2006-04-05
April 5, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on April 5,
2006, at 9:00 a.m., County Office Building on Mcintire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Ken C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Dennis S. Rooker, Mr. David Slutzky,
Ms. Sally H. Thomas and Mr. David C. Wyant.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Clerk, Ella W. Carey, and Director of Planning, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No.1. The meeting was called to order at 9:09 a.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Rooker.
Agenda Item No.2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No.3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No.4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
There was no one present to speak under this item.
Agenda Item No.5. Recognitions: Virgil Lee James - Fire Rescue Volunteer.
Mr. Rooker presented a Certificate of Appreciation to Virgil (V. L.) James, Jr. for his 50 years of
service as a member of the Crozet Volunteer Fire Department. The certificate read: "On behalf of the
citizens, local government staff and the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, we would like to
recognize Virgil (V. L.) Lee James, Jr. for his tireless efforts in not only serving the community of Crozet, but
the citizens of the County, as a member of the Crozet Volunteer Fire Department since January, 1956.
During his tenure, V. L. served as Assistant Chief, Chief, and in numerous positions as a Board member. V.
L. was instrumental in Crozet acquiring its first self-contained breathing apparatus in the 1960's. In addition,
V. L. has always been in the top percentage of personnel for the volume of calls run. We are grateful for
the time, energy and dedication V. L. has committed to protecting the citizens of Albemarle County. We as
a community are strengthened and uplifted by those who step forward to volunteer their services in support
of improving the quality of life of our residents. We offer our sincere appreciation to V. L. for his dedication
and recognize him for his service to Albemarle County."
Mr. James thanked his wife for her support, thanked the County's Fire/Rescue Administration and
the Board of Supervisors for their support of the Fire/Rescue department. He said it is a major topic due to
the growth now being experienced in the County. He thanked all fire and rescue personnel in the County-
both paid and volunteer.
Mr. Lee James, V. L.'s son and a member of the Crozet Volunteer Fire Department, thanked the
Board, County staff and administration, saying his father has been a fireman for as long as he can
remember, with lots of night pages to respond to fires. Mr. James said he got to take a ride in the fire truck
cab when he was a young boy, and he still rides on the same pieces of equipment with his dad.
Mr. Rooker recognized and congratulated Ms. Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive, for
receiving the John L. Snook Award for Child Advocacy.
Agenda Item No.6. Consent Agenda. Mr. Wyant offered motion to approve Items 6.2, 6.3, and
6.4, to carry Item 6.1 over to the next meeting, and to accept the remaining items on the Consent Agenda
for information. The motion was seconded by Mr. Boyd. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
Item 6.1. Approval of Minutes: October 19, November 2 and December 7, 2005.
Mr. Wyant had read the minutes of October 19, 2005, and found them to be in order as presented.
Mr. Rooker had read the minutes of December 7,2005, pages 1 - 22 ending at Item No. 11, and
found them to be in order as presented.
Mr. Dorrier had read the minutes of December 7,2005, pages 22 (beginning at Item No. 11) to the
end, and found them to be in order as presented.
By the recorded vote set out above, the minutes which had been read were approved.
Those not read will go to the next meeting for approval.
April 5, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Item 6.2. Adopt Petty Cash Resolution to Add Petty Cash Fund for Monticello Fire Station.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that Virginia Code S 15.2-1229, provides that the County
may adopt a resolution to establish petty cash funds not exceeding $5,000 to be used to transact daily
County business.
The Board of Supervisors last established petty cash funds by a Resolution adopted on July 6, 2005. Staff
recommends adoption of a new Resolution to create an additional $250.00 petty cash fund for the Fire and
Rescue Department at the Monticello Fire Station. This new petty cash fund would allow for the payment of
claims for financial commitments of station staff. Staff recommends that the Board adopt a Resolution to
add a petty cash fund at the Monticello Fire Station and reestablish the existing petty cash funds.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Virginia Code S15.2-1229, provides that the governing body of any county may
establish by resolution one or more petty cash funds not exceeding $5,000 each for the payment of
claims arising from commitments made pursuant to law; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors adopted a Resolution on July 6, 2005 establishing the current
petty cash funds; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors now desires to establish a petty cash fund for the Fire and
Rescue Department at the Monticello Fire Station and reestablish the existing petty cash funds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia establishes the following petty cash funds:
Finance Department
Social Services
Police Department
Sheriff's Department
Fire and Rescue
Fire and Rescue - Monticello Fire Station
Commonwealth's Attorney
Parks & Recreation
$ 3,350.00
200.00
1,800.00
100.00
150.00
250.00
300.00
100.00
Total
$ 6.250.00
Item 6.3. General Services Grounds and Facilities Maintenance Workers - utilization of current
contract funds.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that over the past two to three years the Board has had
various work sessions regarding the importance of ensuring attractive urban areas and addressing other
needs resulting from the County's growth and urbanization. In addition, the current fiscal year is the first for
the new Stormwater Program that has set higher expectations for the establishment and maintenance of
adequate stormwater facilities to meet Federal and State mandates. This will require maintenance of
stormwater facilities on a regular schedule rather than on an as-needed basis, in addition to the immediate
response needed for system failures as they occur. In addition, staff has recently been notified by VDOT
that because of budget cuts, the frequency of their maintenance crews mowing the road sides and medians
will be greatly reduced, likely requiring additional effort by the County. Because of these new expectations,
the Department of General Services has evaluated the increased demand on the department, available
funding, and the County's arrangements for handling current levels of service.
The Division of Public Works, the division within General Services that would handle the duties
outlined above, currently consists of the following operations: building and facility maintenance, custodial
services, and copy center and mail delivery. Some of the major responsibilities of the division, excluding
new expectations, include: landscaping, street sign installation, the repair and maintenance of County
buildings, stormwater facility maintenance, roadside and median mowing, and other exterior maintenance.
Historically, these duties have primarily been completed with a combination of service contracts and
reliance on the Virginia of Transportation (VDOT). To address changing demands, while also maintaining
current levels of service, staff has reviewed how to better utilize current funding spent on private contracts
to address the County's growing needs and expectations.
In considering how best to address increased levels of service and the need to respond more
quickly to circumstances in the field, General Services believes the County can no long rely almost solely
on contracted services. Beyond current staffing to provide basic custodial and maintenance services for
County buildings and grounds, General Services currently has only one staff member responsible for the
maintenance of "public" facilities. This position has primarily been focused on the management of
contracts for stormwater facility maintenance, median mowing and the installation and maintenance of
street signs. Given the new expectations, staff believes utilizing some portion of current contract funding to
hire two grounds and facility maintenance staff would best address the needs at this time. This plan would
not eliminate the need for service contracts, but would allow the department to direct the work needed on a
day-to-day basis instead of being placed on a contractor's schedule and accommodated as needs can best
fit into their work schedule. To effectively meet the higher level of expectations, staff believes this approach
will provide a balance between contracting out services and having the ability to respond quickly to issues in
April 5, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
the field and ensure quality control on an ongoing basis.
The primary responsibilities of these new staff will be stormwater facility maintenance and minor
repairs, roadside mowing, sidewalk vegetation control, and improving the aesthetic conditions of our
entrance corridors and other urban areas. Duties beyond these higher levels of service include maintaining
the exterior of the County Office Building on Mcintire Road to free Parks and Recreation personnel to
concentrate their efforts on park facilities and trail and greenway maintenance and responding to calls of
illegal dumping along rural roads of the County.
Through careful scrutiny of the current and proposed FY 2006-07 budgets, these two positions can
be financed without requesting additional funding. It is estimated that a total of $131 ,000 will be necessary
to start this program. Of that total, $50,000 would be a one-time expense for the purchase of necessary
equipment, i.e. vehicle, trailer, mowers, trimmers, and other hand and power tools. The balance would be
recurring expenses for salaries, benefits, and administrative support. The money would come from a
combination of accounts from the Public Works and Stormwater budgets as follows:
1-1000-43005-301210: Stormwater Contract Services
1-1000-43002-331901: Detention Basin Maintenance
1-1000-43002-331920: Polo Grounds Property Maintenance
1-1000-43002-332200: Grounds Maintenance Contract
1-9010-43100-800666: Facility Maintenance
Total:
$65,000
$24,000
$ 2,000
$10,000
$30,000
$131,000
Again, funding for contracted professional services will remain in the budget to balance contracted
services with the proposed General Services staff. Staff recommends that the Board approve the hiring of
two General Services Grounds/Facility Maintenance Workers at a Grade 7 from existing funding as outlined
above.
(Discussion: Mr. Wyant asked if it is possible for the County to do work within the right-of-way, and
asked about the obligation for stormwater facility maintenance. Mr. Tucker responded that the State and
Federal governments both require that detention basins must be maintained and mowed. He said the
County has tried in the past to put that responsibility on the homeowners' association, but that is not
working; there are basins all over the urban area.
Mr. Davis said there are a number of regional detention basins that have been dedicated to the
County which are the County's sole responsibility to maintain.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the City has a full-scale crew to handle theirs. Mr. Tucker responded that they
do and their system contains pipes instead of basins.
Mr. Wyant said he is bothered by the fact that agreements are written with homeowners'
associations but they do not follow through on their end. Mr. Davis replied that stormwater maintenance
agreements require a yearly inspection by the County; there is not enough manpower to meet that
requirement. He added that the inspectors and workers being requested for General Services will help deal
with that issue.
Mr. Tucker said this has come about over the last 15 years. The County did not want to spend
funds to hire staff to clean these things out so as part of subdivision approval, homeowners' associations
were required to do it. Over that period of time it has been found that these owners are not organized well
enough to get it done. It is hard to take them to court, people are moving in and out all the time and the
County does not know who the homeowner association's president is anymore. It is a real hassle. He
acknowledged that a lot of the regional basins are the sole responsibility of the County.
Mr. Rooker said that this discussion about cleaning out the basins the County owns and has been
going on for a long time. The County still has to inspect private basins for compliance.
Mr. Wyant said there would likely be an increase in contractual service costs for inspection and
maintenance as well as additional staff people anyway. He thinks that as the County grows, it needs to pay
more attention to these issues. Mr. Tucker said since the County encourages development to occur in a
dense urban way, it is not easy to pass that responsibility along.
Ms. Thomas said there will probably be more homeowners' associations unable to meet their
obligations.
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, pointed out that there is a Federal
mandate concerning stormwater management, and it requires inspection. He said the Stormwater
Ordinance does have a provision by which property owners can petition the County to take over those
facilities. By policy, it has been routinely done with the residential development. He added that this issue
came up while discussing the Stormwater Management Plan. The reality is that this is only "the tip of the
iceberg.")
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the hiring of two General Services
Grounds/Facility Maintenance Workers at a Grade 7 from existing funds as outlined in the Executive
Summary.
April 5, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
Item 6.4. Resolution to accept Sun Ridge Road in Sun Ridge Subdivision into the State Secondary
System of Highways and to post a bond with VDOT in an amount of $6,000.
(Discussion: Mr. Wyant asked about road bond in the amount of $6,000. Mr. Davis responded
that this was an unusual situation. This was an unpaved road project initiated by the County. There is no
developer involved to meet VDOT's bonding requirements for the first year of maintenance. He said VDOT
made a request of the County to insure that any costs that might arise in the first year would be covered.
The $6,000 is enough to satisfy that requirement.)
As requested by the County Engineering Department, and by the recorded vote set out
above the Board adopted the following Resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Sun Ridge Subdivision, described on the attached Additions
Form LA-5(A) dated April 5, 2006, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virqinia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised the Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street
Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) in Sun Ridge Subdivision,
as described on the attached Additions Form LA-5(A) dated April 5, 2006, to the secondary system
of state highways, pursuant to S33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street
Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-
way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described
on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County assures that it will reimburse VDOT for any
necessary maintenance expenses incurred by VDOT to maintain the road to its standards, not
exceeding six thousand dollars ($6,000), during the first twelve (12) months after acceptance of this
road for maintenance by VDOT; and
RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer
for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
*****
The road(s) described on Additions Form LA-5(A) is:
1) Sun RidQe Road (State Route 1397) from the intersection of Route 1510
(Northfield Road) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 09/14/1959 in the
office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 352,
page 237, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.14 miles.
Total Mileage - 0.14 miles
Item 6.5. FY 2003/04-FY 2005/06 Strategic Plan Progress Report.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that the County's FY '04-FY '06 Strategic Plan time period
will end June, 2006. This year is a transitional one for the County's Strategic Planning efforts, as a new
strategic plan is under development for FY '07-'10. This year, County staff members are completing the
objectives outlined in the current plan and are working closely with the Board to develop specific goals and
objectives for the new plan. The Board's strategic directions for the County have been fairly consistent over
the years, so many of the efforts undertaken in the current plan will serve as spring boards for the County's
strategic efforts in the coming years.
