1995-02-15O000GO
February 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on February 15, 1995, beginning at 7:00 P.M., Room 7,
County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest
R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mrs. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: Mr. Charles S. Martin.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County
Attorney, Larry W. Davis; and Director of Planning and Community Development,
V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Chairman, Mr. Perkins.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M., by the
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. There were no other matters from the public.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. On motion by Mrs. Thomas, seconded
by Mr. Bowerman, Items 5.1 and 5.2 were approved and the remaining items on
the consent agenda were received for information. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Item 5.1. Authorize Chairman to sign Agreement for Industrial Access
Funds at University Real Estate Foundation/North Fork Business Park project.
By the above shown vote, the Board authorized the Chairman to sign the
following agreement:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
Project 1666-002-250, M501
Industrial Access
North Fork Business Park
THIS AGREEMENT, made the 15th day of February, 1995, by
and between UNIVERSITY REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION, hereinafter re-
ferred to as the DEVELOPER, party of the first, and the COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virgin-
ia, hereinafter referred to as the COUNTY, party of the second;
and
THAT WHEREAS, the COUNTY, by appropriate resolution, re-
quested Industrial Access Funds to assist in providing suitable
access to the North Fork Business Park, located off Route 606 in
Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS, the Commonwealth Transportation Board, hereinafter
referred to as the BOARD, has, subject to certain contingencies,
allocated an amount not to exceed $200,000 from the Industrial
Access Fund to assist in providing access to the previously
mentioned facility, such being designated as Project 1666-002-250,
M501; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY and the DEVELOPER have each acknOwledged
and agreed to the contingencies of this allocation, as set forth
in the draft resolution of the BOARD attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, the BOARD is scheduled to approve the draft resolu-
tion at its February 16, 1995 meeting; and the parties hereto
desire to enter into this AGREEMENT in advance of the BOARD's
meeting with the understanding that the final adopted resolution
will not differ in any material respect from the draft resolution
attached hereto, and therefore that such final adopted resolution
will, upon adoption by the BOARD, become incorporated by reference
as part of this AGREEMENT; and
WHEREAS, the parties hereto mutually desire to contribute
towards the construction of the access road; and
WHEREAS, the DEVELOPER desires to administer the project's
construction through its capabilities and/or those of its autho-
rized agents.
NOW, THEREFORE, Witness, that for and in consideration of
the promises and mutual covenants and agreements contained herein,
the parties agree as follows:
February 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Acquire the necessary right of way and any required
slope or drainage easements for this project at no
cost to the COUNTY. Perform, or have performed, all
environmental assessments, and, should these assess-
ments require any form of mitigation as a condition of
the project's construction on the proposed right of
way, provide said mitigation at no cost to the COUNTY.
2 o
Prepare any required environmental documents and
secure all necessary local, state, and federal permits
required for the proposed construction at no cost to
the COUNTY.
Cause any utilities in conflict with the construction
of this project to be adjusted, including the cost of
any installations and related engineering, at no cost
to the COUNTY.
Design and prepare plans for Project 1666-002-250,
M501, described as the construction of a new road from
Route 606 to 1500 feet east of Route 606, for the
purpose of providing suitable access to development
bays BS, B9, and F2 of the North Fork Business Park.
This design shall be in accordance with the geometric
standards of the VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA-
TION, hereinafter referred to as the DEPARTMENT, and
shall include a pavement width of not less than 24
feet within an unrestricted right of way width of not
less than 60 feet. The plans shall specifically
designate each contract item as either eligible or
ineligible for Industrial Access Funds. The parties
to this AGREEMENT understand and agree that design and
plan preparation costs are not eligible for reimburse-
ment by the DEPARTMENT.
5o
Provide the COUNTY with an appropriate bond or other
acceptable surety device in an amount to be determined
by the COUNTY, but in no event to exceed $200,000,
before February 15, 1995 and terminating on or after
March 16, 1998. Such surety device shall provide for
reimbursement to the COUNTY of any expenses incurred
by the Industrial Access Fund in this project's con-
struction not justified by eligible industrial capital
outlay by eligible industry or industries served
exclusively by the project as of February 16, 1998.
Pursuant to contingency 2(d) of the Commonwealth
Transportation Board's resolution of February 16,
1995, eligibility of the industry or industries, the
amount of eligible industrial capital outlay, and the
extent of the project's eligibility for Industrial
Access Funds shall be as determined by the DEPARTMENT.
The basis for this determination shall be the applica-
tion of the DEPARTMENT's policy and its usual practic-
es for administering the Industrial Access Fund, based
on documentary evidence submitted by the DEVELOPER.
Reimbursement to the COUNTY by the DEVELOPER, if
required, shall be made prior to termination of the
surety device, upon demand of the COUNTY. This surety
device may be released at an earlier date subject to
the COUNTY'S and DEPARTMENT'S receipt of suitable
documentation that the location and eligible capital
outlay, of qualified industrial development in opera-
tion along said project, warrants the industrial
access funds expended on this project's construction.
The surety amount may be reduced to the actual amount
received from the DEPARTMENT as reimbursement to the
DEVELOPER.
7°
Agree to construct or have its authorized agents
construct the project in accordance with the approved
plans.
Assure that all items of work and materials used in
construction comply with applicable DEPARTMENT speci-
fications.
Provide necessary inspection/construction engineering
services as required to assure that the project's
construction is performed in accordance with the
approved plans and specifications.
10. Administer the project by letting it to contract in
accordance with the Public Procurement Act, provided
however, that no contractor who is currently disquali-
fied from bidding on contracts with the DEPARTMENT,
for any reason, may participate as a prime contractor,
February 15, 1995 (Regular Nigh~ Meeting)
(Page 3)
subcon~ac~or;"~-o~ Supplier ~n any portion of the
project' s construction.
11.
Make this project available to inspection by COUNTY
and DEPARTMENT personnel during its construction and
obtain the COUNTY'S and DEPARTMENT's concurrence prior
to project acceptance.
12.
Maintain accurate records of all project costs in a
form satisfactory to the COUNTY and DEPARTMENT and
make such records available for audit by the COUNTY
and DEPARTMENT upon request.
13.
Request payment from the COUNTY for the actual cost of
the project's eligible items, to the extent herein
provided, upon project acceptance.
14. Assume responsibility for the payment of all cost of
this project, including cost in excess of $200,000,
regardless of eligibility, subject to and in accor-
dance with the provisions of this AGREEMENT.
15. Ensure that the location, form, and character of all
traffic control devices and markings installed or
placed by any public authority or other agency shall
be subject to the approval of the DEPARTMENT.
16.
Install guardrail, if required by the DEPARTMENT, and
complete any other necessary work within 60 days of
notification, by the COUNTY, that asphalt paving is
complete.
B. The COUNTY will:
Review the plans, cost estimates, and specifications
for Project 1666-002-250, M501, as presented by the
DEVELOPER and approve them with whatever modifica-
tions, if any, the COUNTY, in its sole discretion,
deems appropriate.
2 0
Authorize expenditure of the Industrial Access Fund
allocation in accordance with and subject to the
limitations and contingencies of the Commonwealth
Transportation Board's resolution of February 16,
1995, for the cost of the project's eligible items and
related construction engineering activities.
Make final inspection with the DEPARTMENT and DEVELOP-
ER upon completion of the project's construction and,
if appropriate, concur in its acceptance.
After acceptance and receipt of appropriate billing
from the DEVELOPER, the COUNTY will forward the docu-
ments to the DEPARTMENT to secure reimbursement for
actual eligible costs incurred subsequent to the
approval of the project's allocation by the Common-
wealth Transportation Board. This reimbursement
should occur within 30 days of the DEPARTMENT's re-
ceipt per the County/VDOT Agreement, which is incorpo-
rated by reference and made part of this AGREEMENT.'
Such reimbursement shall be subject to the limitations
prescribed by the Commonwealth Transportation Board's
resolution of February 16, 1995, and in no case shall
the total reimbursement to the DEVELOPER exceed
$200,00O.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties of this agreement have
hereunto affixed their signatures, University Real Estate Founda-
tion on the __ day of February, 1995, and the County of Albe-
marle on the 15th day of February, 1995.
Item No. 5.2a. Appropriation: Electronic Voting Machines
(Form #940050).
$210,000
(On August 3, 1994, the Board authorized the use of a financing agree-
ment to obtain 60 electronic voting machines. The 60 AVC Advantage voting
machines were obtained at a cost of $315,000. A down payment of $105,000 was
made from the current appropriation in the Capital Improvement Fund. The
remaining $210,000 was obtained from Crestar Bank and is repayable in two
annual installments of $105,000 plus interest at a rate of 7.85 percent.
Since the total expenditure was incurred in FY 1994-95, the appropriation in
the CIP Fund needs to be increased by $210,000. The increase will be offset
by recognizing the Crestar loan as additional revenue. Staff recommends
approval of the request.)
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution of
Appropriation:
February 15, 1995 (Regular
(Page 4)
FISCAL
NUMBER: 940050
FUND: CAPITAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR THE PURCHASE OF VOTING
MACHINES.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
1900013020800735 VOTING MACHINES
TOTAL
$210,000.00
$210,000.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2900041000410605
VOTING MACHINE FINANCING
TOTAL
$ 0.00
$ o.oo
Item No. 5.3. Letter dated February 3, 1995, from Ms. A. G. Tucker,
Resident Engineer, Department of Transportation, to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk,
providing the following response to Board requests for information:
"This is in reference to a verbal request for information regard-
ing the relationship between the Commonwealth Transportation Board
and localities. Please find attached (on file) copies of pages
from the Hiqhway Laws of Virqinia pertaining to the Department of
Transportation and pertinent information regarding the Transporta-
tion Board. In general, Commonwealth Transportation Board members
represent jurisdictions of several counties and other Commonwealth
Transportation Board members represent urban at-large and rural
at-large areas not specific to particular counties. Should this
information not sufficiently answer any questions that the Board
may have, please let me know.
It was also requested that the Department furnish a brief timeline
for implementation of major modifications in the Bellair area.
Four significant modifications have been recommended by the
Bellair Task Force and three have subsequently been addressed.
The items and times are as follows:
Closure of right turn slip ramp onto Route 250 west from
Route 601 at the Bellair Market. January, 1994.
Installation of traffic signal on Route 250 Business/Route
250 Bypass off the loop ramp. January, 1994.
Marking of Route 855 at Route 601 for exclusive right and
left turn lanes. January, 1994.
Closing of the off ramp from Route 250 Bypass west. Janu-
ary, 1994. Reopening of off ramp. October, 1994.
The Department will review and assess both traffic counts and
accident data at location #4 prior to making a recommendation to
the Board of Supervisors for final action."
Item No. 5.4. Letter dated February 9, 1995, from the Honorable Charles
R. Hawkins, Senator, to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, re: response to Board
resolution in support regional visitor's center on Route 29 at Danville, was
received as information.
Item No. 5.5. Letter dated February 10, 1995, from Mr. Paul W. Timm-
reck, Secretary of Finance, to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, re: response to
Board resolution expressing concerns over the Governor's budget reduction
proposal to the General Assembly, was received as information.
Item No. 5.6. Letter dated February 8, 1995, from Mr. J. S. Hodge,
Chief Engineer, Department of Transportation, to the Honorable Walter F.
Perkins, Chairman, re: notice that the Route 29 interchange design is on the
Commonwealth Transportation Board's agenda for February 16, 1995, was received
as information.
Item No. 5.7. Letter dated February 8, 1995, from Mr. James S. Givens,
State Secondary Roads Engineer, Department of Transportation, to Mr. Robert W.
Tucker, Jr., County Executive, re: report of changes to the Secondary System
of Highways in Albemarle County effective during January, 1995, was received
for information.
Item No. 5.8. Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apartments) Bond
Program Report and Monthly Report for the month of January, 1995, was received
for information.
Item No. 5.9. Letter dated February 9, 1995, from the Honorable John
Warner, Senator, to the Honorable Walter F. Perkins, Chairman, re: legisla-
AMOUNT
· .' . 000064
February 15, 1995 (Regular Ni~h~ M~eting)
(Page 5)
tion to transfer roads from'ShenandOah National park to the COmmonwealth of
Virginia, was received for information.
Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-93-03. Craig Builders.
indefinite deferral).
