technology. Total
anticipated cost for this project is $250,000. Other entities attempting to move in the direction of new integrated
systems are experiencing even greater costs, e.g. UVA, $55 million, Charlottesville, $2.7 - $4.9 million, Virginia
Beach, $7.8 million. Finance and Information Services (IS) expect to contribute approximately $60,000 from their
current year budgets. The remaining need of $190,000 is recommended to be funded from carryover.
B13 County Attorney - Temporary Employee Wages ($15,000) - Funds recommended to cover wages for temporary
employee (11/15/00 - 2/15/00) during Assistant County Attorney's maternity leave.
C:Xroxanne~BUDGETXbudget01Xnew projects summary 11_1 format2.doc 2 Of 4
Attachment D
C. - Other One-Time Operatin9 Needs
$311.887
C1
County-wide Customer Survey ($20,000) - To assess the needs of County citizens in order to provide better
customer service, the County will undertake an annual citizen survey through an independent survey organization or
university. Questions would include customer satisfaction with County services, as well as questions related to
budget priorities and direction.
C2
New Office Equipment - Scanner ($8,000) - Funds recommended for a scanner to reproduce documents and
provide a database for several Zoning functions. Based on advice from the County Attorney's office, we are in the
process of formalizing a process for recording and indexing zoning decisions. The scanner will be used to
electronically record written decisions that will be indexed and catalogued for future reference. This equipment will
facilitate the department's charge under the State Code of maintaining the zoning history, including proffers on
properties.
C3
New Photographic Equipment for Zoning Enforcement ($2,000) - Funds recommended to purchase an
additional 35mm camera and a video camera for zoning enforcement. The additional camera will take photographs
for use in court and as a permanent record. There are often times when a camera is necessary and the current
camera is already being used in the field. Also, it is advisable to take a second camera during aerial observations.
The County currently does not have a video camera. The situations are increasing in which a video camera is useful
to depict movement and action or to show a large-scale situation.
C4
Tipping Fees ($25,000) - Recommended funds will support the Fall 2000 and Spring 2001 Bulky Waste Disposal
Program in a continuing effort to reduce illegal roadside dumping. This program funds the tip fee for those persons
who bring items such as appliances, tires and furniture to the Ivy Landfill.
C5
2 Thermal Imaging Cameras ($34,000) - Funds supported for two thermal imaging cameras. These cameras allow
fire fighters to see through dense smoke to assist in locating victims as well as fire hidden in walls, floors and
ceilings.
C6
Board Room Renovation ($75,000) - Recommended funds will be used to improve the acoustic/visual equipment
and physical layout of the Board of Supervisors meeting room in the County Office Building. These improvements will
allow the Supervisors, the public and the press to better hear and see presentations and discussions in room 235.
C7
Underwater Recovery Team ($13,430) - Funds supported include six spare air tanks ($1,000), two full face masks
with communications unit ($6,000), two complete dry suits ($4,000), four pairs of coast guard gloves ($80), one
underwater camera ($1,000) and three lift bags ($1,350);
C8 Police Patrol ($6,110) - Supported funds include six large OC foggers ($210), twenty five rolls of crime scene tape
($500), two hundred small traffic cones ($400) and ten digital cameras ($5,000).
C9
Animal Control ($1,869) - Funds supported include three dog traps ($780), four pairs of leather handling gloves
($80), four fencing tools ($100), four livestock halters ($200), snake tongs ($69), four sets of bolt cutters ($100), four
thermometers ($20), four leads for livestock halters ($320), four cat tongs ($320), and four fencing kits ($120).
C10
Firearms Training Unit ($2,110) - Funds supported include an air compressor ($200), hand truck ($100), tool box
and assorted tools ($200), twelve uniform pants ($360), fifteen firearms training video tapes ($250), and a remotely
fired handgun ($1,000).
Cll
Engineering - Consultants ($20,000) - Recommended funding will be used to hire consultants to provide design
and studies as required for unforeseen County initiatives, including county facility repairs, space planning, central
filing and security studies.