A progress report on the current Strategic Plan objectives was forwarded to the Board (on file in the
Clerk's Office). As has been the case in the past, this report reflects activities since the last update. While
this report indicates that the majority of the remaining objectives have been completed within the desired
timeline, staff will continue to focus on these areas. For example, the County will continue its strategic
efforts to address the Board's priority areas by further implementing strategies in the rural plan, and
addressing transportation and water resource needs.
Since this is a transitional year, the County's Recommended FY '07 Business Plan is tied to the FY
'04-FY '06 strategic directions. The Board identified the County's top priorities for the new plan prior to this
year's budget deliberations. They have held several work sessions to review the County's Recommended
Budget. The County's FY '07 -FY '10 strategic priorities are guiding the County's fiscal planning efforts for
FY '07 as well.
April 5, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
This progress report for the County's current FY '04-FY '06 Strategic Plan is provided for the
Board's information. Staff will hold work sessions with the Board on April 5 and April 12 to continue to
obtain the Board's guidance as staff develops the County's upcoming FY '07-FY '10 Strategic Plan.
(Discussion: Ms. Thomas commented that the Board agreed that Objective 2.1.2 which states
"Country stores would be co-equal in status with phasing and clustering of development" would be delayed
because of staffing needs for the Development Process Review Committee.)
The Board received this report for information only.
Item 6.6. Information on Impact of Living Wage Adjustment for Albemarle County.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that during the Board to Board presentation on March 1, the
Supervisors posed a question to the School Board Chairman on the "living wage" issue. They asked if the
School Board had looked at the impact of increasing the "living wage" for the School Division. Board Chair,
Sue Friedman, indicated that it had not been reviewed, but the issue could be researched and information
presented back to the Board. Human Resources and OMB staff have prepared background information on
the living wage and the fiscal impact of an adjustment for both the School Division and Local Government.
The School Division will receive this same information at their April 20th meeting.
The living wage is an annual income (or the equivalent hourly wage) that enables a person working
full-time to meet their family's basic needs. These basic needs adjusted for the costs in a given locality
include the combined annual costs of housing, food, childcare, healthcare, transportation, taxes and other
necessities. Described below are two different methods for calculating the living wage:
1. The Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a non-partisan think tank, bases its analysis on seven
categories of need shown below and estimates that a family income for two working adults and two children
needs to be $44,592 for the Charlottesville Metropolitan region. When this annual income is divided by full-
time work or 2080 hours, the living hourly wage is $10.72.
Table I
January 2006 Hourly, Monthly, and Annual Estimated "Basic Needs" Budget
for the Charlottesville Metropolitan Area (Two Working Adults, Two Children)
Need
Taxes
Other Necessities
Transportation
Health Care
Food
Housing
Child care
Subtotal
Monthly Cost
$349
$359
$375
$401
$587
$744
$904
$3,716
Hourly Cost
$1.00
$1.03
$1.08
$1.16
$1.69
$2.15
Annual Total
$44,592
$44,592
2. Federal Living Wage Responsibility Act, 2003. The federal government defines the living
wage as consisting of two factors:
(1) an hourly wage (or salary equivalent) sufficient for a worker to earn, while working 40 hours a
week on a full-time basis, the amount of the Federal poverty level for a family of four (as published
in the Federal Register by the Department of Health and Human Services under the authority of
section 673(2) of the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2))); and
(2) an additional amount, determined by the Secretary based on the locality in which a worker
resides, sufficient to cover the costs to such worker to obtain any fringe benefits not provided by the
worker's employer.
For 2006, the official poverty threshold across all 48 states for a family of four is $20,000, which for
a full-time worker equates to $9.62 an hour. It is important to note that the $9.62 reflects wages only. The
cost of benefits a worker would need if they were not offered them by their employer is estimated by the
federal government to be an additional $2.50 an hour for a total wage of $12.12.
3. Market Competitiveness. The University of Virginia recently increased their lowest entry wage
to $9.37 per hour based on recent market survey data and estimated that their total benefit package added
an additional $3.45 above wages for a total compensation of $12.82 per hour for the lowest paid employee.
The City of Charlottesville recently raised their lowest entry wage to $9.36 per hour based on the 2005
Federal living wage standard. Albemarle County's lowest pay rate for entry level positions is currently $8.63
an hour. The proposed classified salary scale for 2006-2007 will increase that minimum rate to $8.84 per
hour. County employees have a benefit package, which is approximately 30 percent of salary or an
additional $3.80 an hour for the lowest paid employee, which equates to a total hourly compensation of
$12.64 for the lowest paid employee.
April 5, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
Financial Impact of a LivinQ WaQe Adiustment
Option 1 - Increasing the Living Wage to $9.62/hour. There are currently 116 employees
making less than $9.62/hr; six in Local Government and 110 in the Schools, mostly custodians, food service
workers and after-school workers. The cost to increase the living wage to $9.62 based on the Federal living
wage guidelines would be $106,250; $11,180 for Local Government and $95,071 for the Schools.
Option 2 - $10.72 -Increasing the Living Wage to $10.72/hr. There are currently 287
employees making less than $10.72 an hour; 13 in Local Government and 274 in the Schools. The cost to
increase the living wage to $10.72 as estimated by the EPI for a family income of $44,592 would be
$259,597; $20,685 for Local Government and $238,912 for the School Division.
Option 3 - $9.37 - Increasing the Living Wage to be market competitive with the University
and the City of Charlottesville. There are currently 78 positions making less than $9.37 an hour; five in
Local Government and 73 in the Schools. The cost to increase the living wage to $9.37 to be market
competitive with the City of Charlottesville and the University would be $24,104; $1,890 for Local
Government and $22,214 for the School Division.
BUDGET IMPACT:
This report provides information on potential living wage calculations, as well as the financial
impact if the Supervisors chose to increase the living wage for the lowest paid employees to $9.62 or
$10.72 or the $9.37 competitive market adjustment comparable to the University and the City of
Charlottesville. If the Supervisors have an interest in pursuing either of these options, Human Resources
will need additional time to analyze the impact on salary compression for other employees if the lowest paid
wages were increased and to determine the total financial impact of proceeding. The School Division will be
reviewing this same information at its meeting on April 20.
(Discussion: Ms. Thomas said that she would like to have this subject returned to the Board for
discussion but only if a majority of the Board members are willing to consider supporting the living wage.
Mr. Rooker agreed that it does need to come back to the Board with all appropriate information,
noting that it will affect all salary levels, not just the very bottom.
Ms. Thomas said Local Government only has a dozen employees who are under the $10.72 living
wage figure that came out of UVa.'s study, but the School System has over 100. Mr. Tucker said staff
would be glad to bring this back, but agrees with Ms. Thomas that it should only be studied further if the
Board is serious about supporting it.
Mr. Rooker said there would need to be some information on adjustments for compression
furnished.
Mr. Slutzky added that he would like to see comparative salary information from the City and their
benefits value. Mr. Davis said staff would need to know whether the Board wants to consider the higher
standard of $1 0.72 in order to provide accurate compression information. Mr. Slutzky said he would not
want to constrain the Schools, but he thinks both of those options should also be considered by the School
Board.
Ms. Thomas agreed, adding that she would like to know the Board members are serious about
considering supporting the living wage standard.
Mr. Rooker asked why the first option - the Federal living wage of $9.62 - would not be considered.
Mr. Davis replied that Options 2 and 3 just measure the extremes, but Option 1 could be considered.
Ms. Thomas commented that the $9.37 option would make the County competitive, but the other
options would be closer to an actual living wage.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this would be a one-time increase. Mr. Tucker responded that the salary scale
would be permanently changed, which would mean recurring costs.)
It was the consensus that staff should furnish the Board with information on the budget
impact of any change and how it would affect compression. In its analysis, staff would look at each
of the options, and also get feedback from the School Board.
April 5, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
Item 6.7. School Board News - April 2006. A copy of the School Board's monthly newsletter is posted on
the Web. This item was received for information.
(Non-Agenda. Ms. Thomas commented that the National Association of Counties Annual Meeting
will be held in Richmond in 2007. She encouraged all the Board members to attend if they can.)
Agenda Item No. 7a. Transportation Matters: VDOT Monthly Report for March 2006.
Agenda Item No. 7b. Transportation Matters: Matters not listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Jim Utterback, VDOT Resident Engineer, introduced Mr. Maurice MacKenzie, Area
Construction Engineer, for the Charlottesville and Louisa residencies.
Mr. Utterback said there has been an increase in right-of-way estimates for the Jarmans Gap Road
project (approximately $2.0 million) and for the Meadow Creek Parkway project (approx $4.0 million). He
assumes the allocations can be moved in the Six-Year Secondary Road Plan in order to keep both of the
projects on schedule. This may have an impact on the Georgetown Road and Proffit Road projects. He
will bring more detailed information as it becomes available.
Mr. Utterback said VDoT held two citizen information meetings this past week. One was for the
Georgetown Road project (approximately 87 people attended). The project is still in the comment period.
Comments will be pulled together and brought to the Board with a recommendation. The other meeting
was on the Jarmans Gap Road project. He will bring those comments to the Board with recommendation
on how to proceed, hopefully next month.
Mr. Rooker commented that he had attended the Georgetown Road meeting and he expressed his
appreciation for how VDoT staff conducted the meeting. He added that the Meadow Creek Parkway
interchange meeting had a good turnout and was also very well done.
Mr. Utterback said the traffic study on Route 250 in front of Western Albemarle High School and
Brownsville Elementary school warranted signalized intersections at both locations. He does not know how
they will be set, but there will be detectors installed to take into account peak hour volumes.
Mr. Utterback said VDOT has been working on a detour for the Proffit Road bridge project. Norfolk
Southern railroad will be replacing the bridge in kind. VDOT is looking at putting portable signals on Route
643 (Polo Grounds Road) in anticipation of traffic diverting onto that road.
Mr. Utterback said he has been working with County staff to bring a resolution before the Board
asking to move three rural rustic road projects forward.
Mr. Wyant said he has discussed minimizing the number of lights on Route 250 West and insuring
that the lights are synchronized.
Mr. Wyant mentioned that the Albemarle County Service Authority has said they found a couple of
deteriorated pipes as they were installing water lines in Crozet. Before road paving takes place, he would
suggest doing something about the pipes.
Mr. Wyant said people in the Newtown area have expressed concerns about the road which has
been damaged by trucks going into the old Greenwood chemical plant facility. Mr. Utterback said he will
check into this
Mr. Thomas said during the Jarmans Gap Road meeting a number of individuals questioned the
reason the pedestrian/bicycle facilities do not go all the way to the end of the roadway. Mr. David Benish
explained action taken by this Board in March of 2004.
Ms. Thomas said she has received a communication about two family subdivision requests where
they were told they cannot subdivide because of VDoT road/sight distance standards. Mr. Utterback asked
for a copy of the letter and said he will respond.
Mr. Dorrier mentioned the dust problem on the unpaved section of Route 712 near Route 795, the
section that goes by Pine Knott. He asked ifVDoT could put down some chemicals. Mr. Utterback said he
would have someone look at it.
April 5, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mr. Boyd discussed a letter he received from the Forest Lakes Homeowners' Association asking if
the County has plans to build a connector road between Ashwood Boulevard and Forest Lakes South. Mr.
Benish said there are no plans to construct a connection at this time; he will respond to letter.
Mr. Boyd mentioned some drainage issues on Maxfield Road. He asked if speed limit signs could
be installed along the road as an interim measure until the project begins. He also asked Mr. Utterback to
see if Maxfield Road would qualify as a rural rustic road.
Mr. Slutzky said that in January he asked VDoT to look at installing a "yield to oncoming traffic sign"
at intersection of Rio Road and Northfields/ Hillsdale Drive. He asked the status of the request. Mr.
Utterback said he will take a look at the problem.
Mr. Slutzky mentioned the signage at the Hydraulic/Route 29 intersection in front of K-Mart. On
Hydraulic there are two lanes that allow a right northbound turn onto Route 29. But, in only one of the lanes
can the driver turn right on red. Cars are turning right in both lanes. The signage is confusing.
Mr. Rooker said as VDoT evaluates the Georgetown Road comments, he would ask that they look
at implementing some pedestrian safety changes. He thinks it could be a relatively inexpensive project that
could be done in the short period of time.
Mr. Rooker asked if there has been any response regarding the Scottsville Town revenue sharing
request. Mr. Utterback said he has received a response from Richmond and will share it with the Board.
Agenda Item NO.8. Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District Annual Report, Nick
Evans.
