2005-09-07
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
September 7,2005, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office Building, Mcintire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Dennis
S. Rooker, Ms. Sally H. Thomas and Mr. David C. Wyant.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Director of Community Development, Mark Graham; Director of Planning, V. Wayne Cilimberg, and Senior
Deputy Clerk, Debi Moyers.
Agenda Item No.1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Rooker.
Agenda Item No.2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No.3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No.4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public.
Mr. David Blount, T JPDC Legislative Liaison, addressed the Board, reported on the development of
the regional legislative program. He said that staff had already provided input, and asked Board members
to get additional comments to him over the next couple weeks. Mr. Blount explained that the program is
composed of action priority items for legislative consideration, such as transportation, education, CSA, and
land use, as well as areas of ongoing concern and locally requested items. He mentioned that he does not
see a lot of changes in the program this year, perhaps just some reprioritization and transportation being
the number one priority in the state this year, including its link to land use planning. Mr. Blount noted that it
is a "re-benchmarking" year for the state, requiring updating the SOQ at a cost of $1.2 billion. He pointed
out that the CSA was not addressed with any additional dollars last year, although there was a locally
initiated effort that helped gain a little bit of lost ground in administrative costs.
Mr. Blount reported that there is contemplation for a new "revenue-raising authority" related to real
estate property assessments and the car tax reimbursement issue, as well as opposition of cost-shifting to
localities. He stated that he tries to get a draft of the program done by late September, and is planning to
present it to the Board in October, with approval sought in November. Mr. Blount concluded by stating that
the legislative lunch would be held the Monday before Thanksgiving, and new offices shown at that time.
Ms. Thomas commented that there has not been anything in the legislative packet for Chesapeake
Bay cleanup funding, and suggested that Board members discuss how to request this funding.
Mr. Blount acknowledged that environmental issues have always been a "potpourri" on the
legislative agenda.
Mr. Charlie Trachta addressed the Board, as a resident of Woodbrook. He said that Albemarle
claims it is planning for the future through development, and asked why the development community is not
helping with the problems associated with growth, such as police and rescue as well as roads and schools.
He noted that Albemarle officials came up with the idea of placing Mallside, Rio Hill, and Squire Hill all in
the same area, ignoring citizen anxieties. Mr. Trachta stated that crime is up in Raintree, in Wood brook,
and in Carrsbrook. The residents do not feel safe, adding that some crimes are not being reported
because of how people perceive police response.
Mr. Trachta said that there is a "constant path of trash" along Berkmar, between the rear entrance
of Mallside/Rio Hill and the 7-11 store at the shopping center. He noted that in his first 10 years as a
resident, he had to call the police once to get a teenager to slow down driving; in the last year he has been
involved with the police three times - once because of panhandlers, once to get rid of a prostitute, and once
because five or six cars on his block were broken into. Their quality of life is under attack. He reported that
a 13-year-old girl was terrorized on the Woodbrook schoolyard, with males ranging from age 16 to mid 20's
coming to play basketball and leaving cigarette butts and trash behind. Mr. Trachta said that he had to
contact the police numerous times to get a response for the 13-year-old girl incident. He added that the
county needs to increase its police force.
Agenda Item No.5. Recognitions:
a. Digital County Survey.
Mr. Rooker recognized the county's web team, noting that Albemarle has been named among the
top ten most technologically advanced and cutting edge county governments in the U.S. by the Center for
Digital Government and National Association of Counties in their 2005 digital county survey. He said that
Albemarle is ranked 8th in the nation in utilizing information technology to deliver high-quality service to its
customers and citizens. Mr. Rooker reported that based on a category of populations of 150,000 or less,
Albemarle was one of only six Virginia jurisdictions in the top 10 for various population categories. It is a
pleasure to knowledge and showcase our nation's most digitally advanced county governments," said C.
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Robinette, Executive Director of the Center, in a written statement commending local governments for their
efforts to make life easier for citizens. Mr. Rooker noted that the county's website averages over 50,000
visits each month, and 600,000 file downloads each year, and has quickly become a valuable resource for
county residents and visitors.
Mr. Rooker noted that the county's web team is comprised of the webmaster, web content editor,
and departmental web editors. He commended the team for creating a top 10 website, and said he looked
forward to continued growth. Mr. Rooker presented Lee Catlin with a plaque of recognition for their
accomplishments.
Ms. Catlin stated that the award recognizes the work of the web team, noting that from 2003 to
2004, the county saw a 24 percent increase in page views per day, a 30 percent increase in visits per day,
and a 235 percent increase in file downloads. They expect that to keep growing exponentially. They are
bringing on web-enabled GIS, and web-enabled CityView this year, which are going to add tremendously to
the ability of the website to be able to do business with customers when and where they would like to do it.
She noted that there are people who spend much of their day making sure the website is up to date,
accurate, and responsive to users and their requests. Web team members stood up and were
acknowledged.
b. Family Support.
Mr. Rooker next recognized the Family Support Program. He stated that the Albemarle County
Department of Social Services Family Support Program has been awarded a 2005 achievement award
from the Virginia Association of Counties, which recognizes exemplary local government programs. He
noted that the VaCo achievement award is a competitive program open to all local government members of
the association. Held annually, Mr. Rooker said, it recognizes local government programs in nine
categories, with awards criteria including innovation, collaboration, and model practices. He noted that
Family Support was one of 10 local programs to receive recognition from VaCo, which received 43 entries
from 18 counties. Mr. Rooker mentioned that the program received recognition because of its collaborative
nature and its ability to be replicated by other counties. He said that the program focuses on preventive
measures that help families succeed so that they do not need mandatory social services such as foster
care later on.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that in its entry for the competition, Family Support described itself as "a
prevention and early intervention program that supports children's growth and development, strengthens
family alliances, and promotes school success through home, school, and community collaboration." He
mentioned that four of the program's workers are stationed in 11 of the county's 16 elementary schools,
with Walton Middle School added last year, and Burley Middle School added this year. Mr. Rooker said that
the Family Support program is a bridge between schools and families, and having consistent and motivated
staff members helps foster trust with both groups. He commended the Department of Social Services
managers and Family Support staff for creating and running a program with such broad and long-term
benefits to families in our community, and congratulated them on the recognition.
Ms. Roxanne White spoke, and thanked Kathy Ralston for her work to bring the program on board.
Ms. White said that VaCo recognized the values of innovation and stewardship, which are reflected in
Kathy's work and the overall program. She reported that the program has brought in $4.4 million in outside
money to fund the program, with a contribution of almost $700,000 in local funds, an 84 percent return on
investment. Ms. White thanked Family Support workers, noting that they have shown commitment to the
families despite pay cuts and job uncertainty. She also thanked the school leadership for fostering this
collaborative program, and the Board for their financial support from local funds. Ms.White recognized
Charity Haines, Program Director, and John Freeman, Social Services Director.
Mr. Freeman thanked everyone for the recognition, stating that he is very pleased this program can
be operated in the county. He said that the prevention and early intervention aspect of the program makes
it different from a lot of departments. Ms. Haines thanked the Board for their support, and asked the Family
Support program staff to stand. The staff was applauded.
Agenda Item No.6. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr.
Wyant to approve Items 6.1 (as noted) through 6.8 and Item 6.15, and to accept Items 6.9 through 6.16 for
information (Item 6.15 was approved as an action item). Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
Item 6.1. Approval of Minutes: September 1 and October 6, 2004; April 6, April 18(A) and April 21,
2005.
Mr. Rooker had read October 6,2004, Pages 1-20 (end @ Item #9) and found them to be in order
as presented.
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
Mr. Dorrier had read October 6,2004, Pages 40 (Item #15) - 60 (end @ Item #26) and found them
to be in order as presented.
Ms. Thomas had read October 6, 2004, pages 60 (Item #26) - end and found them to be in order
as presented.
Mr. Wyant had read September 1,2004, Pages 1 - 50, and April 21A, 2005 and found them to be
in order with a couple of typographical corrections.
By the recorded vote set out above, the minutes which had been read were approved. The
remaining minutes will be placed on the next agenda.
Item 6.2. Adopt Resolution requesting VDOT to designate Route 640 (Gilbert Station Road) from
Route 784 to Route 1094 (Ashleigh Way) as Rural Rustic Road.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, during the 2002 session of the General Assembly, legislation was passed to revise
S33.1-70.1 of the Code of Virginia, to allow for the improvement and hard surfacing of certain unpaved
roads deemed to qualify for and be designated a Rural Rustic Road; and
WHEREAS, such roads must be located in a low-density development area and have a
minimum of fifty (50) vehicles per day (vpd), and have no more than five hundred (500) vpd; and
WHEREAS, this Board is unaware of pending development that will significantly affect the
existing traffic on the road; and
WHEREAS, the citizens that utilize this road have been aware of this road being paved with
minimal improvements; and
WHEREAS, this Board believes Route 640 - Gilbert Station Road should be designated a
Rural Rustic Road, from Route 784 to Route 1094 (Ashleigh Way) a distance of approximately 0.65
miles owing to its qualifying characteristics; and
WHEREAS, the aforesaid road is in this Board's six-year plan for improvements to its
secondary system of state highways:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board hereby designates and requests VDOT's
Resident Engineer to concur in the aforesaid road as a Rural Rustic Road; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board requests that this road be hard surfaced and, to the
fullest extent prudent, be improved within the existing right of way and ditch-lines to preserve as much
as possible the adjacent trees, vegetation, side slopes, and rural rustic character along the road in their
current state; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the
Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Item 6.3. Revision to Personnel Policy - P-83 "Military Leave".
The Executive Summary states that the Human Resources Department, assisted by the County
Attorney's Office, has been reviewing the County's Personnel Policy Manual in order to update existing
policies in a number of areas. At this point, staff is proposing revisions to personnel policy P-83, Military
Leave.
Staff is proposing several changes to the County's military leave policy and procedures. First, staff
is proposing that the Board agree to extend the supplemental pay period from 9 to 24 months. Current
policy provides that an employee on active military duty may receive supplemental pay from the County
(supplementing the employee's military pay to the amount equal to the County salary in effect at the time
the employee begins military service, if the military pay is less) for up to 9 months. The proposed change
allows for this pay supplement for up to 24 months of active duty. The purpose behind this proposed
change is to ensure that employees called to military service are not penalized in the event that their military
pay is less than their County salary. In view of the increased length of military terms of duty related to the
Iraqi conflict, a number of localities have adopted similar supplemental pay policies in order to support and
assist employees who are called upon to serve in the military. The supplemental pay would be capped at a
maximum of two years in duration for each eligible employee.