(Applicant requests
The following letter dated February 8, 1995, was received from Mr.
Hunter E. Craig, Craig Builders of Albemarle, Inc.:
"Mechum River Land Trust hereby requests a deferral of ZMA-93-03
from February, 1995, to a date soon after the adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan now under review. Mechum River Land Trust also
requests that Tax Map 57, Parcel 29, be studied and reviewed for
residential units under the current Comprehensive Plan review."
Mrs. Humphris said she thought it was the policy of the Board to not
defer a request indefinitely. She thinks it should be deferred to a specific
date. Also, since the Comprehensive Plan is more than a year away before
coming to the Board, she does not think this request should sit around all
that time. Mrs. Thomas felt that if it is the intent of the applicant to wait
until after adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the application should go back
through staff and Planning Commission review.
Mr. Tucker suggested that if the Board is not supportive of deferring
the request indefinitely, that position be communicated to the applicant, and
that he should withdraw the application and refile it when he is ready to
proceed with the request. He suggested deferring action until March 1 to get
a response from the applicant on how he wants to proceed.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to defer
ZMA-93-03 until March 1. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing to solicit input on the proposed
Community Development Block Grant application to be submitted to the Virginia
Department of Housing and Community Development on the Esmont Housing Reha-
bilitation Project. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 29 and
February 5, 1995.)
Mr. Tucker said pursuant to a public hearing on the CDBG program held on
December 21, 1994, the Board voted to submit an application for funding for a
housing rehabilitation project. A second public hearing must be held to allow
comment on the proposed project and past use of CDBG funds. After the second
public hearing, the Board must indicate approval of the proposed project and
adopt a resolution authorizing the County Executive to submit an application
to the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development.
The County is seeking $915,323 in CDBG funds to rehabilitate 37 single-
family houses in the Esmont area. An additional $206,931 in County funds will
serve as matching funds for the project. The County will subcontract with the
Albemarle Housing Improvement Program for project implementation and adminis-
tration. Staff recommends approval of the proposed housing rehabilitation
project and adoption of the resolution authorizing the County Executive to
submit the application to the Virginia Department of Housing and Community
Development.
The Chairman opened the public hearing. There being no comments, the
public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to
approve the proposed housing rehabilitation project to rehabilitate 37
substandard single-family homes in the Esmont area and adopt the following
resolution authorizing the County Executive to submit the application to the
Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
None.
Mr. Martin.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is committed to ensuring
that decent, safe and sanitary housing is available for all its
residents; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to public hearings held December 21, 1994,
and February 15, 1995, the County of Albemarle wishes to apply for
$915,323 of Community Development Block Grant funds for a Housing
Rehabilitation Project; and
February 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
WHEREAS, $206,931 from the County of Albemarle and $148,000
from family contributions will also be expended on this program;
and
WHEREAS, it is projected that this project will result in
the rehabilitation of 37 units, benefitting 96 persons, of which
100 percent will be iow-and moderate-income;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Robert W. Tucker, Jr.,
County Executive, is hereby authorized to sign and submit the
appropriate documents for submittal of this Virginia Community
Development Block Grant application.
Agenda Item No. 8. CPA-94-03. Crozet Study. Public Hearing to
consider the recommendations of the Crozet Study Committee to amend the
Comprehensive Plan to guide future development in the Crozet Growth Area.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 5 and December, 12, 1994.)
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development, said the purpose of
developing a community plan is to establish at a community scale, a detailed
plan to guide development decisions related to design services, facilities and
infrastructure, and to provide a better means for direct public involvement in
the planning process. This plan was developed in conjunction with a 13-member
committee representing the Crozet area. A public meeting was held by the
committee on June 30, 1994, at Crozet School to receive public comment. The
plan was revised after that meeting, and subsequent meetings were held with
the Planning Commission, a work session and a public hearing on November 22,
1994.
Staff had recommended that the Planning Commission amend the Comprehen-
sive Plan, specifically the recommendations and the profiles for the Crozet
Community in the Land Use Plan to include the following statement: "Consider
the recommendations of the Crozet Study as a guide for development in the
Community. Adoption of this study as a guide does not constitute a commitment
by the County toward the funding of proposed projects or programs recommended
in the study. Possible funding may only occur after the full impact of a
project or program in regards to all capital, personnel and operating costs
are understood. Also, all projects and programs recommended in this Study
must be properly evaluated and prioritized relative to all other County
projects in terms of possible funding."
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended forwarding the Crozet
Plan to the Board as presented by the Crozet Citizens Planning Committee.
This motion did not specifically reference the wording for CPA-94-03 as
recommended by staff. Also, the motion did not specifically make a recommend-
ation as to what the Board's action on the Study should be. The Planning
Commission, while praising the Committee for its work, expressed concern
regarding several recommendations of the Plan, including recommendations
regarding lowering residential densities, eliminating a portion of the
proposed Route 240/Route 250 connector road from the Plan and recommendations
to add a large open space area within the growth area.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Tom Loach, a member of the Crozet Citizens Planning Committee, said
the Crozet Community Association surveyed the citizens and found that 87
percent of the people want to maintain a small town environment. A lot of
this plan was built around that idea. He thinks if the plan is developed, it
should be done around the downtown. Most important is the objective of
strengthening the downtown as opposed to building on Route 250 west. He
believes the downtown environment is vital to a small town. 'One of the ideas
of the Committee was to develop a commercial/residential-type downtown. They
added language requesting the setbacks be reduced to maintain the Main Street.
When new buildings are built on Main Street, they should be two stories with
the second floor for apartments which not only would make the downtown
liveable and workable, but also provide some affordable housing. They have
suggested that affordable housing be incorporated into all new developments in
Crozet. The streets should be short and straight and associated with a well-
designed pedestrian network. Regarding land use, the committee recommended
that new development should only occur when adequate infrastructure is planned
and can be provided. He then described some of the infrastructure problems in
the community.
Mr. Loach said within any of the growth areas, planning should be
community oriented and methodologies developed to measure the overall impact
of development. He feels that the cumulative impact of development on a
continuum needs to measured to deal with the problems as they arrive. He
thinks that growth can be accommodated in Crozet and still maintain that small
town environment. Regarding the section on public and semi-public service,
one of the recommendations was for the County to maintain the old elementary
school as a public building. The building is now being rented by a private
school. This is the only County-owned land in Crozet. The property is within
000066
February 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
walking distance of the downtown area. He would like to see the County
consider refurbishing the building to house new public facilities. It could
be considered as use for a library or police satellite station or services for
senior citizens.
There being no other public comments, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Perkins expressed his appreciation to the Committee. He thinks they
did an outstanding job and it is a good guide for the Crozet community.
Mrs. Thomas said she thinks the study has excellent design factors and
information that can be used in other areas of the County.
Mrs. Humphris said this study is a tremendous amount of work and is a
wonderful contribution to the County.
Motion was then offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to
adopt the Crozet Community Study as a guide for the Planning staff and
Planning Commission in the development of the Comprehensive Plan. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No. 9. Z~-94~09 Jayel Industries, Inc. & John E. Campbell.
Public Hearing to amend proffers of ZMA-88-11 to delete requirement of 2
access points with no connection between Mill Creek & Lake Reynovia develop-
ments. Site zoned R-4 (proffered) is location of Lake Reynovia development.
Site is recommended for medium density residential in the Comprehensive Plan.
TM90D,Parcel A. Scottsville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
January 2 and January 9, 1995.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the
Clerk's office and a part of the permanent record of the Board. Staff had
requested the Engineering Department review in order to determine if engineer-
ing obstacles to the construction of a connection between Lake Reynovia and
Mill Creek exist. While grading will be required to construct a connection
the volume is not such that the construction of the roadway would be inconsis-
tent with sound engineering and design practices. Staff opinion is that there
has been no change in circumstance which would indicate that the provision and
acceptance of the proffer is no longer necessary. The provision of access
between the two developments is not intended to increase traffic volumes in
either of them. Staff is unable to identify any engineering reasons for
removal of the proffer requiring connection to Mill Creek. The elimination of
the access would be contrary to provisions of the Subdivision and Zoning
Ordinances and good planning practices.
The Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 24, 1995, by a vote
of 6:0:1, recommended denial of ZMA-94-09.
Mr. Cilimberg said last evening some Board members and Commission
members sat in on a discussion with the City Council and the City Planning
Commission about Avon Street and other roads in the southern urban area. One
of the recommendations of the consultant, at that meeting, was to avoid single
loading through main thoroughfares from large residential developments.
Providing this second access would relieve that necessity of single loading.
The Chairman opened the public hearing. Mr. Steve Driver, of McKee/
Carson, representing the applicant, addressed the Board. Mr. Driver said he
does not think the engineering issues should be the concern. The road can be
constructed as designed. The road connection would encourage cut through
traffic between Avon Street and the industrial access road (Southern Parkway)
and ultimately to Fifth Street after installation of the Route 20/Fifth Street
connector. He believes that the Mill Creek residents and the Lake Reynovia
residents desire to maintain a private, low traffic, low speed atmosphere in
their respective subdivisions. Eliminating the road connection will accom-
plish this by eliminating all cut through traffic. He believes cut through
drivers will have the tendency to drive at faster speeds since their objective
is to get somewhere faster usually without knowledge of or regard for the type
of community they are passing through.
Lake Reynovia's recreation center is next to Reynovia Drive which has
significant pedestrian traffic, going into and out of the site. He believes
the concern is primarily for the safety of the children crossing the road via
the large open space areas. Although the Zoning Ordinance suggests two points
of road connection for residential neighborhoods, he believes the inherent
risk to pedestrians, is a more serious concern. VDoT is basically indifferent
about the connection. By way of signed petitions, he believes that both the
Lake Reynovia and Mill Creek neighborhoods wish to have the vehicular connec-
tion eliminated. He does not believe that eliminating this connection would
have an adverse impact on fire or rescue efforts, but would promote the
February 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
000067
residential sense of the neighborhood. After having heard of the potential
safety concerns, he on behalf of his client, Lake Reynovia and Mill Creek
Homeowners Associations ask the Board to seriously consider the public safety
issues here and vote to eliminate the road connection.
Mr. Phillip Rice, Vice-President of the Lake Reynovia's Homeowners
Association, presented a petition (on file) signed by all residents of Lake
Reynovia, except those away on vacation, all of whom are against this connec-
tion. He also presented some photographs of the wooded area through which
this connector would go. The residents of Lake Reynovia and Mill Creek desire
to minimize traffic (both ways) through their respective neighborhoods. While
traffic now may not be substantial, pending changes with the Fifth Street
connector, Route 20 connector and possible Mill Creek West will all drive
additional through traffic in the area as people seek short cuts. They are
concerned that opening Reynovia Drive will create a major speeding problem,
particularly dangerous to the many children of the neighborhoods. The road is
wide and, like on Southern Parkway, guaranteed to cause excessive speeding.
The residents desire to preserve the right-of-way in its current vegetated
state. The area is now wooded and attractive. They see no need to destroy
another beautiful natural asset to create an unwanted road. He does not see
the need to replace trees with an eyesore and invade the privacy of the
adjacent houses. Mill Creek South, which is considerably larger than Lake
Reynovia, has only one access to Avon Street.
A presentation was recently made by the Police Department in which the
officer stated that a cul-de-sac is one of the best deterrents of crime in a
neighborhood like Lake Reynovia. A cul-de-sac draws attention to suspicious
behavior and prevent "casing" of the neighborhood by criminals driving through
unnoticed. Two couples moving to Reynovia Drive selected their lots on the
basis of the cul-de-sac. They had not known about this connection and are
disillusioned about this issue. The only three entities affected by this
connection, Lake Reynovia, Mill Creek and the developer, are all opposed. The
recreational area is located on Reynovia Drive and many of the children walk
along the road to get there. There are no sidewalks, so they generally walk
in the road. If the connector is built, there undoubtedly will be an increase
in traffic and this will pose a safety hazard to the children.
The residents are unaware of any compelling reasons, safety or other-
wise, that suggests the need for the road for either of the developments.
They understand that more access gives more options in an emergency and it
might make a school bus driver's route slightly more direct, but they know of
no data to suggest an unacceptable level of risk if the road were never
constructed.