Mr. Nick Evans, Chairman of the Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District Board,
addressed the Board. He thanked the Board for their continued support of the district's programs, stating
that the job of watershed protection is never completed and is an ongoing struggle. He said those on the
Conservation District Board are committed to working for the best outcomes in terms of water quality and
natural resource protection given the reality of a changing landscape. He mentioned that in the past few
years, a lot of resources in the County have been put into land conservation easements, noting that Mr.
Ches Goodall and Ms. Joy Matthews both serve on the Conservation District Board. He said the district
easements are aimed at protecting water quality, and will be held for any piece of property that meets that
test. He added that those parcels are often smaller than what the Virginia Outdoors Foundation would
consider, or may be irregular in shape - such as 1 OO-foot buffers along streams. He said that placing
forested land along a stream into permanent easements makes more sense than constructing and
maintaining stormwater detention ponds. This might be the best way to achieve the optimal outcome, but
not in every case; it's an option.
Mr. Evans said that in Albemarle, the Conservation District needs to expand its focus - from
programs that address traditional agriculture on large farms, which are dwindling in number - to include
landowners that are creating small 20-acre farmettes with a couple horses. He explained that most of
these people want to do the right thing in terms of conservation management, adding that at the state level
the district is working to expand the Best Management Practices cost-share programs to include these
smaller parcels, which in aggregate have a huge impact on water quality. He said the city of Charlottesville
is joining the district so the "hole in the donut" of the service area is about to be filled. He commented that
this is good news in terms of a coordinated effort among all jurisdictions in the watershed, and he
encouraged Board members to thank City Council for their participation.
Ms. Thomas noted that the Mountain Protection Ordinance the County has been working on for
many years is going to put a lot of emphasis on buffering intermittent and perennial streams. Mr. Evans
responded that this is a very positive step.
Mr. Wyant asked if the Conservation District handles stream bank restoration. Mr. Evans replied
that they pursue grant funding for various efforts toward stream stabilization - primarily replanting of
vegetation as opposed to heavy engineering. He noted that the district works hard to oversee its
easements, and foundation pursuit was a way of ensuring funding for personnel to do that.
Mr. Boyd asked if there was a duplication of effort with County staff in the area of riparian
restoration. Mr. Evans responded that there is a coordinated effort, not a duplicated effort, with Mr. Ches
Goodall and Mr. Mark Graham providing a link between the two.
Ms. Thomas noted that the Conservation District handles things that the County would have to do
otherwise. Mr. Evans agreed, stating that the County contracts with them to provide education on
stormwater management.
Mr. Rooker thanked Mr. Evans for his organization's efforts.
April 5, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
Agenda Item NO.9. Proposals to Extend Retiree Benefits and to Provide a Matching Amount to
Employee Deferred Compensation Plans.
Ms. Kimberly Suyes, Human Resources Director, presented information from the Compensation
and Benefits Team in response to requests from the Board to look at benefits for current retirees
(PowerPointe presentation). She summarized the following Executive Summary:
Staff was requested to review options and costs to provide retirees an additional benefit due to the
high cost of health insurance. This request was initiated by retirees under the County's VERIP
program who retired prior to age 60. The VERIP program provides some benefits for five years, or
to age 65, whichever comes first. This means the benefits may expire prior to the retiree reaching
age 65 or Medicare eligibility.
The current VERIP program minimum eligibility is 50 years of age with ten years of service; it has
two different elements: 1) Retirement Income under VRS is calculated both normally and then
adding five additional years of service, the difference between the two amounts and the actual VRS
amount is paid for a period of five years or to age 65; and, 2) Retirement Health/income - retirees
also receive the County Board's contribution toward health insurance for five years or to age 65.
Currently this amount is $5,755 annually. This amount is paid directly to the employee and can be
used to pay health insurance or for any other purpose.
Staff reviewed the following options: 1) The VRS Health Credit is currently offered to School
Professional Employees. This option was originally considered for all employees, but as the
amount offered by VRS is minimal, it would not adequately offset health insurance costs. This
option will not be considered further; 2) an extension of VERIP benefits; and 3) to provide a match
amount to the deferred compensation plan. The Board requested that the Human Resources
Department develop proposals for 2) and 3).
Albemarle County Local Government's success in implementing the County's Strategic Plan and
meeting its stated goals will depend on its ability to attract and maintain a high quality and high
performing workforce in an extremely competitive environment. The Board recognized the
importance of providing competitive salaries and benefits. As indicated in the recent Human
Resources Annual Report, an increasing number of employees are reaching eligibility for VERIP
and retirement benefits every year. As it is critical for Albemarle County to focus on retaining these
employees and recruiting skilled candidates, the County's total compensation plan is designed and
evaluated in light of those objectives. Additionally as the Joint Board's adopted strategy is to target
benefits slightly above market, the value perceived by employees of our overall benefits program
and the costs of those benefit programs are evaluated in recommending new programs. In order to
provide comprehensive information, this report provides: 1) Summary of Current Retirement
Benefits; 2) Review of Extending Retiree Benefits; 3) Review of Providing an Employer Match to
Deferred Compensation; and 4) Options.
1) Summary of Current Retirement Benefits. In addition to the VERIP program, Albemarle County
provides the Virginia Retirement System (VRS), a defined benefit retirement plan to all full-time
employees. Contributions are paid in full by the County. The following example illustrates the
retirement benefits provided to employees and the differences in the current retirement benefits.
As indicated, additional benefits are provided as follows:
. Teachers-receive a health insurance credit of $75 per month.
. Employees in the Law Enforcement Officer System (LEOS) (law enforcement officers,
firefighters, regional jail officers, sheriffs) are entitled to earlier eligibility for full retirement
(25 service years, compared to 30 service years for all other employees).
. Employees in the Law Enforcement Officer System (LEOS) in a hazardous duty position
for 20 years receive an additional hazardous duty stipend of $892 per month until reaching
Social Security retirement age.
2) Review of Extendinq Retiree Benefits. An issue regarding retiree health insurance is the change
in the way organizations plan to pay for the benefits. The Governmental Accounting Standards
Board (GASB), which is responsible for developing the accounting rules for State and Local
Government, recently changed from a pay-as-you-go accounting basis to an accrual basis. This
will have a significant impact on State and Local Government financial statements. A new annual
liability, called the Annual Required Contribution (ARC), must be determined actuarially.
. Current Trends in Retirement Health Benefits. Data indicates that the trend in the market
is to limit benefits to retirees.
. Extendinq Retiree Benefits. The current monthly cost of individual only coverage ranges
from $497.33 (low option) to $525.33 (high option). This proposal would provide a $500
per month contribution for those retirees with 25 years of service with Albemarle County
once VERIP expired before age 65. A lesser benefit amount, for example $250 per month,
would reduce the annual County contribution by 50 percent.
The first chart in the Executive Summary illustrates the estimated cumulative costs of
extending benefits, as well as a projection of existing VERIP costs. The second chart
illustrates the cost per year and the cumulative costs of extending benefits to existing retirees.
The third chart includes current employees who will have at least 25 years of service and will
April 5, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
meet full retirement eligibility within five years (adjusting for the five years of VERIP eligibility).
This proposal would provide $500 per month for current employees who will have at least 25
years of service, will meet full retirement eligibility within five years and retire by July 1, 2011.
This benefit would begin once an employee had retired and the VERIP benefit was
exhausted; it would be paid for five years or to the age 65, whichever came first. The costs
reflected are based on the assumption that all eligible employees would retire at their first
year of eligibility; this is the worst case scenario.
3) Provide a Match Amount to the Deferred Compensation Plan. This option would provide a
benefit for all employees. As indicated in the February 1, 2006, Executive Summary,
considerations are as follows:
. Research indicates that a match to a deferred compensation plan is valuable in
recruitment and retention.
. The current trend in the market is that more public sector organizations are offering
matches in order to be competitive with 401 (k) plans in the private sector. (Adopted
market data shows that four out of 29 organizations offer employer contributions, and a
Municipal survey of 35 localities in Virginia and North Carolina indicated that 13
organizations provide a match.)
. A match gives employees an incentive to save, which enables accumulation of resources
to meet expenses in retirement (such as medical costs). (Studies show that even a small
incentive [as low as $25 per month] can boost participation in a deferred compensation
plan. Average participation in public sector 457 plans is 39 percent. When a match is
present, the average rate increases to 51 percent.)
. Participation in plan is increased, thereby filling a gap in retirement income. (Data indicates
that income replacement by VRS for employees with 30 service years or more is adequate,
but those with less than 30 will need to supplement.)
. An employer contribution to deferred compensation is a visible benefit to employees and
allows for contributions and earnings to grow tax-deferred. (Albemarle County employee
feedback indicates that this is a desired benefit.)
Recommendation: Staff recommends that Albemarle County provides a match amount of 25
percent of the employee's contribution to the 403(b) or 457 deferred compensation plans up to a
maximum of $300 per year. Objectives in designing this match include ease of administration and
communication. Selection of a match amount would provide an incentive for all employees to
contribute toward their own retirement needs, such as health care expenses.
The budget impact for extending retiree benefits would be: For current retirees with at least 25
years service, the cumulative cost is estimated at $1 ,800,000. For current retirees with at least 25
years of service, the annual cost would be approximately $150,000 in FY '07. The average annual
cost for 11 years would be approximately $165,000. For those employees who retire by July 1,
2011, with 25 years of service, the cumulative cost would be $5,910,000.
Options for consideration are:
. Option 1. Albemarle County would provide $500 per month, or a lesser contribution, for five
years for current retirees who had 25 years of service, whose VERIP benefit has expired and
who are not yet 65 years of age.
. Option 2. Albemarle County would provide $500 per month, or a lesser contribution, for
current employees who will have at least 25 years of service, who will meet full retirement
eligibility within five years and who retire by July 1, 2011. This benefit would begin once an
employee had retired and their VERIP benefit was exhausted. They would be paid for five
years or to age 65, whichever came first.
. Option 3. For all other employees, Albemarle County would provide a match of 25 percent of
the employee's contribution to the 403(b) or 457 Deferred Compensation Plans to a maximum
County contribution of $300 per year.
Mr. Slutzky said he would hate to have Options 1 and 2 pitted against Option 3 because the latter
addresses a completely separate issue. He does not feel comfortable looking at these as an either/or
situation. Option 3 is different. He asked if there was a practical way to fill the gap without putting the
burden on the County, noting that some employees who retired early might be getting a windfall. He asked
if there is a way to track that. Ms. Suyes said it would be difficult to track, and the Board had asked staff to
bring forth information only on current retirees.
Mr. Rooker said he would like to see a benefits package that was slightly above the competitive
markets, with salaries at or above the median of the competitive market. He thinks that in an effort to
provide additional benefits it would be easy to stray from adopted Compensation Goals. He does not see
any rational basis for adding benefits without making a general decision to increase overall compensation
objectives.
Mr. Dorrier asked how the VERIP benefit came about. Ms. Suyes said it was implemented before
she was employed by the County. It has been utilized as a retention tool, with minimum service of 10 years
needed to receive those benefits.
April 5, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
April 5, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Mr. Rooker said he thinks retirement income in the County is high compared to pensions with
private industry. He recently read from an article in the Wall Street Journal about how businesses are trying
to get out of paying for medical benefits for their retirees because it is proving to be a significant financial
burden. He sees no basis for coming in and piecemeal changing the County's benefit plans without making
a decision to change the Board's Compensation Strategy.
Mr. Boyd said he believes offering benefits beyond retirement might encourage people to leave
County employment since they would get those even if they took a job elsewhere.
Ms. Suyes clarified that Option 2 is a fairness issue, but might possibly encourage people to leave.
She added that when she wants to retain employees, Option 3 would be the one that helps everyone.
Mr. Slutzky commented that Options 1 and 3 encourage employee retention and at the same time
addresses an assertive hardship gap for a certain class of retirees.
Mr. Dorrier asked how Options 1 and 3 would impact the budget. Mr. Tucker pointed out the
PowerPointe slide that showed the cost of Option 1.
Mr. Boyd said he does not want to move forward with any of the options at this time. He suggested
discussing Option 3 at the annual meeting with the School Board in the fall concerning joint compensation
policies. He agreed with Mr. Rooker that employers are moving away from these programs, adding that
cost estimates are probably low given the rising health insurance costs.
Mr. Rooker commented that most retirement plans are pooled investment programs; perhaps the
County could look at partnering, maybe with the University. Mr. Tucker said he does not know what the
University offers that could be similar to this because their benefits come through the State.
Mr. Rooker said he is wary of giving money to people just because they are vocal.
Mr. Slutzky suggested that the County look into participating in NACo's retiree health plan, if
possible.
Mr. Rooker said there would need to be a pool offered that was less than the County's current
health plan since retirees have the option of staying on the County's plan and paying their own premium.