C12
Social Service - Replacement Vehicle ($19,000) - Funds recommended to replace foster care car #141 with a
station wagon for easier transport of numerous children and belongings. Existing car #141 will be reallocated as a
pool car.
C13
Inspections - Replacement Vehicle ($19,500) - Funds supported to replace a building inspection truck with over
100,000 miles. Maintenance records and experience with the type of usage that these vehicles receive, indicate that
replacement at this point is necessary. Supported amount includes increase in insurance costs for a newer vehicle.
C:\roxanneXBUDGET\budget01Nnew projects summary 11_1 format2.doc 3 Of 4
C14
C15
C16
C17
C18
C19
C20
C21
C22
C23
C24
C25
C26
C27
Attachment D
Legislative Redistricting Expense ($t0,836) - Funds supported for additional over-time wages, advertising,
mileage, temporary help and postage associated with the legislative redistricting following the April 2000 census.
Registrar - Office Renovation ($4,800) - Funds supported for redesign of work space in County Office Building.
However, due to relocation of Registrar to DMV, these funds will be used to adequately prepare the new space.
Inspections - Replacement Work Station ($2,000) - Funds recommended to replace the workstation of one of the
Permit Intake staff. Current workstation is broken and is not a good use of office space - it does not enable the
opening of building plans.
VA Coop Extension Services - Part-time Wages ($1,078) - Funds supported for additional part-time clerical
assistance.
Planning - Data Processing Software ($1,100) - Funds recommended for publishing software including
Pagemaker V6.5 (necessary to produce final DISC documents) and Adobe Photoshop.
Clerk of the Circuit Court - Machinery & Equipment Replacement ($8,300) - Funds recommended to cover the
anticipated awarding of a contract for optical imaging and scanning of court documents. In addition to the
Technology Trust fund fees available for support of this project, additional funds will be needed to update PCs for
staff use.
Clerk of the Circuit Court - Part-time Wages ($5,200) - Funds recommended to hire an individual with some
experience, and not have to rely on extensive training and minimum salary wage for part-time office support.
Clerk of the Circuit Court - Furniture & Fixtures Replacement ($1,700) - Recommended funds will cover the
need for new computer workstations for the record room to accommodate PCs that will be available for public use
once the new optical imaging and scanning of court documents initiatives have been implemented.
Clerk of the Circuit Court - Office Supplies ($1,500) - Funds recommended to cover increasing office supply costs
as experienced in FY00.
Clerk of the Circuit Court - Repairs and Maintenance Office Equipment ($1,000) - Funds recommended to cover
repairs and maintenance costs for aging equipment not covered in service agreements.
Clerk of the Circuit Court - Binding of Records ($1,000) - Funds recommended for replacement and new record
binders.
Clerk of the Circuit Court - Copy Expense ($1,000) - Funds recommended for costs associated with additional
forms required to handle the increase in pro se litigants, as more forms become available for individuals to file
without an attorney.
General District Court - Various Projects ($1,360) - Funding recommended for costs associated with purchase of
flags, printer stands, dues, etc.
Real Estate Reassessment Expenses ($24,994) - Funds supported for additional over time wages, printing and
binding, postal services and long distance telephone expenses associated with the 2001 reassessment.
D. - Capital Reserve $2,000,000
Funds to be set aside in a capital reserve fund to be used for direct funding of future capital projects or debt service.
C:h'oxanne~BUDGETXbudget01~ew projects su~ 11_1 format2.doc 4 Of 4
'APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR:
00101
NUMBER
20021
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
: ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO
X
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
REAPPROPRIATION OF OUTSTANDING PURCHASE ORDERS FROM FY 99/00.