Mr. Michael Matthews, President of the Mill Creek Homeowners Associa-
tion, said this connection would link Mill Creek and Lake Reynovia at the
Gristmill and Flag Stone Terrace intersections, thus creating a four-way
intersection. The same petition circulated by Lake Reynovia was circulated in
his neighborhood. In two days they had 91 households out of 208 respond.
Every person they talked to strongly opposes the connection. Their Board of
Directors on January 15, 1995, unanimously adopted a resolution in opposition
to the road. The residents believe this is a much larger than just a planning
issue. It speaks directly to the safety and enjoyment of their neighborhoods.
They hope the Board will be looking out for the residents' best interest. He
reiterated the reasons stated by Mr. Rice. Everyone directly involved is
against this connection. He asked that the Board support the proposed
amendment.
Mr. R. C. McCoy said he retired and bought a home in Mill Creek.
Children line up in front of his house in the street waiting for the school
bus. He thinks drivers will use this road as a cut through and create a
safety hazard to these children. He thinks drivers will use this street as a
short cut. This is a nice residential street and there is the possibility of
problems. Connecting roads are good for the people who do not live in the
neighborhood, not for the residents.
Mrs. Donna Thomas, a homeowner in Lake Reynovia, said she bought her
home because of the size of the community. It is a nice development. There
are small children who walk the roads to the clubhouse, swimming pool and
tennis courts, and a lot of people who walk for health reasons. The residents
live close to the City, but bought their homes because of the small, safe
area, and they want that to remain. The senior citizens who walk do not have
to fight for space on the road. If the County opens up the Fifth Street
connector into Mill Creek or Mill Creek West into Mill Creek and into Lake
Reynovia, they are going to have the University population coming through
these subdivisions to get to Route 20. The people who live in southern
Albemarle will use this road as a short cut because it will be the shortest
route to get to Route 20. The residents want to keep the community safe.
Mr. Gregory Horton, a soon-to-be new homeowner on Reynovia Drive, said
he has lived in either Charlottesville or Albemarle for 34 years. He has a
three year old son and eight year old daughter. His lot is in close proximity
000068
February 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
to the recreational facilities in Lake Reynovia. He would like for the Board
to keep this increased traffic flow in mind when they make their decision.
Mr. Robert Vaughan, said he and his wife have lived in Lake ReynoVia for
approximately a year. They like Lake Reynovia because it is relatively a
small community, self-contained, one access and cul-de-saced for safety
reasons. They like the smallness of the community. Lake Reynovia is a social
community. They walk all the time on Reynovia Drive. Opening that road will
cause unneeded traffic on one road to cut approximately one-quarter mile off
Avon Street from the Mill Creek entrance to the Lake Reynovia entrance. He is
not sure it is feasible to spend money on this road. He asked the Board to
eliminate the connection.
There being no other public comments, the hearing was closed.
Mr. Perkins asked if there are any emergency reasons that a second
access is needed. Mr. Cilimberg said in the Site Plan provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance, there is the statement that a second access be provided when
there are more than 50 dwelling units developed in one area. There was the
attempt to make connections in South Mill Creek, but it was not possible. Mr.
Cilimberg said this is not a binding requirement, but it is a desirable
feature because of the potential of a road being blocked and having no access
for the dwelling units. From an emergency access point of view there is a
desire to have a second access to be able to relieve traffic conditions when
an incident occurs.
Mr. Marshall said these people like their privacy and he would too if he
lived there. He agrees that when the connector road to Fifth Street is built,
there will be some people who will use that road as a cut through. There are
a lot of small children in these neighborhoods. Right now traffic is going at
a reasonable pace. He sees no reason to go in and force this connection on
these people. Maybe the road would be a little better for emergency access,
but he cannot see it making more than one minute of two difference.
Mrs. Humphris said she has been thinking about what would happen in the
event of a major emergency or major fire as far as people getting out of Mill
Creek in a hurry. She understands what these people are saying, If she
purchased property thinking she lived on a cul-de-sac, she would also be
disappointed if the developer or realtor had not told her what was in the
plans. Anybody that was not told about the plans was done a disservice. She
thinks it is the Board's job to think of the overall issue of public safety
knowing the reason for the requirement in the Zoning Ordinance. She would
feel awful if something were to happen in that community and this Board had
said in order to make everybody happy it would not go by its own policy and
provide a second access for people to get out or provide access for emergency
vehicles. Mr. Marshall said he cannot imagine a situation where it would
require an evacuation of the entire community. Mr. Perkins suggested that the
connection be open only for emergency access.
Mrs. Humphris said last evening when the report was being made on the
Southern Roads Plan, the consultant stated that the County is growing so
rapidly south of 1-64 that it must do its long range planning now for the
roads in that area. The County needs situations like this instead of one
access point onto a road like Avon Street for a development this size. It is
only good planning. She thinks the Board would be making a serious mistake if
it knows this is good long range planning for the whole community, but ignores
it.
Mr. Marshall said he agrees with regard to the Avon Street/Route 20
connector and Avon Street/Fifth Street connector roads, but when the County
build those roads, he thinks the fears of these people are going be realized.
People will use this connector as a short cut which will destroy the neighbor-
hoods. He is concerned about health and safety of the little children. Mrs.
Humphris commented that people do not usually cut through neighborhoods that
have 25 mile per hour speed limit when they can go on a road that has a higher
speed limit and can go straight instead of curving through a neighborhood.
Mr. Marshall said it is a lot more convenient to go through the neighborhood
and it is going to happen to this community.
Mr. Bowerman asked what is the status of the Avon Street/Fifth Street
connector. Mr. Cilimberg said it is in the Comprehensive Plan and the
recommended approach by the consultants on the Southern City Study. There is
no funding designated for the road and it has not been identified by VDoT as a
road they will build.
Mr. Marshall said he travels into Charlottesville on Route 20 South
every day and he continues to use Route 20 instead of Avon Street because of
the long line of cars making the left turn to go on Avon Street. There are
more and more people coming from southern Albemarle. He feels that a large
number of these people will use this road as a cut through to bypass all that
traffic on Avon.
000069
February 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
Mr. Bowerman said it seems logical to him that the traffic would
continue on Avon Street to the light at Elliewood Avenue because the speed on
the connector road is much slower, in a subdivision and curvy. Mr. Marshall
said he thinks the drivers are going to cut through the subdivision instead of
waiting in a line on Avon Street.
Mrs. Thomas said she thinks the Board should learn from its experiences
on Route 29 North that it has not allowed enough alternatives to allow for
circulation. She does not want to be responsible for starting that same
process by not looking at circulation in the whole area particularly when the
road has been in the plans and on the plats. She thinks this road has the
best long range planning implications for this area and she does not want to
be a party to cutting off something that will be important in the future.
Mr. Perkins asked if the developer could be required to do this in five
years. Mr. Tucker said the road could be bonded. The other alternative is to
develop something lesser such as a pathway that is gated or chained where
emergency vehicles could utilize. That would address the issue of emergency
access.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the connection should have been done as the
roads were built before the houses were constructed. Me asked why these
things are allowed to not take place in an orderly fashion with the develop-
ment of the subdivision. Mr. Cilimberg said the development had not gotten to
that point. A certain number of houses have to be first constructed. Mr.
Bowerman said that always seems to be the case where roads called for in the
original plans are the last ones to be built. Mr. Cilimberg said in the
future if the Board feels these kinds of issues are important, staff can make
them known at the rezoning stage. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the County has
enough experience to know that this does become a concern after the houses are
constructed.
Mr. Bowerman said he can support a road for emergency access only. He
thinks the arguments that through~traffic are going to use this road instead
of the eventual Fifth Street connector are not valid. It is much more direct
to continue straight and if people are lined up at the Fifth Street connector
to turn left, they are going to be lined up at this connector to turn left
because the same amount of traffic is going to be coming the other way. He
will support an emergency only access, but he will not vote to completely
remove the access.
Mrs. Humphris said an emergency access only shifts the problem to the
future. The idea here is that the second access is necessary for good traffic
circulation. All this would do is leave the problem to somebody later who
will have to go through the same process and it will be more difficult. She
believes the road is extremely important for traffic circulation. She thinks
this connection is necessary and it might as well done now.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the connection is necessary for vehicular traffic
back and forth between the two subdivisions only. Mrs. Humphris said accord-
ing to the consultant, the connection is necessary for the health of the
traffic in the entire area. Mr. Bowerman asked if the issue is the same with
or without the Avon Street/Fifth Street connector. Mrs. Humphris said part of
this also is the Route 20 connector which makes the access important. Mr.
Bowerman said he understands the concern, but do not think they are valid.
Mr. Perkins said he does not see that this connector road is important
in the overall transportation system for that area. He thinks there is some
validity to having a second access for emergency vehicles.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to deny
ZMA-94-09. Roll was called and the motion failed by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris and Mrs. Thomas.
NAYS: Messrs. Marshall, Perkins and Bowerman.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Mr. Davis said this requirement of two access points was a proffer made
by the developer. The request is to remove the proffer requirement. If the
Board requires anything different, the developer would have to voluntarily
proffer the alternative. Mr. Davis suggested the Board defer the request and
let the developer bring forward a revised proffer stating that the connector
road would be used as an emergency access only.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to
defer ZMA-94-09 until March 1 to allow the applicant to discuss with the
developer whether he would be willing to submit a revised proffer for Board
consideration to state that "a connection between Lake Reynovia and Mill Creek
shall be provided for emergency access" Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
000070
February 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Perkins and Bowerman.
NAYS: Mrs. Humphris and Mrs. Thomas.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-94-33. Bradford Howard. Public Hearing on a
request for home occupation Class-B for a landscape contractor on 42.37 ac
zoned RA located on N sd of Rt 663 approx 800 ft W of Rt 603. TMg,P24. White
Hall Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 30 and February 6,
1995.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the
Clerks office and a part of the permanent record of the Board. Staff recom-
mended approval of the request with one condition. The Planning Commission,
at its meeting on January 24, 1995, unanimously recommended approval of
SP-94-33 subject to the condition suggested by staff.
Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing. Mr. Bradford Howard, the
applicant, said he has no problem with removing the trees and other weeds to
meet the requirements. There being no other comments, the public hearing was
closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to
approve SP-94-33 subject to the condition recommended by the Planning Commis-
sion:. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
(The condition of approval is set out below:)
Removal of any trees and other objects on the subject parcel which
are within the line of sight to the north at the entrance onto
Route 663, such that an unobstructed sight distance of 550 feet is
maintained.
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-94-36. Louise McConnell. Public Hearing on a
request for home occupation Class-B for ceramic craft work space on 52.2 ac
zoned RA at end of a pvt rd approx 0.6 mi E of Rt 601. TM44,P26A. Jack
Jouett Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 30 and February 6,
1995.)
(Mr. Bowerman left the meeting at 8:34 p.m.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized
the staff's report which is on file in the Clerks office and a part of the
permanent record of the Board. Staff recommended approval with three condi-
tions. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 24, 1995, recom-
mended approval of SP-94-36 subject to the three conditions suggested by
staff.
Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing. Ms. Louise McConnell, the
applicant, said she wants to have a simple pottery workshop in her garage.
There being no other public comments, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to make a
positive finding that this use is consistent with the intent of the agricul-
tural/forestal district and to approve SP-94-36 subject to the conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas.
None.
Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Martin.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
1. Compliance with Section 5.2;
There shall be no more than two employees. At such time that
there shall be employees, the applicant shall obtain Building
Inspections and Fire Officer approvals;
3. There shall be no on-site sales.
Agenda Item No. 12. SP-94-38. Phillip Ryder. Public Hearing on a
request to construct an above grade parking structure on 2.04 ac zoned C-1 &
EC on E sd of Rt 29 approx 500 ft S of wood_brook Rd. TM45,P104A. Charlottes-
ville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 30 and February 6,
1995.)
February 15, 1995 (RegUlar Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the
Clerks office and a part of the permanent record of the Board. Staff recom-
mended approval of the request with two conditions. The Planning Commission,
at its meeting on January 24, 1995, unanimously recommended approval of
SP-94-38 subject to the amendment of the first condition recommended by staff
and the addition of a third condition.
Mrs. Thomas asked about lighting of the structure during evening hours.
Mr. Cilimberg said the structure will have lighting and the applicant will
have to present a lighting plan. It will be dealt with as part of site plan
review.
Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing. Representing the applicant, Mr.