He said from ages 60 to 65 people can just take the VERIP money. The real issue is whether the County is
providing a reasonable package of benefits to people who are already retired or who are about to retire. He
thinks it is a mistake to just put money into something because people complain, noting that people who
have made $45,000 yearly and are now getting $39,000 yearly from retirement, not counting Social
Security, are getting a good retirement package.
Ms. Suyes emphasized that the joint Board-adopted strategy has been to be at 105 percent of
benefits and that includes health, dental, retirement, etc. She indicated that the County meets that
requirement and is market competitive.
Mr. Dorrier suggested forming an ad-hoc committee to study the entire County benefits plan as it is
a complex issue.
Mr. Rooker recommended that the County look at retiree benefits when compensation is reviewed
in the fall with the School Board. A decision can be made at that time about what package of benefits the
County wants to handle in the global context.
Ms. Thomas said she assumes that only Option 3 will be discussed when benefits are brought up at
that compensation meeting, unless the Board feels staff should be directed otherwise.
Mr. Wyant mentioned that he only received half of his salary when he retired, and he did not go
back to VDOT and ask for more money.
Mr. Rooker said he would like the information Ms. Suyes presented to the School Board.
Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Rooker wants to consider Option 3 only.
Mr. Rooker said that is what he prefers.
Mr. Boyd agreed.
Mr. Slutzky noted that he is interested in helping out current retirees.
Ms. Suyes said she understands the Board would like for her staff to include Option 3 as a
matching fund for all Local Government and School employees.
Mr. Boyd said he does not feel staff has to come back with Option 3 as it is written. Perhaps there
are other options that would be a better competitive offering for employees.
(It was the consensus that additions or changes to the benefits program should occur in the
context of evaluation of the overall benefits strategy. Option 3 (matching for all Local Government
and School Division employees) may be included as part of the joint Board and School Board
compensation and benefits discussion in the fall. Staff is to discontinue any additional work on
April 5, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
options for current retirees and those getting ready to retire (Options 1 and 2). Staff is not limited to
Option 3 if it finds another competitive benefit in the market where they think dollars could better be
spent.)
(Note: The Board recessed at 11 :19 a.m., and reconvened at 11 :30 a.m.)
Agenda Item NO.1 O. Staff Analysis of Reduced BPOL Tax Rate for Direct Sales.
Mr. Joseph Correa, Division Manager, Revenue & Taxation Division of the Finance Department,
presented a financial analysis of the impact of a BPOL tax rate reduction for direct retail sales, which had
been discussed briefly in March. He reported that staff found direct retail sales in Albemarle County range
between $140.0 and $200.0 million, but an exact amount is not known because all sales are not reported
specifically as such. He said the estimate could be as high as $300,000 because of the ever-increasing
nature of interneUcatalog telephone sales. He said the current tax rate on direct retail sales is $0.20 per
$100, equating to about $400,000 in revenue for the County. He said had drafted an ordinance which
would reduce the tax rate on these sales from 20 cents per $100 to 10 cents per hundred. If the Board
pursues this amendment it would decrease annual revenues by approximately $200,000.
Mr. Correa said Greene County recently adopted a rate of 2.5 cent per hundred for retail sales. If
the Board were to adopt that for Albemarle, that would reduce revenues from the $400,000 estimate down
to $50,000. Each cent decrease equates to about $20,000 of revenue. He said staff had set out both the
advantages and the disadvantages of changing the rate, noting that the BPOL rate on all businesses might
be lowered, not just that for internet sales, adding that each penny for all sales equates to $380,000 in
revenue. He said staff recommends that the Board suggest a rate to be considered, and then set a public
hearing.
Mr. Slutzky commented that if Greene is successful in luring businesses there by reducing its tax
rate, Albemarle stands to lose anyway. He thinks that as technology continues to progress, other counties
will lure businesses away with lower BPOL tax. He asked that the Board move forward with the ten-cent
rate reduction. He said that is enough to send a signal without decimating this portion of the County's BPOL
revenue streams.
Ms. Thomas said she knows of a bookstore owner and an antique store owner who both make may
sales online. She wondered how sales like that and sales by Crutchfield would be monitored.
Mr. Rooker said it is an honor system to pay the BPOL tax. He had asked Mr. Crutchfield to
separate out sales in the County versus outside sales.
Mr. Wyant commented that it will be hard for some businesses to make that differentiation.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks smaller businesses would have a more difficult time providing that
information. Also, any tax not collected from these businesses will have to be made up somehow by
consumers if the County's tax base is to stay the same.
Mr. Slutzky said he believes retailers will leave the County if neighboring localities drop their BPOL
tax rates. Albemarle will have to make up lost revenues on the backs of real property taxpayers.
Ms. Thomas replied that she just doesn't buy that argument, because Albemarle has so much to
offer people in terms of living.
Mr. Dorrier said that he believes Crutchfield should be supported in Albemarle.
Mr. Boyd asked about Greene's BPOL tax rate. Mr. Correa responded that most localities have a
rate close to the 20-cent maximum; Greene is the only one he knows of that has dropped it down. He
noted that there is no BPOL tax for manufacturers.
Ms. Thomas said the BPOL tax for wholesalers is five cents.
In response to a question from Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Tucker explained that staff used a 1 O-cent figure
and a 2.5-cent figure as hypothetical figures, but any amount could be used.
Mr. Rooker said he would like to have information on the BPOL tax rates of other localities.
Mr. Dorrier said that John Knapp (Weldon Cooper Center) has provided that information.
Mr. Rooker said he feels the County should establish its tax rate based on what is fair; not because
an individual business owner requested that the tax be lowered. He commented that Mr. Crutchfield went
to Greene County and convinced them to lower their rate.
Mr. Slutzky said he brought this to the Board because of an inherent fairness problem; the new
category of retailer that is emerging is unfairly burdened by it. He felt that given the rise in internet
businesses, it might be a disincentive for companies to locate in Albemarle if the tax rate in Greene is well
below neighboring areas. Mr. Davis said most localities have rates at 20 cents or slightly lower, except for
Greene - which lowered theirs to 2.5 cents. He added that Fluvanna has no BPOL tax.
April 5, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
Ms. Thomas said direct sales are often not taxed properly because receipts are not reviewed;
internet and online sales are a direct threat to local retailers. She stated that businesses shouldn't have to
be encouraged to move to Albemarle County by lower tax rates. The County has never done that, and she
does not know why it would start at this point. She said there is not high unemployment here or any need to
woo businesses to the County.
Mr. Boyd said one of the arguments in singling out direct sales was that their demand for services
on the County - such as roads - was less than for people with storefronts. He thought that's why there was
a differentiation.
Ms. Thomas said that she could not think of anything other than roads that would impact County
services.
Mr. Boyd stated that he would like to reduce the BPOL tax because it is counter-productive to
economic development.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier moved to set a public hearing for May 3, 2006, to amend S 8-617 of the
County Code to reduce the BPOL tax rate for direct sales from $0.20 for each $100.00 of gross receipts to
$0.10 for each $100.00 of gross receipts. Mr. Wyant seconded the motion.
Ms. Thomas said she is voting against it on behalf of all home towns, main street retailers, for
whom she thinks this is moving in the wrong direction.
Mr. Rooker said he is going to vote against the motion because it has come forward in response to
a request from an individual and is not based upon some kind of analysis. He does not think this is a
rational way to approach taxation.
Mr. Slutzky said he will vote for the motion for the same reason, because there is a rational basis
for this unique class of sales.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Slutzky, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: Ms. Thomas and Mr. Rooker.
Agenda Item No. 11. Public hearing: Proposed FY 2006 Budget Amendment. (Notice of this
public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on March 26, 2006.)
Mr. Breeden said the proposed increase of this FY 2006 Budget Amendment totals $2,892,191.95.
The estimated expenses and revenues included in the proposed amendment are shown below:
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
General Fund $ 20,665.00
Education Fund $ 242,880.70
Education Programs/Grants $ 69,441.54
Capital Improvements Fund $ 2,559.204.71
TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES - All Funds $ 2,892,191.95
ESTIMATED REVENUES
Local Revenues $ 60,383.50
State Revenues $ 6,960.96
Federal Revenues $ 26,941.54
General Fund Balance $ 2,571,613.75
Other Fund Balance $ 226.292.20
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES - All Funds $ 2,892,191.95
The budget amendment is comprised of seven separate appropriations. Staff recommends
approval of the FY 2006 Budget Amendment in the amount of $2,892,191.95 after the public hearing, and
then approval of Appropriations #2006-057, #2006-058, #2006-059, #2006-060, #2006061, #2006062, and
#2006063 to provide funds for various General Government, School, and Capital Improvement programs.
Appropriation No. 2006-057, $254,721.70. At its meeting on February 9,2006, the School
Board approved the following appropriations:
. B.F. Yancey Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $4,579.50 from the
Church of Saint John the Baptist of the Woods Foundation. It has been requested that this
donation be used to help fund a field trip for Yancey students.
. B.F. Yancey Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $250.00 from M.
Denise Williams. It has been requested that this donation be used to help fund a field trip for
B. F. Yancey students.
April 5, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
. B.F. Yancey Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $1 00.00 from the JL V
Corporation (Green Mountain Country Store). It has been requested that this donation be
used to help fund a field trip for Yancey Students.
. Following completion of the FY 2004-05 audit, reappropriation of school carryover funds
takes place and portions of building rental funds are returned to schools. These total
$226,292.20.
. Monticello High School received a donation in the amount of $1 ,000.00 from Henry and
Joann Walker. It has been requested that this donation be used towards the needs of
Monticello High School students.
. The Henley Middle School Cultural Enrichment Program, formally the Frederick S. Upton
Foundation Grant, has received a grant donation from Douglas and Sarah DuPont in the
amount of $1 ,000.00 and from J.P. Morgan Company in the amount of $7,000.00. These
donations will support Henley's Cultural Enrichment Program funding its artists-in-residence
programs (Sculpture, Writer and Dramatic Interpretation). The projects will involve
interactive activities to include hands on learning experiences for students with performing,
visual and musical arts.
. The William A. Jones III Chapter of the Air Force Association has awarded Doug Mullinex of
Burley Middle School with a Teacher Grant in the amount of $500.00. The funds will be used
to support his class project titled "Solar Car Design: a culminating class project designed to
assess student's knowledge of applied physical principles."
. The Junior League of Charlottesville has awarded Stony Point Elementary a grant in the
amount of $1 ,000.00. The funds will be used to expand the library's reference collection.
. The Freas Foundation has awarded Jack Jouett a grant award in the amount of $8,000.00.
As a supplement to this grant award the Jouett PTO has made a donation of $4,000.00.
These grant donations will be used to purchase a new photocopier for teacher use.
. The Wal-Mart Foundation has awarded Red Hill Elementary a grant in the amount of
$500.00. The funds will be used to purchase non-fiction literary materials.
. The Wal-Mart Foundation has awarded Stony Point Elementary a grant in the amount of
$500.00. The funds will be used to support a two week artist in residence program which will
accentuate the importance of diversity and the richness it can bring to a community.
Appropriation No. 2006-058, $ 38.270.54. At its meeting on February 23, 2006, the School
Board approved the following appropriations:
. B.F. Yancey Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $1 00.00 from T & N
Printing, Inc. It has been requested that this donation be used to help fund a field trip for
Yancey students.
. Albemarle County Public Schools received the Title II, Part D, Enhancing Education Through
The Technology Formula Subgrant in the amount of $26,941.54 for FY 05-06. These funds
will be used to improve student academic achievement through the use of technology in
schools, providing funds for teacher training and curriculum development.
. B.F. Yancey Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $150.00 from Herring's
Trenching and Well Pump Service, LLC. It has been requested that this donation be used to
help fund a field trip for Yancey students.
. B.F. Yancey Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $1 00.00 from Land
Planning & Design Associates, Inc. It has been requested that this donation be used to help
fund a field trip for Yancey students.
. Greer Elementary School received donations totaling $670.00: SA Albrecht donated
$50.00, Matthew & Dory Neurock donated $100.00, Don & Karen Bergstresser donated
$50.00, Mark & Ingrid McLane donated $20.00, Benny & Lali Mathew donated $100.00,
Carla Anderson donated $5.00, Cindy Campos donated $10.00, Katherine Day donated
$20.00, Mark & Amy Robbins donated $100.00, Jee Soo Shin donated $10.00, Tatito Senga
donated $10.00, Dari Martinez donated $5.00, Hunter & Jennifer Wood donated $25.00,
Alfred Dunu donated $25.00, Carol Yang donated $20.00, Elizabeth Word-Glennie donated
$20.00, Oscar & Sonia Moreira donated $25.00, The Paymar Family donated $5.00, Byung &
Chong Ju donated $10.00, Jie Bai donated $25.00, the Garbarino Family donated $20.00,
and Kin & Joan Choi donated $15.00. These donations will help fund the construction of a
track at Greer Elementary.