Staff wishes to emphasize that the County is not required by state or federal law to continue to pay
employees called to military service (beyond the initial 15-day statutory period) or to supplement the military
pay received by such employees, but believes that in view of the length of service and sacrifices made by
members of the military and their families, the proposed policy is worthwhile and recommended. Finally,
the supplement would only apply in those situations where the military pay received by the employee is less
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
than the employee's County salary. If the military pay is equal to or greater than the employee's County
salary, no supplement would be paid.
The second proposed change involves the duration of health care coverage for employees who are
called to military service. The federal Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Act
(USERRA), which is the federal law governing employment rights of military service members, was recently
amended in important respects governing health care coverage. Under the previous version of the
USERRA, employees who were called to active duty had the option to extend coverage from their
employer-sponsored health care plan for up to 18 months under COBRA. The USERRA was amended to
increase available coverage to 24 months under a COBRA-like option. While federal law does not require
an employer to continue to contribute its share of the costs of coverage during this period, the County has
elected to do so for the 18 month period, as reflected in current policy. The proposed revision would
increase the 18 month period to 24 months of employer contribution. This policy change is motivated by
the same principles underlying the proposal to pay supplemental pay to employees serving in the military-
i.e., the County should continue to support its employees who are called upon to sacrifice during this period
and should ensure that, to the maximum extent possible, such employees and their families do not suffer
financially while they are away from County service in the military.
In the case of employees who voluntarily enlist in the armed forces, federal law provides that
reemployment rights exist for up to five (5) years while serving in the military. However, once the initial 15-
day paid leave period and any other applicable paid leave expire, an employee who has voluntarily enlisted
would be placed on unpaid leave and would not be entitled to receive any supplementary paid leave from
the County for the duration of military service.
The additional supplemental pay will have minimal fiscal impact for the County. We rarely are
required to supplement pay, as most employees on military leave earn more from the military than they
do from the County. In addition, the military provides the employees with health care so they rarely
choose to stay on the County's health plans during deployment. However, as most reservists are
deployed longer than the current 9 months we allow for supplemental pay, we recommend allowing the
supplement for their length of duty, up to 2 years, and recommend increasing the health contribution
limit up to the same 2 years. Although very few require either the supplemental payor the health care
contribution, when they do need them, it seems appropriate to offer it for the length of duty, up to 2
years.
Staff recommends adoption of the attached Resolution, which will approve the proposed changes
to Personnel Policy P-83.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy Manual has been adopted by the Board
of Supervisors; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds that an amendment to Personnel Policy P-83,
Military Leave, is appropriate to address benefits to County employees serving in the military.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, hereby amends the following section of the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy Manual:
By Amending:
Section P-83 Military Leave.
SP-83 MILITARY LEAVE
1. Military Leave with Pay - Upon presentation of a copy of final orders or other equivalent
notice, regular employee who is a member of an officially-recognized reserve or National Guard unit
shall be entitled to 15 work days of military leave for training purposes or active duty per federal fiscal
year (October 1 - September 30). During this 15-day period, the employee shall be considered on
military leave with pay and shall accordingly be paid his or her full gross salary for regularly scheduled
work hours during this period.
2. Advance Notice - An employee who is leaving to perform military service shall provide
advance written notice to his immediate supervisor (including the best approximation of the expected
dates of the leave), unless it would be unreasonable to provide notice at that time or he is precluded by
military necessity from providing notice. When available, employees shall provide a copy of their
military orders to their supervisor.
3. Military Leave without Pay for Reservist Called to Active Duty - An employee who is
called to active duty may be placed on military leave without pay when paid military leave under section
1 above is exhausted.
4. Voluntary Enlistment in the Uniformed Services of the United States - Employees who
voluntarily enlist in the uniformed services shall be placed on leave without pay for up to five (5) years
while serving in the uniformed services. The leave without pay shall commence after the 15-day
military leave with pay and any other applicable leave has been utilized.
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
5. Supplemental Pay - For all employees involuntary recalled to active military duty, the County,
after the expiration of 15 workdays of military leave with pay, shall supplement the employee's pay in
an amount necessary to bring the gross monthly salary, inclusive of the base military pay, to the gross
salary earned for regularly scheduled work hours at the time of recall to federally funded military duty.
An employee is entitled to receive a maximum total of two years of supplemental pay while employed
by the County. Employees who are receiving supplemental pay under this provision shall be
considered on military leave without pay for purposes of benefits under section 7 of this policy. Upon
exhaustion of supplemental pay, however, an employee may utilize accrued annual leave to cover
periods of military leave upon the request of the employee.
6. Reemployment - Any employee whose absence from employment with the County is
necessitated by reason of military service in the uniformed services shall be entitled to all
reemployment rights and benefits as set forth in the federal Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act and other applicable federal or state laws.
In accordance with the time frames and requirements established by federal law, employees shall
promptly return to employment after military service is completed. The period an individual has to
report back to work or notify the employer of his intent to return to work after military service shall be
based on time spent on military duty. For service of less than 31 days, the employee/service member
must return at the beginning of the next regularly scheduled work period on the first full day after
release from service, taking into account safe travel home plus an eight-hour rest period. For service
of more than 30 days but less than 181 days, the employee/service member must either return to work
or submit notice of intent to return to work within 14 days of release from service. For service of more
than 180 days, the employee/service member must either return to work or submit notice of intent to
return to work within 90 days of release from service.
Returning employees shall be required to provide documentation to the County from their respective
military commands that indicate a release from this period of active duty and that the service was
performed under honorable conditions.
7. Benefits - During military leave with pay, the employee will continue to accrue seniority, annual
leave, sick leave, life insurance and VRS contributions that may be applicable during regular
employment. Employees who are on military leave without pay (including employees who are receiving
supplemental pay under section 5 of this policy) will continue to accrue seniority but not annual leave,
sick leave, life insurance or VRS contributions.
During the period of active duty military service, an employee's health insurance coverage may
continue with no change in coverage from what the employee has during regular employment for a
period of up to 24 months.
An employee who is involuntarily recalled to active military service may request the County to pay the
employer portion of the applicable health care premium for the lesser of 24 months or the day after the
date on which the person fails to apply for or return to a position of employment with the County as
required by federal law. The employee shall continue to pay the remainder of the cost of employee
coverage and the cost of any dependent coverage. The County will assist the returning employee with
applying to VRS for retirement benefits that may have been earned while on active military duty.
Legal References:
Virginia Code S 44-93. Leaves of absence for employees of the
Commonwealth and political subdivisions.
38 U.S.C. SS 4301-4333. Employment and Reemployment Rights of
Members of the Uniformed Services.
Amended: August 4, 1993; July 3,2002; September 7,2005
Item 6.4. Resolution to Establish Policy for consideration of requests for Tax Exempt Status by
Designation.
The executive summary states that on August 3, 2005, the Board of Supervisors considered a
request by Martha Jefferson Hospital to designate its property as tax-exempt. In the discussion the Board
reaffirmed its policy previously adopted by Resolution on December 6, 1995 that provided that property of
qualifying entities should be granted tax-exempt status only if there are compelling circumstances to do so.
The Board requested that a Resolution be prepared to update and reaffirm the policy in light of the changes
in the law regarding how tax-exempt status can be granted.
On December 6, 1995, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution to
establish a policy against recommending to the General Assembly future tax exemptions by designation.
The rationale was that instead of permanently reducing the tax base by creating tax-exempt property,
qualifying non profits could participate in the annual budget process and be considered for annual
appropriations instead of paying no property taxes. That process provided greater accountability to the
County and the public by those non profits seeking public support instead of providing them perpetual tax
relief.
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
A state Constitutional amendment, effective January 1, 2003, shifted the authority for granting
property tax exemptions from the General Assembly to local governing bodies. On September 1, 2004,
pursuant to state law enacted to implement the Constitutional amendment, the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors adopted Albemarle County Code S 15-1601 and S15-1602.
Section 15-1601 readopted locally the property tax exemptions by classification that previously
existed under state law.
Section 15-1602 established the procedure for the Board to grant tax exemptions by special
designation pursuant to the requirements of Virginia Code S 58.1-3651, if it chooses to do so. Under
current state law and County ordinance, the Board has the discretion as to whether or not to consider a
request by a nonprofit to grant its property tax-exempt status by special designation. If the Board chooses to
process the request, it can be approved only by adoption of an ordinance. Before adopting the ordinance
the Board must hold a public hearing. The notice of the public hearing must include the assessed value of
the property subject to the request and the amount of taxes that would be exempted by the request. In
addition, the Board is required by state law to consider eight factors set forth in the Virginia Code relating to
the nonprofit applicant.
The proposed Resolution would reaffirm the Board's policy that property will be granted tax-exempt
status by designation only if there are compelling circumstances to do so. An ordinance will not be
considered unless the Board found that compelling circumstances exist. The Resolution encourages
qualifying entities seeking relief from property taxation to instead request County funding during the
County's annual budget process in which the County will consider all factors relating to the request so that a
fair and appropriate allocation of County funding, if available, can be determined on an annual basis.
This policy discourages permanently lowering the tax base by granting property perpetual tax-
exempt status and encourages qualifying entities to participate in the annual budget process so that
county funding can be appropriately allocated.
(Mr. Boyd stated that he is confused about this item. He asked if the Board is trying to reaffirm a
prior action. Mr. Tucker replied that the Board decided at their last meeting that staff should bring this back
to be reaffirmed.
Mr. Davis explained that in 1995, the Board had adopted a resolution, that basically established the
same position, but because the law had changed and the forum for granting tax-exempt status has
changed from the General Assembly to the Board of Supervisors, county staff recommended that the
Board update the resolution to reaffirm the policy that had previously been established. At that meeting, the
Board reaffirmed the policy in its discussion, and this documents that.
Mr. Boyd said it appears this resolution says in lieu of tax abatement for certain charitable
organizations, the county contributes to them out of its budget, noting that there must be some
organizations that get both.
Mr. Davis acknowledged that this could be the case. He said that the proposed policy states that
those who do not qualify by classification (automatic) should be considered in the budget process. There is
no prohibition to giving additional funds to someone who does have tax exempt status, but the preferred way
for you to be fair in your allocation of funding would be to have everyone participate under the same
process to evaluate the needs, evaluate the resources available, and then allocate them accordingly."
Mr. Rooker said that there are certain categories that are automatically exempt, carried over from
state law. He stated that he does not know if there are any organizations that are exempt and also receive
contributions, but it should be considered when they are making application.
Mr. Boyd expressed concern about how to deal with organizations that operate as both non-profit
and for-profit, such as Martha Jefferson Hospital.