Peter Sheeran, of Sheeran Architects, said the impervious area has not been
increased. The white pine screening was installed by the owner when the
building was constructed and those trees are from 15 feet to 25 feet tall.
There is an on-site stormwater detention pond and the stormwater that would
come off the structure would be piped into that detention pond. Because of
the topography of the site, the upper level of the parking deck will be no
higher than the finished floor of the building. The lower level will effec-
tively be underground. The issue of lighting is being addressed. They are
cognizant that lighting need to be shielded from the adjacent area. Floor
Fashions occupies approximately 25 percent of the building and the tenant of
the building, Blue Ridge Health Alliance, will be occupying the entire
building within the next few months.
Mr. Carl Schwamer, a property owner on Brookmere Road, said his house
backs up to Floor Fashions. Floor Fashions can be seen through the trees. He
does not have a specific opinion regarding this project, but he is concerned
about stormwater runoff. The drainage ditch that runs along the back end of
his property line is downhill from Floor Fashions and the developed section.
Essentially during the summer when there are strong rains that lasts 15
minutes, the water level in that drainage ditch can rise approximately 36
inches. He has a three year old daughter and another child on the way, and
this has caused him some concern. The drainage ditch is what causes his
concern. He does not know if this project would impact that drainage ditch.
He asked the Board to look at any future plans along that corridor and
specifically look at where the stormwater is going to run off because if it is
not taken care of, he will be looking at a major river in his back yard every
time there is a rain storm.
There being no other comments, the public hearing was closed.
Mrs. Humphris asked about stormwater runoff. Mr. Sheeran said the
entire site development does have curb and gutter and internal storm drainage
which drains directly to the stormwater detention basin on the backside of the
pine trees. He thinks the stormwater Mr. Schwamer was discussing comes from
Route 29 North and the Woodbrook Shopping Center. All of the water, including
the water collected on the roof structure of the building, is piped through an
internal storm drainage system that empties into the detention basin. The
impervious area is collected and then piped to the detention basin. Mr.
Cilimberg said when this goes through site plan review since it is in a
stormwater management area, the adequacy of the detention facility will be
reviewed by Engineering in association with improvements on the site.
Mr. Tucker suggested that someone from the Engineering staff talk with
the adjoining property owners to discuss the situation.
Mrs. Humphris then offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to approve
SP-94-38 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Martin.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
The parking structure shall be limited in area and to two levels,
ground and upper, as shown on a plan titled Floor Fashions/Grand
Piano, as amended by Sheeran Architects, and initialled WDF,
1/11/95. Ail landscaping shall be retained or replaced should it
die;
A solid opaque wall not less than 3.5 feet in height shall be
provided around the northern and eastern sides of the parking
structure, upper and lower levels. Such wall shall be designed to
block headlights from the adjacent residential uses;
Structure shall be signed to prevent unauthorized use.
February 15, 1995 (RegUlar Night Meeting)
~ ~ra~e 13) ·
(The Chairman called a recess at 8:52 p.m. The Board reconvened at 9:00
p.m. All were present.)
Agenda Item No. 13. Economic Development Policy. Public Hearing to
take comments from the public on goals, objectives and strategies for economic
development which will replace the existing economic development section of
the County's Comprehensive Plan. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
February 8 and February 12, 1995.)
Public Hearing to take comments on a Public-Private Regional Economic
Development Partnership. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 8 and
February 12, 1995.)
Mr. Cilimberg said the information Board members received reflects the
final action taken by the Planning Commission in its recommendation of an
Economic Development Policy. Issues raised by some organizations were
incorporated in the Policy. Although not reflected in the information, Mr.
Cilimberg commented that at its last meeting, the Commission discussed the
designation of a contact person for economic development.
Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing.
Mr. Harold Morris said he is a County citizen, and Senior Vice President
and Regional Executive Officer for NationsBank where he has worked for 35
years. He is the past Chairman of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Chamber of
Commerce, and tonight he is speaking on behalf of the Chamber and its 1100
members. Mr. Morris complimented the Planning Commission on a well-written,
intelligent Economic Development Policy. He appeared before the Commission in
support of the Policy and now is before the Board in support. Mr. Morris said
the Chamber is extremely supportive of Objective III which is: "Recognize the
County's place in the regional economy".
Mr. Morris said when the Board decides whether to become a funding part-
ner in the Thomas Jefferson Regional Economic Development Partnership, the
Chamber encourages it to make the right decision by voting to be a partner and
join its neighboring municipalities in an effort to improve the economic
vitality of this region. The proposed Economic Development Policy allows for
better economic and environmental control in management than it has in the
past. The objectives and strategies are broad enough to allow for reasonable
flexibility which is vital to having a dynamic plan. Again, the Chamber of
Commerce encourages the Board to accept the Economic Development Policy and to
become a funding member in the Thomas Jefferson Economic Development Partner-
ship.
Mrs. Susan Cabell, a long time resident of the City of Charlottesville,
said she is present to endorse the Board's participation in the Regional
Economic Development Partnership. She and her husband, Bruce, have lived and
worked in this community for 25 years; they raised their two children in the
area school systems, and have devoted personal and professional volunteer time
in the City and County. Her husband is not here tonight; he is out of town
and she is speaking for the both of them. He is President of Cabell Insur-
ance, Associates; a small business with three of their four partners County
residents as well as most of their 40+ employees being County residents.
Cabell Insurance voted to contribute to the Regional Economic Development
Partnership because the owners and employees want to insure the future
continuation of this 20 year old business and the next generation of employees
for that business. It is their belief a regional approach could best reflect
the common values and interests of business, environment and community.
Ms. Cabell said for the past 25 years she has been working as a Human
Resource professional for both County and City businesses. She has spent a
great deal of time interviewing, counseling and providing assistance to a
variety of individuals in this community; and on a daily and weekly basis she
hears first hand how tough it is for them to secure meaningful employment in
this community. She is a firm believer that we have a responsibility for the
future generation to provide employment opportunities and that we have a
responsibility to preserve and protect the environment. She believes the
Regional Economic Development Partnership can do both. It has worked effec-
tively in other parts of the Commonwealth of Virginia, so on behalf of Bruce
and herself, she urges the Board to approve the County's participation in this
partnership. There are many good economic reasons for doing this, i.e., to
achieve economies of scale in administrative support staff, an organized and
efficient marketing approach to regional economic development and this is the
right thing to do for the future of the community.
Ms. Kathryn Hobbs, President of the Charlottesville-Albemarle League of
Women Voters said the public should know that the proposed Economic Develop-
ment Policy is the result of a long process that began over a year ago. In
work sessions open to the public for comment, the Planning Commission studied,
analyzed and sought information that produced the analysis and findings of the
proposed policy statement. The League participated in the process and knows
that staff reviewed and condensed reams of material. The League believes
February 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
staff considered the many various views of the Commissioners and the public,
and have produced a policy statement that reflects what they (the League)
believe to be the sense of those who participated. The League commends the
staff for completing so well a difficult task.
Ms. Hobbs said included in the Policy is the section entitled: "Analy-
sis and Findings" which is necessary for an understanding of the Policy's
goals, objectives and strategies. The League has only one change to recom-
mend. In Objective II, Strategy 6, the League suggests the Board insert the
word "growth" between the words "designated and area" so that the sentence
reads: "Continue to work with property owners in designated growth areas to
identify infrastructure needs ..... " As the sentence stands, the County could
be asked by property owners in designated rural areas to identify infrastruc-
ture needs. Infrastructure includes water and sewer services which are
totally inappropriate in rural areas. Adding "growth" makes it clear which
designated areas may be considered for infrastructure needs.
The League is.particularly pleased that the Policy recognizes the
advantages of regional cooperation and recommends that the cooperation be
through the Thomas Jefferson Planning District (TJPD). The TJPD is a public-
ly-funded organization which can implement the functions listed under Objec-
tive I, Strategy III. It would appear that the TJPD, which has a strong
research and data component, is on its way to fulfilling that role. Several
studies and projects have been undertaken, but one of the most exciting
projects is its current national demonstrative project on economic growth.
The program, called the Thomas Jefferson Study to Preserve and Assess the
Regional Environment, will provide citizens and decision-makers with informa-
tion they need to insure jobs, a livable environment and prevent environmental
crisis. This is an example of the kind of in depth work that the TJPD staff
produces. The program also emphasizes the fact that there already is in place
a governmental entity responsible to its member governments and qualified to
collect, analyze and disseminate information its members need. The League
realizes that financial arrangements will have to be made for expanded
services. In conclusion, the League believes that the proposed Policy will
serve the County well. It is important for the Board to adopt the Policy now
because we need the revised statement of the goal in the Comprehensive Plan,
with for the first time a list of objectives and strategies. From time to
time, the Board will have to decide how to implement the strategies, but right
now the most important action is to put in the record a clear, concise
statement of the County's Economic Development Policy and implement it later.
Ms. Hobbs said with regard to establishing the Regional Economic
Development Partnership, it is not a substitute for the County's Economic
Development Policy that the Planning Commission forwarded to the Board.
Rather, the Partnership is one way to implement that Policy. There is wide
agreement that the County does not want or need a greater rate of population
growth than what it has experienced in recent years. Yet, the Partnership
endorses "proactive" development - in fact, it is a key function of the
Partnership which has raised thousands of dollars from the private sector to
support it. Encouraging new employers who bring a high proportion of their
work force add greater pressures on our services, especially schools, further
erodes our tax base.
Recognizing that the County has a place in the regional economy, the
League compared a partial list of the actions the County could take to
implement the objective to the listing of the specific purposes of the
Partnership. Six of the eight purposes are similar to the options listed in
the County's Economic Development Policy. The listed County options are: 1)
base economic development on planning; 2) discourage business and industry
which are not environmentally sustainable or friendly; 3) address linkage
between housing and wages; 4) recognize that County residents place importance
on economic growth, but not at the expense of the protection, preservation of
natural resources, farmland, historic areas and open space; 5) provide work
force development opportunities (i.e., education, training programs); and 6)
encourage employment of local labor.
The Partnership's implementation of its purposes, as defined in the
Agreement, leans heavily toward what it will do for business and industry. It
does not mention components of economic development that the County believes
important, such as development and employment of a regional work force, the
linkage between wages and housing, and the relation to the use/preservation of
resources (the sustainability issue). Partnership supporters may respond that
they want to be consistent with local plans and policies and not degrade the
environment, etc. However, the body of the Agreement should be expanded to
include the information in the "Flow Chart" which, although referenced in the
Agreement, is not included with all copies.
The County and the Partnership agree that there is a need for a regional
clearinghouse. The Agreement provides the structure under which it would
function as a public-private organization, 50 percent with taxes from its
private members and 50 percent from its jurisdictional members. In contract,
the County's Economic Development Policy calls for cooperation with other
entities through the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC).
February 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
At one point in the development of the Partnership concept, the TJPDC was
considered the contact point. No wonder -- it is uniquely qualified. It is a
publicly-funded agency that directly represents the interests of the govern-
mental jurisdictions it serves. There is direct accountability between
taxpayers and the agency, a connection lacking in the Partnership.
Ms. Hobbs said if there is any part of the Agreement that has probably
raised the most questions and disbelief, it is "Membership" and "Membership
Categories" ThE League is among those asking questions. For years, the
League has sought to promote a cross-section of interests represented on
boards and committees in order to have public policy reflect different views.
However, here is a 50-50 funded public-private board of directors whose
private sector members represent interests that thrive on population growth.
It is a bit naive to think that a representative of other interests will be
appointed by a jurisdiction. Furthermore, it is likely that the public
members' agenda will be fragmented because they have different infrastructure,
different budget problems, different population problems and different needs.
On the other hand, the private sector is united in the objective to market the
region.
Because of that imbalance of power, the League is concerned about how
public policy is developed. The League finds the Agreement too minimal. For
instance, how much does a private sector member pay to be an "investor
member"? The Agreement is silent regarding the board of directors. What are
their terms? What officers will it have (a chair?), their duties and terms?
What are the time and place of meetings and are they open to the public for
questions and comments? Should a representative of local government have a
veto?