CODE
1 1000 11010 600100
1 1000 12030 580040
1 1000 12143 800710
1 1000 31013 580904
1 1000 31013 601102
I 1000 31013 800501
1 1000 31020 800125
1 1000 31020 601000
1 1000 32012 601500
1 1000 32012 601200
1 1000 32015 600400
1 1000 32015 601100
1 1000 32015 800100
1 1000 41000 312700
1 1000 41000 312700
I 1000 41000 312700
I 1000 41000 331901
1 1000 41000 312700
I 1000 41021 540405
1 1000 43002 301211
1 1000 43002 331200
I 1000 43002 332200
I 1000 43002 331200
1 1000 43003 540405
1 1000 43003 600500
1 1000 43004 540405
1 1000 53011 800710
1 1000 53011 520300
1 1000 53012 301212
1 1000 53012 520300
1 1000 53013 520300
I 1000 53014 312700
1 1000 53014 520300
1 1000 71013 540000
EXPENDITURE
DESCRIPTION
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
HUMAN RESOURCES
FIN-ACCOUNTING & PAYROLL
POLICE PATROL SERVICE
POLICE PATROL SERVICE
POLICE PATROL SERVICE
SHERIFF
SHERIFF
FIRE RESCUE-TRAINING
FIRE RESCUE-TRAINING
FIRE/RESCUE-OPERATIONS
FIRE/RESCUE-OPERATIONS
FIRE/RESCUE-OPERATIONS
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
STREET SIGN MAINTENANCE
PUBLIC WORKS-MAINT DIV
PUBLIC WORKS-MAINT DIV
PUBLIC WORKS-MAINT DIV
PUBLIC WORKS-MAINT DIV
PUBLIC WQRK-CUSTODIAL
PUBLIC WORK-CUSTOD!AL
PUBLIC WORKS-COPY CENTE
V.P.A. MANAGEMENT
V.P.A. MANAGEMENT
V.P.A. BENEFITS PROGRAMS
V.P.A. BENEFITS PROGRAMS
V.P.A. SERVICE PROGRAMS
V.P.A. EMPLOYMENT SERVICE
V.P.A. EMPLOYMENT SERVICE
P & R SUMMER SWIM PROGR
AMOUNT
OFFICE SUPPLIES
QUALITY COUNCIL INIT. FND
DATA PROCESSING SOFTWAR
D A R E EXPENSES
UNIFORMS - REPLACEMENT
MOTOR VEHICLES-REPL
FIREARMS & EQUIPMENT
POLICE SUPPLIES
MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE
BOOKS & SUBSCRIPTIONS
MEDICAL & LAB. SUPPLIES
UNIFORMS & APPAREL
MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT
PROF. SER. CONSULTANTS
PROF, SER. CONSULTANTS
PROF. SER. CONSULTANTS
MAINT.-DETENTION BASIN
PROF. SER. CONSULTANTS
RENTAL - UNIFORMS
CONT SERV-MEDIAN MOWING
R&M EQUIP.-BUILDINGS
MAINT. CONTRACT-BUILDING
R&M EQUIP.-BUILDINGS
RENTAL - UNIFORMS
LAUNDRY/JANITORIAL SUP.