. The School Board agreed to purchase new laptops for their use in the current year. The laptops
will be purchased from the School Board Reserve at a cost of $1 0,309.00.
Appropriation No. 2006-059, $ 6,365.00. The Department of Medical Assistance Services
(DMAS) administers the State and Local Hospitalization (SLH) program for the Commonwealth of
April 5, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
Virginia. For FY 2005, the total state appropriation is $10.8 million (84.1 %) and the total local share
funding will be $2.0 million (15.9%), for a total funding of $12.8 million. As in prior years, some
localities will experience similar allocations to previous years, and some will be significantly different.
The localities that are changing significantly this year are primarily changing due to changes in claims
data from fiscal year 2004. DMAS is also implementing a calculation change that meets all the
requirements of Section 32.1-343 et seq., of the Code of Virginia, which will result in a more equitable
distribution to localities. DMAS has proposed a two-year phased-in approach which should result in a
smoother transition for localities. As a result, an additional $6,365.00 is needed for the County's
share of the State and Local Hospitalization program for FY '06.
Appropriation No. 2006-060, $2,558,534.71. The Board of Supervisor's approved policy
allocates 100 percent of unbudgeted revenues and 60 percent of departmental expenditure savings
to the CIP Reserve Fund for future capital needs, capital repairs and maintenance items and/or debt
service. The policy further states that the remaining 40 percent of expenditure savings may be used
for other projects at the Board's discretion and approval. The policy was developed to establish
guidelines for the use of end-of-year revenues and expenditure savings. The preliminary estimate of
the transfer to the CIP Reserve Fund was approved by the Board at its meeting on October 5, 2005,
with the understanding that the appropriation of those funds would be finalized when the fiscal year
audit was completed. This appropriation authorizes the transfer of $1 ,475,017.82 in unbudgeted FY
'05 revenue and $1,083,516.89 in FY '05 expenditure savings to the CIP Reserve Fund pursuant to
this policy.
Appropriation No. 2006-061, $13,675.00. The Virginia State Police and the State
Compensation Board are working together to have 95 percent of fingerprints and photographs
submitted to the Virginia State Police by Sheriffs and Regional Jails done by LiveScan by July 1,
2007. LiveScan is an integrated booking system that electronically captures, prints and transmits
fingerprints and data and has significant benefits over traditional ink methods. The State
Compensation Board will contribute $6,960.96 of the $13,675.00 cost with the County's $6,714.04
share being funded with the General Fund Balance.
Appropriation No. 2006-062, $ 20,000.00. At its meeting on March 9, 2006, the School
Board approved the following appropriation:
. The Saint John the Baptist in the Woods Foundation has made a grant in the amount of
$20,000.00 to the Club Yancey Program. The Foundation is a founding partner and has
agreed to make an annual contribution which will assist with funding the Site Coordinator's
salary and compensation expenses.
Appropriation No. 2006-063, $ 625.00. In November, 2005 the local Sam's Club donated
$625.00 to the Fire/Rescue Department to recognize and reward volunteers. Fire/Rescue has
requested that the funds be appropriated into the Volunteer Recognition budget code within the
Fire/Rescue Recruitment and Retention cost center.
With no questions from Board members, the public hearing was opened. With no one from the
public rising to speak, the hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Boyd moved for approval of the budget amendment in the amount of $2,892,191.95 and to
approve FY 2006 Appropriations No. 2006-057, No. 2006-058, No. 2006-059, No. 2006-060, No. 2006-061,
No. 2006-062, and No. 2006-063.
Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion which passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The appropriation forms are set out in full below.)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2006--057
DATE: 04/05/06
EXPLANATION: Education Donations and Programs
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBI T CREDIT
2 2000 18100 181009 Donation J2 5,929.50
2 2000 51000 510100 Appropriation - F /B J2 226,292.20
2 3104 18000 181221 Upton Found Grant J2 8,000.00
2 3104 18000 189900 Miscellaneous Revenue J2 14,500.00
1 2201 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 5,028.00
1 2202 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 9,421.00
1 2203 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 512.00
1 2205 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 5,993.00
1 2206 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 2,125.00
1 2207 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 2,797.00
1 2209 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 3,652.00
1 2210 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 13,843.00
1 2211 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 7,451.00
1 2212 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 11,101.00
1 2213 61101 550400 Travel-Education J1 4,929.50
1 2215 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 8,894.00
1 2216 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 5,473.00
1 2217 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 7,590.80
April 5, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
2251 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 982.20
2252 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 19,393.00
2253 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 11,729.00
2254 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 18,178.40
2255 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 32,519.20
2302 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 18,641.40
2303 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 7,697.60
2304 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 1,000.00
2304 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 33,270.60
3104 60207 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 500.00
3104 60211 312500 Prof. Service Instruction J1 500.00
3104 60211 601200 Books & Subscriptions J1 1,000.00
3104 60251 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 500.00
3104 60252 312500 Prof. Service Instruction J1 8,000.00
3104 60253 800100 Mach/Equip- Addl J1 12,000.00
2000 0501 Est. Revenue 232,221.70
0701 Appropriation 232,221.70
3104 0501 Est. Revenue 22,500.00
0701 Appropriation 22.500.00
TOTAL 509,443.40 254,721.70 254,721.70
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2006-058
DATE: 04/05/06
EXPLANATION: EDUCATION PROGRAMS AND GRANTS
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2000 18100 181109 Donation J2 350.00
2 2410 60100 999981 School Board Reserve J2 10,309.00
2 3131 33000 330125 Technology Subgrant J2 26,941.54
2 9000 18100 181127 Greer Track Donation J2 670.00
1 2213 61101 550400 Travel-Education J1 350.00
1 2410 62110 800701 Computer Equip/Repl J1 10,309.00
1 3131 61311 160200 Stipends J1 24,880.51
1 3131 61311 210000 FICA J1 2,061.03
1 9000 60204 800909 Greer Elementary Track J1 670.00
2000 0501 Est Revenue 350.00
0701 Appropriation 350.00
2410 0501 Est Revenue 10,309.00
0701 Appropriation 10,309.00
3131 0501 Est Revenue 26,941.54
0701 Appropriation 26,941.54
9000 0501 Est Revenue 670.00
0701 Appropriation 670.00
TOTAL 76,541.08 38,270.54 38,270.54
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2006-059
DATE: 04/05/06
EXPLANATION: Additional Funding for State & Local Hospitalization Program
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1000 51000 510100 Appropriation - F /B J2 6,365.00
1 1000 53012 571350 State & Local Hospit. J1 6,365.00
1000 0501 Est. Revenue 6,365.00
0701 Appropriation 6.365.00
TOTAL 12,730.00 6,365.00 6,365.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2006-060
DATE: 04/05/06
EXPLANATION: Appropriation and Transfer of FY05 Revenue Surplus and FY05 Expenditure Savings to CIP
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1000 51000 510100 Appropriation - F /B J2 1,475,017.82
1 1000 93010 930010 Transfer to GF CIP J1 1,475,017.82
2 1000 51000 510100 Appropriation - F /B J2 1,083,516.89
1 1000 93010 930010 Transfer to GF CIP J1 1,083,516.89
2 9010 51000 512004 Transfer from G/F J2 2,558,534.71
2 9010 51000 510100 CIP F/B J2 (2,558,534.71 )
1000 0501 Est. Revenue 2,558,534.71
0701 Appropriation 2.558.534.71
TOTAL 5,117,069.42
2,558,534.71
2,558,534.71
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2006-061
DATE: 04/05/06
EXPLANATION: Funding for LiveScan equipment in Sheriffs Office
TYPE
1
2
2
FUND
1000
1000
1000
1000
DEPT
21070
23000
51000
OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION
800100 Mach. & Equipment J
230202 State Compo Board J
510100 Fund Balance J
0501 Est. Revenue
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 13,675.00
2 6,960.96
2 6,714.04
13,675.00
April 5, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
1000
0701
Appropriation
13.675.00
TOTAL 27,350.00 13,675.00 13,675.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2006-062
DATE: 04/0506
EXPLANATION: Education Contribution
3157
181254
111400
210000
221000
231000
232000
0501
0701
Misc. Revenue
Salaries-Other MgmtJ1
FICA
VRS
Health Insurance
Dental Insurance
Est. Revenue
Appropriation
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
J2 20,000.00
15,434.01
J1 1,176.35
J1 1,571.64
J1 1,758.00
J1 60.00
TYPE
2
1
FUND
3157
3157
DEPT
18000
60213
OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION
20,000.00
20.000.00
TOTAL 40,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2006-063
DATE: 05/04/06
EXPLANATION: Donation - Volunteer Fire/Rescue Recognition
TYPE
2
1
FUND
1000
1000
1000
DEPT
18100
32016
OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION
181109 Donations J2
312200 Volunteer Recognition
0501 Est. Revenue
0701 Appropriation
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
625.00
J1 625.00
625.00
625.00
TOTAL 1,250.00 625.00 625.00
Agenda Item No. 12. Public hearing: Wickham Pond, request to amend the Albemarle County
Service Authority jurisdictional area for water and sewer service to Tax Map 56, Parcel 92, located in the
Crozet Community, on Route 240, adjacent to the Highlands Subdivision. (Notice of this public hearing was
advertised in the Daily Progress on March 20 and March 27, 2006.)
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development, said the applicant is requesting ACSA
Jurisdictional Area designation for water and sewer service for the Wickham Pond development approved
by the Board at its meeting on January 4, 2006. The 20.5 acre property is located on the south side of
Route 240, adjacent to the Highlands subdivision. The property is located within the designated Crozet
Development Area, in the White Hall Magisterial District. The parcel is currently designated for "water only
to existing structures." The applicant is requesting water and sewer service to serve the development. The
Board previously reviewed this request on March 1, 2006 and set this public hearing for comment on this
proposal. The subject property is located in the Crozet Development Area. The water supply for Crozet is
provided by the Beaver Creek Reservoir. Sewer service is provided by the Moore's Creek Treatment Plant
via the Crozet Interceptor. The Comprehensive Plan recommends serving the Development Areas with
public water and sewer service. This parcel is located within the Crozet Development Area, so designating
it as part of the ACSA Jurisdictional Area for public water and sewer service would align with County policy.
Mr. Benish said that in December of 2005, as part of the Board's consideration of the Chitester
request to amend the Jurisdictional Area in another part of Crozet, staff noted that while most of the Crozet
Development Area is designated for water and sewer service, there are some parcels that have restricted
designations ("water only", "water only to existing structures" or "limited service") or that are not included in
the Jurisdictional Area. At that time, the Board directed staff to do the necessary research and set a
separate public hearing to designate all properties within the designated Development Area for water and
sewer service. Staff is in the process of doing the research to prepare for a comprehensive amendment of
the Jurisdictional Area for Crozet, but will not be finished before this request goes to public hearing.
Mr. Benish said as a general policy, staff has advised that public utility capacity be reserved to
support development of designated Development Areas. Since this property is located within a designated
Development Area, the provision of both water and sewer service to the property would be consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan public utility policy. Therefore, staff recommends that the Board approve this
request to amend the ACSA Jurisdictional Area designation to "Water and Sewer" service for Tax Map 56,
Parcel 92.
With no questions for staff, the public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to
speak, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Wyant to amend the ACSA jurisdictional area designation
for water and sewer service to Tax Map 56, Parcel 92, to serve Wickham Pond. Ms. Thomas seconded
the motion, which carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Public Hearing: SP-2005-033. Westfield Road Center (Sign #62).
Proposed: 3-Story 9,500 Sq ft building for office use with 2 residential units on approx 0.55 acres. Zoninq
April 5, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
Cateqorv/General Usaqe: C-1 Commercial - retail sales and service uses & residential uses by special use
permit; EC Entrance Corridor overlay. Section: 22.2.2.6, Special Use Permit, which allows for residential
uses allowed in Section 18, R-15 Residential (15 units/acre), in the C-1 Zoning District. Comprehensive
Plan Land Use/Density: Community Service-community-scale retail, wholesale, business and/or
employment centers & residential (6.01-34 units/acre). Location: Tax Map 61W, Section 2, Block B, Parcel
1 A; on the south side of Westfield Rd (Rt 1452), approx 300 ft from the intersection of Seminole Trail (Rt
29) & Westfield Road. Maqisterial District: Rio. Concurrent Application: SDP 2005-00136. (Notice of this
public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on March 20 and March 27, 2006.)