The budget should be broken down to show for instance just how much goes
for marketing. The League doubts that any of the private sector members would
tolerate such a skimpy budget for their businesses. What kind of guidance
will the executive director have? It appears that the Red Carpet Team could
be a "loose cannon" unless there are requirements that they keep in mind all
the interests to be served, not just the creation of jobs. Because the County
can have a clearly defined policy with objectives and strategies and must
measure its accomplishments in economic development against the strategic
questions posed in the Community Vision statement, it will be easier to
monitor successes than judging those of the Partnership.
In conclusion, although the County's policy and the Partnership disagree
on the important issue of an aggressive economic development program and who
should have responsibility for the clearinghouse, the two share a number of
goals. However, League is not too sure about the Partnership's commitment to
some of those that are high priorities for the County. The League finds
weaknesses in the Partnership Agreement that give them concern about the way
public policy will be made, especially since public tax money is involved.
Somehow the League wishes that it could achieve the following goal (source
unknown): "We need a program that brings development which is sympathetic to
the ecology of the region, employs local residents, utilizes local raw
materials, does not degrade the environment, brings diversity and is consumer
oriented at the regional level.
Mr. Reuben Clark, Chairman of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Board of the
Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC), said for 20 years PEC has worked to
protect farms and forests, scenic and natural resources, historic sites and
clean water. They are not alone in thinking these things important, according
to the recent survey of Albemarle County residents. When asked to choose the
things they valued most, Albemarle County citizens chose protecting water
quality, preserving natural resources and open space, and protecting farmland
and forests as three of their top five planning goals. Of course the citizens
of Albemarle want jobs, but not at the cost of the things they value most:
good schools, clean water, safe neighborhoods, natural resources, open space
and farmland. In fact, bringing more jobs to the area ranks twelfth on the
list of things that County residents want. Our job clearly is to have jobs,
but to keep the beautiful country side and the environment that has attracted
jobs. Economic development might have registered a higher priority if this
area did not already enjoy one of the strongest economies in the Commonwealth.
Our median family income consistently is one of the highest in the nation; our
unemployment rate, one of the lowest. In fact, according to Opportunity
Virginia, the Governor's economic development plan for Virginia, one of the
biggest obstacles this region faces in encouraging economic development is our
very low rate of unemployment, currently 2.7 percent in the County.
Given this iow rate of unemployment, any effort to stimulate economic
development must be carefully tailored to the needs of the work force current-
ly residing in the region. If it is not, our rate of population growth will
accelerate beyond our capacity to accommodate it. PEC commends the Planning
Commission and staff for the care they have taken to craft a policy that seeks
to avoid this pitfall. They came up with a proposal that respects the
contribution of our agricultural, historic and scenic resources to our healthy
economy, that recognizes the roles planning and growth management have played
in our prosperity, and that focuses on improving employment and training
February 15, 1995 (RegUlar Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
oooo?$
opportunities for our local work force rather than encouraging growth for its
own sake, growth that often largely benefits in-migrant workers.
PEC urges the Board to insure that this same balanced approach that has
served the County very well carries through to the economic development
efforts at the regional level. PEC support regionalism, being a regional
organization itself, but PEC recognizes that regional cooperation between
localities regarding economic development is hard to accomplish. Local
autonomy over zoning and the nearly total reliance on the local property tax
base for revenues dictated by state law undermine the possibility for true
regional effective cooperation. An example of such difficulty is the recent
unilateral withdrawal of the City of Charlottesville from the Four Party
Agreement regarding the construction of improvements in theRoute 29 corridor.
However, Albemarle is the core of this region, it is tied closely to the City
of Charlottesville and closely to the surrounding counties. If the Board
joins this effort, PEC wishes it well.
PEC cannot support the current proposal for the Regional Economic
Development Partnership unless all of the following provisions are included in
the Partnership's agreement: 1) it be clearly specified that the fundamental
purpose of the Partnership will be to promote regional economic development
consistent with the goals of rural land conservation, sustainability and
historic preservation; 2) the work of the Partnership will be directed to
promoting economic development of the steady but not "boom or bust" kind that
the County has experienced over the last decades, emphasizing: a) internally
generated growth offering "career ladder" jobs for the region's high school
graduates and b) the diversification of industry, a criteria that has over
many decades served the Commonwealth of Virginia well; 3) the term economic
development will specifically include agriculture. AgricultUre provides
directly in the Commonwealth about ten percent of all jobs and land conserva-
tionist regard profitable agriculture as the best barrier against degradation
of the rural country side; 4) the Board of Directors shall include at least
three citizens appointed by the local governments to represent land conserva-
tion, agricultural and preservation interests; and 5) the Partnership will be
committed to cooperating with other public and private entities in the region:
a) to develop an adequate data base and methodology to determine employment
supply and demand within the region and the fiscal and environmental impact of
large scale industrial and housing development projects in the region and b)
to increase educational, vocational and apprenticeship programs for the
region's high school students in order for them to take advantage of the
region's employment opportunities. PEC realizes that the Partnership cannot
do some of this by itself, but thinks the Partnership should be committed to
cooperating with other entities more directly involved in such efforts to
achieve these objects.
If the County should join the Partnership as a funding partner, PEC asks
that it do so by resolution indicating that the County's participation is for
two years only and that further participation must be justified after weighing
the public costs and benefits incurred during that period. If the business
community holds public governments around the country accountable, it seems
appropriate, on this new and untried program of public-private participation,
that at the end of the specified period the Partnership be looked at and held
accountable for how well it has done what it says it will do. The County
should frequently review the activities of the Partnership to determine
whether they are meeting the standards of sustainability, making housing more
affordable and supporting rural preservation. These frequent reviews should
also evaluate the effect of economic development efforts on the rate of our
population growth, our transportation network and our water supply. If the
County discovers that the marketing undertaken at the regional level is
stimulating our rate of population growth, undermining our efforts at rural
preservation or having untoward social consequences in any way, then it must
be prepared to withdraw from the Partnership.
Mr. Clark said provided that the agreement be amended as suggested, PEC
can support the Regional Economic Development Partnership. Without these
changes, the promotion of economic development will cost the County the very
qualities its citizens value most in the community. Mr. Clark said he hopes
this experiment will, if the County joins in, not only enhance cooperation at
the regional level, but maybe the community can be behind the kind of objec-
tives he has described that can develop a new spirit of cooperation between
the forces supporting economic growth and those land conservationists and
preservationist.
Ms. Marcia Moore, a County 'citizen, said she has read through the
proposed Economic Development Policy and has a couple of comments. She was
encouraged with the mention of tourism (which depends on rural, agrarian and
historical resources) and agriculture and forestry as important parts of the
Economic Development Plan. She agrees with the Planning Commission that it is
wise to build on the County's strengths in these areas and not to compromise
them.
In the strategies for Objective II, "Plan for land and infrastructure to
accommodate future business and industrial growth," she feels the provision of
February 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
land and infrastructure should be contingent upon not compromising our rural,
agrarian and historical resources. Specifically, in Strategy 2 for the
provision of land, it should state that scenic and historic areas will be
preserved. In Strategy 3, it should state that rezoning should not be done
against opposition of the local community affected by the change. In Strategy
5 (making needed infrastructure improvements), it should state that public
funds will not be used to subsidize private development through infrastructure
improvements.
She was happy to see the paragraph under Objective IV stating that
growth would not be accomplished at the expense of environmental quality,
farmland, historic areas and open space. This philosophy needs to be brought
into the specific provisions for rezoning and infrastructure development. As
stated elsewhere in Objective IV, the policy is intended to improve our
standard of living, not to increase our population. The citizens should not
sacrifice what they love most about the county.
Ms. Moore said on the subject of the Regional Economic Development
Partnership, she cannot support County participation as it appears to her that
the Partnership could become a loose cannon, inviting new "Disneys" into the
regional. The result will be a sequence of political maelstroms, neighbor
against neighbor, as those who stand to profit struggle against those who want
to preserve what they have. At the least, there needs to be a balance of
interests in the Partnership representing the population at-large. This would
include representatives of preservation interests and environmental groups as
well.
Mr. James King, a resident of the City of Charlottesville, said he
believes the Economic Development Policy is excellent. He congratulated the
people who worked on it; it has a lot of balance. He does suggest that there
be a concern with planning for the development of markets, not just for
employment, which is not specifically included in the Policy. He thinks the
statement in the Policy that economic development is for the benefit of the
citizenry, etc., but not to encourage population growth, is important. He
thinks it is important to take into consideration the finding that most of the
citizens do not want the population to grow. There should be a positive
commitment towards leveling off population growth some time in the future
rather than just saying this Economic Development Policy should not have the
purpose of promoting it.
He believes there is a need for a regional economic development program
that covers all of the Planning District and the other jurisdictions contigu-
ous to the County (Orange, Augusta, Buckingham, Rockingham) since they will
have an impact from what happens in Albemarle and vice versa. He believes the
Partnership fails to identify the importance of culture in general. He
suggested that the Board ask that the Regional Economic Development Partner-
ship be structured in such a way that economic development serves the culture
and the cultural environment as well as nature and the natural environment.
Right now economic development is defined only as business development. The
way this agreement is structured it should be called the regional business
partnership. There'is a lot more to the economy than just business. Current-
ly there is an absolute majority of people in the Partnership who will be
concerned most with profit, business and ownership interests. He asked about
the residential, volunteer associations and consumer interests being served.
As an analogy, the regional health care planning programs, (Northwestern
Virginia Health Systems Agency) have found that the market does not appropri-
ately allocate all of the values and all the resources needed to improve
health. There are times when competition is bad for health and there are
times when the provider view is not sufficient for health which is why they
require there be an equal number of consumers on their board to balance the
providers. This Partnership board has only providers plus government people
and many of those government people will be influenced by business interests
and have a profit motive and not be concerned with the cultural impact of
economic development.
His first recommendation is that the Board open up the private sector
representatives. Second, the Board change the composition of the Partnership
to have at least two of those four be consumer representatives or residential
representatives or voluntary association representatives to give some balance.
Next, the Partnership should be tied more closely to the TJPDC to provide more
accountable rather a totally separate organization not accountable to anybody.
The first point of contact for this group should be someone concerned with all
of the dimensions of the community and economic development and how it would
serve that. Mr. King congratulated the staff on the Economic Development
Policy; it is excellent. He also agrees with all the points made by the
League of Women Voters and PEC.
Ms. Eleanor Santic, representing Citizens for Albemarle, said Citizens
for Albemarle (CFA) supports the Economic Development Policy which has been
forwarded to the Board by the Planning Commission. The document being
considered has benefitted from work sessions, several opportunities for public
input, as well as public hearings by the Commission. The carefully chosen
words have honed direction of policy and thrust of intent. As stated at an
00007
February 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
earlier hearing, CFA reiterates that no Economic Development Policy can create
Paradise and no policy can create a world wherein everyone is at the top. CFA
feels the policy being considered here is a reasonable step in the right
direction. Therefore, CFA supports favorable action by the Board on this
policy when it votes.
CFA has mixed reactions to the Regional Economic Development Partnership
proposal and the County's participation in it. CFA likes the idea that we are
beginning to think regionally, but are somewhat suspicious, however, of this
particular venue. A good part of the difficulty stems from the agreement.
There are too many unanswered questions provoked by these two slim pages. For
example - how "proactive" and to what extent will this partnership be, how and
to what extent will the region be "marketed", how and to what extent will
existing businesses be "nurtured", how and to what extent will prospects be
identified, how will it be a clearing house, how will it "foster an internal
climate for economic development" and what does that last phrase even mean?
The only items clearly defined in these two pages are salaries and expenses.
But what a $50,000 a year director would do - along with the rest of the
$82,000 a year staff - is left to the imagination.
Another part of CFA's concern stems from what is specifically omitted
from the document. For example, is this partnership a quasi-governmental
agency? With tax dollars being contributed, can it be otherwise? If "yes,"
"how does it fit or where does it belong in the chain of accountability to the
public? If "yes," what is its responsibility to our city/county governments?
If "yes," why is there no public opportunity for membership on the group's
board? If "yes," why is membership open only to cash contributors? If it is
not a governmental agency or quasi-governmental agency, then what is its
relationship to the Thomas Jefferson Planning District? Would there be a
legal connection between the two or is the proposed name simply and advertis-
ing ploy? Is the group an authority unto itself? If it is, why?
