Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-04-06 April 6, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on April 6, 2005, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Dennis S. Rooker, Ms. Sally H. Thomas and Mr. David C. Wyant. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, Director of Planning, V. Wayne Cilimberg, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Debi Moyers. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:04 a.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Rooker. _______________ Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. _______________ Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. Cate Wyatt addressed the Board, explaining the “Journey Through Hallowed Ground,” a collaborative initiative begun in 1996 in Adams County, Pennsylvania. She stated that the initiative is intended to celebrate the 175-mile stretch from Gettysburg to Monticello that follows the Old Carolina Road, which holds “more American history than any other swath of land in the country.” Ms. Wyatt noted that this stretch includes the home of six U.S. Presidents, and John and George Marshall. She reported that this area encompasses 47 historic districts and over 1 million acres on the National Historic Register, and contains more Civil War battlefield sites than any other swath of land in the nation. Ms. Wyatt stated that the Journey Through Hallowed Ground is an attempt to raise the regional and national awareness of the “wealth and treasures” found in this area, along with the attempt to preserve them. She requested an opportunity to come back to the Board and inform them in more detail of the initiative, along with a request for support, noting that there is a joint resolution passed by the General Assembly and resolutions from the Leesburg and Purcellville Town Councils as well as the Adams County, PA commissioners. Mr. Tucker suggested that Ms. Wyatt contact the Clerk’s office to set up a time to revisit the Board. __________ Mr. John Gregg addressed the Board as a five-year member of the Branchlands Property Owners Board of Directors, as well as a member of the Hillsdale Drive Extension Steering Committee. He stated that he represents 95 percent of their 158 residents, all eligible to join the AARP with an average age of 80 years or more. He explained that Branchlands is adjacent to Hillsdale on the west side for about 300 yards, and safety, noise, air pollution, and additional traffic brought to the neighborhood are serious concerns. Mr. Gregg stated that he strongly recommends against building the extension to Hillsdale Drive. __________ Mr. Robert Metzger addressed the Board as President of the Brookmill Association, Inc., noting that with him today are residents of both Brookmill and Branchlands. He stated that he served on the steering committee for the project, which concluded that (1) the road should not be built, and (2) build it using the alternate city proposal. Mr. Metzger explained that Brookmill has 72 homes, and is one of several communities that uses the road, along with 200 homes at Branchlands; he added that JABA, Our Lady of Peace, Rosewood Manor, and the Laurels all comprise facilities for senior citizens, along with the Senior Center, which serves over 200 seniors daily. He added that there is a day care center, a multitude of apartments, and a church. Mr. Metzger reported that VDOT recently appropriated $300,000 to make safety and traffic-calming improvements to Hillsdale Drive north of Greenbrier Drive with stop signs, designated crosswalks, and speed bumps, along with reduced speed limits. He emphasized that the road extension has been considered since at least 1990, at which time the Board believed there would be no increased traffic as a result; however, a traffic study in 2001 by the Southern Environmental Law Center stated that building the Hillsdale Drive extension would allow the completion of building out 85 acres between Hydraulic Road and Greenbrier Drive, and would double the amount of commercial floor area to approximately 700,000 square feet. Mr. Metzger said that a report from the city states that the road will allow for additional tax revenues, and the traffic could grow to around 35,000 daily trips. He emphasized that that will mean increased pollution, decreased property values, and safety concerns; the steering committee report shows maximum traffic now of 10,100 vehicle trips, which he referenced as attachments. Mr. Metzger concluded by asking the county to protect its senior citizens by voting for the “no-build” option that came out of the steering committee, on which Mr. Bowerman served. __________ Mr. James Hill addressed the Board as President of the Northfield Community Association, representing approximately 210 homes located in this subdivision – which runs the entire length of Northfield Road – a continuation of Hillsdale Drive north of Rio Road. He stated that he was an active member of the Hillsdale Drive Extension Steering Committee, and stated his homeowners unanimously oppose the extension to Northfield, as most cars on Hillsdale extended would try to use Northfield as a shortcut to Carrsbrook Drive to get to 29. Mr. Hill emphasized that “the math is simple,” because there is only one stop sign as opposed to six traffic signals along Route 29. He noted that the Hillsdale Drive Extension Steering Committee report reveals the overwhelming resident support for the “no-build” April 6, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 2) alternative, and the business support for the build alternative. Mr. Hill emphasized that while residents there are equally frustrated with the Route 29 traffic congestion, they do not support building the extension through this residential stretch. __________ Ms. Alexis Echols of Brookmill addressed the Board, stating that her concern is imminent domain, noting that there is a case before the Supreme Court regarding this issue. She stated that residents are disturbed most because of Kevin Lynch’s statement “the city intends to build this road.” Ms. Echols said that as a county resident, she took great objection to this statement, noting that there have been over 10,000 instances in recent years of condemnation of property for governmental use. She explained that in the road plans, the pond would be moved to the other side of the street, which would bring water directly into Brookmill, where there is already flooding. Ms. Echols emphasized that the residents want the “no-build” option for safety reasons. __________ Mr. Neil Williamson of the Free Enterprise Forum addressed the Board, stating that an ordinance is best crafted by those who will enforce the regulations. He encouraged the county to work with the Blue Ridge Homebuilders Association, Piedmont Environmental Council, and others involved to work on an amendment that makes significant change to the development in the development areas will be supported by a wide variety of community groups. _______________ Agenda Item No. 5. Presentation: Certificates of Appreciation. Mr. Rooker read a statement of recognition: “The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors expresses its gratitude to Chris Lee for his dedicated service as a member of the public recreational facilities authority, from June 2, 1999 to December 13, 2004, in which capacity he honorably served the Board and the citizens of Albemarle County by applying the guidelines of the authority wisely, by providing insight and sound reasoning on complex land conservation issues, and by helping to protect the county’s rural areas through the careful management of perpetual conservation easements.” On behalf of the Board, Mr. Rooker presented Mr. Lee with a certificate of appreciation for his service, and wished him the best of luck in future endeavors. Mr. Lee stated that it has been a pleasure to serve, and he looks forward to serving on other commissions in the future. _______________ Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve Items 6.1 and 6.2, and to accept the remaining items for information. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier. NAYS: None __________ Item 6.1. Approval of Minutes: November 10A, 2004 and February 9A, 2005. Ms. Thomas read the minutes of June 9, 2004, pages 1-15 (end at Item 8) and found them to be in order. Mr. Bowerman read the minutes of June 9, 2004, pages 15(Item 8) – end and found them to be in order. Mr. Dorrier read the minutes of January 12(N), 2005 and found them to be in order. By the recorded vote set out above, the minutes were approved. __________ Item 6.2. Proclamation recognizing April 2005 as Fair Housing Month. By the recorded vote set out above, the following proclamation was approved: FAIR HOUSING MONTH WHEREAS , April 2005, marks the thirty-seventh anniversary of the passage of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which sought to eliminate discrimination in housing opportunities and to affirmatively further housing choices for all Americans; and WHEREAS , the ongoing struggle for dignity and housing opportunity for all is not the exclusive province of the Federal government; and WHEREAS , vigorous local efforts to combat discrimination can be as effective, if not more so, than Federal efforts; and WHEREAS , illegal barriers to equal opportunity in housing, no matter how subtle, diminish the April 6, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 3) rights of all; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED , that in the pursuit of the shared goal and responsibility of providing equal housing opportunities for all men and women, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby join in the national celebration by proclaiming APRIL, 2005 as FAIR HOUSING MONTH and encourages all agencies, institutions and individuals, public and private, in Albemarle County to abide by the letter and the spirit of the Fair Housing law. __________ Item 6.3. Copy of letter dated March 10, 2005 from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration, to Tara Rowan Boyd, re: Official Determination of Development Rights and Parcels – Tax Map 58, Parcel 8 (property of Thomas Hutchinson) - Section 10.3.1., received for information. __________ Item 6.4. Copy of a notice filed with the State Corporation Commission of a Joint Petition of SBC Communications, Inc., and AT&T Corp., AT&T Communications of Virginia, LLC, and TCG Virginia, Inc. (Case No. PUC-2005-00035) for approval of a merger and request for expedited consideration, received for information. __________ Item 6.5. Copy of draft Planning Commission minutes for March 1, 2005, received for information. __________ Item 6.6. Copy of Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors minutes for February 17, 2005, received for information. __________ Item 6.7. VDOT monthly report for April, 2005, received as information. _______________ Agenda Item No. 7. Board to Board Presentation, School Board Chairman. Removed from agenda. _______________ Agenda Item No. 8a. Presentation: Hillsdale Drive Extension Location Study. Mr. Cilimberg noted the following information received by the Board. The executive summary states that the City has undertaken a study of the extension of Hillsdale Drive from Pepsi Place to Hydraulic Road. The Study Area for this project is generally defined as the area bordered by Route 29 on the west, Brandywine Drive on the east, Greenbrier Drive on the north and Hydraulic Road on the south. The corridor options for extending Hillsdale Drive from its present termini at Greenbrier Drive to Hydraulic Road would include constructing a new roadway in a new location, utilizing existing roadways with improvements, or a combination of these. Development of the road as a multi-modal facility (i.e. automobiles, transit, pedestrians, bicycles, etc.) was an integral part of this Study. The purpose of this location study was to determine if there is a feasible location for the extension of Hillsdale Drive from Greenbrier Drive to Hydraulic Road. The intent of this project is to: ? Address safety and security issues existing along Hillsdale Drive ? Relieve congestion on Route 29 and the Route 29 / Hydraulic Road intersection ? Complete the area’s multi-modal transportation network ? Improve access to commercial businesses The Study process considered five alternatives for the extension of Hillsdale Drive, including a no- build option. A description of these alternatives, with a summary of the impacts of each, is provided in Attachment B. A graphic display of all alternatives can be found on Attachment C, D, E, and F of this executive summary. More detailed information regarding the alternatives and their impacts can be found in the full Study, the Hillsdale Drive Extension Location Study Report, located at www.hillsdaledrive.org. As part of the Study process, the City appointed a steering committee to assist a hired consultant in identifying cultural, historical and natural resources and define potential alignments for the proposed Hillsdale Drive Extension. The Steering Committee mission was to recommend an extension location for the extension of Hillsdale Drive. Several representatives from Albemarle County were appointed to the Steering Committee. County representatives included David Bowerman, Juandiego R. Wade, Bob Metzger (Brookmill Homeowners Association), John Gregg (Branchland Property Owners Association) and James Hill (Northfield Homeowners Association). The Steering Committee met on numerous occasions and held four public meetings. The Steering Committee’s recommendation has been provided for the Board’s information. Development of this project has been a long standing priority of the City and County because it has been seen as providing an important link to commercial areas and as an alternative parallel road to Route 29 for local traffic. This project is identified in the County Priority List for Secondary Road Improvements, the County Capital Improvement Plan, and CHART (the regional transportation plan for the City and County Urbanized Area). Angela Tucker, from the City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Services, will present April 6, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 4) th the Study findings and Steering Committee recommendations to the Board at the April 6 Board meeting. The City Council approved Alternative C at their March 7, 2005 meeting with the same conditions as noted in Attachment G. There was strong support for Alternative E, the “No-Build” option, at the public hearings held by the Steering Committee, particularly from several neighborhoods and homeowner associations within the immediate study area, some of which are represented on the Steering Committee. The major objections to building the project expressed by the citizens related to concerns over public safety, congestion, noise pollution, air pollution and impacts to property values generated by increased traffic on Hillsdale Drive. Nevertheless, several members of the Steering Committee supported constructing the project, specifically Alternative C. Alternative C was considered the best alternative because it would have the least environmental impacts (to Meadow Creek and its floodplain), utilized the most existing infrastructure/built area, and was furthest from the Brook Mill residential area. The final recommendation from the Steering Committee (Attachment A) is reflective of the preferences of the members that supported either Alternatives C (Attachment C) or the “No-Build” option. This was achieved by noting the concerns of those supporting the “No-Build” alternative in the final Steering Committee recommendations and recommending to the Board and City Council that, if the “Build” option is chosen, Alternative C would be the recommended alternative, with the conditions as noted in Attachment A. These conditions are intended to address the concerns outlined by neighbors and citizens surrounding the “No-Build” option. The Steering Committee does not provide a recommendation to the Board or Council on whether to support a build or no-build option. While staff recognizes the concerns of the residents of the area, staff supports the Steering Committee’s recommendations of Alternative C as the preferred alternative. Staff supports Alternative C because it: ? Provides an alternate route for traffic in the vicinity of Hillsdale Drive, reducing traffic on Route 29 by 6,000 trips (in the forecast year-2025). ? Connects major commercial areas along Route 29. ? Provides access for pedestrian, bicyclists, and vehicular traffic to commercial areas without