Mr. Rooker recalled that Martha Jefferson was brought up because their hospital operations would
qualify as tax exempt, but they are not presently operating a hospital in the county even though they moved
their facility to a county site with the intent of opening a hospital. He acknowledged that MJH is a non-profit
organization, though. Mr. Davis confirmed their non-profit status.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that the distinction before was that the MJH activities were not hospital
under the definition, as the hospital operates in the city. He added that if they move the hospital to the
county that would change.
Mr. Tucker noted that the outpatient care done at Pantops does not quite meet the hospital
definition, and he suggested to the MJH president that they may want to get that definition changed under
state code.
Mr. Bowerman emphasized that the definition of hospital contemplates the differences.
Mr. Davis added that the only potential barrier for MJH is that under state law the facility be
exclusively used as a hospital, although they could still have a cafeteria or flower shop, etc., but if they have
a "substantial for-profit use" that is not a necessary component of the hospital, that could jeopardize at least
in part their tax-exempt status. He does not think that will be a problem [for them], but there is that
requirement.
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
Mr. Wyant noted that this is not adopting a policy it is just reaffirming the previously agreed-upon
policy. Mr. Davis agreed, adding that the resolution basically captures the Board's previous position.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution.
RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH
POLICY FOR CONSIDERATION OF REQUESTS FOR
TAX-EXEMPT STATUS BY DESIGNATION
WHEREAS, effective January 1, 2003, the Virginia Constitution provides that only local
governments can grant property tax-exempt status by designation; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County Code S 15-1602 was adopted to establish the procedure for
considering requests for tax-exempt status by designation pursuant to Virginia Code S 58.1-3651; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County Code S 15-1602 and applicable state law establish that the
Board of Supervisors has the discretion whether or not to consider and approve a request for itto grant
property tax-exempt status by special designation; and
WHEREAS, the number of requests to the Board of Supervisors for tax-exempt status is likely
to increase now that the authority to grant such status to qualifying entities is purely a local decision;
and
WHEREAS, many of the property owners that might qualify for tax-exempt status are already
subsidized by the County through donations granted by the County in its annually adopted budget; and
WHEREAS, to be fair and orderly in its treatment of all property owners that might qualify for
tax-exempt status and to fairly allocate limited tax dollars to those entities requesting tax relief or
seeking County funding, the Board of Supervisors prefers that such funding decisions be made as part
of the budget process rather than by grants of perpetual tax-exempt status.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County that
the Board shall not consider or adopt ordinances granting tax-exempt status by designation unless
there is found to be compelling circumstances to do so.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board encourages all qualifying entities seeking relief
from property taxation by requesting tax-exempt status to instead request County funding during the
County's annual budget process in which the County will consider all factors relating to the request so
that a fair and appropriate allocation of County funding, if available, can be determined on an annual
basis.
Item 6.5. Requested 2005 Appropriations.
The executive summary states that the Code of Virginia 915.2-2507 stipulates that any locality may
amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the current fiscal year as
shown in the currently adopted budget. However, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the
total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget or the sum of $500,000, whichever is lesser, must
be accomplished by first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the
budget. The Code section applies to all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School
Self-Sustaining, etc.
Staff recommends approval of the FY 2005 appropriations in the amount of $31,188.36 after the
public hearing, and then approval of Appropriations #2005065, #2005066, and #2005067. A detail
description of these appropriations follows.
Appropriation #2005065 $20.600.00
V.L. Murray Elementary School has received an anonymous donation in the amount of $600. This
donation will be used to support the miscellaneous classroom needs in the school.
Western Albemarle High School received an anonymous donation in the amount of $20,000. This
donation will be used for the WAHS baseball locker room facility.
Appropriation #2005066 $4.588.36
Each year AP exams are administered and the State reimburses individual schools a specific
amount for economically disadvantaged students. These fees have been paid by each school and the
State is reimbursing them.
The Albemarle County Public Schools Enhancing Education Through Technology (Ed Tech)
Subgrant for FY04/05 has been fully expended. There is a fund balance in the amount of $2,924.36. This
fund balance will be used to cover the additional cost incurred in FY04/05 to improve student academic
achievement through the use of technology in schools, providing funds for teacher training and curriculum
development.
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
Appropriation #2005067 $6.000.00
The Department of Social Services piloted the use of federal Title IV-E Prevention funds to support
100% of the Family Support Program and 60% of the Bright Stars Family Coordinator costs in the fall of
1999. Virginia was one of the few states that had not utilized this funding stream for prevention services
and the Commissioner at that time wanted to pursue the opportunity. Albemarle and Hampton were
chosen as the pilot sites. While complicated, the funding was steady and the state opened up the
opportunity for other local departments (as well as local governments and non-profits) encouraging their
participation in using this funding source for local prevention programs. The program began
reimbursement to localities for prevention programs for millions of dollars statewide. However in FY 2003
we began to see changes in policy interpretations from the federal Administration for Children and Families
(ACF) and we began to restrict eligibility based on these changes.
In May 2005 the state office informed local departments that ACF's official disallowance had grown
to $28.1 million. Virginia finally demanded that ACF either work in good faith toward resolution or allow
them to officially appeal their shifting policy interpretations. ACF officially changed their stance from a
deferral to a disallowance in May 2005. The Virginia Department of Social Services, with support from the
Secretary of HHS and the Governor's Office, officially appealed the ACF rulings and is now in litigation.
The Secretary has indicated that the state will do everything possible to support local governments in not
having to pay back claims already approved. Unfortunately, these appeals can take up to two years to
resolve and the County's outstanding anticipated federal reimbursement of $334,327.30 is stalled as a
result. In a worst case scenario, the final outcome of the appeal could result in disallowances back to the
beginning of the program in 1999. However, in February 2005 the state audited a sample set of cases in
Albemarle and issued a finding of 100% compliance with the new policies in those cases giving us
confidence that we have implemented the new procedures to the best of our ability.
Coupled with the news of the disallowance and appeal, the Family Support Program had an
additional shortfall of $173,703.15. Funds thought to have been budgeted as revenue for the Family
Support Program were instead budgeted as revenue in the General Fund.
In addition salaries in the Bright Stars Program were incorrectly budgeted by $6,000.00 due to a
change in the FY05 Teacher Pay Scale.
The recommended strategy for addressing these issues is to use $179,703.15 ($173,703.15 for
Family Support & $6,000 for Bright Stars) of the existing DSS local dollar savings from FY 2005 which was
$189,650, as well as $334,327.30 of the projected FY05 CSA fund balance. The remaining CSA fund
balance of approximately $90,000 will help to offset vendor increases in FY 2006 but could leave the fund
short depending on new versus exiting cases. It's important to point out, however, that the efforts of the
Family Support Program have been shown in the past to have a relationship with preventing foster care.
The recommended use of the CSA fund balance and the remaining local dollars in the social service
budget are therefore seen as an investment in that strategy. When and if federal revenues are reimbursed
from the FY 2003 and FY 2004 Title IV-E claims, those funds could be used to reimburse the General
Fund, the CSA fund or as a continued investment in the Family Support Program.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved FY 2005 Appropriations #2005065,
#2005066 and #2005067.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
APP#
DATE
BATCH#
2005065
EXPLANATION:
Various education programs and donations
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 9000 18100 181119 Donation J 2 20,000.00
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation J 2 600.00
1 9000 60302 800654 Locker Room/Shelter J 1 20,000.00
1 2215 66101 601300 Ed/Recreation Supplies J 1 600.00
9000 0501 Est. Revenue 20,000.00
9000 0701 Appropriation 20,000.00
2000 0501 Est. Revenue 600.00
2000 0701 Appropriation 600.00
TOTAL 41,200.00 20,600.00 20,600.00
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
APP#
DATE
BATCH#
2005066
EXPLANATION:
Various education programs
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 2000 24000 240285 AP Exams J 2 1,664.00
2 3131 51000 510100 Appror. Fund Balance J 2 2,924.36
1 2301 24000 580000 Miscellaneous J 1 572.00
1 2304 24000 580000 Miscellaneous J 1 780.00
1 2303 24000 580000 Miscellaneous J 1 52.00
1 2302 24000 580000 Miscellaneous J 1 260.00
1 3131 61311 160200 Stipends J 1 2,700.65
1 3131 61311 210000 FICA J 1 223.71
2000 0501 Est. Revenue 1,664.00
2000 0701 Appropriation 1,664.00
3131 0501 Est. Revenue 2,924.36
3131 0701 Appropriation 2,924.36
TOTAL 9,176.72 4,588.36 4,588.36
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
APP#
DATE
BATCH#
2005067
EXPLANATION:
Family Support Program and Bright Stars Funding
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1557 33000 330001 Federal Revenue J 2 (508,030.45)
2 1557 51000 512004 Trs. Fr. Gen'l Fund J 2 173,703.15
2 1557 51000 512050 Trs. Fr. CSA J 2 334,327.30
2 1553 51000 512004 Trs. Fr. Gen'l Fund J 2 6,000.00
2 1000 51000 510100 Gen'l Fund Balance J 2 179,703.15
2 1551 51000 510100 CSA Fund Balance J 2 334,327.30
1 1000 53013 930213 Trs. To Family Sup. J 1 173,703.15
1 1000 53013 930208 Trs. To Bright Starts J 1 6,000.00
1 1551 93010 930213 Trs. To Family Sup. J 1 334,327.30
1 1553 61150 112100 Bright Stars-Salaries J 1 6,000.00
1000 0501 Est. Revenue 179,703.15
1000 0701 Appropriation 179,703.15
1551 0501 Est. Revenue 334,327.30
1551 0701 Appropriation 334,327.30
1553 0501 Est. Revenue 6,000.00
1553 0701 Appropriation 6,000.00
TOTAL 1,040,060.90 520,030.45 520,030.45
Item 6.6. National Incident Management System (NIMS) Resolution.
The executive summary states that on February 28, 2003, President Bush issued Homeland
Security Presidential Directive-5 that directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop a National
Incident Management System. On March 1,2004 the Secretary issued The National Incident Manage-ment
System (NIMS). NIMS is a comprehensive national approach to incident management that provides all
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
levels of government with standard management processes, protocols and procedures that all emergency
personnel will follow in order to work effectively and efficiently together to prepare for, prevent, respond to
and recover from domestic incidents regardless of size or cause.
The proposed resolution formally recognizes the NIMS and adopts its principles and policies. The
adoption of this resolution is one of five Federal Fiscal Year 2005 compliance requirements we must
complete in order to qualify for Federal preparedness assistance in FFY 2006. All local governments and
state agencies must comply with these requirements by September 30, 2005. The four additional
requirements are:
1. Local governments must identify individuals who will be required to complete the web-
based NIMS Awareness Course: "National Incident Management System (NIMS), An
introduction" IS-700 and ensure those required complete it by September 30,2005.