Assuming that answers to these questions exist and that the nebulous
proposal can be made more specific, there remains the question of Albemarle's
paid participation. If protection of the rights of participating government
jurisdictions can be guaranteed - another glaring omission in the proposal -
Albemarle might benefit from participation. At least, it would have a one-
twentieth voice in decision making. As an aside, local governments would have
six out of twenty board seats. CFA wonders what might happen should a
business location on one county's perimeter be considered ideal by 19 members,
but not by the county involved. Does it suffer the effects without comment?
Without guarantees for each county's integrity written into the proposal, CFA
does not feel a question, such as this one, could be resolved without a highly
confrontational situation arising. Such situations might in the long run even
damage the partnership itself irrevocably. At this point, CFA believes that
it would be irresponsible for Albemarle to join a partnership on the basis of
the existing proposal. Even the most astute businessman in our community
would want to know what he was buying before finalizing the purchase. And
with that CFA agrees.
Ms. Santic said a reworking of the proposal is necessary, certainly a
reworking to bring it beyond a draft stage is necessary. What is included
needs explanation and explication; what is omitted should be addressed most
especially the position of the partnership in the accountability chain. Of
course, if this partnership is simply a regional Chamber of Commerce, that
would raise another set of questions entirely. The first one certainly would
be "why not call it a regional Chamber of Commerce?" However, the partnership
does not bear that name and it is not, therefore, being addressed in that
context. It might be good for Albemarle to sit at this table except - we're
not sure who owns it, we're not sure who brought it, we're not even sure what
the dinner invitation means. Are we to be diners at a lovely meal or are we
to be the meal?
Mr. Don Wagner, a County citizen, presented the following statement on
behalf of the Blue Ridge Home Builders Association. The BRHBA is an organiza-
tion consisting of 370 members. The members are employers, consisting of
builders, developers, engineers, architects and suppliers with associates from
banking, real estate, legal and other allied professions. The members
generate over 4000 jobs in the building trades in Albemarle County. These,
for the most part, are good paying jobs, including equipment operators,
carpenters, plumbers, electricians, masons, roofers and others. Although the
issue at hand is economic development, the BRHBA feels it cannot stand alone.
It obviously cannot be considered in a vacuum and must tie in with growth area
expansion and the most important issue of affordable housing.
The BRHBA believes that all three issues are really jobs issues. Jobs
are dependent on a vibrant economy. Construction of 100 single-family homes
generates: $4.5 million in wages; $1.9 million in combined local, state and
federal tax revenues; $160,000 in local property taxes in the first year; $1.9
million in local property taxes over 20 years; and move and post-move expendi-
tures for a typical buyer provide an additional economic stimulus and sales
tax revenues. These costs include moving services, new furnishings and
February 15,'1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
appliances, renovations, closing costs and real estate commissions. These
costs will vary from home to home, but can easily exceed $10,000.
In a recent survey of Albemarle County residents, endorsed by the Board
of Supervisors, 79 percent of respondents wanted policies adopted to encourage
economic growth. The presen~ Comprehensive Plan is silent on objectives and
strategies for economic development. No plan is, in affect, a plan. To
retain the status quo is, in actuality, a move backwards. Ours is a dynamic
society and should move forward for the good of all citizens. The BRHBA
favors the adoption of an Economic Development Policy by Albemarle County that
is: carefully formulated and focused - specifics, not rhetoric; cooperative
with state, regional and local jurisdictions - join the TJPD Regional Program;
consistent with a well-balanced growth approach that addresses land use
decisions in the areas of regulations and densities; cognizant of job creation
and job retention and counters underemployment; considerate of the sensitivity
of the environment; and coherent with the fiscal impact of the County - recent
studies show development to be revenue positive.
The BRHBA feels that the market place is the best test of public policy.
We encourage you not be restrictive. There appears to be a greater reluctance
to use words in your policy formulation such as: encourage, seek, promote,
target, support, attract, accommodate and other action verbs, such as stimu-
late. The BRHBA asks the Board not to be restrictive, be courageous, it has
many safeguards in its land use arsenal to discourage the types of business it
does not want and to encourage the vital economic development that is neces-
sary for all the other aspects of our citizens' well-being. The BRHBA asks
the Board to develop a meaningful Economic Development Policy for Albemarle
County.
Mr. Wagner said he told this same story before the Planning Commission.
A few months ago his wife signed up for a bus trip through Old Town Alexan-
dria. She came back and said they did not have enough people to fill the bus
so they rented a van and guess who the van driver was. She told him who the
van driver was; he was the husband of a lady he (Mr. Wagner) use to work with.
Several weeks later he and his wife were in Bodos for lunch and they saw this
man across the road~ He came over and said he had to go to work; he had a
real job. He (Mr. Wagner) asked him what he meant. This man had worked at
Sperry for 20 years, lives in the County, and either through cutbacks or
changes in ownership he found himself out of a job. This is a person who has
been a volunteer fireman in the community, he has contributed heavily to the
community for many years; his wife was the lady who started "All Night Long"
the after-prom party that has saved lives in the County over a number of
years. When this fellow was out of a job he drove a van and odd jobs for
eleven months. His real job now is financial work in the purchasing depart-
ment of a business that came to the County four or five years ago. Mr. Wagner
said the County needs meaningful jobs for people who live here, who have been
good citizens to the community and who find themselves unemployed. He doubts
whether this person filed for unemployment during those eleven months. He was
finding something to do have some income. This man may not have been unem-
ployed, but he certainly was underemployed. Mr. Wagner asked that the Board
consider those people when it considers an Economic Development Policy. Mr.
Wagner said it is obvious to him that Partnership will come into existence.
If the Board wants to have a voice, it needs to be in the room when decisions
are made; it needs to be a member if it wants to have a voice in the delibera-
tions.
Ms. Karen Dame said she is present on behalf of herself and her husband
DeForest Mellon, residents of the White Hall District. As residents of
Albemarle County, they are interested in this county's participation in the
activities of the region comprising Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, Nelson and
Albemarle Counties. It is not yet clear to them, however, that Albemarle
County's goals in regional partnership parallel those outlined by the steering
committee of a group currently referring to itself as the Regional Economic
Development Partnership. Their list of "specific purposes" published in a
draft form of the partnership agreement last August are broad to the point of
vagueness and would be better titled "general intentions."
The partnership requests an infusion of County money into its projected
start-up budget of $200,000. She and her husband believe that it is inappro-
priate for the Board to accept this financial requirement of partnership in so
undefined a venture--especially at a time when the state of the county coffers
has us all ringing our hands over everything from the number of school rooms
we can support to who is entitled to land-use taxation rates. She suggested
that instead of becoming financially involved in the proposed partnership, the
County expresses its encouragement to the private sector to continue with its
proposal to form a partnership, using funds raised--as their draft agreement
proposes-- "by a committee of private sector persons, with a minimum member-
ship fee," and targeting "Chambers of Commerce, Industrial Development
Authorities, Economic Development Commissions, and individual, companies."
She further suggests that, in hopes of Albemarle's future full membership in
the partnership, the Board volunteer to select a citizen of the county to sit
as a non-voting member of the board of the Regional Economic Development
Partnership, thus providing the partnership with, a participant conversant
February 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
with all aspirations of the County's Comprehensive Plan, and providing
ourselves an opportunity to observe the specific activities of the partnership
--once they actually begin--and to assess their efficacy and atonement to
Albemarle County's goals. Perhaps the Board could then agree to reconsider
membership in this organization two years after its official start-up date, a
time frame mentioned in their draft agreement as the initial start-up period.
Ms. Dame said for now, to pay up-front for membership in this group seems
a bit like joining one of, those poker games where you have to ante up big
bucks before they will let you sit down at the table. For an average person,
wisdom would dictate watching a few hands played before deciding whether to
risk money in the pot. She and her husband feel that, for a county govern-
ment, obligation to the citizenry dictates the same thing. Let's watch the
partnership form, applaud it when we can, object to its activities when we
must, and avoid, for the time being, a financial investment in doing either.
Mr. Tom Jackson, Chair-elect for the Chamber of Commerce, said he is
present tonight on behalf of himself. He is a State Farm Insurance agent with
an office on Hydraulic Road. He was born and raised in Nelson County, but has
lived for the last 20 years or so in Albemarle County. His two brothers also
live in Albemarle. They all have children. He is here on behalf of his
children because he would like for them to be able to grow up in the same
community he grew up in. He is also present for those other children who
should have an opportunity to live in the County. Last year he ran an
advertisement for a secretary for his office. The salary was $7.00 per hour.
He had over 40 applicants apply for the position; ten had college degrees; two
had master degrees. Each person he interviewed was interested in working for
$7.00. He has talked to a lot of other business people who say the same
thing. Even though there is high employment in the County, this is high
underemployment. The County needs to attract quality business to the area so
that people who work in the County do not have to go out and build a house in
one of the surrounding counties. There are a lot of people who work in this
county but cannot afford to live here. If the Regional Economic Development
Council attracts a quality business to Nelson County, those people will shop
in Albemarle County. If a business is attracted to Fluvanna County, the
people will attend the movie theater in Albemarle County. Albemarle will
benefit from businesses going to other counties. Albemarle is in a win-win
situation.
Mr. Ken Clarry, who lives and works in Albemarle County, congratulated
the staff and Planning Commission for a job well done. This diverse group of
people here tonight have all agreed that the Commission did a good job. He
hopes the Board will support the Commission's work. On the issue of the
Regional Economic Development Partnership, he thinks it is important if
Albemarle wants to have a say in what happens in Albemarle and around Albe-
marle, the Board should participate in this effort. If Albemarle is not a
member, it will be difficult to influence things. He added that most of the
business people he know are also in favor of protecting the environment, not
bringing more people here, and bringing in good jobs. He thinks there is
common ground and a lot of good things that can come out of the partnership,
along with providing quality businesses and quality jobs to the community so
that our children will have opportunities when they grow up. He encouraged
the Board to participate and if it has concerns, the partnership is the best
way to get those concerns heard.
Mr. Matthew Dalbey, a resident of Earlysville said if we have identified
an underemployment problem, then let's deal with that problem as opposed to
trying to find an across-the-board economic development strategy that may or
may not deal with that problem. He is present tonight to speak against the
County entering into the Regional Economic Development Partnership. As a
planner currently doing research on historical regional planning projects and
initiatives, he certainly feels that working to improve land-use practice,
quality of life, sustainable communities, economic opportunity, environmental
quality and citizen participation in all of these issues must be done On a
regional scale; but, most importantly, they must be done in a comprehensive
manner, without privileging one part of the goal or process over another. He
feels the Partnership is narrowly focused upon economic development to the
detriment of all of the other issues facing Albemarle County and the surround-
lng communities.
Should the County join the Partnership, the Board would be sending a
message to all of the citizens interested in promoting comprehensive action on
a regional level that their efforts are moot, that the business community will
act unilaterally to promote their goals with the blessing of the Board,
regardless of its interconnectedness with the future of the entire community.
The separating of this one goal privileges the business community over each of
the other concerned groups, from environmental groups to citizen groups and
the like.
The Partnership agreement notes that they will market the area in a
manner consistent with local planning policy, yet, it is clear that the "local
plans and policies"of Albemarle are not static, but are changing over time to
meet the needs of the changing community as a whole. It is not hard to see
February 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
that in five years, when the Comp Plan is updated again, the Partnership will
work as an advocate to get changes which will reflect their singular goals.
As a citizen of Albemarle, he does not like the prospect of making a point
about a change in the Comp Plan when his opinion may be in opposition to that
of something called "the Regional Economic Development Partnership"
He urged the Board to reject this plan. This is not a partnership, it
is a mechanism of the business community to further its own goals, taking
advantage of the popular perception of the "public and private" sectors
working together to make things nice for everyone. It is a false, simplistic
way of looking at complex issues. He urged the Board to look for opportuni-
ties to act regionally in a comprehensive manner which privileges no one
segment of our population or one part of our community. If the Board were to
overhaul the Partnership to reflect these comprehensive ideas, he would
suggest the following: 1) representation on the Partnership Board should
mirror the multiple needs and issues facing the region, not just "the business
community" and everyone else; and 2) change the name to reflect a more
comprehensive mission. If you are interested in words, he would suggest
"sustainability". Finally, this is an opportunity for the Board to act
boldly. Economic development is not the be all and end all in this region.