RENTAL - UNIFORMS
DATA PROCESSING SOFTWAR
TELECOMMUNICATION8
F.S, ISSUANCE-CONTRACT
TELECOMMUNICATION8
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
PROF. SER. CONSULTANTS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
LEASES AND RENTALS
$800.00
3,500.00
44,000,00
89,10
2,853.95
41,814.42
2,340.85
4,426.78
822.00
433.25
1,201.00
1,020.14
1,432.62
995.50
32,553.00
1,147.50
3,360.50
2,500.00
178.00
6,120.70
28,870.00
593.79
627.69
108.50
277.21
301.00
2,677.60
230.00
3,727.97
460.00
230.00
2,189.50
230.00
180.00
I 1000 71013 601100 P&RSUMMERSWIMPROGR UNIFORMS&APPAREL 1,545.00
I 1000 71014 600700 REC-ATHLETICS&CLASSES REPAIR&MAINT. SUPPLIES 547.20
1 1000 71014 800100 REC-ATHLETICS&CLASSES MACHINERY&EQUIPMENT 3,800.00
I 1000 71015 540000 P & R COMMUNITY CENTERS LEASES AND RENTALS 630.00
1 1000 81010 312700 PLANNING PROF. SER. CONSULTANTS 5,400.00
1 1000 81010 312342 PLANNING DEVELOPMENTAREA'S STUD 4,922.96
I 1000 81010 312700 PLANNING PROF. SER. CONSULTANTS 4,733.85
1 1000 81010 301210 PLANNING CONTRACT SERVICES 2,416.76
I 1000 81010 800201 PLANNING FURNITURE & FIXTURES-REPL 169.99
1 1000 81010 301210 PLANNING CONTRACT SERVICES 29,600.00
1 1000 81017 312385 E-911 / PLANNING AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY 125,000.00
TOTAL $371,058.33
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1000 51000 510100 G/F BALANCE $371,058.33
TOTAL $371,058.33
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER: FINANCE
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
SIGNATURE DATE
'APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR:
00/01
NUMBER
20022
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO X
FUND:
GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
REAPPROPRIATION OF PROJECTS FROM FY 99/00
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION
I 1000 12013 560416 COMMUNITY
1 1000 12030 580040 HUMAN RESOURCES
1 1000 21020 800201 GENERAL DISTRICT CT
1 1000 21060 312800 CLERK, CIRCUIT CT
1 1000 31013 530010 POLICE
1 1000 31013 600800 POLICE
1 1000 31013 600900 POLICE
1 1000 31013 601011 POLICE
1 1000 31013 601101 POLICE
1 1000 31013 601103 POLICE
1 1000 31013 800301 POLICE
I 1000 41000 312341 ENGINEERING
1 1000 41000 601302 ENGINEERING
1 1000 41000 950023 ENGINEERING
1 1000 71012 800101 PARKS & REC
I 1000 81010 160801 PLANNING
1 1000 81010 301210 PLANNING
1 1000 81010 312342 PLANNING
1 1000 81010 312700 PLANNING
I 1000 81010 350000 PLANNING
1 1000 81010 550400 PLANNING
1 1000 81010 800100 PLANNING
I 1000 81010 800201 PLANNING
1 1000 81017 301210 PLANNING
I 1000 81017 350000 PLANNING
I 1000 81017 550400 PLANNING
AMOUNT
NEIGHBORHOOD TEAM
QUALITY IMP PROGRAM
CHAIR
AUDIT
INSURANCE DEDUCT.
VEHICLE & EQUIP
VEH & EQUIP REPAIRS
AMMUNITION
UNIFORMS-NEW
UNIFORMS-SPECIALTY
COMM. 'EQUIP
GROUNDWATER
FORESTRY GRANT
AUTOMART
SLOPE MOWER
WORK STUDY
AERIAL PHOTO
DEV'L AREA STUDY
CONSULTANTS
COMP PLAN
TRAVEL
MACH & EQUIP
FURN & FIXTURES
TAX MAPS
PRT & BINDING
EDUCATION
$2,000.00
16,333.00
1,300.00
3,000.00
15,000.00
3,600.00
3,900.00
4,000.00
2,900.00
2,300.00
8,000.00
35,000.00
500.00
3,170.00
18,500.00
11,276.00
32,017.00
109,716.00
29,834.00
8,991.00
2,246.00
14,139.00
3,227.00
200,000.00
7,500.00
5,000.00