2. Local governments must establish a baseline by determining which NIMS requirements
they already meet.
3. Local governments must establish a timeframe and develop a strategy for full NIMS
implementation by September 30, 2006.
4. Local governments must institutionalize the use of the Incident Command System (ICS)
across the entire response system.
Full compliance is not required to receive FFY 2005 grant funds. However, to receive FFY 2006
preparedness funding, applicants will need to certify as part of their FFY 2006 grant applications that they
have met FFY 2005 NIMS requirements. Beginning FFY 2007 (Oct. 1,2006), federal preparedness
assistance will be conditioned on full compliance with the NIMS. Full compliance has not been defined by
the NIMS Integration Center as of yet.
Police and Fire Rescue are familiar with this system as they have already received training on and
are using the system to a large degree. Additional measures to more fully implement the new
requirements will be underway over the coming months. Our Regional Emergency Operations Plan has
also been updated to indicate that our region has implemented the use of the NIMS.
There is no budget impact at this time. Training is provided free by the Virginia Department of
Emergency Management (VDEM).
Staff recommends that the Board approve the proposed resolution adopting the NIMS for
Albemarle County.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY RESOLUTION
FOR THE ADOPTION OF
THE NATIONAL INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
AT A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT 9:00 A.M., ON SEPTEMBER 7. 2005
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE NATIONAL INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IN
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia does hereby find as
follows:
WHEREAS, the President in Homeland Security Directive (HSPD)-5, directed the Secretary of
the Department of Homeland Security to develop and administer a National Incident Management
System (NIMS), which would provide a consistent nationwide approach for Federal, State, and local
governments to work together more effectively and efficiently to prevent, prepare for, respond to and
recover from domestic incidents, regardless of cause, size or complexity; and
WHEREAS, the collective input and guidance from all Federal, State, and local homeland
security partners has been, and will continue to be, vital to the development, effective implementation
and utilization of a comprehensive NIMS; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary and desirable that all Federal, State, and local emergency
agencies and personnel coordinate their efforts to effectively and efficiently provide the highest levels of
incident management; and
WHEREAS, to facilitate the most efficient and effective incident management it is critical that
Federal, State, and local organizations utilize standardized terminology, standardized organizational
structures, interoperable communications, consolidated action plans, unified command structures,
uniform personnel qualification standards, uniform standards for planning, training, and exercising,
comprehensive resource management, and designated incident facilities during emergencies or
disasters; and
WHEREAS, the NIMS standardized procedures for managing personnel, communications,
facilities and resources will improve the county's ability to utilize federal funding to enhance local
agency readiness, maintain first responder safety, and streamline incident management processes;
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
and
WHEREAS, the Incident Command System components of NIMS are already an integral part
of various county incident management activities, including current emergency management training
programs; and
WHEREAS, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks (9-11 Commission) recommended
adoption of a standardized Incident Command System;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY PROCLAIMED by the Board of Supervisors of the
County of Albemarle, Virginia that the National Incident Management System (NIMS) is established as
the County standard for incident management.
Item 6.7. Resolution to accept road(s) in Fontana Subdivision, Phase 1 and 2 into the Secondary
System of State Highways.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution.
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the ih
day of September 2005, adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Fontana Subdivision, Phases 1 and 2, described on the
attached Additions Form LA-5(A) dated September 7,2005, 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 Fontana Subdivision,
Phases 1 and 2, as described on the attached Additions Form LA-5(A) dated September 7,2005, 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 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) Fontana Drive (State Route 1765) from Route 20 to .12 mile east of Route 20, as
shown on plat recorded 07/28/1998 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed
Book 1729, page 315, with a 70-foot variable right-of-way width, for a length of 0.12 miles.
2) Fontana Drive (State Route 1765) from .12 mile east of Route 20 to the intersection
of Merano Lane (Route 1766), as shown on plat recorded 07/28/1998 in the office the Clerk of Circuit
Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1729, page 315, with a 50-foot variable right-of-way width, for
a length of 0.19 miles.
3) Fontana Drive (State Route 1765) from the intersection of Merano Lane (Route
1766) to the intersection of Appian Way (Route 1769), as shown on plat recorded 07/28/1998 in the
office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1729, page 315, with a 50-foot
right-of-way width, for a length of 0.08 miles.
4) Fontana Drive (State Route 1765) from the intersection of Appian Way (Route 1769)
to the intersection of Fontana Court (Route 1767), as shown on plat recorded 07/28/1998 in the office
the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1729, page 315, with a 50-foot right-of-
way width, for a length of 0.18 miles.
5) Fontana Court (State Route 1767) from the intersection of Fontana Drive (Route
1765) to the intersection of Capri Way (Route 1768), as shown on plat recorded 04/22/1999 in the
office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1808, page 138, with a 50-foot
right-of-way width, for a length of 0.18 miles.
6) Fontana Court (State Route 1767) from the intersection of Capri Way (Route 1768)
to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 04/22/1999 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 1808, page 138, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.13
miles.
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
7) Capri Way (State Route 1768) from the intersection of Fontana Court (Route 1767)
to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 04/28/1999 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 1809, page 473, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.06
miles.
8) Merano Lane (State Route 1766) from the intersection of Fontana Drive (Route
1765) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 07/28/1999 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 1729, page 315, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.05
miles.
9) Appian Way (State Route 1769) from the intersection of Fontana Drive (Route 1765)
to the intersection of Olympia Drive (Route 1770), as shown on plat recorded 04/17/2003 in the office
the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2455, page 551, with a 50-foot right-of-
way width, for a length of 0.17 miles.
10) Olympia Drive (State Route 1770) from the intersection of Appian Way (Route 1769)
to the east to end of state maintenance, as shown on plat recorded 03/20/2000 in the office the Clerk
of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1902, page 138, with a 50-foot right-of-way width,
for a length of 0.09 miles.
11) Olympia Drive (State Route 1770) from the intersection of Appian Way (Route 1769)
to the west to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 03/20/2000 in the office the Clerk of Circuit
Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1902, page 138, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length
of 0.09 miles.
Total Mileage - 1.21 miles
Item 6.8. Resolution to accept Gold Mine Lane (State Route 1808) in The Quarries Subdivision as
a Rural Addition into the Secondary System of State Highways.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution.
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 7th
day of September 2005. adopted the following:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Department of Transportation recommends that the road described in the
Board's resolution adopted on September 7, 2005 be added to the secondary system of state
highways as a no cost rural addition pursuant to S 33.1-229 and Commonwealth Transportation Board
policy, because the road meets current minimum standards, the condition of the existing hard surface
is serviceable, the road has provided continuous public service since its establishment in May 2004,
and currently serves the public use as a turnaround.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the following street be added to
the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to S33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Rural
Addition Policy of the Commonwealth Transportation Board of the Virginia Department of
Transportation as a no cost rural addition:
Name of Street: Gold Mine Lane (State Route 1808). Length: 0.12 miles.
From: Nelson County Line (Route 808.
To: cul-de-sac.
Guaranteed Right-of-Way Width: 50 feet.
Plat Recorded, Date: June 26. 2002. Book: 2219. Pages: 463-470.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as
described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage, and
BE IT FURTHER 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) Gold Mine Lane (State Route 1808) from the Nelson County line (Route 808) to the
cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 06/26/2002 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 2219, pages 463-470, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.12 miles.
Total Mileage - 0.12 miles
Item 6.9. Comprehensive Plan Five Year Work Plan, received for information.
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
Item 6.10. Copy of letter dated August 17, 2005 from Mr. John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning
Administration, to Mr. Peter Thomas, re: Official Determination of Development Rights and Parcels - Tax
Map 41, Parcel 50 (property of C. W. McNeely, III) - Section 10.3.1., received for information.
Item 6.11. Copy of letter dated August 17, 2005 from Mr. John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning
Administration, to Mr. Brian S. Ray, re: Official Determination of Development Rights and Parcels - Tax
Map 20, Parcel 34 (property of Clara Lindsay Estate and Katherine V. Banks c/o Tyrone Lindsay) - Section
10.3.1., received for information.
Item 6.12. Copy of letter dated August 17, 2005 from Mr. John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning
Administration, to Mr. Brian S. Ray, re: Official Determination of Development Rights and Parcels - Tax
Map 98, Parcels 12, 13 & 14 (property of Norwood H. Davis and Nicol Spain Butters Davis) - Section
10.3.1., received for information.
Item 6.13. Copy of letter dated August 18, 2005 from Mr. John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning
Administration, to Mr. Richard E. Carter, re: Official Determination of Development Rights and Parcels-
Tax Map 105, Parcel 48 (property of Buck Island LLC) - Section 10.3.1., received for information.
Item 6.14. VDOT Monthly Report for September, 2005, received as information.
Item 6.15. 2005 Second Quarter Building Report as prepared by the Community Development
Department, accepted and received as information.
During the second quarter of 2005, 187 building permits were issued for 187 dwelling units. In
addition, four permits were issued for mobile homes in existing parks at an average exchange value of
$2,500, for a total of $1 0,000.
Item 6.16. Copy of draft Planning Commission minutes for July 12 and July 19, 2005, received for
information.
Agenda Item NO.7. Board to Board Presentation, School Board Chairman.
Mr. Gordon Walker addressed the Board, introducing Dr. Pam Moran, Superintendent designee.
He explained that a new Superintendent would be hired by the first of December, and in order to receive
public comment on the qualities, characteristics, qualifications, etc., on the new position, the School Board
sent out 9,000 surveys through themail.and700werereturnedfromparents.Mr. Walker stated that they
also sought input from organizations with an interest in education. The School Board will take a summary
at their next meeting and insert those qualifications into the job application that will go out on September
9th. He noted that the deadline for filing applications is October 14th, and then interviews will go forward.
Mr. Walker mentioned that they have hired the Virginia School Board Association (VSBA) to work with
Albemarle, and a recruitment advertisement is being run nationally even though there are local well-
qualified candidates. He emphasized the importance of having someone who can work together well with
the County Executive, as Mr. Castner had.
Mr. Walker reported that school opening went off without a hitch, and there are 12,433 students
enrolled in Albemarle, coming within .2 percent of projections. The finalized enrollment figures would be
available on September 30th. Mr. Walker said that there are 164 buses out on the road each day, covering
11,000 miles, noting the impact of increased gasoline prices. He pointed out that all 25 schools met the
SOL standards, and all Albemarle schools have met the adequate yearly progress standard from "No Child
Life Behind". Mr. Walker reported that schools sent out a press release yesterday announcing that in all
high schools, the SAT scores are up, and Albemarle continues to exceed state and federal averages in
those schools.