It is one part of the future of our community. Demonstrate this understand-
ing, push for comprehensive regional cooperation and reject a dated way of
looking at these issues cloaked in the rhetoric of "in" catch words.
Ms. Frances Lee Vandell, a resident of the Jack Jouett Districtl asked
the Board to consider a thought that could have long range implications on
this regional partnership. She found it best stated in a guest commentary in
the Daily Progress last December 25, 1994. It is about business recruitment
incentives. Although it seems farfetched our state has dabbled in this.
Companies that receive location incentives often fail to uphold their end of
the bargain. Many do not create the number of jobs they promise and some
leave town before the community has recovered its costs. This has been
proven. There are a lot of remarks in this commentary done by an Associate
Professor of Economic DevelopmentPolicy and Planning at Virginia Commonwealth
University. He came up with the thought that the strategy for economic
development, in this case, regional partnership, should focus on the creation
and retention of good jobs and social equity and environmental stewardship.
This partnership does not seem to cover all those points and in particular
environmental stewardship. She feels the Board should appoint a representa-
tive who will look out for the County's best long range needs.
Mr. Tom Olivier, a resident of the Scottsville District, said the
Planning Commission should be commended for the skill and industry it dis-
played in its work on the Economic Development Policy. The draft emphasizes
the collection and analysis of data for use in planning decisions and the
making of economic data summaries available to interested members of the
public. It supports education of the populace as a fundamental ingredient in
a sound economy and education as a means to prosperity for the disadvantaged.
The draft recognizes the ongoing importance of growth management. It not only
acknowledges the need to protect the environment during economic development,
it notes the symbiosis between our strong economy and a healthy environment.
It acknowledges the place of Albemarle County in a regional economy and it
proposes a variety of mechanisms by which we can seek to cooperate with our
neighbors. In'short, the Planning Commission's draft explicitly recognizes
that our economy should be planned to meet the needs of our people and
identify the many dimensions that must be considered when such planning is
carried out. He believes the draft before the Board is as close to a consen-
sus statement as we are likely to see and he supports its adoption.
He does not support the Thomas Jefferson Regional Economic Development
Partnership. The proposal for the partnership is rather brief but clearly the
partnership is aimed at expanding and recruiting businesses to our region.
The partnership seems rooted in a one dimensional approach to economic
development that has only narrow support in the community. In the numerous
presentations he has heard by its proponents, not once has he heard how the
partnership plans to revitalize impoverished rural communities that dot the
region. Not once has he hear specifics on how the partnership will make
certain its activities foster sound growth management in our region. Not once
has he heard how the partnership intends to evaluate regional environmental
impacts of its activities. Not once has he heard it explained how members of
the general public will have access to partnership deliberations. Nor have we
heard how the partnership plans to tell when there is enough economic develop-
ment.
He realizes that many neighboring localities already have joined the
partnership. This brings to mind a comment that appeared in a French magazine
years ago, immediately after the election of Jimmy Carter to the U. S.
Presidency. The magazine commented approximately: "The Americans have voted
for a surprise and they hope it will be a pleasant one". He thinks the same
might be said of some of Albemarle's neighbors.
He urged that Albemarle County not join the Regional Economic Develop-
ment Partnership under the terms of the currently offered agreement. If the
February 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22) ·
Board believes that Albemarle County should join in some type of regional
economic planning organization, he suggested that a new agreement be drafted.
He suggested that Albemarle County take the lead in bringing together repre-
sentatives of adjoining localities to draft a new agreement. This new
document should equal the draft Economic Development Policy in recognizing the
many necessary dimensions of economic planning. The workings of the regional
organization should be exposed by, agreement, to considerable sunshine.
Finally, any linkages between local governments and private sponsors of
particular development projects s~ould be constrained to avoid jeopardizing
the regulatory and planning roles of local governments.
Ms. Kay Slaughter, Chair of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District,
asked for the Board's participation in the Regional Economic Development
Partnership. As one of the earlier speakers said on a daily life basis we are
living regionally. Albemarle County residents work outside the County.
Residents from throughoUt the region work in Albemarle. Health care is found
primarily in the City. Residents from throughout the area shop in Charlottes-
ville and Albemarle. We have a history of working well together with the
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, Jefferson-Madison Regional
Library and the Health Department. Everyone who has served on the TJPDC knows
that we respect and support each others limits, boundaries and that is what we
are looking to do in bringing together this Regional Economic Development
Partnership.
This partnership did not just suddenly emerge last August. For several
years, the TJPDC has had an ad hoc group of representatives from all of the
jurisdictions talking about this and thinking about how to work together
regionally for economic development. As governments, we share an interest in
efficient service. The partnership will provide economies of scale for
research on jobs, training, employment trends, mapping services to locate
existing sites and to locate the resources that we want to preserve in our
community. Joining this partnership is becoming a working partners. This is
simply an outline of the purposes of how the partnership would move forward,
but the County is invited to flesh out all of the details. Each of the
regions bring different strengths to this partnership. Together we make a
greater whole than our separate parts. The partnership's stated purpose is
consistent with the proposed Economic Development Policy that has been
presented to the Board. For instance, the purpose of the partnership states
that we recognize the individual uniqueness of participating jurisdictions and
seek to build on their strengths consistent with local plans and policies.
This means local plans and policies as they evolve and change. It also seeks
to complement the existing individual efforts of the jurisdictions in economic
development. The purpose goes on to state some of the specific purposes.
The City of Charlottesville, when it agreed to join this Partnership
stated that it is committed to seeing that principles of sustainable growth
are implemented in this partnership. TJPDC hopes the Board will decide to
join and work with to make this community even better. The purpose also says
we are looking for career ladder jobs. TJPDC knows that we do not have a
problem with unemployment, but we do have a problem with people who are over
qualified for the jobs they are in or are in dead end jobs. She hopes the
Board will decide to join in the partnership.
Ms. Elizabeth Schmitz, a County resident, said she supports the Economic
Development Policy. She attended many of the Planning Commission's meeting
where economic development was discussed. She knows the Commissioners spent a
lot of time fine tuning the plan and she thinks they have achieved a balance
that allows for good economic development without devastating our beautiful
County.
At this time, under the present loosely defined structure, she does not
think Albemarle County should join the Public-Private Regional Economic
Development Partnership. Her reasons are: 1) One of the issues the Partner-
ship plans to deal with is providing info to our local areas about our
economic statistics. Since TJPD and Virginia Employment Commission (VEC)
already do this work and receive taxpayer money to do this, why do we need
another group to do the same thing? 2) The Partnership would work to market
our area and bring in businesses. With an unemployment rate of 3.2 in our
Metropolitan Statistical Area and 2.7 in Albemarle County, who would fill the
employment positions of many new businesses? The businesses coming in would
have to bring massive numbers of employees and families with them, thus
increasing our population even more than the rapid rate at which it is already
growing. (The last two decades %~e added 30,000 people to Albemarle County.
An enormous percentage of which was in migration as opposed to natural
increases.) The population increase would require us to continue building a
new school every year and redistricting our children. It would further
complicate our water supply problems, increase our traffic, congestion,
pollution, crime and social services needs. Obviously we would need to raise
taxes to deal with the changes. There is no guarantee that the employment
positions would be given to ANY of our unemployed citizens.
The private contributors to the Partnership are business people who
increase their sales volume by having an increase in population. She does not
February 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
believe these private members of the Partnership intend to take into our area
ONLY businesses that agree to hire at least 80 percent of their employees from
our citizens who are living here now. 3) Our Supervisors should be concerned
about the present citizens who need jobs. We should designate a member of our
County offices to handle business inquiries and can encourage businesses that
are environmentallyfriendly and would hire MOSTLY local citizens. We should
further support work-skilled training programs that respond directly to the
needs of local businesses. We should encourage our local businesses to hire
local citizens. We should work more closely with our high school graduates
who are job hunting. 4) Lastly, she believes that making major decisions for
our county and our citizens is the duty of our ELECTED officials. Decision-
making about marketing our area and population growth should not be left to
those with vested business interests. She asked the Board to not abdicate its
role to those who are willing to donate $500,000 to the Partnership. The
people did not elect the Board of Directors of the Partnership to make major
decisions for us them; they elected the Board of Supervisors.
Ms. Jane Dittmar, a citizen of the Greenwood area in Albemarle County
and President of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Chamber of Commerce, applauded
the Economic Development Policy forwarded to the Board by the Planning
Commission. She followed the process closely and feels that it is fair and
has presented an intelligent plan. Her comments tonight will totally focus on
her hope and request that Albemarle County join the Regional Economic Develop-
ment Partnership. The reason why this Partnership is so necessary and why so
much work since 1991 has gone into fostering discussions in an environment
where a partnership could emerge is because partnerships are now successful
across the country and in Virginia. There is a lot of competition for good
employers. That means the number one reason for a partnership is to retain
current businesses, i.e, retain current employers and jobs and foster a
healthy environment for job opportunities for citizens in the region.
Albemarle can no longer do this as an individual municipality.
In 1994 she wOrked with approximately 400 inquiries to this area about
the business environment and there was a lot of concern that the Chamber was
not representing the entire region. There is a feeling that data has to be
massaged and initiatives looked at that way. Also, in looking at the region
there are current employers who are interested in understanding the economy on
a regional level, not just one jurisdiction. If the good neighbor approach
does not appeal to the Board that being other municipalities are asking for a
partnership and are inviting all municipalities to join them and Albemarle
being, possibly the largest and most important municipality, and if the fact
that the private sector has asked for a public-private partnership which
includes Albemarle is not the selling point for the Board, she will make the
appeal on another basis. The Board represents its citizens and this partner-
ship is set up to represent County citizens at the table while the partnership
is being formed which is why all the details have not been worked out. The
people who were negotiating and discussing this did not want to'preempt the
people who will eventually represent the municipalities and the private sector
in making final decisions. The first days of the partnership will be to make
decisions about what this partnership is all about. To represent County
citizens, the Board needs to be there to help with the formation. Also, to
represent your citizens, the Board needs to be part of the strategic planning
process. At that time specific concerns and policies of the Board can be
considered with the partnership and goals will be set. Eventually this
partnership will begin to take action on behalf of the region. WithoUt a
representative there, the Board cannot possibly represent its citizens as
decisions are made. She hopes the Board will take this opportunity to be part
of the founding of the regional partnership for this area.
Mr. Carter Myers, a business person in the County and County citizen,
spoke in support of the Economic Development Policy and Regional Economic
Development Partnership. His comments will deal with five issues: 1) tax
base, 2) jobs, 3) County survey, 4) University of Virginia and 5) Regional
Economic Development Partnership. The Board is faced with a tough job
balancing the budget; the County has a lot of needs including a new school.
There must be a balanced tax base. Businesses generally are positive fiscal
impacts on a county or city. All taxes cannot be paid through residential
taxes. One of the things that make this community challenging is 27 percent
of its employment is based on government jobs. Government does not pay
personal property taxes, real estate taxes or gross receipts taxes. This
turns the area into an internal bedroom community. One of the ways the Policy
and Partnership would benefit is by helping to balance the tax base.
Second, it is hard to be against good jobs. The Partnership and Policy
are not there to recruit or encourage low paying jobs; they are about career
ladder jobs, jobs for the highly educated. It is a basic function that the
citizens should be concerned about. There definitely is an underemployment
problem and it should be addressed. Years ago a university did not have to be
as involved in research. Today, for the University of Virginia to be a top
flight national university it has to be involved in research, it must have
public private partnerships and it will not be a top notch university unless
it has that capability. He thinks the County has to work with the University;
both are important to each other.
February 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
During 1994 a survey was commissioned by the Board. The survey said
that 79 percent of the residents of the County wanted the Board to take a more
active role in economic development. This percentage is not a small minority
of people. Another part of the survey ranked economic development and jobs.
This percentage is a significant mandate that the Board needs to move forward
with something. He thinks a positive vote by the Board on the policy will
reflect the will of the people.
Mr. Myers said he served on the Regional Partnership Steering Committee
with 12 other people. The meetings were open to the public. Anyone who
wanted to give some input could have. Some of the suggestions made tonight
could possibly be incorporated in the proposal; nothing is set in concrete at
this point. He has worked on a number of projects where funds were raised.