Ms. Echols reported that this is a request for a special use permit for construction of an office
building located on a half-acre site near the corner of Route 1452 and Route 29 North behind the
Albemarle First Bank. She indicated that the property is currently zoned C-1 so a special use permit is
required for residential use. The proposal is for a 5,500 square foot, three-story building, with offices on the
first two floors and residential on the upper floor. She said the ARB has reviewed the project and
recommended a few minor changes which can be accommodated in the site plan process. She said the
Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval, along with a critical slopes waiver, with
conditions as outlined in the Executive Summary.
Mr. Boyd asked if the County does fiscal impact studies on special use permit requests. Mr. Benish
said that is not a normal practice, but is done on a case-by-case evaluation focusing on rezoning requests.
He added that if it was a large, major residential request as a special permit, staff might do that analysis.
With no questions for staff, the public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to
speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Slutzky to approve SP-2005-0033 with the two conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Boyd. Roll was called, and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1 . The site shall be developed in general accord with all sheets of the plan entitled "Westfield
Road Center," date February 28, 2006, and prepared by The Gaines Group; and
2. A maximum of two (2) residential units may be permitted
Agenda Item No. 14. Closed Session.
At 12:08 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Slutzky that the Board adjourn into closed session
pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to
boards, committees and commissions.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Mr. Boyd. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 15. Certify Closed Session. At 1:49 p.m., the Board reconvened in Room 235.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Slutzky that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of
each Board member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting
requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the closed
session were heard, discussed or considered in the closed session.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 16. Boards and Commissions - Appointments.
Motion was offered by Mr. Boyd to:
Reappoint Mr. Robert Foster, as the representative of Local Accommodations/Hotel Business, to
the Charlottesville-Albemarle Convention and Visitors Bureau (CACVB) Management Board, with said term
to expire June 30, 2008.
Appoint the following individuals to the Development Review Process Task Force as
representatives of respective areas: Board of Supervisors: Mr. Ken C. Boyd and Mr. David C. Wyant;
April 5, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
Planninq Commission: Ms. Marcia Joseph and Mr. Eric Strucko; Development Community: Mr. Michael
Barnes and Ms. Valerie Long; Citizens: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Bruce Dotson, Mr. Michael Hancox
and Ms. Ann Mallek; Professor Robert Spekman, Darden Graduate School of Business is to serve as
fa ci I itato r.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 17. FY 2007-2010 Strategic Plan Work Session #3.
Ms. Allshouse reminded the Board that the 2002 Citizens Survey showed that 85 percent of
respondents considered water protection one of the most important County priorities. She explained that
staff took the priorities identified by the Board in September and formed measurable goals and objectives
from them. She said her report today would focus on resource protection and water supply, noting that
there are committees in place working on biodiversity, water supply, scenic and historic resources, etc. A
lot of land use planning has to do with protecting water, adding that the County has taken some leadership
with the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, stormwater management, and groundwater protection. There
are at least 28 strategies in the Comprehensive Plan for water protection. In September, 2005 the Board
set as priorities implementing additional strategies to protect resources, to obtain final approval of a water
supply plan, to develop a comprehensive wastewater plan, to implement an integrative water resource
management plan, and to fund stormwater management.
Ms. Allshouse emphasized that coordination of efforts is important, as the Rivanna Water & Sewer
Authority (RWSA) leads direction on the water supply and wastewater plans. Albemarle also has to work
with State and Federal agencies and other jurisdictions. She mentioned that the work on natural resources
and water has to be fit within the work plan for the Community Development Department, and they already
have a full schedule. She said the Stormwater Management Plans require a funding strategy, and that will
also be a challenge. The measurable goal staff has written is that by 2010, working in cooperation with the
Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority and others, the quality, supply, and protection of water will be increased.
Ms. Allshouse said that by June, 2007 RWSA will get approval for a water supply plan, obtain a
wastewater permit, and develop a drop management plan, adding that County staff will be working with
them. She said the County also wants to develop a long-term stormwater management funding strategy by
June, 2008, codify water resource strategies by June, 2009, and incorporate an integrative water resource
plan into the Comprehensive Plan by June, 2010, along with enhancing the riparian buffer program. She
said riparian buffers protect drinking water and support the Chesapeake Bay Program's goal of restoring
2,010 miles of buffer by the year 2010 (610 miles of stream buffers in Virginia).
Ms. Allshouse said the most important thing about a riparian buffer is that it reduces sedimentation
deposits into reservoirs, noting that staff recommends requiring buffers on all streams - including
intermittent streams, and in agriculture/crop lands. Staff also recommends replanting buffers while keeping
people from destroying them in the first place, and pursuing additional resources for protection. She noted
that there the State, County and Chesapeake Bay Program all have specific goals for buffer restoration.
Ms. Allshouse reported that staff wants to have better measurements based on outcome and
results - obtaining approvals by RWSA, improvement in water quality such as with urban streams, having
the funding mechanism in place for stormwater management, and citizen satisfaction with water protection.
She added that with the 2004 Citizens Survey, 71 percent of respondents reported satisfaction with the
County's efforts to protect water.
In response to a question from Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Allshouse confirmed that there are also educational
initiatives to inform people of the importance of riparian restoration.
Ms. Thomas noted that by 2010, the Chesapeake Bay is supposed to be no longer "impaired water"
or the EPA can take over the protection. She said it's possible that the year 2010 might get pushed back to
2015, and the EPA can also crack down harder on things like sewage output. She said the County has not
yet developed buffers or in other ways reduced impact on the Chesapeake Bay. She is not happy saying
that by June of 201 0 there will be increased quality, supply and protection of the County's water resources.
She asked why that goal has to wait until 2010.
Ms. Allshouse responded that the date can definitely change, but this Strategic Plan is for FY 2007-
2010.
Mr. Rooker said the Board has discussed having the plan in place by June of 2007. Mr. Tucker
commented that 2010 is the target date to have all those things in place, but some could be accomplished
before then.
In response to a question from Ms. Thomas about specific tributary strategies, Mr. Mark Graham
reported that it has been handled in a general fashion and the State has not required much on the non-
point source side. On the point source side - wastewater treatment plants - the State is looking at a fairly
impressive strategy for nutrient reduction through upgrades in those plants.
April 5, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
Mr. Rooker asked about the ratio of point source and non-point source pollutants that go
downstream. Ms. Allshouse replied that it varies from location to location. Mr. Graham noted that the
Upper James River is about two-third non-point source and one-third point source.
Mr. Rooker asked how the goals for the Chesapeake Bay Program could be achieved since the
State is so focused on the point source, and the non-point source regulations are loose and without funding.
He asked about $200.0 million in available funds for assisting localities with point source treatment, and
wondered if the County could possibly obtain money for the upgrade of the Moores Creek Treatment plant.
Mr. Tucker said the County does not know whether it will get any of those funds for the upgrade.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that the County definitely wants to participate.
Ms. Thomas said Mr. Tom Frederick, RWSA Executive Director, mentioned that the rate for water
might go up by $10 a year for the next 10 years to cover upgrades in sewage treatment plants. She
expressed her distress that it's going to take the County four years to achieve some of the things that have
been set as goals for water protection.
Mr. Graham said that most of the things being discussed are already underway or getting ready to
begin. It is just a matter of putting it all together and putting it down on paper, plus whatever additional
strategies staff comes up with in the process. He added that with riparian restoration, there is an existing
stream buffer program through the County's Water Protection Ordinance, and it could possibly be
enhanced.
Mr. Rooker asked if it would make sense to have a plan before component parts are implemented,
or if it makes sense to implement a number of component parts and hope they fit into the plan. Mr.
Graham said some critical parts must be addressed because of other mandates; there are things the
County wants to do in addition. He added that the final step is to look for where there are gaps and
overlaps and try to address them.
Mr. Rooker commented that it would be helpful to have an outline of the 10 items it ought to
include, to make it easier to evaluate how the issues are being addressed along the way so the Board
understands that the things being done will fit into the plan.
Mr. Wyant asked where the effort will be put knowing that two-thirds of the pollutants are in the
Upper James. Mr. Graham said there is a Federal mandate that must be responded to. An issue was
raised as to whether there should also be a countywide program focusing on the mandate. Directions given
to staff at that time were to start the program focusing on the mandate making sure staff has that under
control. Staff was to look at funding strategies while also looking at whether the County was interested in
expanding the mandate making it a countywide stormwater master plan.
Mr. Wyant asked what is being done to meet the mandates. Mr. Tom Foley, Assistant County
Executive, replied that a few years ago the Board funded a $370,000 increase to cover staffing positions
and development of plans for facilities in place. Mr. Graham noted that the County is just finishing the
second year of a five-year program. Everything is on track.
Mr. Rooker said there is a mechanism in place to gage what measures can be implemented that
have the greatest impact for the dollars spent, on downstream water.
Ms. Thomas said she has been to several meetings about what other localities are doing for their
own water protection measures. There is a real hunger for these kinds of educational programs, and she
would encourage the Board to think about it might want staff to do in another year.
Ms. Allshouse thanked the Board for their guidance.
(Action: The Board concurred that the water resources objectives and strategies would be
included in the draft FY 2007-2010 Strategic Plan.)
Agenda Item No. 18. Community Development Work Program, Work Session.
Ms. Lori Allshouse said staff wants to integrate the Board's strategic plan priorities into what
Community Development staff is doing. She reviewed the timeframe for future discussions, including the
public review period of the Strategic Plan.
Mr. Slutzky said the tone of the white paper includes a significant thread in support of the land use
tax structure as a means of protecting water resources. He is not sure he completely agrees with that
emphasis on the existing land use tax structure a way of doing that.
Mr. Rooker said that one of the strategies in the Rural Area Plan is to look at land use taxation, and
the white paper is not anything the Board is opting for or approving. Mr. Tucker responded that staff was to
bring that back and examine it.
Mr. Graham said staff has laid out a number of things in the work program that are worth exploring,
but the biggest items of concern relate to the Board's Strategic Plan. He said the first priority is for master
plans, which the Board has done on a case-by-case basis, rather than setting a schedule for
implementation of the remaining master plans. Looking at the Strategic Plan, he said, with a goal set for
April 5, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
completing that, staff wanted to go ahead and get something in front of the Board. There are really two
major components to master planning -development of the master plan, which is a lengthy process with
lots of public input, and the review, where there's consideration of the master plan by the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors. He added that staff recognizes there is a public demand to get
plans done as quickly as possible but there is only so much review that can be done at any given time. The
recommended order is finishing up one master plan before picking up the next - finishing up the Pantops
plan before picking up Rivanna Village plan next year, while still trying to finish the Places29 Master Plan.
He said that after Places29 is finished, staff would then pick up the Southern Urban Area Master Plan,
followed by plans for Development Areas 6 and 7 - the west side along the Route 250 Bypass. He stated
that with Places29, staff has assumed that Zoning Map Amendments would not be put on hold while that
master plan is undertaken.
Mr. Rooker asked if a separate plan will be done for the old Blue Ridge Hospital site. Mr. Graham
said that is being contemplated, but nothing is finalized, adding that they have expressed an interest in
bringing something forward.
Ms. Thomas said it would be nice to have a master planning process that allows for input from
surrounding communities and allows the Commission to look at a larger area than they often do when
considering a new development. She wondered if there are some pieces of the process that can be used
now for master planning.
Mr. Slutzky said transportation intersects the master planning for smaller areas. He is concerned
that there might be isolated units of master planning that don't relate well to each other. He thinks the most
effective approach would be to start with a more comprehensive transportation planning exercise before
there is a hodgepodge of internal coherence with no overarching coherence.
Mr. Rooker said part of the twenty-year road plan process is to create a long-term plan for
transportation in the area, which is something that is to be done every five years; the UNJAM process is a
regional transportation planning effort. He said the CHART-adopted projects are included and evaluated in
the master planning process for each master plan, which is required under Federal law. A lot of projects
are included in the twenty-year plan although they are not required by Federal law to be included. This is
done in order to get a better understanding of how the area wide transportation system is supposed to work.
Mr. Slutzky expressed concern that there is a profound lack of integration between the overall
transit strategies and the County's master planning efforts. He is nervous that the County will end up with
an outcome that is not satisfactory. He cited Places29 as an example of how transportation planning efforts
aren't meshing.
Mr. Boyd asked when the CHART plan will be up for review again.
Mr. Rooker replied that the process starts a year from now. It takes the committee two years to do
a new twenty-year road plan, emphasizing that CHART takes everything from the master planning process
as recommendations. The County influences that twenty-year road plan.
Ms. Thomas said if there is no coordination, it is the County's fault. Two members of this Board sit
on the MPO now.
Mr. Boyd asked if the thousands of homes being considered in the master planning process are
also being taken into consideration in transportation plans. Mr. Tucker responded that the density in the
Comprehensive Plan is considered.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that the twenty-year road plan attempts to anticipate the Comprehensive
Plan recommended densities, but the reality is there are not the funds needed to build all the projects.