Mr. Walker pointed out that there are SuperintendenUSchool Board priorities, which "chart a
course" for curriculum and budget development. He noted that there is a yellow card being used
throughout schools showing what school priorities are, as derived by the strategic planning process. Mr.
Walker stated that schools are trying to provide what help they can to the Greater Charlottesville Katrina
Relief Partnership, adding that some students from the gulf area have relocated to the Charlottesville area.
Mr. Boyd asked if the schools were anticipating a large influx of students from Katrina. Mr. Walker
replied that he does not know for certain.
Mr. Walker and Ms. Moran noted that the students are classified as homeless, and they would keep
the Board informed.
Mr. Walker reported that his division was asked to try to estimate the total cost of NCLB, and for the
school year 2002-03 it was $660,000 in non-reimbursable funds, with that cost rising to $1.7 million by
2006-07.
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
Mr. Rooker asked what funds are received from the federal government for NCLB. Mr. Walker
responded that the $1.7 would not be compensated for, as it is over and above what the federal
government would provide. He added that a lot of money was being spent already before NCLB to try to
close the achievement gap.
Mr. Walker reported that both boards would have a joint meeting on October 19th, and the county
school board would also meet with the city school board soon. Mr. Walker noted that the joint school board
meeting would focus on improving the health of students in schools and how to meet the governor's goals
for nutrition and exercise, as well as how to work better with at-risk students that move between the two
districts.
Mr. Dorrier asked for clarification as to what the achievement gap is. Mr. Walker replied that the
gap is where anyone population - such as white students - is doing better than another group - such as
African-American students. He said that the goal is to make sure that all students have the options
available for improvement, regardless of their ethnic background and social situation.
Agenda Item NO.8. Transportation Matters:
a. Route 250 West Task Force Request.
Mr. Kirk Train addressed the Board with a PowerPoint presentation.
While Mr. Train was setting up, Ms. Thomas noted that she was glad to see provisions for
servicemen including National Guard had been extended for those serving in Iraq.
Mr. Train said that he is an architect, and serves on the Route 250 West task force, as well as the
Scenic 250 task force. He reported that the groups sent in a letter recently requesting that the Board of
Supervisors take whatever action is necessary to have the Architectural Review Board begin review of
subdivision developments for their potential impact on significant landscape types and elements. Mr. Train
stated they are requesting this because 250 West and other like-designated roadways are "special
environments," scenic highways worth the retention of their inherent rural character. He said that they
would like for other scenic byways to be protected because of the requirement that the zoning law be
universally applied, but they are focusing specifically on Route 250. Mr. Train added that they would like for
a "fundamental loophole" in the ARB review process be closed with this request, with guidelines to be
developed for each specific corridor that will protect and enhance them as they continue to develop over
time. He said that existing ARB guidelines cover by review all forms of development except residential
subdivisions. Mr. Train said that there is no intention to ask for design review of individual homes, as that
would be a disaster. He stated that there should be some level of review of plans for their impact.
Mr. Rooker asked if there should be landscaping and setback requirements. Mr. Train responded
that the ARB addresses many developments through their visual impact and how that is mediated, noting
that a lot of that is landscaping. He added that there are a lot of traditional landscape components, such as
rolling terrain, exposed geologic formations, open agricultural fields, open grass and wildflower meadows,
hedgerows, groves of trees, forests, woodlands, grid patterns, woodlands, hedges, orchards, fences, and
views. These are things that you feel and what makes the road unique in their minds. He presented a
series of images that "pick on" a couple of developments that are generally negative in character contrasted
with views of routes that are rural. Mr. Train said that the Mechum/Highlands Development on Route 240 is
closed off with a wall that blocks the old view, and the backs of homes are so close to the road that you can
drive by at night and see what is on television. He showed a house on Route 240 that is appropriate,
whereby it is turned to the road as a face to a public right of way and approached in a traditional matter. Mr.
Train pointed out that Cory Farm also has backs of houses showing rather than fronts.
Mr. Boyd asked if he was proposing that homes have their driveways leading directly onto Routes
240 and 250. Mr. Train responded that the idea is to have the buildings address the road, as required on all
ARB requirements other than houses. He said that the design and planning can accommodate this. In
response to Mr. Wyant's question about hedgerows, Mr. Train replied that a row of pines is not a traditional
row, and commercial properties are required to have specific landscaping elements whereas homes are
not. He emphasized that seeing farms is an important element of the rural visual experience.
Mr. Train showed images of Fox Chase, with street trees, pointing out that all hedgerows that were
torn out to do a deceleration lane for this larger development. He said that a suburban landscaping was
used instead of the traditional rural landscaping, again with the backs of houses placed toward the road.
Mr. Train said that there was a study done with the Planning Department on Route 250 to
understand its characteristics and qualities, and his group is asking for the ARB to develop guidelines so
that citizens can at least review what's being planned in the context of rural protection.
Mr. Wyant asked if there is any way to simplify the process so that developers would know what
type of planting and landscaping was needed. Mr. Train replied that the guidelines would be published, and
a developer would know what the expectations would be.
Mr. Tucker said that Mr. Train is asking staff to take a look at how to move this process forward.
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
Mr. Rooker noted that there are issues related to size of development, enforcement, the legal
issues related to regulations for residential development, and how the Planning Commission would be
involved.
Mr. Wyant commented that he loves the country, but wants to make sure this process is simplified.
Mr. Train responded that he does not want to complicate the process. He would like the Board to adopt a
position to ask staff to study this further and move towards a position of closing the loophole to allow the
ARB to continue to review residential plans.
Mr. Boyd asked if it could be done at the staff level, rather than having the ARB have to deal with it.
He added that he does not want to add to the burden of a small businessperson to put up a subdivision.
Mr. Bowerman said that defining hedgerows would be helpful.
Ms. Thomas commented that something she read recently established that having a more scenic
drive can make people feel better about their commute than congested unattractive roadways. She noted
that the county has done a good job with commercial landscaping, so residential would also likely benefit.
Mr. Bowerman suggested moving this to the Planning Commission and getting their reaction, as
well as staff's.
Mr. Davis suggested that staff could bring back a Resolution of Intent that would initiate a formal
review to amend the entrance corridor regulations in the Zoning Ordinance, or ask staff to do some more
work, consult with the Planning Commission and bring back a Resolution of Intent after that to get more
definition as to what the Board may want to see happen. He emphasized that there are some important
threshold questions to be examined, such as what scale of development would have ARB review, but those
details need to be elaborated upon by staff.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the Planning Commission could pass the Resolution of Intent, and staff
would probably get some ARB input as well before taking it to the Commission. He added that the
Resolution of Intent would come back to the Board as usual.
Mr. Wyant asked if some issues surrounding this are zoning related. Mr. Cilimberg replied that
some zoning change would need to occur, and there are guidelines that need to be developed that the
Board would actually act on - not binding, but part of what the ARB uses in its review of projects. He
confirmed that the ordinance would need to be changed and all property owners along any included
corridor would need to be contacted.
Mr. Davis said that under the new advertising requirements, all property owners along the overlay
district would need to be contacted in writing.
Ms. Thomas suggested asking staff today to work with the Planning Commission and ARB to
develop a Resolution of Intent to move in that direction.
Mr. Boyd said that he would like to see more feedback before adopting a Resolution of Intent.
Ms. Thomas emphasized that she does not want staff to spend time on this unless at least half of
the Board members agree that this is something to be supported.
Mr. Dorrier pointed out the comprehensive nature of the details needed to carry this out.
Mr. Tucker said that once the Resolution of Intent starts, the rezoning, etc., starts. He suggested
that staff and the Commission and ARB do the groundwork, with the Board making the Resolution of Intent.
Mr. Cilimberg said that staff would work on presenting what would be needed in terms of zoning
changes and guidelines and bring it back to the Board.
b. Albemarle County's Priorities for Primary Road System Improvements.
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development, presented the following executive summary:
Albemarle County has the opportunity to provide VDOT with the County's priorities for improvements
to the primary road system at an annual public hearing on the Six Year Interstate, Primary and Urban System
Plan. Primary roads are those roads with route numbers below 600, including interstate highways (Route 6,
20,22,29,231,240,250 and 1-64), The County has maintained a priority list of improvements for a number of
years, and uses this list as the basis for each year's update. As of the date this report was written, VDOT had
not set a date for the public hearing but staff has been informed by VDOT that the hearing will likely take place
in late September or October. Last year's tele-conference public hearing was held on September 29th.
Staff has proposed several changes to this year's requested priority list, which can be found as
Attachment A. The proposed deletions are identified with a strikethrough and additions are in italics and bold.
The major changes proposed include:
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
Meadow Creek Parkway Phase I - An acknowledgement of the recent infusion of $27,000,000 for the
construction of the interchange has been included.
Crozet- Staff added more specific recommendations from the Crozet Master Plan for improvement which
would improve Route 240. The previous priority list only made a general reference that improvements should
be made in Crozet that benefit Route 240.
Fontaine Avenue - The prior reference to the recommendations of the Fontaine Avenue Task Force have
been deleted and replaced with the Southern Urban Area B Study recommendations. The Southern Urban
Area B Study was completed in August 2004. The recommendations of this Study are consistent with City
recommendation for Fontaine Avenue.
Route 20- The Town of Scottsville will be making a request to the Commonwealth Transportation Board to
improve the intersection of Route 20 with Warren Street and Hardware Street. The Town has also
requested that the County provide its support for these improvements. This project was originally planned
for development by VDOT in the 1970's, but the improvements were never completed. Improvements within
the Town are not required to be part of the County's priority list of projects and the Town has an equal
opportunity to make requests to the CTB for roads improvements as any other locality. In this draft, staff
has added a statement that recognizes the Town's desire for this improvement, but has not prioritized it
relative to other County projects. Adding this note is intended to identify the improvement request for
reference/information purposes and is not intended to prioritize the project relative to other County projects.
In addition to the normal narrative description of the County's project priorities (Attachment A), staff
has included a more abbreviated list of County priorities (Attachment B). This new list is intended to provide
a more user friendly "quick reference" of the County priority projects.
The County is providing its priorities for projects to be funded through the State's interstate, primary
and urban system funding. The impact on the budget will be determined after VDOT has identified the
projects it will fund in their Six Year Financial Plan.
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the attached recommended priorities for
primary road system improvements.