TOTAL $543,449.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1000 51000 510100 GENERAL FUNDBALANCE $543,449.00
TOTAL $543,449.00
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
FINANCE
APPROVALS: SIGNATURE DATE
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
OCT. 19, 2000
/I- Z -
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR:
00/01
NUMBER
20023
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO
X
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
NEW PROJECTS SUPPORTED IN FY 01 BUDGET TO BE FUNDED FROM CARRYOVER.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION
1 1000 12144 520100 FINANCE
I 1000 12144 600100 FINANCE
1 1000 13020 500000 REGISTRAR
I 1000 13020 800901 REGISTRAR
I 1000 13020 500000 REGISTRAR
1 1000 31013 601000POLICE
1 1000 31016 601000 POLICE
1 1000 31013 601000 POLICE
I 1000 31013 601000POLICE
1 1000 32012 800100FIRE/RESCUE
1 1000 34000 800501 INSPECTIONS
1 1000 41000 312341 ENGINEERING
1 1000 43001 800100 PUBLIC WORKS
1 1000 81010 301210PLANNING
1 1000 83000 130000 EXT. SERVICES
AMOUNT
REASSESSMENT-POSTAGE
REASSESSMENT-OFFICE SUPPLI
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
OFFICE MOVE
REDISTRICTING
U N DE RWATER RECOV
ANIMAL CONTROL
FIREARMS TRG UNIT
POLICE PATROL
THERMAL CAMERAS
VEHICLE
HYDROGEOLOGIC STUDY
MAIL MACHINE
PLANIMETRIC MAPPING
P/T WAGES
TOTAL
$14,994.00
10,000.00
10,948.00
4 800.00
10836.00
13 430.00
1 869.00
2 110.00
6 110.00
34 000.00
19,500.00
50,000.00
20,000.00
100,000.00
1,078.00
$299,675.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1000 51000 510100 GENERAL FUND BALANCE $299,675.00
TOTAL $299,675.00
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER: FINANCE
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
SIGNATURE
DATE
OCT. 19, 2000
/t-z-~a
'APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR:
00/01
NUMBER
20024
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO
X
FUND: : GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
NEW GENERAL FUND PROJECTS FUNDED FROM CARRYOVER.
CODE
I 1000 12030 580030
1 1000 12040 130000
1 1000 12141 310000
1 1000 12143 800710
I 1000 12143 800710
1 1000 21010 800101
I 1000 21020 580100
1 1000 21020 800100
1 1000 21020 800201
1 1000 21020 800201
1 1000 21060 130000
1 1000 21060 331100
1 1000 21060 350200
1 1000 21060 600100
1 1000 21060 601700
I 1000 21060 800101
1 1000 21060 800201
1 1000 34000 800201
I 1000 41000 312341
I 1000 41000 312700
1 1000 42040 510430
1 1000 53011 510000
1 1000 53011 330000
I 1000 53011 301214
I 1000 53013 800501
1 1000 71012 130000
1 1000 71012 540000
1 1000 71012 540200
I 1000 71012 580505
1 1000 71012 600700
1 1000 81010 130000
1 1000 81010 301210
I 1000 81010 312342
1 1000 81010 800710
EXPENDITURE
DESCRIPTION
HUMAN RESOURCES
COUNTY ATTORNEY
FINANCE
FINANCE
FINANCE
CIRCUIT CT
GENERAL DISTRICT CT
GENERAL DISTRICT CT
GENERAL DISTRICT CT
GENERAL DISTRICT CT
CLERK CIRCUIT CT
CLERK CIRCUIT CT
CLERK CIRCUIT CT
CLERK CIRCUIT CT
CLERK CIRCUIT CT
CLERK. CIRCUIT CT
CLERK, CIRCUIT CT
INSPECTIONS
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
SOLID WASTE
SOCIAL SERVICES
SOCIAL SERVICES
SOCIAL SERVICES
SOCIAL SERVICES
PARKS & REC
PARKS & REC
PARKS & REC
PARKS & REC
PARKS & REC
PLANNING
PLANNING
PLANNING
PLANNING
AMOUNT