Mr. Boyd asked if the proposed Southern Connector would solve problems associated with the
proposed Biscuit Run development.
Mr. Rooker replied that the only thing that would totally solve transportation problems is to
completely stop growth in the area, as most volume capacities on major roads today is over 1 :1.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the County is inviting growth to certain areas first - such as Crozet - versus
others by staggering the master planning. He asked if the advantage of integration is being lost. He is not
sure that taking these things in succession independent of transportation is in the long run smart.
Mr. Rooker responded that the County should undertake whatever process gives the best result.
Any suggestions for improvement should be considered seriously. He said that instead of raising questions,
the Board needs to come up with some solutions. It needs to integrate transportation into land use. He
added that Albemarle County is one of the few communities (with Places29 planning) that is doing what the
General Assembly is contemplating requiring be done on a statewide basis.
Mr. Slutzky commented that no proposals for Places29 acknowledge connectivity to Pantops,
although there has been discussion of such a connection.
Mr. Rooker said the County has funded the study for an Eastern Connector.
Mr. Slutzky said Places29 does not take that roadway into consideration.
Mr. Graham said based on what the Board did last year, staff amended what was being studied in
April 5, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
transportation for Places29 including all options, and how the North 29 area would be impacted depending
on where an Eastern Connector were built.
Mr. Rooker said if you are a Supervisor for an area and you see a flaw in the way something is
being looked at, you can raise the issue, even in the middle of the process, not at the end.
Mr. Slutzky said he met with Mayor Brown of Charlottesville to discuss how Places29 proposals
don't take into account regional planning, and that the Eastern Connector is not reflected in any of the
proposals. He is concerned that plans are not being integrated, and wondered if the County should take a
step back and look at how they should be connected.
Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. Slutzky feels the master planning process should be slowed down.
Mr. Slutzky said he is not necessarily advocating slowing it down, but said that if it is not slowed
down, it needs to be funded more aggressively. One possibility would be looking at the proffers from future
ZMAs and emphasizing the need for investment in the master planning process.
Mr. Tucker said the Board needs to consider whether they want the master planning and land use
planning to lead or drive transportation, or vice-versa. Staff is trying to integrate them. He mentioned that
there are improvements being considered in the Southern Urban Area, noting that the biggest problem has
been lack of funds for the projects.
Mr. Rooker reminded the Board that a report they heard this morning indicated the right-of-way for
the Meadow Creek Parkway would cost $4.0 million more than the previous estimate; the total Secondary
Road funds for the County this year is $3.7 million. He added that the Jarmans Gap Road improvements
have increased by $2.0 million just in right-of-way acquisition costs due to inflation.
Mr. Slutzky said if the County accepts proffers at a per unit amount, perhaps some of the
infrastructure costs could be offset through things like impact fees.
Mr. Rooker responded that if the County stopped growth in the County - except for by-right
development - that would likely push growth into the rural areas. He emphasized that the County does not
have state enabling authority for impact fees - statutory authority. He said the Board has to deal with the
hand it was dealt. He suggested having a session/meeting where this is all that is talked about. He said
everything the Board decides to do has some reaction on the other side, and it needs to be aware of that.
Mr. Slutzky agreed to a session that focused on how to maintain the current pace and have a
master planning exercise that effectively integrates transportation plans. He does not want to slow down
the master planning exercise and shut down growth in any way in the designated development areas,
because the outcome would be forcing growth into the rural areas. He just wants to make sure the plans
are integrated. Mr. Tucker said it might be helpful to have all transportation projects laid out so the Board
can see what is happening simultaneously.
Mr. Boyd said that is what he thought would happen with the transportation plan.
Mr. Rooker commented that all the CHART projects are on a map.
Ms. Thomas said it's idealistic to think that the County could master plan the detail of all
development areas.
Mr. Boyd said he sees no effective plan - even with Places29 - to deal with drive-time congestion
on Route 29, getting people from employment centers to living centers. There is not even a practical
solution to it.
Mr. Rooker responded that the origin/destination study for the Route 29 Bypass cost over $1.0
million.
Mr. Boyd said he was told it was $50,000.
Mr. Rooker said Albemarle contains the only eight-lane section of Route 29 in the state, and the
County is addressing drive-time on 29 corridors in several ways: by filling in the gap areas where it is not
eight lanes, parallel road plans, synchronization of traffic lights, etc. These are all included in the traffic
modeling (for Places29). He emphasized that the only way he knows to approach the need is to map out
what is wanted in transportation improvements and do the best to get it funded.
Mr. Slutzky said his bigger concern in how development activities will be oriented because of the
Berkmar Road parallel road, and the Free State Road side, along with the conversation about connection to
the Pantops area. He is concerned the County is moving down without clarity about transportation
strategies regionally, which would be helpful to the Places29 planning exercise.
Mr. Rooker said that there have been traffic studies done with Places29 to show what transportation
improvements and alternatives are needed. He asked Mr. Slutzky what he thinks should added; what is not
in there now? He said Mr. Slutzky is a member of the MPO, and he is a member of the Board of
Supervisors, so if there is something - a road, a connector - that he does not think is being looked at that
ought to be looked at - put it on the table.
Mr. Slutzky responded that when he met with Mayor Brown and Mr. Harrison Rue of the Planning
District Commission, they talked about how one of the three proposals includes using the "Ruckersville
April 5, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
Parkway" as a transit corridor. He predicted that there would likely be negative backlash surrounding that
idea. He added that none of the proposals take into account an Eastern Connector, and that would change
how the different neighborhoods are laid out relative to each other and relative to the rest of the growth
area. He asked why that does not show up.
Ms. Thomas said it is her understanding that the extension of Free State Road is in one of the
options (Alternative #2).
Mr. Graham suggested that he set up a meeting with Mayor Brown, Mr. Rue, representatives from
VDOT, and others who have been involved in transportation planning, and get the concerns on the table
prior to scheduling a work session for the Board to see if these people are comfortable with Places29 as it
is going forward. He is not sensing that the Board will be able to resolve the question on the remaining
master plans today.
Mr. Slutzky said he wouldn't want to represent to Mr. Rue that he is speaking on behalf of the
Board, unless the Board felt it was appropriate.
Mr. Rooker responded that the Ruckersville Parkway will never be built, as there is no money to
ever build a road of that kind. The project would probably cost $150.0 million at a minimum.
Board members agreed that the Ruckersville Parkway should not be included in the modeling for
Places29.
Mr. Boyd moved to direct staff to remove the Ruckersville Turnpike from consideration with the
land use alternatives for Places29. Mr. Slutzky seconded the motion, which passed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
Ms. Thomas noted that the location study proposed goes from Meadow Creek Parkway as
proposed at this time toward the east. The location that has been a County priority for years has been from
that point toward the west. She said Free State Road requires a bridge, and is a very expensive road,
adding that it was fought by representatives before.
Mr. Slutzky said the Free State Road version makes a big difference in how the northern end of the
growth area is made denser. It might influence how the growth area is organized in the eyes of the public.
He does not want to slow the process down, but he would like to accelerate the transportation component.
Mr. Rooker said the Board voted to put $250,000 toward a study for an Eastern Connector,
including a location study. As part of the study, there would be consideration of land use impacts,
environmental impacts, traffic impacts, cost evaluation, etc., and it would likely take a year to complete.
Mr. Graham said staff is looking for a consultant right now, adding that the projection for the
Eastern Connector puts it likely at Rio Road, Polo Grounds Road, or Proffit Road. He said the
transportation modeling tries to account for those options, but it is not being shown on the Places29
alternatives yet because no one knows the location of such a road. He added that if Pantops and Places29
are kept as they are, nothing will change staff's workload over the next year, but it will the following year.
Mr. Boyd said he thought the order of Zoning Text Amendments was going to be changed. Mr.
Graham responded that he had a recommendation to "flip them" primarily because of the Biscuit Run
proposal.
Mr. Dorrier asked why the County is waiting until FY 2007-08 for a regional water supply plan. Mr.
Tucker a lot of that is related to the regulators, and how quickly they will approve the plan. He noted that
the plan is being finalized and will be submitted this summer to the regulators.
Ms. Thomas said what she is saying about master planning is because the southern urban area is
getting a bigger project than most areas and it will have an impact in all directions. Mr. Graham responded
that staff is looking at it in all directions. He commented that there is a gray area between a land use
change and a master plan, because it is such a big plan (Biscuit Run).
Mr. Boyd asked if that developer has been asked to do traffic studies into the City of Charlottesville.
Mr. Graham said "yes."
Mr. Boyd asked if the developer could do even more in the way of studies.
Ms. Thomas commented that the County has no duty to rezone that land.
Mr. Rooker said the developer has held community meetings, and is doing a regional transportation
study. He added that there will also be a broad look at water resources. If a framework plan - which is
somewhat less than a full master plan - could take a broader look at the southern development area now
and provide a first step for the master planning process, it should be done. Mr. Tucker said that would
mean running a public process for three master plans at one time, which would be difficult.
Ms. Thomas commented that she does not really view what the developer is doing as master
April 5, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
planning, as there are pieces that are not being done.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that there should be caution exercised that the traffic plans are being done
with accuracy, to make sure all traffic impacts are taken into consideration. He asked whether there was a
public input process that could be integrated into consideration of this very large development. He asked if
a public information meeting could be scheduled before the Planning Commission meets to consider this
project. Mr. Foley said that setting up a public information meeting would be a very proactive step.
Mr. Rooker said he views this process as something similar to the Places29 process. Mr. Foley
said the difference is that there would not be master planning for the Southern Urban area right away, as
there is with some of the other plans.
Mr. Graham reported that in 2005, the Planning Staff brought the Rural Areas Plan forward with 12
key implementation strategies. Staff has captured all of those in their work plan except for Land Use
Taxation, which was left out. He said the other strategies have been laid out on the schedule, and asked if it
would be appropriate for staff to put the land use taxation issue in the schedule.
Mr. Rooker asked if anyone objected to putting it in the 2008-09 work plan.
Ms. Thomas replied that she felt it would be a good time to do it.
Mr. Rooker suggested that in 2008-09 the Board look at the remaining strategies and have the
Board set a prioritization with respect to what's left.
Mr. Wyant commented that people do not understand what options are available for their rural
land, and the information needs to reach property owners.
Mr. Graham reported that the first round of changes in the work plan has been made in the
Neighborhood Model Zoning Ordinance amendment. There are a number of areas in the Comprehensive
Plan that tie either directly or somewhat directly to the Strategic Plan, such as the Economic Development
plan. He reported that staff deliberately deferred the Proffer Policy earlier this year, adding that the Board
might want to consider it next year.
Ms. Thomas asked when a transit plan might come into play with the schedule. Mr. Graham
replied that staff could put it as a placeholder in the next fiscal year.
Mr. Rooker noted that the MPO is looking at the establishment of a regional transportation system -
working with the City and University - and is in the early stages of looking at how that might work. He
explained that in the past the University has not been interested, but recently agreed to participate.
Everyone wants to understand how the economics might work - including the increase in costs for the
existing transit service for next year. He said Williamsburg, the College of William & Mary, and James City
County are further along in the process of looking at regional transit, and one person working with them has
agreed to help with a plan for Charlottesville/Albemarle/UVA. He said this is a process that will take several
years.
Mr. Boyd asked about the Historic Resources survey covering both FY 2006-07 and FY 2007-08.
Mr. Graham said it cannot be completed in one year.
Mr. David Benish replied that FY 2006-07 is the completion of the Historic Resources Department
database, and FY 2007-08 marks committee Work beginning to do similar work as they did with country
stores - for churches and schools. It is a different type of survey.
Ms. Thomas commented that the department is currently surveying a particular type of school
building - built in the 1920's - which was a "cookie-cutter" model for schools.
Mr. Boyd asked about the Route 250 West Task Force, and why there were not committees for
other roads.
Ms. Thomas noted that when it was decided not to widen Route 250 West, the Board decided to
form an advisory committee so developments taking place along Route 250 would have some way of
getting citizen input, but VDOT doesn't pay attention to them. She added that the committee also questions
whether they should exist, as they are frustrated with VDOT.
(Note: With no further discussion of this item, at 3:53 p.m. the Board recessed and reconvened at
4:07 p.m.)
April 5, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
Agenda Item No. 19. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Wyant reported that the Crozet Advisory Committee met last week, and has agreed to set
regular meetings - the third Thursday of every month. He mentioned that there is no minority
representation on the Committee and asked if there should be another member added to the committee.
Mr. Rooker responded that if Mr. Wyant is aware of a good addition to the committee, he should
recommend him/her to be added, and everyone would likely be receptive to increasing the size.