accessing Route 29. ? Does not impact forested land or the established screening behind the Pepsi Place or the Seminole Square Center, and is removed from proximity to the Brookmill development. ? Does not have any impact on Meadow Creek or its floodplain. Staff recognizes, as did the Steering Committee, that there was significant public opposition to any alternative. A major concern for some of the opposition is a fear that the road would attract a significant amount of traffic from Rt. 29 to the Hillsdale Road area, negatively affecting the character of the area and making the road more unsafe for residents. It should be noted current traffic volumes on Hillsdale Road are 5,800 vehicle trips/day. Under the no-build alternative, the forecasted traffic volume (2025) on the existing Hillsdale Drive is 8,700 trips/day, while under the build option (Alternative C) traffic volumes are forecast at 10,000 trips/day. Staff opinion is that the additional impact from the Hillsdale extension (Alternative C) is not significantly different from what would be anticipated if no extension were made. The recommended road design parameters noted in the Steering Committee’s conditions of approval call for a lower speed, multi- modal and pedestrian friendly road, which would mitigate impacts of the additional traffic. Staff supports the eight conditions recommended by the Steering Committee as part of the Alternative C, option. The recommended conditions establish road design expectations and a community review and input process which will help to address and mitigate the negative impacts of the extension. The County has recently been awarded grant funding to begin installing pedestrian related safety improvements on the existing Hillsdale Drive, including completing the sidewalk system, providing pedestrian crosswalks, mid-road “safe heavens” at crossing points and other improvements. Alternative C would continue these concepts in the new project. One of the impacts of Alternative C is the potential need to relocate the existing storm water retention pond located at the corner of Hillsdale and Greenbrier Drive in order to realign Hillsdale Drive to intersect with Pepsi Place Drive. Although final design/construction plans have not yet been done for this improvement, relocating the pond adjacent to the realigned Hillsdale Drive is a feasible and acceptable concept according to the County Engineer. In summary, the extension of Hillsdale Drive, from Greenbrier to Hydraulic Road, is a critical component of a high priority regional strategy to establish a network of local roads parallel to Route 29. This network would provide alternate travel routes, better connections between neighborhoods, better access to businesses and services, safer travel routes for pedestrian and bicyclist and more direct and efficient transit routes between destinations. The Hillsdale Drive extension is one of the high priority parallel roads in this parallel road network as evidenced by its priority in CHART and the 29H250 Study (Phase I and II). Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors endorse the resolution noted on Attachment G supporting Alternative C. __________ Mr. Boyd asked where traffic signals would be put up along this route. Ms. Angela Tucker replied that lights would likely be used at the tie-in with Hydraulic, to be determined at the design phase if moved forward. She added that Hydraulic would be reviewed carefully because of the existing signal at K-Mart, noting that it’s possible that a signal at Greenbrier and Hillsdale might also be considered. April 6, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 5) Mr. Boyd asked how many people on the committee voted for the “Alternative C,” as most of the residents seem to be in favor of “no-build.” Ms. Tucker responded that representation for both city and county was very good, with strong turnouts at each public meeting, and the consensus was that all views were known, all issues were discussed. Mr. Boyd said that at least three major communities along that route are in favor of the no-build option. He asked if there were any community organizations outside of staff and government who supported a build option. Mr. Bowerman explained that there was a wide and fair discussion, and the public expressed itself fairly. He stated that the “preferred alignment was no alignment,” but “Alternative C” was the most desirable build option. Mr. Bowerman commented that the county does support connectivity, and he took the committee assignment believing in the need for a connection into the Seminole Trail shopping center, as there are 5,000 to 10,000 trips per day that need to turn into the center, and could do so without getting onto Route 29. He added that he did not realize the road was going to be a connector road between Hydraulic Road and Carrsbrook, which goes through eight suburban neighborhoods. Mr. Bowerman stated that the conditions put on C include traffic calming, etc., but VDOT’s position on traffic calming is that those measures cannot be done without a 25 mile per hour speed limit, and Hillsdale, Northfields, Raintree, and Huntington are all 35 miles per hour. Mr. Bowerman stated that those streets are suburban, and the traffic calming measures may not be able to be done because of the speed limit. VDOT just does not allow that. Mr. Bowerman emphasized that his concern is that the road would be a connector road between Carrsbrook and Hydraulic running through a totally residential community except for Seminole Square itself. For that reason, and his knowledge of what VDOT policies were, also trying to fight those policies to get traffic policies in places in the county where we have in excess of 25 mile per hour speed limit, we did not have any success. So, to him, it is putting a connector road through eight residential neighborhoods. He thinks it is just the wrong thing to do. Mr. Rooker stated that he served on the MPO Technical Committee in 1989, and the county has supported this road. With respect to traffic calming, he said, they have a $300,000 grant to put traffic- calming measures on the county section of Hillsdale, and the city controls the speed limit on their section, which they approved at 25 miles per hour. Mr. Rooker emphasized that 99 percent of this road is in the city, with the county portion already built. He stated that the conditions placed on the road are unprecedented traffic-calming measures, and the road will be a model street for integrating pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile traffic through the area. Mr. Rooker added that the studies show that traffic will be generated from people in that area, and he cannot imagine people getting off of Route 29 to wind on Carrsbrook to find their way back onto 29. He emphasized that no neighborhood ever wants a connected road, but you create a traffic nightmare if you do not connect roads. Mr. Rooker said that he agrees with most of what Mr. Bowerman said, but he believes the road should be built, adding that there is money for traffic-calming measures. He stated that the county has supported the city’s efforts to build a connector, and it would be a real tragedy in community cooperation for us to pull the rug out from under this project at this time, adding that the city’s resolution includes traffic-calming measures and a 25-mph speed limit. This will serve the people that live in this area. Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that there are raised-meeting crosswalks at the existing Hillsdale and re- striping of travel lanes to reduce vehicle speeds, so there is an intention to implement traffic-calming measures, although the number and placement of speed bumps is unknown. He emphasized that VDOT has provided the $300,000 grant, so they have indicated support for the measures. Mr. Rooker commented that the project is good from a transportation standpoint and fitting into the neighborhood. Ms. Tucker stated that VDOT is committed to working sensitively with the county to put together a road that addresses each condition. Ms. Thomas said that there are ways to the road could lead to a more sensible interchange or ending at Hydraulic Road, and asked if the city is committed to a connection that makes more sense on the south side of that road. Ms. Tucker responded that the city is aware of the H-29/250 study that talks about the extension south of Hydraulic through the triangle parcel, although she is not aware of any formal commitment to extend Hillsdale into the development area, but they are aware that that is part of a preliminary conceptual plan for transportation in the area. Ms. Thomas commented that there would definitely be site plans for the road, so the solution depends on the city’s commitment to improvements on the south side of Hydraulic. Ms. Tucker replied that that would depend on cooperation with commercial developers, or the city’s pursuit of another road project similar to Hillsdale to put in place the public infrastructure in that piece, adding that she is not aware of any formal project there. She said that she could look into the matter and come back to the Board with a more thorough report. Ms. Thomas said that she feels a bit unsure of a city commitment to improving traffic on the south side of Hydraulic. It does seem to her that if the city wants Board support of the Hillsdale Drive extension then they should make some commensurate commitment on what they are going to and try to do within the limits of the law on the south side of Hydraulic Road. April 6, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 6) Ms. Tucker stated that she could ask her boss if there are any substantial things underway, adding that the BestBuy may not have been the best solution for promoting invisible boundaries. Mr. Rooker commented that when the city allowed the Pepsi plant to be built, the county was extremely upset because it was in the alignment of where the connector was supposed to be. He added that the city has worked long and hard to try to come up with a route that works, with county encouragement. Mr. Rooker noted that the county’s CTB representative has been working with property owners in the area over the last three to four months to try to put together a private/public transportation act from Seminole Trail on down. He reported that at a transportation meeting yesterday morning, Mr. Davies mentioned creating a package because the right of way contribution is so significant in terms of the total price of the project - $15 million of the $21 million total. Mr. Rooker reiterated that the city and county have worked for 15 years to get the project done, and it is possible that the BestBuy ramp could be included in the package if commercial development contributions were enough. Mr. Bowerman stated that he would just make sure attention is paid to the safety improvements along Hillsdale. Ms. Thomas said that she suggested a condition that states: “Every effort should be made by the city to continue network and interchange improvements south of Hydraulic.” Mr. Rooker agreed. Mr. Dorrier asked what the condition means exactly. Ms. Thomas replied that every study made of the Emmet Street/250 Bypass points out that some work has to be done south of Hydraulic in order to improve the traffic flow. She added that it would probably get its most immediate impact from two lanes leaving 29 heading south going on the 250 bypass. Ms. Thomas said that there are also proposals to have a road coming off of the present bypass going onto Emmet Street, but not tied down firmly enough. She added that the condition would not actually bind the city in any way, but would place emphasis on the county’s desire to have a tie-in at the bypass. Ms. Thomas commented that we all hate new roads, but this is a very crucial piece of a community network. Because it is part of a network, it reduces traffic on all the surrounding roads, which she thinks will be an impact that even the residents will appreciate. She added that the county would not have supported the extension without the traffic-calming measures and associated grant. Mr. Bowerman asked if the conditions apply to the portion to be constructed or the existing portion of Hillsdale also. Mr. Rooker said that VDOT could be petitioned to lower the speed limit on the rest of the road when the new portion is built at 25 miles per hour. Mr. Cilimberg stated that that will be an integral part of the new safety project. Mr. Wyant noted that the number of parking spaces lost will also be a significant concern. Ms. Tucker said that street parking on Pepsi Place will be used. Mr. Bowerman asked when improvements start on existing Hillsdale with the grant. Mr. Cilimberg said that they are awaiting word on the availability of the money, and he cannot say for sure when that will occur. He added that the county has hired someone to work on surveying the project area to get a handle on exact costs. Mr. Rooker added that the money should be here this year, with construction beginning this fall. Mr. Cilimberg said that there are remaining questions about how the money would be distributed, although the grant itself is a certainty. Mr. Boyd empathized with residents who live along Hillsdale, noting that there has been some discrepancy about exact traffic count. He expressed concern that the road might become “a de-facto Meadow Creek Parkway” and won’t keep local traffic off of Route 29. He does not think those questions can be dealt with, with $300,000. That is not a whole lot of money in today’s dollars to do a lot of traffic calming. Mr. Boyd said that he would prefer that the Meadow Creek Parkway be done first. Mr. Rooker pointed out that if you are going downtown, you are not going to take Hillsdale and go to K-Mart, and traffic studies show that no one would select that as an alternative route to Rio. Mr. Bowerman said that there are a significant number of cars making left turns off of Rio onto Hillsdale. Mr. Rooker pointed out that the residents of that area use that route, and the whole idea of having a transportation network is to create connectivity for points off of Route 29. He likened the county withdrawing support of Hillsdale extension to the city pulling out of Meadow Creek. April 6, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 7) Mr. Boyd asked if the money for Hillsdale could have been appropriated for a Route 250 interchange. Ms. Tucker replied that the issue of funding the interchange is still outstanding, adding that the cost was initially estimated at $12 million; ideally, the interchange would be developed in time to coordinate with the Meadow Creek Parkway, which is still on schedule for construction in 2008. She added that the best scenario for the Hillsdale Drive connector would be construction starting in 2009-10 if funding were available. Ms. Tucker noted that the design study period for the interchange project is a three-year timeframe, and is “an aggressive schedule” to come up with construction plans that hopefully coincide with the Meadow Creek Parkway. Mr. Rooker pointed out that the interchange project can qualify for federal funds, and Hillsdale qualifies for PPTA funds whereas the interchange does not. He emphasized that the Hillsdale project is largely a city project, and every stone is being turned to find funding for transportation funding. Mr. Rooker said that the county’s total secondary road funding this year is $3.7 million, down from $4.8 million just three years ago, and will continue to decrease to an estimated $2.7 in another three years. He stated that the Meadow Creek Parkway inflation factor will be $2 million this year alone, noting that the state is enhancing its revenue-sharing to localities that find their own funding. Mr. Dorrier said he thought the Board was just looking at which alternative to adopt. Mr. Boyd noted that land use policies have changed over 15 years, as none of the existing Hillsdale development was there. Mr. Rooker pointed out that all of that development came in with a plan that Hillsdale would be connected. If we do not take the opportunities to create the connections that have been long planned in the community, we are going to have a failed transportation system in this community. If we are not willing to step up and do it, the community will bear the consequences in the long run. Mr. Boyd suggested adding a condition that the Meadow Creek Parkway stays on schedule and gets built before the Hillsdale connector. He is really concerned that we concentrate whatever we need to get that done. Mr. Rooker agreed in principle, but said that one project should not be conditional on another. He thinks it would end up with neither project moving forward. He added that the county has never approved a project in the area that has these types of conditions, adding that the community had a lot of input into the conditions. Ms. Thomas suggested having a resolution that says every effort would be made to complete the Meadow Creek Parkway prior to the completion of the Hillsdale project. Mr. Boyd agreed, asking Mr. Rooker if he felt that would work. Mr. Rooker stated that the condition would indicate the Board’s intent. Mr. Wyant said that he is also concerned about going northbound. Ms. Thomas commented that if the county is expecting the development community to provide connectivity, it would be hypocritical if the Board did not support the Hillsdale measure. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas to adopt the following Resolution to Approve Alternative C for Hillsdale Drive Extension with addition of condition #9 and condition #10. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier. NAYS: Mr. Bowerman. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE ALTERNATIVE C FOR HILLSDALE DRIVE EXTENSION WHEREAS, a Location Public Hearing was conducted on November 4, 2004 in the City of Charlottesville by representatives of the City of Charlottesville, County of Albemarle, the Steering Committee, and the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Transportation after due and proper notice for the purpose of considering the proposed location of the Hillsdale Drive Extension Project U000-104-119, PE101, R201, C501 in Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville, at which hearing aerial photographs, drawings and other pertinent information were made available for public inspection in accordance with state and federal requirements; and WHEREAS, all persons and parties in attendance were afforded full opportunity to participate in said hearing; and WHEREAS, representatives of the County of Albemarle were present and participated in said hearing; and April 6, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 8) WHEREAS, the Board has previously requested the Virginia Department of Transportation to program this project; and WHEREAS, the Board considered all such matters; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby approves the location of the proposed project under the “Alternative C” alignment as presented at the Public Hearing subject to the following conditions: 1. The safety of those working and living in, using the services of and traveling through the area are of the utmost importance and design features incorporated into the roadway must enhance and promote its function as a local, low speed (posted a 25 mph) road which is user friendly to motorists, pedestrians, bicyclist and transit as well as those using other modes of mobility. 2. A community workshop program must be developed by the Steering Committee so the citizens of the area have the opportunity to provide input about the project and to comment on design features. 3. Any loss in the number of parking spaces presently existing in the vicinity of the Senior Center, Jordan Building, Laurels, or Pepsi Plant, or on the street at Pepsi Place must be replaced in any build alternative. 4. Sidewalks and bike/multi-use trails will be provided throughout the project and should connect with and include safety features similar to those being implemented on Hillsdale Drive north of its intersection with Greenbrier Drive. 5. The possibility of separated bike paths/multi-use trails and/or alternative-vehicle paths should be thoroughly investigated, particularly in the area east of the Senior Center, the Jordan Building and the Pepsi Plant. 6. Traffic calming and traffic control features should be incorporated into the design to promote a safe, low speed facility and encourage its use as a local road and not as a bypass to Route 29. 7. Design features such as landscape/streetscape, lighting, etc. that will promote the Route 29/H/250 Phase 2 Report vision for the area should be utilized where feasible. 8. Every effort should be made to protect the view shed, watershed and natural features of the impacted area (including the Rivanna Trail) as part of the design and construction of any build alternative. 9. Every effort should be made by the City of Charlottesville to continue network and interchange improvements south of Hydraulic Road. 10. Every effort should be made to complete the Meadow Creek Parkway prior to completion of this project. Mr. Bowerman said that he believes the 10 conditions will end up applying to the city portion, and not the county portion of Hillsdale. Ms. Thomas suggested that he develop a different resolution with constraints to pertain to the county if he desired. Mr. Rooker suggested that measures be implemented to reduce the speed limit to 25 along existing Hillsdale. Mr. Bowerman said that he would also like to see those measures on other roads that will connect to Hillsdale. Mr. Tucker stated that he can bring back what is being proposed as part of the grant. Ms. Tucker thanked the Board for their consideration of the plan. _______________ Agenda Item No. 8b. Transportation Matters not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Jim Utterback, Resident Administrator addressed the Board. Board members stated that they like the new report format of the monthly VDOT reports. Mr. Utterback explained that there has been an agreement made with the property owner for tree removal, so the guardrail will be installed on Dry Bridge Road. Mr. Utterback reported that VDOT did get the right of way files from the county for the Georgetown Road project, and the previous recommendations from 1994 would be depicted in the aerial photos. Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Utterback to follow up on the reprogramming of funds from Old Ivy Road to Georgetown, which VDOT had assured the county could be done. Mr. Utterback agreed to do so. Mr. Utterback said that he is working on the Southern Parkway based on meetings he has had with the local assistance division, and it will qualify as a secondary road. He reported that they did get the proffers on North Pointe development, and said that a traffic study for Rio Road at Dunlora shows that a light may not be warranted there. Mr. Rooker mentioned that there would be a stoplight with the Meadow Creek Parkway that would address cars having to make a right, then immediate left (u-turn) leaving Dunlora. Mr. Utterback stated that the Albemarle Lake Road water situation has been mitigated with the ditches being cleaned and shoulders cut. He said that the problems at the Crozet shopping center have not been found yet, and some stone has been added at Mt. Moriah Church. Mr. Utterback said that the Garth April 6, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 9) Road/Route 614 intersection review is in process. He stated that the wording on the Mint Springs sign says “Mint Springs Valley Park,” and wondered if the valley should be removed. Mr. Wyant said he does not really have a problem with the new sign as it is. Mr. Utterback reported that the I-64/Ivy interchange parking by permit only sign was installed on th March 11. He said that the entrance to Brownsville School at night lighting issue is being examined, noting that the county would have to work on the lighting. Mr. Wyant suggested adding striping there to denote the turn lane. Mr. Utterback stated that the Blenheim Road work is slated to be completed this spring, but has been delayed because of wet weather. He said that there are a number of issues related to Route 743, with differing conclusions. Mr. Rooker said that Hydraulic Road narrows into two lanes with increased speed limit at the curves, which he finds odd. Mr. Utterback said that bids are in for the rustic road projects – Route 640 in Greene and Albemarle – and they were over $340,000 higher than engineer’s estimates. He explained that he is proceeding with the possibility of Routes 640 and 666 being built by VDOT crews with hired equipment, acknowledging that Route 640 in Albemarle has some large drainage structure issues that will delay that project. Mr. Boyd asked how long the setback would be on Route 640, as he gets a lot of calls on that stretch. Mr. Utterback said that he will have a better idea next month, but he does not anticipate delays far beyond summer. He stated that staff would inform people as to when the work takes place, with the utilities being marked, etc. Mr. Utterback said that the SLURRE application is going on, with plant mix operations to begin this month. __________ Mr. Bowerman asked VDOT to look into the issue of potholes on Raintree Drive and Old Brook Road. __________ Mr. Wyant asked VDOT to look into Via Lane and the approval of two bridges. He also asked VDOT to look at the Meadows site distance in Crozet, especially coming in and turning left. Mr. Wyant said that there should also be a warning on the curve entering Crozet on Buck Mountain Lane. __________ Ms. Thomas mentioned that residents on Plank Road want it designated as a Virginia Scenic Byway, and county staff is working on that. She mentioned that CATEC had sent a letter related to the Meadow Creek Parkway, and asked if staff had received the letter. Mr. Cilimberg indicated they had not. Mr. Rooker reported that Mr. Utterback should get the letter, noting that many of the issues in the document had been addressed by VDOT staff in a recent public meeting. __________ Ms. Thomas asked what Greene County is commemorating with Emily Couric markers. Mr. Utterback responded that they want to designate a bridge to her there. __________ Mr. Boyd thanked him for the guardrail work on Route 20 and asked about the intersection of Routes 22/250 related to buildings there behind the market. Mr. Utterback replied that he has not seen the plans. Mr. Cilimberg indicated that staff had worked with the plans, and there is nothing that would really impact the buildings. It is strictly realignment. __________ Mr. Rooker said that he had received a letter from the Town of Scottsville asking for progress with improvements to the Hardware Street/Valley Street and Warren Street/Valley Street intersections in Scottsville. Mr. Utterback said that the project is in the six-year plan, but is low in priority and there is not any money allocated to it at this time. He said that there are three or four houses that would be impacted by any improvements, noting that Scottsville also has streetscape projects underway. _______________ Agenda Item No. 9. Presentation: ArtinPlace Program. Mr. Tucker said the executive summary states that ArtInPlace is a local non-profit corporation established to make art accessible to the general public. Over the past several years, ArtInPlace has April 6, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 10) worked with the City of Charlottesville in establishing sites to display outdoor sculptures with a wide range of artistic styles, themes and media. Locations in the City which have been selected for public sculpture are in areas of high vehicular traffic. Each year, 10 works are selected for exhibition. Each installation is in place for one year. This program of temporary exhibitions is designed to provide interesting art to drivers in their travels about the City. This program was funded initially with a grant from the City of Charlottesville and has been maintained by corporate sponsorships, commissions from the sale of artwork, and an annual grant from the City of approximately $5,000 to help defray basic costs. ArtInPlace is interested in developing a suitable variation of this program for expansion to County sites if the County Board of Supervisors is generally supportive of this expansion. Supporters of ArtInPlace will make a brief presentation, regarding th their proposal, to the Board of Supervisors on April 6. The primary difference between the current City program and a proposed program for the County is the VDOT ownership and maintenance of the medians in the County. While the County currently has a permit with VDOT which allows an expanded level of maintenance on selected median strips, any work not currently under permit will require approval from VDOT. In addition, other differences such as the speed of traffic along County medians could influence the suitability of the display both in terms of the enjoyment and safety of the traveling public. County staff discussed these issues with ArtInPlace representatives who recommended that median strip projects could be limited to landscape designs while sculpture displays could be targeted for other high traffic County owned properties such as the County Office Buildings and County parks. The issue of County liability as a result of this program will need to be investigated. The City currently leases the property to ArtInPlace where any sculpture is to be located for liability protection. Also, the potential future cost of this program to the County needs to be calculated. For instance, if landscape improvements to the median strips require an enhanced level of maintenance, it is anticipated that the County would be responsible for those ongoing costs. It is the intent of ArtInPlace to seek funding for an intern position this summer to develop the details of expanding the ArtInPlace program into the County. This intern would work closely with the Parks and Recreation Department and other appropriate County staff to develop a proposal for review by ArtInPlace and the County Board of Supervisors. No budget impact is anticipated in the current fiscal year. A minimal budget impact would be anticipated, if approved, in the second half of FY 05/06. The full budget impact anticipated in FY 06/07 is dependent on the landscape project selection and will be estimated during the intern study and included in the finished proposal. Mr. Tucker said the ArtInPlace presentation is for the Board’s information and comment only and requires no Board action at this time. Mr. Blake Hurt addressed the Board, noting that ArtInPlace has put up 10 sculptures in the city, and there are about 50,000 cars that see these works each day. The idea is to make the drive around more interesting, and they would like to put art in the county as well. Mr. Hurt said that in the county, enhanced landscaping may be more appropriate than the sculptures in the city. He stated that they have learned a lot from their experience with the city sculptures, and said that the sculptures are for sale, with the city purchasing them every year along with private art collectors. Mr. Hurt pointed out that there are maintenance costs associated with the art, as well as public opinion to deal with, which not all has been positive. Mr. Boyd commented that placing these along greenways would make sense. Mr. Tucker agreed, noting that staff has looked into this. Mr. Hurt said that they would like to put in a linear park along McIntire Park. Mr. Dorrier asked how they determine what substances are used. Mr. Hurt replied that artists bid on having their projects used, but the works are lent for just one year, unless the city or a private collector wants to purchase them. Ms. Thomas suggested having the intern look at the Baker-Butler sculpture park, as well as other schools. Mr. Tucker said that some schools have artists come in with sculptures for temporary placement. _______________ Agenda Item No.10. Albemarle First Bank-Central Sewage System Request, Appeal of Planning Commissions decision. The request was appealed to the Board in a letter dated February 21, 2005, from Richard E. Carter, Zunka, Milnor, Carter & Inigo, Ltd., representatives of the applicant: “Albemarle First Bank does hereby petition the Board of Supervisors and does hereby appeal the decision of the Planning Commission at its meeting of February 15, 2005 in finding that the above noted proposal is not in compliance with the County’s Comprehensive Plan pursuant to VA Code § 15.2-2232. Albemarle First Bank alleges as follows: 1. The application for modification of the interior of an existing building which would result in a central sewerage system is in compliance with the County’s Comprehensive Plan. April 6, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 11) 2. The property which is in the subject of the petition is zoned C-1, Commercial. This zoning was in existence at the time of the adoption of the Comprehensive April 6, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 12) Plan; therefore, any use under this zoning is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. There is no expansion of the buildings or intensification of the use of the site. Most of the existing system is being utilized, including the existing drainfields. Modifications to the system are primarily related to the laterals into the building to accommodate multiple users. 