CUSTOMER SURVEY
P/T WAGES
FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS
PAYROLL SOFTWARE
FINANCIAL SOFTWARE
TECHNOLOGY
DUES
PRINTER STAND
FLAGS
PORTRAIT
PARTTIME WAGES
R&M
BINDING
OFF SUPPLIES
COPY EXPENSE
MACH & EQUIP
FURN & FIXTURES
FURN & FIXTURES
HYDROGEOLOGIC STUDY
DESIGN CONSULTANT
TIPPING FEES
UTILITIES
MAINTENANCE
CUSTODIAL
VEHICLE
P/T WAG E S
LEASE/RENT
RENT
SECURITY
R&M SUPPLIES
P/T WAGES
PLANIMETRIC MAPPING
DEV'L AREA STUDY
SOFTWARE
20,000.00
15,000.00
30,000.00
60,000.00
190,000.00
6,500.00
80.00
480.00
200.00
600.00
5,200.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
1,500.00
1,000.00
8,300~0
1,700.00
2,000.00
30,000.00
20,000.00
25,000.00
10,000.00
2,000.00
12,000.00
19,000.00
3,090.00
650.00
2,400.00
5,405.00
1,000.00
27,000.00
44,000.00
20,000.00
1,100.00
I 1000 81040 800100ZONING PHOTO EQUIP 2,000.00
I 1000 81040 800100ZONING SCANNER 8,000.00
TOTAL 577,205.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1000 51000 510100 GENERAL FUNDBALANCE $577,205.00
TOTAL $577,205.00
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER: FINANCE
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
SIGNATURE
DATE
OCT. 23, 2000
//-z
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
=ISCAL YEAR:
00/01
NUMBER
20025
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO
X
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
;NEW CAPITAL FUND PROJECTS TO BE FUNDED FROM CARRYOVER.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION
1 9010 11010 800750 BD. OF SUPV.
1 9010 11010 999979 BD. OF SUPV.
I 9010 11010 999979 BD. OFSUPV.
1 9010 21050 331000 JUVENILE CT
I 9010 41000 950039 ENGINEERING
1 9010 43.100 800664PUBLICWORKS
1 9010 43100 950117 PUBLIC WORKS
1 9010 43100 950119 PUBLIC WORKS
1 9010 43100 950120 PUBLIC WORKS
1 9010 71000 950034 PARKS & REC.
1 9010 71000 950118 PARKS & REC.
1 9100 41000 950093 STORMWATER
AMOUNT
LAND ACQUISITON
CAPITAL RESERVE
CAPITAL RESERVE
REPAIRS & MAINT.
MEADOW CR. PARKWAY
COB SECURITY
SOCIAL SERV. RENOVATIONS
BOARD ROOM
REGISTRAR SPACE
TOWE BERMUDA GRASS
SCOTTSVILLE-ROOF
STORMWATER PLAN
$1,200,000.00
500 000.00
2,000 000.00
14 527.00
140 000.00
40 000.00
276.000.00
75 000.00
30 000.00
12000.00
150.000.00
100.000.00
TOTAL $4,537,527.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 9010 51000 512004 TRS. FROM GENERAL FUND $4,437,527.00
2 9100 51000 512004 TRS. FROM GENERAL FUND 100,000.00
TOTAL $4,537,527.00
TRANSFERS
1 1000 93010 930010 G/F TRS. TO CIP 4,437,527.00
1 1000 93010 930202 G/F TRS. TO STORMWATER 100,000.00
2 1000 51000 510100 G/F BALANCE 4,537,527.00
REQUESTING COST CENTER: FINANCE
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
SIGNATURE
DATE
OCT. 24, 2000
/I-z
October 13, 2000
Albemarle Historical Society
201E. Market St
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Re: Removal of sign at Mechum's River.
The Stonewall Jackson commemorative sign at Mechum's River has
been removed again. I hope this can be rectified and the sign
returned to its rightful place by you if you are the organization
to do this or you will know who to contact to have this done.
Thank you.
resources.
I think you do a wonderful job with your limited
CO:
VDOT Headquarters
Rt. 250 East
Charlottesville, VA 22901