Mr. Benish said that the Board will also need to decide how to handle this year's presentation at the
State's public hearing. In the past, the Board has sent a representative to the public hearing to make a
presentation of the County's requests. Last year, due to time constraints, staff made this presentation.
Mr. Wyant commented that he thought there was enough funding in place for phase one of the
sidewalk project in Crozet, noting some inconsistencies in the report.
Mr. Benish replied that the county has funding, but not the full funding requested. He added that
the undergrounding of utilities could be at least $3.0 million, and the county has received two $150,000
grants towards the project.
Mr. Wyant pointed out the need for mass transit in the area. Ms. Thomas agreed, noting her
support for a "shopper's shuttle" when Albemarle Place is complete. Mr. Rooker suggested looking at
community shuttles for developing areas like Crozet.
Mr. Dorrier commented that there were plans in the 1970's to improve the intersection of Route 20
and Hardware Street where those roads come into a "v" into town. He has looked into getting safety funds,
and the chances of that are improved with revenue-sharing agreements. Mr. Benish responded that this
project would likely qualify, but the Town of Scottsville would need to work with VDOT on that.
Mr. Dorrier responded that Albemarle County's support would help. Mr. Rooker said that a specific
proposal would need to be brought forward first.
Mr. Cilimberg emphasized that at this point staff is trying to put together the list of projects that the
county would like to get funded through whatever sources are available from the state, and the Scottsville
example is much more specific. He thinks that is a later step, and he thinks what Mr. Rooker suggested
would come at a later point in time. He added that there is a much larger sum of money in the revenue
sharing pot, and an even greater amount requested. VDOT is not going to be able to fund all of the
requests as-is for the larger localities around the state.
Mr. Rooker stated that the county is looking at about $1 million, but the Town of Scottsville could
apply for revenue-sharing. Mr. Cilimberg said that staff would need to check on that, because they are in
the county's secondary system and not a separate entity for funding.
Mr. Rooker asked if that project would meet the requirements for another type of grant application.
Ms. Thomas suggested that Scottsville should keep in mind any proffers they can get also.
Mr. Wyant asked if Ivy Road improvements were part of the priority list. Mr. Cilimberg replied that
the Ivy Road study was done years ago, and that suggested a streetscaping kind of improvement rather
than four-laning, but with attention paid to the travelway to promote better traffic flow. He added that that
was done long before the North Grounds connector.
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
Ms. Thomas commented that using the terms multi-modal and transportation are appreciated by
the state, and perhaps staff might like to use those in this document, such as in their narrative on Places 29.
She pointed out several places where those words could be used. Ms. Thomas mentioned that the
widening of the portion of Route 20 North discussed funding for sidewalks and bike paths, but noted that
those have already been built.
Mr. Benish clarified that the lanes and sidewalks have been built on one side, and this is referring to
having them put on the other side.
Ms. Thomas asked about the restrictions on through-trucks. Mr. Boyd agreed that it should be
included. Mr. Benish agreed to put the request back in.
Mr. Boyd asked why Meadow Creek Parkway was listed after the Hillsdale Drive extension.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that the section on 29 North did not include Meadow Creek because it
focuses on Route 29 North itself and the immediate parallel roads, and Meadow Creek is a separate
section and is the county's first priority.
Mr. Benish said that the text was the basis for the list, and if it were interpreted literally it does imply
the Hillsdale extension is ranked higher than Meadow Creek.
Mr. Rooker suggested just making Meadow Creek Parkway Item "A."
Mr. Boyd asked if staff felt the language regarding federal funding might create problems. Mr.
Benish responded that staff would revise the language.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that the roads in the Southern Area B recommendations are not listed, and
wondered if that might need to be spelled out.
There being no further discussion, it was the consensus of the Board to support the
recommended priorities for primary road system improvements, as discussed:
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RE-ALLOCATION FOR THE
INTERSTATE, PRIMARY, AND URBAN SYSTEMS, AND FOR MASS TRANSIT
RECOMMENDED ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITIES SEPTEMBER 7. 2005
The following addresses Albemarle County's priorities for each allocation ofTEA-21 and each sub-allocation of
the Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds.
I. Surface Transportation ProQram (STP)
Standard Proiects:
The following projects, listed in priority order, are eligible for STP funds. The County supports these projects as
referenced.
Undertake those projects in the Charlottesville Albemarle Regional Transportation Study (CHART) - UnJam
2025 (adopted May 3, 2004) eligible for the primary program in the sequence as called for in the February 2,
1992 joint resolution between the City, County and University and agreed to by VDOT. These include:
A. Meadow Creek Parkway from the Route 250 Bypass to Rio Road. The Parkway is the County's
highest priority project after Route 29 North, and is of the utmost importance in order to maintain an
adequate level of service on Route 29 and to improve the overall roadway system serving the
urbanizing area north of the City. This project is being funded in the County's secondary program and
has been approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) as a low speed parkway in the
City of Charlottesville and the County. The County asks that this section be designed and built in accord
with the County's design and alignment recommendations developed with the assistance of an
independent consultant and endorsed by resolution of the County Board of Supervisors on June 20,
2001 (Attachment A) and approved by the CTB on December 18, 2001. This endorsed design and
alignment emphasizes the parkway corridor's potential as a linear park and its relationship to the
development of adjacent urban land. The linear park concept is intended to replace Mcintire Park land
lost due to the project and, at the same time, link Mcintire Park to the Rivanna Trails Foundation trail
along Meadow Creek and the County's urbanizing area along Rio Road.
Meadow Creek ParkwaylRoute 250 Bypass Interchange. The County also supports the construction
of the Meadow Creek Parkway interchange at the terminus of the Parkway with Route 250 in the City of
Charlottesville. This interchange is essential to the safe and acceptable future traffic operation of this
high volume intersection. The County is grateful for the $27,000,000 earmarked in the latest Federal
Transportation Bill for this interchange. It is recognized that this interchange project, and its funding, is a
separate but related project from the Meadow Creek Parkway mainline project.
Northern Free State Road (formerly Meadow Creek Parkway Phase II) is being funded in VDOT's Six
Year Secondary Road Plan for the county. The County is now studying the concepUalignment of this
road as part of the previously noted Places 29 Study.
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
B. Route 29 North. The U. S. Route 29 North corridor has been the focal point of interest, discussion and
debate in the Charlottesville area for many years. Numerous and varied transportation improvements
have been proposed and/or funded over the years. This highly urbanized area continues to grow and
transportation system improvement needs increase. The County, City, VDOT and the MPO have
completed Phase I and Phase II of the 29H250 (US 29 - Hydraulic - 250 Bypass Intersection) Study.
The County requests that VDOT plan for the funding of the 29H250 Phase II Option B design
recommendations, which emphasizes improving Rt. 29 to serve regional trips and changing the
character of Hydraulic Road between Rt. 29 and the Rt. 250 Bypass.
The County appreciates continued VDOT and Commonwealth Transportation Board support of
initiatives in the U. S. 29 North corridor. The County, in coordination with the MPO, is currently utilizing
VDOT, developer proffered and County general funds to study the concepUalignment of U. S. 29 North
as part of a larger transportation network study for the County's Northern Development Areas from the
City limits to the Greene County line. This study, a component of the County's Places 29 Study, will
include a comprehensive and integrated evaluation of both transportation and land use issues and
planning to establish a series of land use recommendations, transportation network improvements and
a multi-modal approaches that will support the Northern Development Areas and the Rt. 29 Corridor.
Other projects listed in CHART in the northern study area must be actively pursued and completed.
These projects include the Hillsdale Drive Extension Project and Berkmar Drive Extended
(recommended in CHART). Also, while funding has previously been dropped for Route 29
improvements north of the South Fork Rivanna River, transportation system improvements as identified
by the County in its Comprehensive Plan are imperative to this area. Specifically, the County requests
funding for a third lane north and southbound on Rt. 29 from the South Fork Rivanna River to north of
its intersection with Hollymead Drive. These improvements would tie into a third lane recently
constructed in each direction along Rt. 29 as part of major land development projects atthe Hollymead
Town Center. There are significant peaks and valleys in Rt. 29 through this area that create an existing
dangerous condition and this will only worsen as traffic increases as development occurs in this area in
accord with the Comprehensive Plan. This section of road already experiences a high level of vehicle
accidents, particularly in the area of Forest Lakes South. This new third lane section, and other road
improvements in the area, was funded by the developer through zoning proffers related to the project's
approval. Completion of this section would essentially complete the three phases of improvements to
Rt. 29 from Hydraulic Road to Airport Road that were originally programmed in the Six-Year Plan in
1988. These and other Comprehensive Plan transportation system recommendations envision future
development to be served by a transportation network that ultimately provides a complete system of
urban streets and supports walking and biking and comprehensively links all land uses.
C. Complete preliminary engineering and undertake the widening of Route 20 South from 1-64 to Mill
Creek Drive. Incorporate sidewalks and bike lane facilities into these improvements. This is a curvy
section of road in the County's Urban Area that serves the traffic from Monticello High School and has
experienced several accidents with fatalities in recent years.
D. The County supports the funding of the TransDominion Express and recommends that it
be seriously considered as a multi-modal means to address the issues and recommendations identified
in the multi-phased Route 29 Corridor Study.
E. There are three areas of emphasis the County requests be addressed on Route 250:
1. Improve Route 250 west from Emmet Street to the Route 29/250 Bypass. This section is
covered by the joint Ivv Road Desiqn Study conducted by the City, County and University of
Virginia and originally recognized for improvement in the Lewis Mountain
Neighborhood/University Heights (Area B) Study. The University of Virginia is currently
constructing a new basketball arena and parking facilities in this area that will likely create
additional traffic demands on Ivy Road. Any plans for the improvement ofthis section of Route
250 West need to be coordinated between the City, County and University.
2. The remaining portion of Rt. 250 West to Yancey Mills (the 1-64/250 interchange) was
studied by VDOT with a local advisory committee to determine long term needs for this road.
The Board of Supervisors has rejected the study recommendations completed in 2000 and,
passed a resolution supporting Route 250 West as a Scenic Virginia Byway with significant
historic, natural, and scenic qualities. The County instead recommends maintaining the
present two-lane configuration of the corridor with any short term or spot improvements being
as non-intrusive and consistent as possible with the special character of this scenic by-way.
3. VDOT has completed a similar study of Rt. 250 East from Free Bridge to the Fluvanna County
line. This study's findings have been presented to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
The County will consider the recommendations of this study as part of the Neighborhood
Planning process "Pantops Urban Area Neighborhood Master Plan." This study will focus on
creating a neighborhood plan that integrates land use and transportation planning to establish
land use recommendations, transportation network improvements and multimodal
approaches that will support neighborhood development.