Mr. Wyant said there was a meeting of business people in Crozet with about 15 to 20 people in
attendance. He heard a lot of complaints about bicyclists violating traffic laws, especially when they're
riding side-by-side. Mr. Tucker commented that it is not illegal to ride that way, but most riders try to stay in
a single line.
Mr. Wyant noted that it is dangerous when bicycles and farm equipment are sharing the road. The
Board members suggested that the Bicycle Committee develop a safety sheet to post along different
bicycle routes. Mr. Benish said he would forward this to Mr. Juan Wade.
Ms. Thomas reported that at the Planning District Commission meeting, there was an update on air
quality monitoring, and the DEQ specialist said that ozone and nitrogen dioxide are local so they want to
catch emissions by putting an air quality station five to ten miles downwind from Charlottesville on a public
site in the Southwest Mountains area; so far they have been unable to locate a site.
Ms. Thomas said the Mountain Overlay District Committee is having a six-hour meeting on Friday,
April 7, 2006, in the County Office Building and will be making recommendations to the Board soon. It is
something the community has worked on for a long time. But, there's more agreement now then there has
been in the past.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Board plans to respond to Colonel Chiu's (NGIC) offer to meet regarding
traffic issues.
Mr. Rooker asked staff to contact him to set up a meeting.
Mr. Boyd asked about moving forward on the plan for parking and walking trails on the Preddy
Creek property. Mr. Tucker said the trails are already developed, and there is an effort to get the four-
wheelers off of them. Mr. Pat Mullaney will provide the Board with an update.
Mr. Dorrier reported that the Lewis & Clark Exploratory Committee met at Sam Black's Tavern in
Greenwood, They have received grants totaling $100,000 from the Perry Foundation and another local
foundation. He noted that there were about 100 to 150 people at the event, adding that Mr. Coran
Capshaw moved the entire tavern to its current location.
Mr. Rooker said the MPO is in the process of attempting to finalize the FY 2006 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). A draft of that plan is on line at www.tjpdc.orq for anyone who wants to review
it.
Mr. Rooker asked for additional information on the recent collapse of part of the Juvenile &
Domestic Relations Court Building during construction, and wondered if it would affect the project cost and
schedule. Mr. Foley replied that structural engineers have come in to assess the damage.
Mr. Davis noted that there are several parties that could claim responsibility for what happened, and
they are all insured. Mr. Tucker added that the City is managing the project, and is keeping the County
informed of what's happening.
Agenda Item No. 20. At 4:26 p.m. the Board recessed and reconvened in Room 241 at 6:00 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 21. The meeting was called back to order at 6:02 p.m. by the Chairman, Mr.
Rooker.
Agenda Item No. 22. PUBLIC HEARING to receive comments on the Board's Recommended
Operating and Capital Budgets for FY 2006-2007. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily
Progress on March 26, 2006.)
Mr. Tucker said there were some changes identified at a recent Board work session, noting that
growth management strategies are directed by the County's Comprehensive Plan, which has focused since
April 5, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
1971 on directing growth into designated development areas while preserving the rural character and
natural resources of the County. He mentioned that the plan has yielded a 35 square-mile urban city-like
environment with 690 square miles of rural area to be protected and preserved.
Mr. Tucker said this financial plan is geared toward supporting the Board of Supervisors' vision for
the County through the Strategic Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. The goals for the rural areas are to
preserve agricultural and forestal lands and activities, protect water supplies, and conserve natural, scenic
and historic resources. In the urban areas, he said, the goals are to promote compact development rather
than sprawl, create self-sufficient mixed-use communities and provide for a full range of incomes and
housing types.
Mr. Tucker said there has been a shift in where the majority of residents are living over the past
eight to ten years, with an additional 14,500 people, or 53 percent% of the County's total population living in
designated development areas. Those areas have reached densities requiring the County to plan for and
invest in them in different ways, adding that this brings challenges and service pressures more similar to a
small city than a traditionally rural or suburban county. He said results from the Citizens Survey show that
the concept of focusing growth in designated urban areas to prevent sprawl and protect the rural character
of the County continues to be supported by a significant majority of County citizens. When asked to rank
the most important Strategic Planning priorities, he said, citizens indicated that rural area and resource
protection related goals all ranked in the top 10- protecting water supply and quality (99%), preserving
natural resources and open space (95%), preserving farmland and forest (93%),and more parks and
recreational space (91 %).
Mr. Tucker mentioned that citizens have provided guidance and input regarding quality urban areas
as well. According to residents of Albemarle County, infrastructure and services are keys to increasing the
likelihood of someone preferring to live in an urban area as opposed to a rural area. Some of the goals that
support the Board's vision as a community are offering a high quality of life while preserving natural
resources and visual beauty for future generations, maintaining property taxes at current levels, increasing
support provided to education and public safety. He emphasized that rural and natural resource protection
remain a priority, but there is significant investment needed to accomplish that. He said there remains an
emphasis on improved customer service by County staff.
Mr. Tucker reported that the operating budget is $259.8 million, which is an increase of $26.6
million, or 11.4 percent over the current fiscal year. He said that 62 percent, or $16.6 million of the increase
is allocated to the School System, which remains a high priority, and 14 percent or $3.8 million of the
increase goes to public safety initiatives, and $1.2 million is placed in the Board contingency for FY 2007-08
public safety needs. He added that the budget also provides for expanding eligibility requirements for tax
relief for elderly and disabled citizens. He mentioned that the Revenue-Sharing Agreement with the City of
Charlottesville totals $10.1 million next year, a four percent increase from the current year. There is $1.4
million in recurring funds as an ongoing commitment for the ACE program and CIP funding of two-cents on
the tax rate has been restored for various capital projects.
Mr. Tucker said the FY 2007 Capital Budget amounts to $39.0 million and is built on the current
real property tax rate of $0.74 cents per $100 value. He noted that the increase from his recommended
budget to the Board's proposed budget amounts to approximately $170,000, and under the administration
function there was a savings of about $45,000 because of a change in the vehicle decal program. There
have been some reductions in expenses for the Regional Jail, Juvenile Detention and the ECC budgets,
based on some revised estimates. There are some increases in funding provided to the Charlottesville-
Albemarle Rescue Squad and the Drug Court, and additional funding for the proposed northern fire/rescue
station for EMS staffing next year. There is a slight increase for Art-in-Place, and an additional Bright Stars
Program adding $154,000. There is also a small increase for "Save the Fireworks" and the Virginia Film
Festival.
Mr. Tucker reported that CIP changes from his recommended budget add about $390,000 to the
ACE program, with the equivalent of one cent of the County tax rate going for that program. He added that
there will also be an addition to the Capital Reserve of about $690,000.
Mr. Tucker said local revenue has increased based on revised reassessment figures of about $1.6
million for next year, and $1.29 million in capital projects recognizing a transfer from the Fund Balance.
The largest expenditure next year will be for School Division operations, at 47 percent, combined General
GovernmenUCapital Debt and School Capital Debt at 17 percent, and General Government funding at
about 23 percent of total budget expenditures. He summarized that the real property tax rate would remain
at the current level of $0.74 cents per $100 of assessed value. There is a significant investment needed to
meet the challenges in public safety, urbanization, education, rural area preservation, and
efficiency/customer services, along with anticipating fund reserves for future needs.
With no questions for staff, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Dennis Odinov addressed the Board, commenting that as early as fiscal year 2003, the budget
statement promised a strategy to ensure the implementation of completed neighborhood master plans. He
said $115,000 annually has been budgeted to accomplish this purpose, and unused funds have accrued to
the next year. He said that funding for master planning has basically been prioritized on an ad-hoc basis by
project, and again this year the County is starting the same process. He thinks there should be a
comprehensive approach to master planning, saying that if the strategic direction of master planning is
important enough to be a priority for four straight years, it should be directly linked to the budget, with
accountability and a sense of urgency. What the County seems to be doing is altering goals to meet
resources, instead of identifying what resources are needed to meet goals. He pointed out that these
April 5, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
planning funds have been spent but the planning initiatives have not been done - for Pantops, Rivanna
Village, etc. What needs to be done is calendarize spending for master planning by specific project given a
starting date, a finishing date, and going through the eight different phases of a master plan and identifying
how much is going to be spent each time. He has submitted a petition with almost 400 names asking that
master planning for the Village of Rivanna be in the early part of next fiscal year, not its latter part.
Mr. Joe Samuels, Vice-Chair of the ACE Committee, addressed the Board. He thanked the Board
on behalf of the committee for its support of the ACE program, particularly the increased funding in light of
rising real estate costs. He noted that ACE has been one of the most important aspects of achieving the
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Sue Friedman, Chair of the School Board, thanked the Supervisors for supporting Albemarle
schools as a "world class educational experience" by providing the resources for teachers, classrooms, and
equipment.
Mr. Todd Palmquist, Director of the Piedmont Workforce Network, addressed the Board. He said
the main purpose of his organization is to provide WIA programming to jobseekers and businesses in Area
Six - encompassing a 1 O-county area that includes Albemarle. Funding this year would enable them to
increase their services to area residents. He reported that for the 18-month period ending January 2006,
his group enrolled 427 new people, of which 147 were Albemarle County residents. During that same
period, they exited 266 people - of which 94 were county residents, and 43 left the program with
credentials, and another 65 left the program employed in a position that on the average increased their
salary by $3,500 per year.
Mr. Vito Cetta addressed the Board on behalf of the Albemarle Housing Committee. He said the
Housing Initiative Fund is presently funded at $250,000 annually, and the committee would like it to be
funded at $500,000. Last year they helped 22 families purchase houses. There is plenty of Federal money
for low-interest loans, but the weak link is down payment assistance. He said the average down payment
assistance last year was $37,000 - with half coming from the County and the other half coming from the
Federal government, totaling $820,000 last year in the County. He added that the Piedmont Housing
Alliance is able to handle many people, and their eventual goal is to help over 50 families.
Mr. Kevin Wood addressed the Board on behalf of the Piedmont Housing Alliance. He said there is
a need for more down payment assistance for the County Homebuyers' Assistance Program. He said that
starting in July, 2005 they placed $2.5 million in first mortgage moneys and another $714,000 of single-
family regional loan fund first mortgage funds. He noted that the down payment assistance was about
$400,000 from Albemarle County, and $419,000 in DHCD Home Funds. He said they projected the nine to
12-month figure as $1.0 million per year combined with down payment assistance, and for next year there is
only $250,000 each from the County and DHCD Funds.
Ms. Shelly Murphy, Director of Program Services for PHA, addressed the Board. She oversees the
Regional Home Ownership Center serving first-time homebuyers. Currently they have 93 active Albemarle
County clients in a database, with 43 of them within six months of purchasing homes. The PHA has to
compete for the first mortgage money from the State. They applied for $13.3 million for the region and got
$8.0 million. In response to Mr. Boyd's question, she explained that the $37,000 figure is an average, which
combines DHCD with local funds.
Mr. Boyd asked the maximum amount for down payment assistance. Ms. Murphy said it varies
based on median income, but $40,000 is the high end, adding that other sources come in and fill the gaps.
She added that the average cost for the homes they are helping clients with is about $180,000, noting that it
is not always easy to find homes in that price range.
Ms. Monica Periosami addressed the Board, speaking on behalf of Western Albemarle County
High School students in support of the proposed School Board budget. She said that as of January, 2006
the median house price was $449,000, with homes in the competitive market at about $326,000. She said
the salaries of teachers in Fluvanna County are similar to those in Albemarle, even though the cost-of-living
there is less. She said the Fluvanna Board of Supervisors is on the verge of passing a 5.5 percent raise for
teachers, putting them nearly even with Albemarle teachers with five years experience. She said that as
students, they care about their teachers and their salaries.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the hearing was closed. Mr. Rooker said the
Board would be voting to approve the budget at its meeting on April 12.
Agenda Item No. 23. PUBLIC HEARING on Proposed FY 2006 Tax Rates. (Notice of this public
hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on March 26, 2006.)
The public hearing was opened. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the hearing was
closed. Mr. Rooker said the Board would be voting to approve the tax rates at its meeting on April 12.
Approved by the Board
of County Supervisors
Date: 09/13/2006
Initials: EWe
April 5, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
Non Agenda. Mr. Davis reported that because of a scheduling situation with the Planning
Commission, there needs to be a special use permit public hearing before May 3 for the American Cancer
Society's Pink Ribbon Polo Event to be held at the King Vineyards.
Mr. Wyant moved to hold a Public Hearing on May 3, 2006, on SP-2006-03. Ms. Thomas
seconded the motion, which passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No 24. Adjourn. At 6:35 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board,
motion was offered by Mr. Wyant, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to adjourn this meeting until April 12, 2006, at
3:00 p.m.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
Chairman