4. The report of the staff to the Planning Commission stated “This request …is not contrary to the Plan’s overriding intent to provide for orderly development and provide for the protection of the rural area and its associated resources. …This proposal amounts to a reclassification of an existing private system to a central system…. No expansion of the building is proposed and essentially the same septic system, including existing drainfields, is being used.” The report goes on to say, “The approval of the system does not facilitate an expansion of the use and no expansion of the leasable square footage is proposed.” The central sewerage system is necessary to accommodate three or more users. Albemarle First Bank agrees to accept a condition of approval that there will not be more than five users of the central sewage system.” __________ Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development, said the applicant is proposing to modify the interior of the former Shadwell Antiquaries building, located on Route 22, to allow multiple users/tenants within the structure. No expansion of the structure is proposed. Because the existing septic system could potentially serve three or more users, it is considered a central system. Central systems are considered public facilities and, therefore, are subject to review by the Planning Commission for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan in accordance with the State Code (Section 15.2-2232). Central systems must also be approved by the Board of Supervisor’s as per the County Code (Section 16-100). The Planning Commission reviewed this request on February 15, 2005 and found that it is not in th compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The staff report for the February 15 Commission review is provided as Attachment 1. Attachment 2 is an updated report from the County Engineer on the proposed central system recommending approval of the proposed system, with conditions. Attachment 2 supersedes th the previous comments from the County Engineer referred to as Attachment 1A in the February 15 staff report. Several letters of opposition have also been received by (or forwarded to) staff and are attached for the Board’s consideration (Attachment 3). The Board should first consider the appeal of the Planning Commission’s action on compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Should the Board find this proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, staff recommends approval of the central system with the conditions as recommended by the County Engineer. Ms. Thomas asked if the Albemarle County Service Authority would become involved because it is a central system. Mr. Davis said that it would be a private system, not operated by the authority. Mr. Boyd noted that staff had recommended approval, but the Commission turned it down based on strict interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Benish responded that the Commission felt that their approval would be tantamount to approving central systems in the rural area, and staff’s interpretation was related more to the overall impact of the proposal, given that it is a current land use and there was no change in circumstance in terms of intensity of activity – it was just a private system changing in the form of ownership. Mr. Rooker clarified that the building is being broken up into several users, and asked if the system itself would be changed. Mr. Benish replied that the changes allow for multiple pipes to access the existing system. He added that the multiple users in the building could bring more intensive activity, but in reality staff did not perceive that this would cause an intensification of use on site. Mr. Boyd asked if the recent Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan adoption might have changed how the Commission views this application. Mr. Benish responded that he did not believe based on his recollections of the discussions that it would have impacted the Commission’s decision. Mr. Jack Kelsey, County Engineer, explained that the applicant has three existing drainfields on site, and the building on the west side has laterals that come out to a septic tank, then to a pump chamber, which pumps around the building up toward Route 22, where it goes into a splitter and splits the flow between two septic fields. He said that a lateral comes out of that building into a grinder pump, which pumps a two-way distribution box, and then takes it from there into a third drainfield. Mr. Kelsey said that with the revised system, the lateral and grinder pump serving the antique retail building would be abandoned, and new laterals would come out of the antique retail space into a new septic tank and continue onto the pump behind the tea room, then to the existing distribution box near Route April 6, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 13) 22, which would be refitted to allow three-way flow. He said that two of the laterals would go to the drainfields along Route 22, and a third line would go back to a drainfield on the east side of the antique retail building. Mr. Rooker commented that the system is not driving it, but the increase to more than two users facilitates the need for the change. Mr. Davis pointed out that health department regulations are driving this, and there is an additional issue of maintenance that the Planning Commission did not consider, and Mr. Kelsey has made additional recommendations as to how to avoid maintenance problems. Mr. Rick Carter addressed the Board on behalf of Albemarle First Bank, reiterating the staff report’s contention that the project is “not contrary to the plan’s overriding intent to provide for orderly development and provide for protection of the rural area.” He noted that this application does provide orderly development, and simply allows for more than two users of the property. Mr. Carter said that this does not impact protection of the rural area, adding that the plan only “strongly discourages” central systems in the rural area but does not prohibit them. He added that the applicant agrees there would be no more than five total users between the two buildings, and said that there is actually less use compared to forty vendors in the antique mall. Mr. Carter stated that Mr. Kelsey indicates conditions that need to be met should the system be central dealing with health department issues, including annual inspection and pumping/cleaning of tanks every five years; he said that the applicant agrees to all recommended conditions. Mr. Tom Boyd of Albemarle First Bank addressed the Board, stating that they “want to be a good corporate neighbor,” and this would be a good use of the property. He commented that the intersection is going to be busy over the next few years, including rebuilding the store, and the bank wants to keep this as an upscale property. Ms. Thomas noted that the Planning Commission did approve the original zoning because they knew that a private system would only allow for two users, adding that she feels it is important to stick to the Comprehensive Plan. It does have effects; it is not just splitting hairs. She added that five users instead of two is an intensification of use, which is why central sewer is discouraged in the rural areas. Mr. Cilimberg clarified that this application is an appeal of a Comprehensive Plan determination. Mr. Boyd said that he agreed with staff’s interpretation of the spirit of the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the building is kept whole or divided will probably not greatly impact the usage as the square footage is the same. Certainly it is better that we get a good use of that building than to leave it sitting there and let it fall to misuse or be empty. Mr. Dorrier agreed with Mr. Boyd that the Comprehensive Plan is meant to be a guide, and they are just trying to make the building useable. Mr. Wyant said that he also supports staff’s position, and the only change to the system relates to the distribution, not the entire system. Mr. Rooker stated that the property is zoned commercial, even though it is in the rural area. He said that the Comprehensive Plan needs to be read from a practical standpoint, and this is a situation where there is a building that is operating on an existing system that works; the modifications to the system do not expand it at all. Mr. Rooker stated that he does not want to discourage a practical use of the property. Mr. Wyant noted that parking restriction will limit what tenants can be there anyway. Mr. Rooker added that the additional inspections and pumping will also improve the situation on site. Ms. Thomas asked about a “grease trap.” Mr. Kelsey responded that those are dictated by specific types of use, when a building permit or zoning clearance comes through. Mr. Boyd asked if the restrictions for five users can be placed in the motion. Mr. Davis said that that condition should be made part of the Comprehensive Plan determination through the wording, “to serve no more than five users and onsite structures only.” Mr. Benish suggested also including that in their motion related to the central system. Motion was offered by Mr. Boyd to approve the request and to find it consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier. NAYS: Ms. Thomas _______________ April 6, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 14) Agenda Item No.11. Albemarle First Bank-Central Sewage System Request. Motion was offered by Mr. Boyd to approve the Albemarle First Bank’s central sewage system request subject to the six conditions recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote. AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier. NAYS: None (The conditions of approval are set out in full below:) 1. Virginia Department of Health approval for the construction and the operation of the pump and sewerage system modifications prior to the Zoning Administrator approval of any building permit and/or zoning clearance for the subject property. 2. Virginia Department of Health confirmation that the total sewerage flow to the system will not exceed the capacity of the three septic fields prior to the Zoning Administrator approval of any building permit and/or zoning clearance for the subject property. The three (3) septic fields are currently rated by VDH at 630 gpd, 500 gpd and 500 gpd for a total of one thousand six hundred thirty (1630) gallons per day. 3. Virginia Department of Health approval of “inspection ports” installed on the existing septic tanks serving the Tea Room/Restaurant building (per 12VAC5-610-817.B.), prior to the Zoning Administrator approval of any building permit and/or zoning clearance for the subject property 4. Annual inspection of the septic tanks by a septic system maintenance professional, possessing a valid “sewage handling” permit issued by the Virginia Department of Health, for the accumulation of solids and the need for pumping and cleaning. This professional shall submit an inspection report to the County Engineer addressing the amount of accumulated solids found in the tanks; the general condition of the tanks, lines, and pumping system; and recommendations for ongoing maintenance of the system to assure its continued operation. 5. Pumping and cleaning of the septic tanks at least every five (5) years or more frequently as determined necessary by the septic system maintenance professional and/or the County Engineer based on the annual inspections noted in condition #4 above. The owner shall provide documentation of the completed maintenance to the County Engineer and Zoning Administrator. 6. The system shall be limited to no more than five (5) users and onsite structures only. _______________ Agenda Item No. 12. FY 2005 Budget Amendment. Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Office of Management and Budget, noted in the executive summary that the Code of Virginia § 15.2-2507 stipulates that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the current fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget. However, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget or the sum of $500,000, whichever is lesser, must be accomplished by first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies to all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Fund, E-911, School Self-Sustaining, etc. The proposed increase of this FY 2005 Budget Amendment totals $3,783,253.56. The estimated expenses and revenues included in the proposed amendment are shown below: ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES Local Government Programs/Grants $ 142,754.26 Education Fund $ 175,656.08 Education Programs/Grants $ 290,517.52 ECC $ 28,500.00 Capital Improvement Program $ 3,145,825.70 TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES – All Funds $ 3,783,253.56 ESTIMATED REVENUES Local Revenues $ 141,053.81 State Revenues $ 10,638.00 Federal Revenues $ 189,272.79 Other Fund Balance $ 3,442,288.96 TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES – All Funds $ 3,783,253.56 The budget amendment is comprised of twelve (12) separate appropriations, seven (7) of which have already been approved by the Board as indicated below: April 6, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 15) Approved January 5, 2005: ? One (1) appropriation (#2005039) in the amount of $117,089.90 for various education programs and donations. Approved February 2, 2005: ? One (1) appropriation (#2005040) in the amount of $54,288.54 for various education programs and donations; ? One (1) appropriation (#2005041) in the amount of $100,774.00 to transfer funds from the Glenmore proffer to the school CIP; and ? One (1) appropriation (#2005042) in the amount of $28,500.00 for a vehicle for ECC operations. Approved March 2, 2005: ? One (1) appropriation (#2005043) in the amount of $124,735.86 for various education programs and donations; ? One (1) appropriation (#2005044) distributes $101,901.00 from the General Fund salary contingency to various departments who had reclassifications during FY 2005; and ? One (1) appropriation (#2005045) in the amount of $45,000.00 for completion of the HVAC project at the Health Department. The five (5) new appropriations are as follows: ? One (1) appropriation (#2005046) in the amount of $280,754.26 for the Domestic Preparedness Equipment Grant; ? One (1) appropriation (#2005047) in the amount of $16,111.00 for various education programs and donations; ? One (1) appropriation (#2005049) in the amount of $16,000.00 for the ECC CERT Grant; ? One (1) appropriation (#2005050) in the amount of $3,000,000.00 to transfer the FY 04 General Fund surplus to the CIP; and ? One (1) appropriation (#2005051) in the amount of $255,000.00 to transfer additional funds from Bright Stars and the schools to the Family Support program. Staff recommends approval of the FY 2005 Budget Amendment in the amount of $3,783,253.56 after the public hearing, and then approval of Appropriations #2005046, #2005047, #2005049, #2005050, and #2005051. Appropriation #2005046 $280,754.26 Albemarle County will be receiving grant funds in the amount of $280,754.26 to assist in the preparation of response to incidents involving mass destruction weapons. These funds will be split 50/50 between Fire- Rescue and the Police Department. The equipment purchased under these grants must come only from the commodity areas targeted by the Federal government. There is no local match Appropriation #2005047 $16,111.00 Albemarle County Schools received a donation in the amount of $4,000.00 from the Hollymead Elementary School PTO. This donation will be used to help offset the cost of installing a climbing wall at the school. The Citigroup Foundation awarded Stone Robinson Elementary School a grant in the amount of $2,500.00 for the Reading Intervention Project. These funds will be used to extend reading tutoring for 2nd and 4th graders. The Junior League of Charlottesville awarded Agnor Hurt Elementary School a grant in the amount of $1,000.00 for the Promoting Literacy Through Audio Books Project. These funds will be used to purchase audio books kits. These kits will be processed for circulation through the library and will support the schools improvement plan of 90% of K-5 students will be at or above level in language arts. Douglas and Sarah DuPont made a matching donation in the amount of $1,000.00 to Henley Middle School for the Frederick Upton Foundation Grant. This donation will support Henley’s Cultural Enrichment Program in funding three artists-in-residence programs: Sculpture, Writer, and Dramatic Interpretation. The projects will involve interactive activities to include hands on learning experiences for students with performing, visual and musical arts. The Virginia Commission for the Arts made grant awards to several Albemarle County Schools. Teacher Incentive Grants were made to Baker Butler Elementary School in the amount of $1,200.00, Greer Elementary in the amount of $82.00, Meriwether Lewis Elementary in the amount of $929.00, Murray Elementary in the amount of $300.00, Stony Point Elementary in the amount of $3,600.00, Yancey Elementary in the amount of $300.00, Burley Middle in the amount of $900.00 and Henley Middle in the amount of $300.00. These programs will involve interactive activities to include hands on learning experience for students with performing, visual and musical arts. Appropriation #2005049 $16,000.00 This appropriation provides $16,000.00 for the Citizen Emergency Response Team (CERT) grant. The monies through this grant cover training volunteers to respond to emergency situations. Examples include cutting trees out of the road, setting up temporary shelter, and taking pictures of incidents (tornado’s, hurricanes, etc). Some of the monies are also used for equipment for this same purpose. Examples are: flashlights, chain saws, cots, blankets, lanterns, cameras, back packs, batteries, etc. Appropriation #2005050 $3,000,000.00 April 6, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 16) This appropriation will transfer $3,000,000.00 in General Fund FY 04 surplus to the CIP. Based on the th resolution of the PPTR funding issue, staff had recommended to the Board at the January 19 Business Plan work session that these previously frozen funds could be transferred into the Capital Improvement Program. Appropriation #2005051 $255,000.00 This appropriation transfers $255,000.00 from the Schools and from Bright Stars to the Family Support Fund to offset decreased federal revenues. This action was approved previously by the Board. __________ Mr. Boyd asked if the $3 million was a standard yearly surplus. Mr. Tucker and Mr. Breeden responded that it tends to be in that range, but several years it was much less than that. Mr. Rooker invited public comment. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Board. Motion was made by Mr. Boyd to approve FY 2005 Budget Amendment in the amount of $3,783,253.56 and to approve FY 2005 Appropriations #2005046, #2005047, #2005049, #2005050, and #2005051. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier. NAYS: None. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2005046 APPROPRIATION DATE BATCH# EXPLANATION: Funding for Domestic Preparedness Equipment Grant. SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT 1 1545 31091 550403 Training J 1 1,000.00 1 1545 31091 800100 Mac. & Equip J 1 139,377.13 1 1545 31092 550403 Training J 1 1,000.00 1 1545 31092 800100 Mac. & Equip J 1 139,377.13 2 1545 33000 330001 Grant Revenue J 2 280,754.26 1545 0501 Est. Revenue 280,754.26 1545 0701 Appropriation 280,754.26 TOTAL 561,508.52 280,754.26 280,754.26 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2005047 APPROPRIATION DATE BATCH# EXPLANATION: Funding for various School donation and programs. SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT 1 2111 61338 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 4,000.00 1 3104 60210 132100 PT Salary-Teacher J 1 2,320.00 1 3104 60210 210000 FICA J 1 180.00 1 3104 60215 601200 Books/Subscriptions J 1 1,000.00 1 3104 60252 312500 Prof Svc Inst J 1 1,000.00 1 3104 60204 312500 Prof Svc Inst J 1 82.00 1 3104 60206 312500 Prof Svc Inst J 1 79.00 1 3104 60206 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 850.00 1 3104 60211 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 3,600.00 April 6, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 17) 1 3104 60213 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 300.00 1 3104 60216 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 300.00 1 3104 60217 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 1,200.00 1 3104 60251 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 900.00 1 3104 60252 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 300.00 2 2000 18100 181109 Donations J 2 4,000.00 2 3104 18000 189900 Misc Revenue J 2 3,500.00 2 3104 18000 181221 Upton Grant J 2 1,000.00 2 3104 24000 240263 VCA Grant-B Butler J 2 1,200.00 2 3104 24000 240281 VCA Grant-S-Point J 2 3,600.00 2 3104 24000 240284 VCA Grant-Yancey J 2 300.00 2 3104 24000 240328 VCA Grant-Murray J 2 300.00 2 3104 24000 240329 VCA Grant-Greer J 2 82.00 2 3104 24000 240331 VCA Grant-Henley J 2 300.00 2 3104 24000 240332 VCA Grant-M Lewis J 2 850.00 2 3104 24000 240333 VCA Grant-Burley J 2 900.00 2 3104 24000 240365 VCA Grant-M Lewis J 2 79.00 2000 0501 Est. Revenue 4,000.00 2000 0701 Appropriation 4,000.00 3104 0501 Est. Revenue 12,111.00 3104 0701 Appropriation 12,111.00 TOTAL 32,222.00 16,111.00 16,111.00 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2005049 APPROPRIATION DATE BATCH# EXPLANATION: ECC Cert Grant SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT 1 4100 31045 800100 Contract Services J 1 5,585.00 1 4100 31045 301210 Mac. & Equip J 1 10,415.00 2 4100 33000 330213 Fed'l Grant J 1 16,000.00 4100 0501 Est. Revenue 16,000.00 4100 0701 Appropriation 16,000.00 TOTAL 32,000.00 16,000.00 16,000.00 April 6, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 18) COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2005050 APPROPRIATION DATE BATCH# EXPLANATION: Transfer of FY04 G/F Surplus SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT 1 1000 93010 930010 Trs. To CIP J 1 3,000,000.00 2 1000 51000 510100 G/F Balance J 2 3,000,000.00 2 9010 51000 512004 Trs. From G/F J 2 3,000,000.00 2 9010 51000 510100 CIP F/B J 2 (3,000,000.00) 1000 0501 Est. Revenue 3,000,000.00 1000 0701 Appropriation 3,000,000.00 TOTAL 6,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2005051 APPROPRIATION DATE BATCH# EXPLANATION: Transfer of FY04 G/F Surplus SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT 2 1557 51000 512044 Trs from Bright Stars J 2 55,000.00 2 1557 51000 512044 Trs from Bright Stars J 2 46,000.00 2 1557 51000 512001 Trs from School Fund J 2 154,010.00 2 1557 33000 330001 Federal Revenue J 2 (255,010.00) 2 1553 51000 510100 Bright Stars F/B J 2 55,000.00 1 1553 61150 999999 Bright Stars Contingency J 1 (46,000.00) 1 1553 93010 930213 Trs. To Family Support J 1 101,000.00 2 2000 51000 510100 School F/B J 2 154,010.00 1 2111 93010 930208 Trs. To Family Support J 1 154,010.00 1553 0501 Est. Revenue 55,000.00 1553 0701 Appropriation 55,000.00 2000 0501 Est. Revenue 154,010.00 2000 0701 Appropriation 154,010.00 TOTAL 418,020.00 209,010.00 209,010.00 _______________ April 6, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 19) Agenda Item No. 13. Information on State Solicitation Legislation. Mr. Davis stated that there is no existing enabling legislation – except for some flawed legislation in Henrico and Arlington counties – for localities to ban solicitations on highways. Mr. Davis pointed out that some cities had ordinances, but they control their own roadways and counties do not. He said that legislation was introduced in the last session of the General Assembly by Delegate Bell to deal with the issue, initially just to apply to Albemarle and Greene counties, but the final legislation cleaned up Henrico and Arlington’s legislation, added Vienna, and addressed Albemarle and Greene. Mr. Davis reported that the bill signed by the Governor does enable Albemarle County to adopt ordinances to deal with three different things: (1) distribution of handbills, leaflets, bulletins, and literature advertisements or similar materials to the occupants of motor vehicles on public roadways and medians; (2) the solicitation of contributions from occupants of motor vehicles on public roadways and medians; and (3) the attempted sale of merchandise from occupants of motor vehicles on public roadways and medians. He stated that public roadways have a technical meaning, as it does not include the right of way, so that activities like car washes cannot be prohibited. Mr. Rooker pointed out that the language seems to modify “occupants” not the solicitors. Mr. Davis said that his involvement with the discussions indicated a different intent, pertaining to the person soliciting. Ms. Thomas stated that if you are found guilty, it is a traffic infraction. Mr. Davis said that this allows for a fine of $100. He said that exceptions are not carved out because these are health, safety, and welfare regulations. If the Board goes forward with this, he does not suggest the Board carve out exceptions to it. Mr. Davis added that the city dealt with four intersections when they prohibited solicitations several years ago, and the county could do the same related to safety concerns. st He noted that the enabling legislation goes into effect July 1. Mr. Rooker stated that a situation has arisen on the ramps to Canterbury Hills, where panhandlers are basically living there, and come into residents’ yards to use the bathroom, etc. Mr. Dorrier commented that he has handed out political flyers, etc. at places like Foxfield. Mr. Davis emphasized that this legislation pertains to public roads only. Mr. Wyant wondered what the boomerang effect of dealing with the homeless would be in the community. Mr. Davis asked if the Board would like more time to examine the possibility of an ordinance. Mr. Boyd said that he would like to see an ordinance that covers all public roads, not just a few intersections. Mr. Davis stated that he would want to improve the language to clarify the occupant terminology. The Board agreed for Mr. Davis to move forward with drafting an ordinance. Mr. Dorrier said that he does not want to see bans on religious and political literature. Mr. Rooker commented that it would be hard to distinguish what is being handed out. Mr. Davis warned the Board not to get into content-based regulations, because “that is full of pitfalls from a constitutional standpoint.” Mr. Tucker said that volunteer firefighters do not normally solicit that way, although they did during 9/11. _______________ Agenda Item No. 14. Closed Session. At 11:50 a.m., motion was made by Mr. Dorrier that the Board adjourn into closed session pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards, committees and commissions; The motion was seconded by Mr. Boyd. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier. NAYS: None _______________ Agenda Item No. 15. Certify Closed Session. At 1:55 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Dorrier that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member’s knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the closed session were heard, discussed or considered in the closed session April 6, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 20) The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier. NAYS: None _______________ Agenda Item No. 16a. Vacancies/Appointments. No action taken. __________ Agenda Item No. 16b. Proposed terms of office and term limits. Deferred until June 1, 2005. _______________ Agenda Item No. 20. From the Board: Matters not Listed on the Agenda. th Ms. Thomas commented on the April 18 water meeting with state and federal regulators. Mr. Tucker confirmed that the meeting will be open to the public, and said it has been difficult to find a meeting room large enough to accommodate the entire group, so for the time being it will be held at COB-South. Ms. Thomas said that when the Ivy Landfill was subject to a lawsuit, one of the conditions of the settlement was that none of the parties would oppose any permits sought be Rivanna in reference to Cell #4. The neighbors described this action as a “gag order,” and the Board has agreed that it should not exist any longer. Ms. Thomas stated that the city needs to also remove this settlement condition, and suggested a letter coming from the county to encourage its removal. She said the appearance of this is a threat of retaliation. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Boyd, that the Chairman request City Council and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority to remove the settlement condition for the Ivy landfill regarding opposition to permits sought by Rivanna in reference to cell #4. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier. NAYS: None. __________ In response to the Board’s request that the RWSA be restructured, Mr. Tucker reported that he has received three suggested alternatives. He explained that currently, the RWSA and Solid Waste Authorities are made up of two members appointed by each Board – he and Bill Brent (Albemarle County Service Authority) serve for the county; two members from City Council – the City Manager and Director of Public Works; the fifth person is appointed by both – Mike Gaffney. Mr. Tucker noted that he and Mark Graham serve on the Solid Waste Board for the county. Mr. Tucker noted that one alternative would be to add a Board member and a Council member, with the Board representative replacing Mr. Tucker. He said that a second alternative would be to add a Board and council member in addition to the members already on the Board, and a third alternative would be to replace him and Gary with two Board members and two council members. Ms. Thomas said that the League of Women Voters presented this to a Darden School class, looking at best management practices, and that class recommended adding two new members, including an environmental representative. Mr. Boyd mentioned that the class was not prepared to release their recommendations yet, and asked if the entire authority would need to be restructured. Mr. Davis responded that the authority was established by the Articles of Incorporation for the inter- jurisdictional agreement between the county and the city, and membership on the board was changed once previously for the water and sewer board. He explained that the legal requirement is it is advertised for 30 days, and then a public hearing is held, followed by adoption of a joint resolution of the city and county that is forwarded to the State Corporation Commission. Mr. Davis emphasized that the county and city first need to agree on how the structure is changed. Mr. Boyd commented that when the Authority was created 30 years ago, the water usage may have been different. Mr. Rooker pointed out that the usage ratio has gone from 60/40 county/city to 52/48 county/city. Mr. Boyd suggested approaching the city about having another small group look at the issue of restructuring. Mr. Rooker stated that the city supports the idea of having an elected person on the board, and their preference would be to leave the board as is, and add members as opposed to removing or replacing. He added that the Supervisors seem to agree that adding members is also the best solution, noting that it April 6, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 21) is not that complex of an issue. Mr. Rooker suggested waiting to see what recommendations come back from the Darden School class. Mr. Boyd said that he was looking at the bigger picture of consolidating the authorities. Mr. Tucker commented that the major charter change was going to be considered, and that will take a while to accomplish. Ms. Thomas suggested putting it on next month’s agenda. Mr. Wyant said that he does not want to see the city with more representation than the county. Mr. Tucker and Mr. Rooker assured him that there would be an equal balance. Mr. Rooker agreed that it should be added to the agenda, and Mr. Tucker said he would make a concerted effort to get Gary O’Connell to the next Board meeting. Mr. Tucker said that it would be helpful to have the Board’s support of one option. He added that if there is a Board member added, he is probably not needed to serve any longer. Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Thomas stated that they did not like that idea, as elected officials do not know all of what staff is doing. Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Tucker to proceed with discussions with Mr. O’Connell regarding the possibility of adding a Board member and a Council member, with long-term restructuring being considered in the future. Mr. Tucker stated that the League of Women Voters should submit their report prior to the next Board meeting; Ms. Thomas agreed to contact Liz Palmer of the LWV to provide Board members with a copy of the Darden report prior to the Board meeting. _______________ Agenda Item No. 17. SP-2004-031. Gym at Seminole Place (Signs #14&15). Public hearing on a request to allow establishment of indoor gym in accord w/Sec 27.2.2(15) of the Zoning Ord, which allows for indoor athletic facilities in LI Dist. TM 61W Sec 3, P 18 contains 25.4 acs. Znd LI & EC. Loc on S side of Greenbrier Dr (Rt 866) in former Comdial bldg, on W side of Seminole Trail (Rt 29 N). Rio Dist. (Advertised in Daily Progress on March 21, 2005 and March 28, 2005). Mr. Cilimberg stated that this request is for an indoor athletic facility at the formal Comdial building, with members of approximately 3,500 at full operation. He reported that staff recommends approval with conditions, and feel that it will compliment nearby residential uses and fits well with offices and other industrial/commercial uses. Mr. Cilimberg said that the recommended conditions address the need for retrofitting sidewalks and bike lanes along the access road from Greenbrier Drive and the need to make minor improvements to the near entrance. He reported that staff recommendation was endorsed by the Planning Commission. The public hearing was opened, and the applicant’s representative (Seminole Trail Properties), Tim Slagle, addressed the Board. He explained that they were having discussions with Gold’s Gym about use of that building, but that did not work, so if another gym is interested they would like to have the flexibility to use the site for that. Mr. Slagle confirmed that the building size is adequate for operating a gym, and said that it is a possibility that there will be indoor swimming. In response to Mr. Bowerman’s question, Mr. Slagle said that Gold’s Gym provided the 3,500 figure. Mr. Davis pointed out that the life of a special use permit is two years, but the Board does have the discretion to grant a longer period of time as a condition of the permit. Mr. Slagle said that there is no specific gym right now intended for the site. Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that the Commission wanted a condition to say it would be for space in the existing building only, so if the building were torn down it would have to be part of a reapplication. Mr. Rooker said that the applicant could amend the special use permit. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Board could definitely grant the applicant more time. Mr. Slagle agreed that the applicant would like more time. Mr. Bowerman suggested five years. Mr. Rooker commented that it would be an ideal use for the building. There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter was placed before the Board. Mr. Davis said that the additional condition would be that the permit shall remain valid if the use is commenced within five years. April 6, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 22) April 6, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 23) Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas to approve SP-2004-031, subject to the five conditions recommended by staff and the Planning Commission with the addition of condition #6. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wyant. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier. NAYS: None (Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) 1. This Special Use Permit (SP 2004-031) for an indoor athletic facility is granted for up to sixty thousand (60,000) square feet of area within the existing physical building itself and not simply the footprint of the building. Any enlargement of the area of use beyond the sixty thousand (60,000) square feet will require amendment of this Special Permit; 2. The indoor athletic facility shall have no more than three thousand five hundred (3500) members; 3. Pedestrian access shall be provided along at least one (1) side of the existing entrance road from Greenbrier Drive to the site, as shown on the attached concept plan submitted as part of the Special Use Permit application (dated September 3, 2004, revised March 24, 2005 and initialed by TRS). The pedestrian path shall consist of striping of a pedestrian way on the street or shoulder of the existing entrance road, if approved by VDOT, or a concrete or asphalt path meeting the standards in the Design Standards manual. The pedestrian path shall be in place prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the indoor athletic facility; 4. The existing driveway access to the site from Commonwealth Drive shall be upgraded as necessary to accommodate two-way traffic, to the satisfaction of the County Engineer; 5. The gated access to the site from Commonwealth Drive shall remain open during all hours the indoor athletic facility is open for business; and 6. The permit shall remain valid if the use is commenced within five (5) years. __________ Agenda Item No. 18. SP-2004-056. Meadowgate Farm Home Occupation–Class B (Signs #44&53). Public hearing on a request to allow Home Occupation Class B w/up to 2 employees for an office, in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.31 of the Zoning Ord, which allows for Home Occupations Class B. TM 120, P 22, contains 109 acs. Znd RA. Lloc at 7060 Esmont Farm, approx .20 miles from intersec of Esmont Rd (Rt 715) and Alberene Rd (Rt 719). Scottsville Dist. (Advertised in Daily Progress on March 21, 2005 and March 28, 2005). Mr. Cilimberg explained that this special use permit is an application to allow two employees for an author to work onsite in the main dwelling on the property. He reported that there would be no additional traffic, noise, or lighting impacts. Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff had recommended two conditions, which the Planning Commission consolidated into one condition. The applicant’s representative, Wendell Wynn, addressed the Board. He confirmed that the author wants to add one employee, and already has one. There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter was placed before the Board. Motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier to approve SP-2004-056, subject to the one condition recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wyant. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier. NAYS: None (Note: The condition of approval is set out in full below.) 1. No accessory structures shall be used for this home occupation. __________ Agenda Item No. 19. SP-2004-059. Toad Hollow Farm Horse Show (Sign #30). Public hearing on a request for horse show grounds, permanent, in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.12 of the Zoning Ord which allows for horse show grounds, permanent in the RA by SUP. TM 41, P 15A, contains approx 36 acs. Loc at 4333 Cannon Brook Way, on E side of Browns Gap Turnpike (Rt 680), approx 2 mls S of White Hall. Znd RA. White Hall Dist. (Advertised in Daily Progress on March 21, 2005 and March 28, 2005). Mr. Cilimberg reported that staff finds this to be in accord with policies in the Comprehensive Plan, and the Ag/Forestal Advisory Committee reviewed the application with support, stating that the activity is a good complement to other existing horse farms in the area. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the primary concern was access to the property internally on Cannon Brook Way as well as from Brown’s Gap Turnpike. He said that VDOT has recommended tree removal and a permanent site distance easement from property that the applicant does not own, and that adjacent property owner has been cooperative with tree removal although an easement has not yet been secured. April 6, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 24) Mr. Cilimberg stated that county engineering staff is agreeable to the applicant’s proposal to add strategically placed gravel pull-offs along the drive large enough for trucks with tractor-trailers to pull over. To further improve safety of vehicular traffic along Cannon Brook Way, he said, engineering staff is recommending directional signage, specifically two “Do Not Enter” signs and one “One Way” sign on both sides of the one-way split portion of the drive. He reported that staff recommends approval subject to ten conditions, but the Planning Commission recommended reducing the number of conditions to eight. Mr. Bowerman asked what events other than horse shows were being considered. Mr. Cilimberg responded that dog shows and trials would also be held on the farm. Ms. Anne Sutherland addressed the Board as the applicant and member of the LLC that owns the property. She explained that when they purchased the property, they intended to put a barn on it to keep their own horses, and also build an arena. Ms. Sutherland said that they wanted to provide a place for people to ride in inclement weather, and a place for people to have schooling shows and other small clinics. She added that these activities are geared to horse shows and associations, and now for dog events also, emphasizing the lack of facilities to have these in bad weather. Ms. Sutherland stated that the parking would be in the pasture on the property for small cars and trailers. Ms. Thomas asked if the numbers were big enough as stipulated in the conditions, noting the limit of three events per year. Ms. Sutherland responded that the dog agility people stated they would only have two events each year. Ms. Thomas noted that she did not want to limit the number of events unless there is a reason. Ms. Sutherland stated that there are only a certain number she can feasibly pull off each year, noting that she has no objection to changing or dropping the number. Mr. Wyant said that he knows the applicant’s neighbors and the area, and suggested having two in spring and two in fall, or a total of four non-horse show events per year. Motion was offered by Mr. Wyant to approve SP-2004-059, subject to the eight conditions recommended by the Planning Commission with condition #8 being modified. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier. NAYS: None (Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) 1. The horse show use shall be conducted in general accord with the concept plan, titled “Toad Hollow Farm” and labeled as “Attachment B”; 2. There shall be no outdoor amplified sound system for events; 3. There shall be no overnight camping; 4. All exterior light fixtures shall be full cutoff luminaries and fully shielded and arranged or directed to reflect light away from adjoining properties and away from adjacent roads; 5. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for the horse show use, the applicant shall provide sight distance at Cannon Brook Way and Route 680 (Browns Gap Turnpike) to the satisfaction of the Virginia Department of Transportation; 6. Subject to the approval of the County Engineer, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for the horse show use and to provide safe and convenient access to the site, the applicant shall provide a minimum of two (2) gravel pull-offs along Cannon Brook Way to allow two (2) vehicles to pass safely. The applicant shall also provide two (2) DO NOT ENTER signs and one (1) ONE WAY sign placed at locations specified by the County Engineer along Cannon Brook Way; 7. The number of horse show events shall be limited to six (6) per year. The maximum number of participants and attendees at any single event shall be eighty (80); and 8. The number of events, other than horse show events, shall be limited to four (4) per year and the maximum number of participants and attendees at any single event shall be limited to forty (40). These events shall not utilize the pastures for parking. _______________ Agenda Item No. 20. From the Board: Matters not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Dorrier said that his recent discussions with a Historic Preservation Committee member indicate that the Board may need to provide them with some direction. He stated that the Lewis & Clark anniversary and Hallowed Ground initiatives should also receive further review. Mr. Tucker suggested having both the Historic Preservation Committee chair and the Hallowed Ground representative back at the same meeting. Mr. Rooker said that staff’s representative on the Historic Preservation Committee should make their report to the Board also, as it has been a while since a report came forth. April 6, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 25) __________ th Mr. Rooker pointed out that the Meadow Creek Parkway meeting was moved to April 18 at 9:00 a.m., and Mr. Tucker is attempting to find a suitable location. Mr. Rooker noted that the purpose of the meeting is to familiarize the Commissioner of Transportation with the Meadow Creek Parkway project and its history, as well as showing visuals of how the project will look when it is completed. He added that they also want to emphasize the importance of funding the interchange, and showing traffic models that show how it works with and without the interchange. Mr. Davis stated that if more than two Board members want to participate in that meeting or the water regulators meeting, then this meeting needs to be adjourned to those times. He added that Board minutes would be needed if four or more members participated. Mr. Davis distinguished between attending and observing versus participating. Mr. Rooker said that it would make it more difficult if a lot of Board members attended, as they are trying to have a table meeting with VDOT on Meadow Creek. He asked if the city had indicated what their representation would be at these meetings, noting that for the Meadow Creek meeting, a more intimate atmosphere is desired rather than a meeting of public record. Mr. Tucker reminded the Board that Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant were recommended to attend the water regulators meeting. Mr. Boyd recalled having two members representing the Board, so as not to bog down the process. Mr. Rooker asked again what the city was doing. Mr. Tucker replied that he was not sure what their intentions are as to representation at these meetings. Ms. Thomas said she would hate to be in a situation where Board members could not speak out. Mr. Wyant recalled the reason for two Board representatives was easier scheduling. __________ Mr. Wyant commented that it would be helpful for increased costs in snow removal, etc. to be elaborated upon by Mr. Utterback. (Note: At 2:45 p.m., the Board recessed. The meeting was called back to order at 6:08 p.m. by the Chairman.) _______________ Agenda Item No. 21. Public Hearing to receive comments on Proposed Operating and Capital Budgets for FY 2005/2006. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 28, 2005.) _______________ Agenda Item No. 22. Public Hearing on Proposed FY 2005 Tax Rate. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 28, 2005.) Mr. Tucker explained that the budget proposed by the Board totals $255.9 million, and is built with a two-cent tax rate reduction to 74 cents on $100 of assessed value. He noted that the budget provides the school division with an additional $120,000 in local tax revenue and an overall increase of $6.1 million. Mr. Tucker said that the budget provides an additional $200,000 to broaden the eligibility requirements for the tax relief for elderly and disabled, and an additional $2.9 million to the Capital Improvements Program and an additional $650,000 in local revenues to the Acquisition of Conservation Easements program. Mr. Tucker presented a comparison of his original budget and the current Board-proposed budget. He said that the Board is challenged to be responsive to priorities brought forth by citizens and the changing circumstances in the county, and members are sensitive to the impact of increased property tax assessments. Mr. Tucker noted that several items have emerged from the recent citizens survey, including education, transportation, urban infrastructure, and rural areas protection. He said that the budget translates these priorities into four major areas. Mr. Tucker explained that as education was the number one priority revealed in the survey, the budget provides for increased teacher and classified employee salaries as well as $7.8 million in capital projects. He noted that the Board allocated an additional $120,000 for the school operating budget, and an additional $1.6 for school CIP projects, bringing that fund to $9.4 million. Mr. Tucker added that there is an additional $155,000 for the Family Support Program. Mr. Tucker stated that citizens have named protection of scenic and historic resources as a high priority, and the budget reflects $360,000 for the mandated Stormwater Management Program, and $450,000 in the capital budget for that program. He explained that there is $200,000 in the operating budget for landfill remediation, and $640,000 for that in the capital budget. Mr. Tucker reported that additional initiatives for $650,000 to the ACE program to be added to his proposed $350,000, bringing that fund to $1 million, making total allocations of $6 million through FY 2006. He reported that his recommended budget included recommendations for additional public safety personnel, additional funding for the Northern Development area master planning, and additional money for the affordable housing trust fund, along with $900,000 in additional CIP funds for sidewalks, roadways, landscaping, and neighborhood planning. Mr. Tucker noted that the Board also proposed additional fire and rescue positions, primarily for the Scottsville and Monticello stations. April 6, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 26) Mr. Tucker stated that additional transportation funding of $1.5 million per year from FY 2006 through FY 2015 is proposed, along with $1/2 million in the CIP for revenue sharing with VDOT. He added that there is a proposal for 2011-2013 for a Southern Urban Area Park, because it is believed that additional land can be secured as a development proffer. Mr. Tucker also reported that there are planned upgrades to the GIS system, as well as the CityView system that allows the public to interact with the development department online. He added that the Board included a Director of General Services that will help coordinate the county’s mandated stormwater management program, as well as the mandated landfill remediation program. Mr. Tucker acknowledged that many neighboring jurisdictions across Virginia are experiencing rapidly reassessment rates, and noted that the Board is responding to long-term community needs in their budgeting process. He reported that this budget proposes a two-cent tax rate reduction, which amounts to approximately a $2.4 million reduction, but maintains the personal property rate at $4.28. Mr. Tucker said that the budget allows for an additional $200,000 in tax relief to the elderly and disabled, bringing the total amount of that fund to $678,000. Mr. Tucker added that there is a $600,000 increase to accommodate additional public safety and public works staff. Mr. Tucker reported that the Board is recommending $1 million less than the school’s request, although they are allocating an additional $120,000 for school operations over the previous year. Mr. Tucker said that the CIP will increase by $2.9 to $23 million, due to transportation funds and revenue sharing through 2015, along with ACE and school CIP increases for a Monticello High School auxiliary gymnasium as well as expansion of Henley Middle School. Mr. Tucker stated that the reduction will result in a decrease in revenues of $2.4 million, but bond revenues will increase the budget by $3.1 million. Mr. Tucker presented a pie chart that shows the school operations, capital improvements, and debt service comprise 61 percent of the total county budget, with 24 percent going to general government costs. He explained that the revenue sharing with the city, which takes up 4 percent of the budget, was approved by voter referendum in 1983. Mr. Tucker noted that the remainder of the budget goes to CIP. Mr. Tucker said that the total budget is $255.9 million, with revenue-sharing taking $9.7 million, a 21 percent increase, and noted that the Board plans to approve the budget and set the tax rate officially at th their April 20 meeting. Mr. Tucker concluded his presentation. Mr. Rooker welcomed attendees, then reviewed guidelines for speakers at the public hearing, noting that each speaker would have three minutes to address the Board. He asked that written materials be given to the Clerk for distribution to the Board. Mr. Rooker noted that there would be two public hearings – one for the proposed budget and tax rate, and one just for the proposed tax rate. Ms. Rhonda Corbin addressed the Board, explaining that she rides the CTS bus regularly to Pantops and Wal-Mart, noting that it is her only means of transportation. Mr. Claude Mowger addressed the Board, noting that he has lived in Free Union his entire life. His property reassessments have increased 42 percent, which he initially thought was a mistake. He added that he would like the Board to reduce the size of the county budget and reduce taxes. Mr. Mowger said that his land was assessed at $50,000 per acre, and his neighbor's was assessed at $5,000. He noted that he purchased his home for $13,500 in 1965, and based on current assessments he will be paying for his house all over again every seven years. Mr. Will Harvey addressed the Board as Vice-Chair of the Jefferson Area Board for Aging Advisory Council. He thanked the Board for the tax relief for the elderly increase, and for the allocation made to JABA’s services. Mr. Harvey asked that an additional $52,551 be allocated to JABA, which would make it possible to serve the elderly by identifying health risks as early as possible. He noted that many elderly are coming to the area and are not able to afford more expensive care facilities such as Westminister Canterbury and Colonnades, emphasizing that JABA stands to lose $129,000 in state and federal funds next year. Ms. Martha Harris addressed the Board to share statistics regarding the drastic increase in both the county and school budgets. She noted that there are only 17 new students enrolling this coming year, but there are 34 new positions to be added, at a cost of $2,078,323, representing $122,250 per student. Ms. Harris pointed out a new position for a “Community Engagement Coordinator” costing over $89,000. She said that teachers will receive a 9 percent increase, and there are 10 administrators who make between $99,000 to $179,000 and another 8 who make $80,000 or more, not including principals or benefits. Ms. Harris stated that in general government there are 195 personnel making $45,000 or more, with 14 making between $99,000 and $173,000 and another 14 making greater than $80,000. She suggested that a new board be formed that includes one citizen volunteer appointed by each supervisor and someone from the county HR/executive office to help recommend a salary structure that is fair to both employees and the taxpayer. Ms. Harris commented that the idea that Albemarle has to be compared to Northern Virginia is ludicrous, noting that the county does not have a problem retaining or attracting new personnel. Mr. David Phillips, a Forest Lakes resident, addressed the Board, representing the Save the Fireworks committee. He explained that four years ago, the Jaycees group that had been organizing the April 6, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 27) fireworks disbanded the project, and his group stepped in to “save” the McIntire Park display. Mr. Phillips indicated that the same thing happened with the Downtown Foundation. He stated that his group has assumed the role of putting on the fireworks show, emphasizing that private donors cannot always be relied upon to provide funding for the display. Mr. Phillips said that the county hasn’t contributed to the fireworks, and requested that the Board include regular funding of $10-$15,000 in the budget each year, noting that his group would still seek private corporate contributions. Ms. Lynn Tetterton, Vice-President of the PTO at Baker-Butler Elementary, addressed the Board. She emphasized that Albemarle must be competitive to attract the best teachers, which includes supporting teacher salary increases, training and funding rising healthcare costs. Ms. Tetterton stated that funding technology is also expensive, including repairing equipment and providing sufficient instructors. She emphasized that her school does support the funding request for schools. Mr. Aaron Sime, Chair of the Jefferson Area Libertarians, addressed the Board. He stated that the tax rate reduction to 74 cents does not go far enough, emphasizing that people will still pay more in taxes because of increased assessment values. Mr. Sime said that his organization would recommend lowering the rate to 60 cents, so that taxpayers realize a true reduction in their property taxes. He noted that with this reduction, the county budget would still be $232 million, which is still 6.5 percent above the 2003-04 budget. Mr. Sime said that raising taxes is not the right way to keep the area rural, citing the conservation easement program as an example of taxpayers bearing the burden. Ms. Leah Fechtmann spoke to represent Margie Shepherd, who could not attend the meeting. She said that real estate is only assessed every other year, and anyone could sell their homes for those values. Ms. Fechtmann stated that the last tax rate cut was 1977, and it took 20 years to restore the 76-cent tax rate, which is still the lowest among comparable communities in Virginia. She said that the assessments should be argued, if landowners disagree, but not the rate itself. Ms. Fechtmann stated that valuable services could be lost if the rate is reduced. Mr. Jim Lark, Secretary for the Jefferson Area Libertarians, addressed the Board and encouraged the Board to reduce the tax rate to help landowners, especially those on fixed incomes. Ms. Patricia Earle addressed the Board, stating that she is a lifelong resident of the area, and remembers when there was not sufficient employment and opportunities for young people in the area. She noted that again young people are being forced to leave because of skyrocketing home prices. Ms. Earle said that she was a realtor for 30 years, and the county budget should not automatically rise in conjunction with fluctuating markets. She suggested that the Board reexamine their budget priorities. Ms. Sylvia Henderson, Principal of Meriwether-Lewis Elementary School, addressed the Board in support of the teacher salary increases. She stated that a two-cent reduction would erode the progress being made to pay staff comparably, especially given the high cost of living in the area. Ms. Henderson noted that every penny cut from the real property tax reduces the funding to schools by $647,000, emphasizing that education is the most valuable service the county provides. She pointed out that 80 percent of students pursue post-secondary education. Ms. Henderson noted that teachers often work second jobs to be able to afford to live in the county. Ms. Sherry Buttrick addressed the Board, noting that the ACE Committee thanks the Board for the additional $650,000 to bring the budget to the customary million-dollar level. She emphasized that the committee is making every effort to leverage the allocation for state, federal, and private funds. Ms. Buttrick also requested that the ACE monies be made a permanent part of the county budget, rather than an annual request. Ms. Lisa Moorefield, member of the Western Albemarle PTA, addressed the Board. While she expressed her empathy for county residents whose assessments have increased by 15 percent or more each year, including herself, she said that a tax reduction of 2 cents represents a shortfall of $1.1 million for schools. Ms. Moorefield asked that the rate not be reduced any further, and thanked the Board for their continuing support of the schools. Ms. Sue Friedman, Vice-Chair of the Albemarle County School Board, addressed the Supervisors and thanked them for supporting the schools, emphasizing the importance at the highest possible level based on the 74-cent proposed tax rate. She said that quality teachers in the classroom are the key to good schools, and 84 percent of the school budget goes toward compensation. Ms. Friedman said that the compensation goals are met with the recommended budget, but a tax cut beyond two cents will cause a “direct and detrimental” impact to the schools. She mentioned that the upper limit salary for qualifying for affordable housing loans is $51,000, and that means 2/3 of school division employees qualify. Ms. Friedman said that teacher experience in the county combines to 15,000 years. She concluded that citizens recently identified quality education as the community’s #1 priority during the recent citizens survey, and schools are frequently recognized for the learning environment they provide for students. Ms. Amy Daniel, Vice-President of the Albemarle Education Association, addressed the Board. She urged the Board to consider whether the two-cent tax cut is worth it, given its impact on the schools. Ms. Daniel emphasized that she cannot afford to own a home in the county, and many teachers are in the same position. Mr. Keith Drake addressed the Board, commenting on the Board’s proposed 21 percent increase in the real estate property tax rate. He said that lowering the tax rate still means a 21 percent increase, and a 74-cent “reduction” is not really a reduction. Mr. Drake proposed that the Board implement a county budget April 6, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 28) index that defines how much money is required to run county government, and base the tax rate on that, which would still allow for cost of living, inflation, school enrollment, state and federal regulatory requirements, and population growth considerations. He added that it still could include modest increases for employees and special initiatives; after factoring out other sources of revenue, the amount of revenue needed from real estate tax assessments would then define the tax rate. Mr. Drake emphasized that a county budget index provides a simple, clear, and fair method of determining the tax rate and would eliminate the vast majority of bickering that occurs each year. He also recommended forming a citizens advisory group to study this proposal, and offered to serve. Ms. Ashby Kindler addressed the Board as a taxpayer, teacher, and parent. She said that she is not requesting lower tax rates because she views the school budget as moving the county forward as educators, protects class sizes, and provides salary incentives for teachers. Ms. Kindler stated that she does not want the curriculum initiatives “chipped away,” noting that it is exciting and hard work that will take the community forward. She said that cuts would be in manpower, which would affect class sizes or salaries. Ms. Kindler stated that a teacher with 19 years experience brought to her a letter of intent showing a salary of $76,000. Mr. Chip Deale addressed the Board as President of the Albemarle County Public Schools Parent Council, which represents each of the county’s K-12 public schools, and as the five-term president of the Crozet Elementary School’s PTO and property owner. He said that his message remains the same as it was in 2004, with the parent council and PTO not opposing the two-cent reduction; however, he indicated that deeper reductions would be opposed. Mr. Deale applauded Mr. Rooker’s previous public comments regarding preserving quality education in light of a two-cent reduction. Mr. Deale added that further rate reductions would not allow for this preservation, emphasizing that the county is not in a fiscal crisis that merits large tax cuts. Ms. Lillie Williams, who represents the African-American Festival, addressed the Board. She requested financial support from the Board, noting that changes in their committee prevented them from getting word on the need to apply for county funding. Ms. Williams said that her group's efforts are very positive for the community, and asked for the Board’s continued support. Mr. Tom Loach addressed the Board, expressing concern about tax rates given to large landowners in the county. He said that millions of dollars in tax breaks are given to wealthy landowners through the Land Use Program, whereas a person who owns a $250,000 home gets a $50 tax break. Mr. Loach stated that the land use taxation will provide $10 million to large landowners, with $1 million in revenue sharing funded by average taxpayers. He described the Land Use Taxation Program as a failure, with 88,000 acres lost to development since 1979, and 2,000 lost this year alone. The Board simply has no facts to support this program as one that’s good for the public in general and for low and middle income taxpayers in specific. Mr. William Tomlin addressed the Board, stating that his calculations show a 13.5 percent annual increase in assessments per year, with $860 more on his own tax bill this year