F. Undertake improvements that will benefiUimprove Route 240 in Crozet in accord with
recommendations from the recently completed Crozet Master Plan.
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
. Implement sidewalk plan (per Downtown Sidewalk and Parking Study).
. Create bike lanes to and in downtown.
. Construct Eastern Avenue, to include the Lickinghole Bridge and a railroad crossing
. Construction of Main Street east from Crozet Avenue.
G. Undertake the widening of Route 20 North from north of Route 250 East to the Elks Drive/Fontana
Drive intersection. Incorporate sidewalks and bike lane facilities into the west side improvements. The
County has also listed these improvements under "Safety" priorities. To date, the County has
constructed sidewalks on the east side of Route 20 from Route 250 to Fontana Drive.
H. Undertake improvements recommended in the Southern Urban Area B Study recently completed in
coordination with the City of Charlottesville, County of Albemarle, and the University of Virginia. The
Study recommended for a road to be constructed between Fontaine Avenue and Sunset Avenue.
I. Recognize that mass transit can relieve traffic congestion and is an alternative to road construction,
particularly in more densely developed urban areas, and shift funds from road construction into mass
transit to accomplish this.
NOTE: The Town of Scottsville has requested that VDOT improve Route 20 (Valley Street) at the intersection
of both Warren Street and Hardware Street. VDOT had proposed these improvements in the 1970's,
butthe improvements were not completed. The improvements will enhance the safety of the traveling
public in the Town.
II. Safety Improvements:
Several projects in the County seem to qualify under this 10% set-aside. They are, in priority order:
J. Construct pedestrian walkways along various primary routes within the County's Urban Neighborhoods.
Absent the incorporation of such road walkways into full road widening/improvement projects, the
following road sections are priorities for pedestrian walkways: 1) Route 240 in "downtown" Crozet; 2)
Route 20 South from the City limits to Mill Creek Drive; 3) along Route 250 East in the Pantops area as
an extension to existing sidewalks; and 4) along Route 250 West from the City limits to the Farmington
entrance.
K. The County has placed a high priority on pedestrian improvements in the Crozet area. The County
chose Crozet as the first community to be master planned based on the County's adopted
Neighborhood Model. The County received TEA 21 funding in July 2004 for Phase I of the Crozet
Streetscape Plan and continues to seek additional funding to undertake needed improvements (see
Enhancement Project section).
L. Reconfigure intersection and install traffic signals at the intersection of Routes 22 and 250
M. Improvements to Route 250 West along the corridor in Ivy to address existing and short-term traffic
circulation problems, including access to developed properties in this area. Of particular concern is the
Tillman Road intersection (Route 676), which serves school bus traffic and has poor sight distance.
These improvements should be undertaken in accordance with recommendations approved by the
Board of Supervisors in the Route 250 West Corridor Study.
N. Improvements to the Route 240 underpass at the CSX Railroad tracks in Crozet.
O. Functional plans, including an analysis of possible safety improvements, for Routes 22 and 231. The
County remains concerned with overall public safety as it relates to traffic created by large trucks along
these road segments, and encourages VDOT to consider all appropriate measures to ensure that
trucks travel safely along these roadways in the future. The County has repeatedly requested VDOT to
restrict through trucks on Route 22 and Route 231.
III. Enhancement Proiects:
This is a valuable funding source for which several projects appear to be eligible. Unfortunately
funding for new projects is not available this year. The County urges that funds be made available for
new pedestrian and bicycling projects. For the County, new projects, in priority order, are:
P. Pedestrian streetscape improvements in downtown Crozet. These streetscape improvements, which
were included in an Enhancement Grant submitted in January 2002, June 2003 and October 2004,
include the relocation and burial of overhead utility wires, and construction of historically compatible
sidewalks. The County received TEA 21 funding in July 2004 for Phase I and July 2005 for Phase II of
the Crozet Streetscape Plan.
Q. Beautification of entrance corridors (particularly Route 20, 29 and Route 250).
R. Construction of bikeway, pedestrian, and greenway facilities as prioritized in the Jefferson Area Bicycle,
Pedestrian, and Greenways Plan.
S. Development of portions of the Rivanna River Greenway path system.
T. Removal of non-conforming billboards.
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
National HiQhwav System (NHS)
The Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Policy Board approved the NHS as proposed by VDOT in this area
excluding the Route 29 Bypass. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has approved the NHS, which
includes the existing Route 29, and the Route 29 Bypass. The County believes any projects that are included
in the NHS should reflect the recommendations that result from the previously referenced transportation
improvement study of the Route 29 North corridor area.
ConQestion MitiQation and Air Qualitv Improvement ProQram
This does not apply to Albemarle County. The County is not in an area of non-attainment for ozone or carbon
monoxide.
Six Year Primary Plan Priority List By Categories
STP Projects
Undertake projects in CHART -UNJam 2025 (adopted May 3, 2004)
A. Construct Meadow Creek Parkway from Route 250 Bypass to Rio Road, including interchange
at the Route 250 Bypass.
B. Improvements to Route 29 North Corridor:
1) Funding of29H250 Phase II, Option B design recommendations; which emphasizes
improving Rt. 29 to serve regional trips and changing the character of Hydraulic Road
between Rt. 29 and Rt. 250 Bypass;
2) Berkmar Drive extension;
3) Hillsdale Drive extension;
4) Widening improvements to Route 29 North (3rd lane, from S.F. Rivanna River);
C. Widening of Route 20 south (from 1-64 to Mill Creek Drive), including bike lanes and
sidewalks.
D. Funding of the TransDominion Express.
E. Improvements to Route 250:
1) Improve Route 250 West from Emmet Street to the Route 29/250 Bypass;
2) Maintain current two-lane road configuration from the Bypass to Yancey Mills,
reflective it character as a Scenic Virginia Byway;
3) Spot improvements to intersections in Ivy at Routes 678 and 637
F. Improve Route 240 in accord with the recommendations of the Crozet Master Plan.
G. Widen Route 20 North, from Route 250 to Elks Drive/Fontaine Drive intersection, including
bike lanes and sidewalks.
H. Improve Fontaine Avenue consistent from Jefferson Park Avenue to its terminus consistent
with recommendations identified by the Fontaine Avenue Task Force.
The Study recommended for a road to be constructed between Fontaine Avenue and Sunset
Avenue.
I. Recognize mass transit as it can relieve traffic congestion and as an alternative to road
construction and shift funds from road construction to mass transit to accomplish this.
Note: The Town of Scottsville has requested that the intersections of Route 20 (Valley Street) with
both Warren Street and Hardware Street be improved.
II. Safety Improvements
J. Construction of pedestrian walkways along various routes in the County Urban Areas
K. Pedestrian improvements in Crozet
L. Reconfigure intersection and install traffic signals at intersection of Rt. 22 at Rt. 250
M. Improvements to Route 250 West in the Ivy area
N. Improvements to Rt. 240 underpass at CSX RR in Crozet
O. Functional plan for the Route 22/231 corridor
III. Enhancement Projects
P. Pedestrian Streetscape improvements in downtown Crozet
Q. Beautification of entrance corridors
R. Construction of Bikeway, pedestrian, and greenway improvements as prioritized in the
Jefferson Area Bicycle, Pedestrian and Greenways Plan and the County's Comprehensive
Plan
S. Development of portions of the Rivanna River Greenway path system.
T. Removal of non-conforming billboards.
National Highway System (NHS)
V. The Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Policy Board approved the NHS as proposed by VDOT in
this area excluding the Route 29 Bypass.
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
c. Other Transportation Matters.
Mr. Utterback said that there was a request at the last Board meeting to accelerate the Jarman's
Gap project, and he has had a number of discussions to try to get this to public hearing. He noted that he
would like to get the entire project to public hearing by next spring, and then see where things stand. Mr.
Utterback said that the engineers are looking at hydraulics and design aspects, and the plan may be broken
into two projects.
He mentioned that he has been trying to move the Georgetown Road project more quickly, and
said that the central office VDOT staff would be designing the road, with scoping later in September. In
response to Mr. Rooker's question about whom the designer was, Mr. Utterback described him and his staff
as "pretty capable." Mr. Utterback agreed to make Mr. Rooker aware of the initial scoping meeting when it
is scheduled so that he could attend.
Mr. Utterback mentioned that he has not received any update on the Route 29 South speed limit
issue.
He said that the first portion of the rustic road project for Route 640 has been done, and some of
the crews are working on the last one-half mile.
Mr. Wyant thanked Mr. Utterback for the recent line-painting in the county.
Mr. Utterback reported that there were "contractual issues" with the line-painter, but those have
been resolved and projects are being caught up.
Mr. Wyant commented that the white lines on Garth Road on the edges are helpful. He said that
the Millington Bridge in White Hall has a few "bad ruts," and needs some patchwork.
Mr. Wyant also asked about the deer carcass removal process. Mr. Utterback replied that staff
responds as people bring them to their attention.
Ms. Thomas said that there should be some discussion in the future about Johnson grass, as she
mentioned in her email to Mr. Utterback.
Mr. Rooker said that several people have commented on the poor grounds maintenance on the
ramp entrance off the 250 bypass on Ivy Road, noting that that is a major entry into the community. He also
suggested that "Children at Play" signs should be put up in the neighborhood on Solomon Road.
Ms. Thomas said that the Board did adopt standards for those signs.
Mr. Rooker suggested getting some written guidelines from staff.
Mr. Tucker said that Juan Wade would look at that and bring it back to the Board in October.
Mr. Rooker said that there are still a lot of sidewalk grass-growth problems on Hydraulic Road, and
that can cause sidewalks to break apart. He suggested that the county could do the spraying.
Mr. Utterback said that he asked that they be cut, and once they are cut they have to come up a bit
before they are sprayed. He agreed to check with his staff and get back to the county.
Mr. Boyd said that the VDOT monthly report states lower speed limit signs were to be put up on
Rocky Hollow Road, and he recalled that that was not going to be done.
Mr. Utterback replied that the lower speed limit applies to the curve.
(Note: At 11 :00 a.m., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 11 :15 a.m.).
Agenda Item NO.9. Center for Survey Research's "Priority Analysis" of Albemarle County's 2004
Citizen Survey Report, Tom Guterbock.
Mr. Thomas Guterbock, Director the Center for Public Service, addressed the Board. He
recognized Peggy Lijuan Wang for her statistical analysis done as part of the report. He said that this
presentation is a re-analysis of the data from the 2004 citizen satisfaction survey, and the report is meant to
show what the fundamental drivers are that makes people in the county satisfied and dissatisfied with
government.