He has never been involved in a project where he had as much positive accep-
tance. He asked people to volunteer on the fundraising campaign, not one
person declined. He asked people to give to the campaign, not one person
declined. This has been the most positive experience he has had in working
with a project. He thinks this is an opportunity to have an outstanding
organization, a real quality regional partnership, a partnership that is
regional in nature and yet tailored to each individual jurisdiction's needs.
The Board controls the land use policies and where infrastructure is located.
This partnership will not have any of those controls, but for $12,500 the
Board has the opportunity to participate, help, join with its neighbors and
have a say in what is going on. He does not think that is too expensive. It
is an investment.
The Director for Lynchburg's Regional Partnership said the four major
benefits that came out of a regional partnership were: 1) it got the juris-
dictions sitting down and talking to one another; 2) it got the public and
private sector talking and working together; 3) it brought the educational
institutions and private sector together; and 4) it recruited new business to
the area. They have been successful and it is a good model. The partnership
in Roanoke is successful. There is only one organization in Virginia that is
not public-private; Richmond was a totally public jurisdictional organization,
it did not work, and now it is public-private. Forward Hampton Roads is a
totally private organization and it has been successful. Most organizations
have been modeled using this same approach; they work and if it did not work
people would get out of them.
Mr. Myers said the Board can technically only commit funding for a year.
The Board is not being forced to join for a long period of time. He hopes the
Board will join with its neighbors and participate. He thinks this organiza-
tion will go forward and that the Board should be part of it. Some people
have talked about the TJPDC serving in this capacity. He thinks the TJPDC
serves an important role and the partnership would not be where it is if it
were not for them because they already had the lines of communication between
the jurisdictions. TJPDC set the ground work, but he does not think it is the
TJPDC's role to be this directly focused on a job. He also does not think
TJPDC has the budget to do it and he does not think the private sector will be
willing to make contributions to them, but he does think they would do it for
this joint venture. These models are around the Commonwealth. If it was not
for the contributions from many good corporate citizens in the community, the
cultural activity events would not be here. Lastly, no one said citizens
could not participate in this process. Susan Cabell made a person contribu-
tion, it was not a corporate contribution; it was separate from her husband's
corporate contribution. Any citizen can write a check and be an investor
member. The partnership welcomes people who have an interest to join and be a
part of the organization.
Ms. Karen Strickland, a County resident, said under Objective IV of the
proposed Economic Development Policy, it was her impression that the Planning
Commission had changed the wording of that objective. Objective IV states:
"Consider fiscal impact as one indicator of positive economic development,
along with environmental impact and standard of living impact". At the last
meeting she thought the Planning Commission had changed it to read: "Consider
fiscal impact, environmental impact and standard of livinq impact as indica-
tors of positive economic development ..... "
At this time she is speaking on behalf to he Earlysville Area Residents'
League (EARL). In their most recent newsletter they solicited opinions on the
Partnership. She heard from 22 people, two of whom wrote letters and three of
whom are not EARL members. EARL had two issues of concern: 1) whether or not
the County should be engaged in marketing the area to encourage/recruit new
businesses to move here; and 2) whether the make-up of the governing board of
this partnership represents a conflict of interest among the business repre-
sentatives who may encourage growth in order to realize their own financial
gains.
Of the 22 people who contacted responded, 15 were against joining a
regional partnership and four wanted more information; 19 were against
spending tax dollars to market the area, with two wanting more information.
One person was in favor of the partnership and supported spending tax dollars
to market the area. A sampling of the comments received on the need for
000084
February 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
marketing the County were: 1) I like Albemarle County as it is; 2) There is
no purpose to be gained by encouraging accelerated growth. To do so would be
a textbook example of human economic behavior where those few who benefit from
growth encourage it as long as the costs accrue to others; 3) The County is
being overpopulated without any additional growth; 4) Unemployment is extreme-
ly low; increasing population leads to increasing demands for public services
which leads to increasing taxes; 5) We already have enough economic develop-
ment in Albemarle County. Please direct it to Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and
Nelson. Certainly we do not need to spend tax money to attract it!; 6) I feel
that aggressive development of this area which would occur with aggressive
recruitment of business would destroy the current quality of life and encour-
age us to leave the area; 7) Growth is inevitable but the type/kind of
industry we attract will have varying impacts on land use. Most of "northern
Virginia" is clean industry-- office complexes. But in 20 short years the
entire rural character has been eradicated by the continual sprawl of this
industry. I do not want this for Albemarle; 8) We strongly believe that the
county should not be marketed to encourage new businesses to move here. There
are only two reasons for a local unit smaller than a state to encourage
businesses to relocate here: 1) the existence of a large and immobile
population that is chronically under-or unemployed, or 2) the existence of a
large infrastructure of power, water, sewer and schools, such as in declining
rust belt cities, where an increase in the use of underutilized services will
improve the tax base and bring down taxes. These are not reasons in Albemarle
County. Where the quality of life is so poor that minimal needs for shelter,
food and education cannot be met, business relocation is to be encouraged. In
a county like ours, to which many people are attracted mainly because of the
existing quality of life, new large businesses and industries, with the
attendant needs for housing, schools, recreation and shopping, need not be
encouraged.
Ms. Strickland said the following comments were received on the make up
of the Partnership: 1) If the Executive Board was not made up of business
reps I would go along with it. I feel there is a conflict of interest; 2) Why
not executive board 1/3 business, 1/3 government and 1/3 citizens?; 3) The
Executive Board should be 21 members. Seven should be from government, 7 from
business and 7 should be historians, environmentalists, preservationists with
no ties to government or business; 4) Could the Partnership be incorporated
into one or several existing entities, i.e., if we want to attract more
residents, can the existing structure be used to achieve this goal?
The stated purpose of the Partnership is to "enhance the quality of life
of the region". In the community survey conducted last fall the respondents
overwhelming identified rural nature, scenic beauty, small town environment
and good schools as the most significant attributes affecting their quality of
life. The County survey showed respondents valued schools, protecting water
quality, maintaining safe neighborhoods and preserving natural resources as
the top four characteristics affecting quality of life. We know there is a
point beyond which business and residential growth degrade these types of
characteristics. We would like to see how the Partnership defines "quality".
Before the County enters into a Partnership requiring its financial support,
there should be a clear understanding of what aspects of "quality" it is
expecting to enhance. In the community survey, respondents also indicated 60
percent wanted to see slow and controlled growth, while 38 percent wanted no
more growth; two percent wanted to see a push for greater residential,
commercial and industrial growth. Overwhelmingly the community would reject
an acceleration of the growth rate.
There are few specifics about the Partnership available for public
scrutiny. We know there will be an office and staff and we know who the
initial investors are. According to the Daily Progress they are companies
with a financial interest in seeing the population grow--companies that sell
furniture, lumber, cars, banking services, houses, land, electrical power and
soda. Our community is concerned about a partnership that is driven by
interests so clearly aligned with the concept of bringing in more people.
Many people feel that the idea of cooperation with our neighbors is right and
proper. The functions of the Partnership that concern region wide data
sharing and the nurturing of existing businesses probably would not meet with
much opposition. Our concerns revolve not around the idea of cooperation, but
around how the cooperation takes place, to what end and with what kind of
accounting.
Ms. Strickland said in summary, the community members that responded to
EARL's inquiry strongly said they do not want the County to actively market
and recruit business and they would like for the Partnership directors to more
fairly reflect the varied interests of the community at large. Educators,
volunteer fire and rescue squad members, environmentalists, poverty special-
ists, historical preservation±sts, tax equity protectors and water resource
managers should all have a voice.
Mr. Jim Ballheim said he attended most of the Planning Commission work
sessions on the Economic Development Policy. He thinks the policy is good and
the Board should adopt it as it was sent to them. On Objective IV, Strategy
1, he thought the language that came out of the Commission meeting was:
February 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
000085
"Evaluate new business/industrial development under the County's fiscal impact
model." This fiscal impact model has been discussed for years. He hopes the
model can get going, working and be used. He is leery of the Regional
Economic Development Partnership. He urged the Board to pay attention to the
many cautions that were expressed. He thinks it is something that is a major
step and the Board should take all the necessary time to know what it is
getting into if it does do it. He thinks the Board should put all the
safeguards in place that are necessary.
There being no other public comments, the Chairman closed the public
hearing.
Mr. Perkins said his understanding is that the Board does not have to
act on this tonight. Mrs. Thomas said that was the agreement when the public
hearing was set.
Mr. Cilimberg said he would check on the wording changes that several
speakers mentioned. He can have the information available for the March 1
meeting.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the addition of the word "growth" under
Objective II, Strategy 6, was a good suggestion. It would be more consistent
with other plan objectives.
Mr. Marshall commended the Planning Commission, especially Mr. Nitch-
mann, for how hard they worked on the Economic Development Policy. He did not
think the County had a complete Comprehensive Plan without the inclusion of an
Economic Development Policy. When he was elected he recognized that fact,
although he did not know what he wanted or what was needed. He thinks the
document that has evolved through the process is good. He is a life long
resident of this community and has seen a lot of changes. What he wants for
this community now is different than what he wanted earlier in his life. He
as tried to be fair in his dealings on the Board and tried to understand the
needs of his children, other children and people who have moved here. He
thinks that some of the people who move here forget why they move here. We do
have a beautiful place to live and he does not want to change that beauty. He
commented that the lady who spoke from Earlysville is living on his ancestors
land.
Mr. Marshall said the Regional Economic Development Partnership is still
a mystery to him, but he thinks the Board needs to be in on the planning. He
does not see how the Board can afford to be left out of it. He wants his
children to be able to afford to continue living here and he does not want to
have to sell his property. He will support the Regional Economic Development
Partnership because he thinks it is the right thing to do. He does not
necessarily agree with everything in the agreement, but he thinks the County
needs to be part of the planning. It is for the good of the citizen.
Mrs. Humphris said she appreciates all the input the Board received
tonight. It has been very comprehensive. It surprised her that so many
individual citizens took the time to come here and make statements. She will
not state her position on the partnership tonight. She plans to give it a lot
of consideration between now and the time the Board next meets to make its
decision. All of this input will be very helpful to her.
Mrs. Thomas said she thinks the number of people who have sat through
the Planning Commission work sessions are to be commended. She encouraged
other Board members to consider under what conditions they may want to join
this partnership because the County is one out of 20. If the Board does not
make some of its positions now, ahead of time, she is afraid being one of out
20 will not give it much of an ability to shape the plan of action and
activities of the group. She thinks that would be an appropriate thing to do.
The City of Charlottesville added one condition about sustainability so the
Board would not be totally alone in thinking there should be some conditions
it should add, i.e.~ fair play guidance, how to judge.whether the partnership
is a success, and whether the County wants to continue next year. She encour-
aged all Board members to be thinking along those lines if there are things
everyone can agree on. For example, there are certain types of jobs that area
appropriate and the Board has stated that it is not interested in population
growth.
Mr. Perkins said having no economic development policy has been the
policy and he does not think that is smart, He thinks the community is going
to experience growth. He thinks the County is in a better position by having
a policy. If the Board joins the Partnership, it will have a better handle on
its workings than if it does not join.
There was no further discussions at this time; the Board will discuss
the issue further on March 1.
Agenda Item No. 14. Approval of Minutes: March 3, 1993; December 16,
1994 and January 18, 1995.
O000$G
February 15, 1995 (Regular'Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes of March 3, 1993, pages 14 (#9) 26,
and found them to be in order.
Mr. Marshall had read the minutes of March 3, 1993, pages 1 14 (#9),
and found them to be in order.
Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of January 18, 1995, and found them to
be in order.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to approve
the minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No. 15 Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mr. Tucker referred to the Board meeting of January 18, 1995, where a
County employee had asked that the Board consider subsidizing a day care
center for County employees. Mr. Tucker said it is his opinion that this is
not something the County should get involved in or should subsidize. The
liability, cost and other issues involved, not only regarding the children,
but in trying to limit use to County employees and their children only, would
be difficult.
Mr. Bowerman asked that the Board hold a public information meeting on
the issue of the Carrsbrook alignment with Route 29 North. The reason it is
an issue is because VDoT put out to bid that section of the improvements to
Route 29 twice and rejected the bids both times. VDoT is preparing to bid the
project again. There does not seem to be any clear idea of what is the best
plan. It was the consensus of the Board to hold this hearing on March 8
following the budget hearing.
Agenda Item No. 16. Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 10:57 p.m..
Chairman