alone. He noted that homes in Augusta County cost about 2/3 of what they do in Albemarle, adding that Loudoun is reducing their tax rate by 7 cents on $100 of value. Mr. Tomlin said that revenue sharing and land-use programs are costly, and asked about the possibility of combining county and city governments. He also suggested moving to annual assessments, instead of bi-annual. Mr. Tomlin noted that the county executive and community development offices had substantial increases in operating expenses. He has no problem with his assessment; he does have a problem with the tax rate. Mr. David Rodriguez addressed the Board, noting that his property assessment increased to $250,300 from $174,410 in April 2002. He noted that this huge increase brings into question the reliability of the assessments, adding that increasing the property value will mean he may not be able to afford to live there at some point. Mr. Rodriguez acknowledged that teachers need salary increases, etc., but it is not reasonable to put that burden on homeowners. Mr. David Rogers, Principal of Jack Jouett Middle School, addressed the Board and asked them not to cut the tax rate by more than two cents. He added that the School Board budget is “quite frugal,” although others may disagree because 80 percent of the increase falls in the compensation category. Mr. Rogers said that it takes “a lot of good people” to make the education system work well, including salary increases for classified staff and increased healthcare and Virginia Retirement System costs, as well as bringing teacher salary ranges into the upper quartile. He emphasized that the schools are trying to accomplish more, trying to make No Child Left Behind a reality, not just the name of a law. Mr. Rogers stated that the schools are developing skills using diagnostic and formative testing to help target instruction, and are “revolutionizing planning and instructional delivery” through the framework for quality learning. He added that they are piloting a teacher appraisal model that also focuses on every aspect of instructional work, which he said will promote teacher effectiveness for all students. Mr. Rogers concluded by encouraging the Board not to cut the tax rate any further than the proposed two cents. Mr. Robert Hague addressed the Board, noting that in the Samuel Miller District property taxes have doubled in just six to eight years. He described a “spending problem” in Charlottesville, and problems with trash and litter from new construction. Mr. Hague stated that his income is not keeping up with the huge increases in property taxes, and said that many localities are making cuts in personnel and operations budgets. He also suggested lowering the tax rate by 6 cents. Ms. Tina Riley addressed the Board, encouraging them to spend less. She emphasized that increasing property taxes reduces the affordability of homeownership and the feasibility of farming, and April 6, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 29) causes a strain on the increasing numbers of older citizens on fixed incomes, and lessens the attractiveness of our area to new business. Ms. Riley suggested that the county look for a more broad- based tax, as it is unfair to have real estate owners bear so much of the income generation. She asked the Board to not squeeze the middle and lower economic groups out of Albemarle County. She encouraged the Board to consider a 5-cent tax rate reduction. Mr. Allen Freeman, a 30-year White Hall resident and school teacher, addressed the Board, stating his support for the county and emphasizing that the reason property is so valued in Albemarle is the outstanding services offered, such as schools, fire and police, etc. He said that if schools’ budgets are reduced, the value of property in the county will also be reduced. Ms. Rhonda Corbin addressed the Board again. She reiterated her previous statements requesting that the Board continue to fund CTS bus routes to Pantops and Wal-Mart. Ms. Anne Coughlin, Principal of Western Albemarle High School, addressed the Board, expressing her support of full school budget funding, and requesting no reduction in the tax rate. She noted that she is speaking on behalf of the Albemarle County Building Levels Administrators Association, adding that she and three other principals served on a division-level committee that provided input into the 2005-06 budget, and attended a work session on the budget with the School Board. Ms. Coughlin encouraged continuation of a competitive salary scale for teachers, and continuing the ongoing initiatives in support of quality instruction – the Curriculum Institute, Performance Appraisal Updates, meeting No Child Left Behind goals. She said that the administrators realize that the Board must respond to the many needs of the community, and appreciate their support of schools and education. Ms. Georgia Leake addressed the Board, stating that she is upset with the way assessments are going. She reported that her home on Route 631 was taken for highway placement several years ago, and her new home’s assessment has increased by 50 percent just in that time. Mr. Peter Maillet, a 2½-year resident of Albemarle County, addressed the Board and thanked them for their service to the citizens of the county. He said that based on what he read recently in the newspaper, the 20 percent+ tax increase is excessive, and stated that property values have increased largely because of low interest rates and a “buyer’s market.” Mr. Keith Ford of Boonesville addressed the Board, asking attendees to stand in honor of former Supervisors Charlotte Humphris and Walter Perkins. He asked Board members to “put a lid” on spending and taxes, stating that the middle class has had to bear a significant portion of budget increases through increased tax assessments. Mr. Ford encouraged them not to allow out-of-town developers to come in and drive prices up, which would in turn force many local residents out. Mr. Tom Laux addressed the Board. He commented that Mr. Tucker’s comparison to other counties, including rural counties, is not a valid measurement because of the difference in property values throughout the state. Mr. Laux said that property taxes per capita, and county spending per capita is a better basis of comparison. He explained that for 2005-06, Rockingham County’s taxes come to $732 per capita, compared with $1,069 for Frederick County, and $1,344 for Albemarle. Mr. Laux stated that Albemarle spends 25 percent more per capita for county operations (excluding schools) than these other localities, and 15 percent more per pupil for public school operations. He pointed out that Frederick County – which is growing faster than Albemarle County – has a tax rate of 73 cents per $100, and that locality also experienced a huge jump in real estate valuations. Mr. Laux mentioned that the county has continued to remain frugal, including lower rates of increase for teacher salaries, emphasizing that Frederick is lowering their overall tax rate to 55 cents for 2005-06 from its current 73 cents. Mr. Chris Bunin addressed the Board as a seven-year Albemarle County schools veteran, asking them to fully fund the requested budget. He said that technology has changed, along with SOL requirements and standardized test scores, adding that competitive salaries are needed to retain the best teachers. Mr. Bunin stated that he wants Albemarle to continue to be one of the best counties in Virginia, and money is needed in order to accomplish that. Ms. Diantha McKeel addressed the Board on behalf of the schools, stating that the Board has the responsibility to distribute tax revenue as they believe best to meet the educational and public safety needs of all Albemarle County citizens. She noted that each department – including schools – should be able to represent their needs and concerns during the budget process. Ms. McKeel stated that after appropriate review and public testimony, the Board decides it is appropriate to lower the tax rate, then “so be it.” She commented that the elderly and disabled tax relief could provide targeted relief for those who need it the most. Ms. McKeel said that education, fire & rescue, and police are essential to a healthy community, and she is dismayed that these services much compete for funding as it is divisive and undermines the contributions of county employees who work hard to provide services. Mr. Peter Bernhardt addressed the Board, complimenting Mr. Ford on his earlier statements to the Board, and asking them to “put a cap” on assessments if they increased by a given figure, such as 15 percent, and offset larger increases by a commensurate decrease in the tax rate. Mr. John Baldino addressed the Board, stating that while growth doesn’t stop, it can be controlled. He said that for a $250,000 home, a tax rate reduction would only provide a $50 break to the homeowner. Mr. Baldino commented that if the rate is reduced to below 74 cents, cuts must be made, which would mean either larger class sizes, less competitive teacher salaries, longer police and fire response times, etc. April 6, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 30) He asked what the citizens would be giving up because they would have to give up something for a reduction. Ms. Charlotte Wellen, a teacher at Murray High School, addressed the Board and thanked them for their support of the school. She said that even though she is at the top of the pay scale, she may have to quit teaching so that she can make more money, expressing concern about rising costs in the county. Mr. Bill Long, a former teacher who retired to the area in 1990, addressed the Board. He stated that while he is sympathetic to the school’s situation, their budget is still being increased eight or nine percent. Mr. Long stated that other increases are just three or four percent, and something has to give here as there are other services needed also. Mr. David Noble addressed the Board. He commented that he would like to see uniformity in the assessment process, adding that the reasons for real estate to increase are increase in the price of materials, and increase in the price of labor, as well as market forces. Mr. Noble said that very small lots cannot accommodate trees, etc., and those lot values should not be as high. There being no further public comment on the budget, Mr. Rooker opened the public hearing for speakers addressing just the tax rates. No speakers came forward, and the public hearing was closed. Mr. th Rooker noted that there would be a meeting on the evening of April 20, stating that the budget and tax rate would be voted on at that time. Mr. Boyd stated that he believes the budget should be put forth that includes a lower tax rate. He then offered motion to reduce the tax to .72 cents per $100.00. Mr. Rooker noted that the Board has already been through the overall county budget in detail, through a long process and many work sessions, considering specific expense increases and reduction. You can’t deal with the budget and the tax rate without dealing with the expense side. He said that during those considerations, there were no specific suggestions on further cuts. To him it is a little bit disingenuous to talk about lowering the tax rate if you have no suggestions for how to get there. Mr. Boyd said that the point he was trying to make all along was the increase from the previous year. What was off the table was the $232 million that the Board had been spending in prior years which is where we should be looking for the cuts. He emphasized that he is not changing what he has said all along, given that there is almost always a $3 million surplus. Mr. Rooker said that that surplus has been allocated to capital projects, and is always spent. Mr. Boyd stated that some of the items in the budget are there “to correct mistakes,” not to accommodate growth or increased enrollment in the county. Mr. Wyant commented that he is looking for efficiency, and the errors for the school CIP in previous year are pretty disturbing to him. Mr. Rooker emphasized that there was a long list of items to be considered, such as EMT personnel and the Sheriff’s office, and all Board members agreed to support those things. The Board members have been through this budget. They have been through the various departments, and they have talked to schools. They have gotten the input from schools, and 75 to 80 percent of their expense is teacher salaries. The Board took on as a policy goal to try to get teachers to the top quartile of competitive market pay. That was two years ago, they all agreed on that. There’s an expense to doing that, but the county school system is in the top 10 percent of the country. We live in an area that’s probably more expensive than the average area. All of the county schools are SOL qualified. Mr. Rooker added that they have added police officers and fire and rescue personnel, and this budget only gets the county partway to goals, noting that the fire department is being built largely from scratch. He added that he cannot support lowering the tax rate without some specific guideline on how to get to a lower rate. Mr. Boyd said that he has been bringing up the need to lower the tax rate all through the budgeting process. Mr. Wyant stated that the cost of living is too high for many people, and there needs to be a way to keep residents here with better affordability. Ms. Thomas commented that all year long this Board has been making policy decisions, and the School Board’s been making decisions, that affect the budget. She thinks staff is quite responsible in telling the Board what they are doing. She said it doesn’t take us totally by surprise when the budget comes out and we’re paying for the cost of urbanization. That is something that we’ve recognized all year, but should have been fighting back and either thumbing our nose at state mandates. W should have been doing things all year long if we’re now protesting where our policy decisions have gotten us. She does not support the suggestion that we cut the tax rate or budget at this point without having made the difficult decisions of exactly what policies to change. She thinks the public should know we are not going to provide them with more fireman, or we are not going to have the class sizes we presently have, rather than suggesting that the county government is poorly run and there are simply efficiencies that are not being made. Certainly the bonding agencies didn’t regard us as a place that was inefficient when they gave us our triple-A bond rating. April 6, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 31) Ms. Thomas emphasized that the Board has to make the policy decisions that cut our expenditures on one side if we are going to make the decision to cut the revenues on the other side. She said that the Board did agree to postpone some expenses in the budgeting process. Mr. Bowerman said that the reason that other localities can have lower real estate taxes is they are getting more from the state, while the state is telling Albemarle to pay for our own schools. Those are rules set not by us, but by our Delegates and our Senators. Mr. Wyant brought up streamlining site plan reviews to save money. Mr. Dorrier said that he is not convinced that all of the excess is out of the budget, but did say that every item was discussed one-by-one, including rescue squad, police, retirement, schools, etc. Based on that consideration, he didn’t think we could go more than two cents. He added that the county’s policies do need to be reviewed, and a meeting with the School Board is pending. He thinks it would be unfair to now go back and add two more cents to the reduction of the tax rate, because we’ve gone through the budget line item by line item and he does not see where it’s coming out of. We have had a budget presented to us this year without any real excess. He added that if the tax rate is cut more, we have got to know where it’s coming from. Mr. Wyant then seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion failed by the following recorded vote. AYES: Mr. Wyant, and Mr. Boyd. NAYS: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier. _______________ Agenda Item No. 23. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, at 8:33 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Wyant, th seconded by Mr. Bowerman to adjourn this meeting until April 18, 2005, 10:30 a.m., COB-5 Street. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier. NAYS: None ________________________________________ Chairman Approved by Board Date: 10/05/2005 Initials: DM