Mr. Guterbock said that the goals of the initial survey were to measure quality of life in Albemarle,
ask people if the county was achieving strategic planning goals, measure level satisfaction with a variety of
services, and assess perceptions of managing growth. Mr. Guterbock said that the analysis also compared
the county's performance to the study done two years ago. He noted that the phone survey was done in
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
June 2004 using random-digit dialing of 707 residents across the county, and the survey had a margin of
error of +/- of 3.7 percent.
Mr. Guterbock said that the county did very well in the quality of life rating, with a 7.9 average rating,
with the largest number of people giving it an 8 on a 1-10 scale. Regarding meeting strategic planning
goals and the county's four strategic directions - educational opportunities, natural and scenic and historic
resources, enhancing quality of life, and providing effective and efficient service - citizens were most
satisfied in efforts to keep the county safe and learning opportunities, and generally pleased with the
responsive and courteous service from county staff. He reported that only 48 percent were satisfied with
the county's effort to promote the development of affordable places to live, and protecting the county's rural
character and provision of infrastructure needed for quality of life including roads and water also were rated
lower. Mr. Guterbock said that 90 percent indicated they were "somewhat satisfied" or "very satisfied" with
county services overall. He summarized by saying that items relating to public safety ranked higher, and
items related to growth management ranked lower.
Mr. Guterbock explained the clustering of related items in the evaluation process, citing the
dependent variables as "rating of the quality of life in Albemarle overall," "satisfaction with services in
general," "satisfaction with the value received for tax dollars," and "satisfaction with the county's ability to
provide services, for a high quality of life, facilities for a high quality of life, and infrastructure for a high
quality of life." He explained that other satisfaction items were grouped into closely related clusters in 12
different areas, with scores given for how the county is doing in each. Mr. Guterbock said that in the
handout table, the 12 factors are shown with levels of satisfaction, with learning opportunities, public safety,
contact with county employees, and quality of education, and public facilities ranking the highest. In the
middle range, he said, were services for elderly and disadvantaged children, information and participation,
and growth in urban areas. The lowest rated areas, he noted, were development and resource protection,
fairness of property tax assessments, transportation, and housing/job opportunities.
Mr. Guterbock noted that the next step was to determine what the "satisfaction drivers are,"
understanding that the county already has in place processes for identifying what's important. He said that
citizen input at meetings, the election process, the strategic planning process, and existing views all drive
satisfaction.
Mr. Guterbock explained that what is most important or predictive of satisfaction is called "leverage
analysis."
Mr. Dorrier asked if how the question is asked or worded can impact response. Mr. Guterbock
replied that that is true of any survey, as they are "limits of measurement." He stated that grouping multiple
items is helpful in resolving that.
He explained that the derived importance calculation makes several items rise to the top - growth
and resource protection - the area that is most closely related to how satisfied people are with government
overall. He said that safety is a close second, and information and participation are also important in
determining satisfaction. Mr. Guterbock said that concern over fair property tax assessments also seems to
be very important.
Mr. Rooker asked if that question is really about tax rates, or about the assessment process.
Everybody always wants lower taxes. Mr. Guterbock said that this is probably a perception issue, with
people getting assessments that surprise them.
Mr. Boyd emphasized that "property taxes" means one thing whereas "real estate assessments"
means another.
Mr. Guterbock reiterated that the question was "How satisfied are you with the county's efforts to
provide fair property tax assessments." He added that there was a separate question about how satisfied
people are with the value you get for your tax dollar.
Mr. Guterbock said that there are four items for ranking in the middle - public facilities, contact with
county employees, services for the elderly, and quality of education. He emphasized that many households
do not have children, so that influences how important education is to those polled.
Mr. Guterbock said that housing and job opportunities, and transportation do not play in heavily to
how satisfied respondents are overall with the government. He explained that the transportation issues are
probably perceived as being the fault of the state and not local government.
Mr. Guterbock presented a two-dimensional grid that forms a matrix of opinion with "how important
things are" at the top, with things of high importance to the left and things of low importance to the right. He
noted that if the dissatisfaction items were brought up, it would have a great impact on the overall score.
Mr. Rooker commented that the items are relative to each other, but are not relative to any norm,
and asked if there was any comparison of the satisfaction level in each category with a norm.
Mr. Boyd said that they are using means, though, to determine scores.
Mr. Guterbock emphasized that there are great differences in the level of satisfaction on several
items, such as protection of resources, and learning opportunities.
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
Mr. Bowerman said if you want to influence the way our citizens feel about us, you want to do the
thing that is most effective, you deal with growth and resource protection. Mr. Boyd added, "and fair
property assessments."
Mr. Dorrier asked if underemployment was brought up under the job opportunities question.
Mr. Guterbock responded that there was one question that asked about high-paying jobs, but that
issue was not addressed in detail. He added that that might have played into job satisfaction, and people
who are not "well off" in the county are interested in seeing expanding job opportunities.
Mr. Guterbock noted that the multiple regression technique used in the analysis has all the
variables "push to see who gets to the front of the line."
Mr. Rooker said that with growth and resource protection lumped together, people want the county
to do a better job protecting resources. Mr. Guterbock responded that open space, historic buildings,
environment, the rural character, protecting natural resources, and protection of water resources are all in
th at list.
Mr. Rooker clarified that resource protection is the single category that was the most important to
people. He added that it's hard to tell from this survey how people feel about growth because it is lumped
in with resource protection.
Mr. Guterbock emphasized that the vast majority of people who expressed dissatisfaction with the
growth rate are doing so because they feel the growth rate is too fast, noting that other surveys in the county
have indicated this. The results are so one-sided that they just did not take the time to ask it again. There
are many things they do not know, but that is one thing he does know.
Mr. Boyd pointed out that it wouldn't be logical for people to answer they want less protection of
resources and more growth.
Mr. Guterbock said that in 2002, his team did a survey to ask the county how to rank strategic
planning goals. They do not think everything is important. He added that that is only done parallel to the
Strategic Plan revisions.
Mr. Dorrier asked for clarification on the growth and resource protection being put in the "hotbox" as
something the county can do something about while growth in urban areas are ranked in the low category
on the right-hand side.
Mr. Guterbock replied that the growth in urban areas question asks whether citizens favor or
oppose the county's policy of directing growth into certain restricted urban areas, or growth areas. He noted
that if you ask that of residents in Crozet, they are probably not in favor of that growth.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that most citizens do not want more people coming in, and perhaps the
question should be "where would you prefer to see the growth take place."
Mr. Guterbock thanked the Board, and the Board thanked him for his "very informative"
presentation.
Agenda Item NO.1 O. Volunteer Fire Rescue Building Maintenance Funding.
Mr. Dan Eggleston, Director of Fire/Rescue, addressed the Board, presenting a recommended
policy for handling building, maintenance, and renovation requests from volunteer fire & rescue stations.
He said that staff has been working with the volunteer advisory board to develop a funding mechanism for
fire & rescue stations. Mr. Eggleston said that the purpose of this was to help volunteers with funding
initiatives so that they can then focus their efforts on training and responding to calls. He stated that the
result of that was to fund the basic operating expenses of a volunteer station, and move the replacement of
volunteer apparatus to the county CIP. Mr. Eggleston said that this is the first year the county has funded
the basic operating costs and apparatus, adding that station members still want to fundraise for renovation
and building repairs.
Mr. Eggleston reported that the Stony Point Volunteer Fire Department came forward with a
request of $350,000 in building maintenance, repairs and renovations to their existing building, and request
that was brought to the Board. As a result, staff needed to develop a mechanism to deal with situations like
this, understanding that there may be situations were a station is unable to meet their maintenance
expenses. Mr. Eggleston noted that what is before the Board is the "Volunteer Building and Renovation
Policy" that is basically built around that concept, developed with input from the advisory board chairman
and Mr. Wyant. He said that this is built on the existing program of the state office of VMS, with grants
offered to volunteer stations who are unable to fund their own initiatives, with a requirement of full financial
disclosure so that a fair assessment can be made on the station's ability to fund the project jointly or on their
own. He said that the county's requirements would be provision of a financial statement as well as a five-
year plan of building needs. Mr. Eggleston said that there are situations where a loan is appropriate, and
some where an outright grant is needed.
Mr. Rooker noted that the only real change being proposed has to do with buildings, and the
recommendation is to provide an alternative to the five to ten year interest free loans for that purpose. He
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
emphasized that the stations could choose to fundraise on their own and not disclose their financial
statements or take another approach.
Mr. Boyd pointed out that Stony Point feels they cannot raise enough money to payoff the
$350,000.
Mr. Eggleston said that stations would follow the same procurement process as other county
projects.
Mr. Bowerman asked how the stations are titled. Mr. Davis explained that they are generally titled
under the volunteer organization, and then in their charters there is a provision that if they ever cease to
perform that role as a volunteer fire fighter, it would be transferred either to the county or another entity
providing those services. He noted that East Rivanna is jointly titled with the county, and North Garden and
Crozet are titled just to the volunteer organizations.
Mr. Tucker said that if the county has made major improvements to the station, a joint title was
secured, but the early stations were built much earlier and are titled to the volunteer organization.
Mr. Rooker asked if liens or first deeds of trust would be needed, so that the county could recover
its loan. Mr. Davis said that the titling is an "emotional as well as a legal issue." He added that staff has
always viewed this as a public safety issue, not an ownership issue.
Mr. Wyant commented that it's not just the building, but the equipment is also to be considered.
Motion was offered by Mr. Wyant to adopt the Volunteer Fire Rescue Building Maintenance
Funding Policy. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
Volunteer Fire Rescue
Building Maintenance Funding Policy
1. Purpose
The purpose of this policy is to assist volunteer fire and rescue stations that do not have the financial
means to fund building repairs and minor building renovations.
2. Volunteer Station financial assessment
The intent of the policy is to provide financial assistance to volunteer stations that do not have the
financial means to fund building repairs and minor building renovation projects. Therefore, a volunteer
station requesting assistance will need to show that the station is unable to independently fund the
project. Determining financial hardship requires that the station disclose the department's financial
statements (balance sheet and income statement - see example at end of document) to help
demonstrate the station's financial need.
3. Qualified projects
Building repairs and minor building renovation projects that help maintain the current facility shall be
qualified for consideration. Projects beyond this scope will be addressed on a case by case basis
through the normal CIP process.
4. Five year buildinQ assessment to determine future expenditures
4.1. Stations requesting financial assistance must conduct a five year assessment of their building
to determine the long term maintenance needs. The five year assessment should include a
projected and prioritized list of building repairs/renovations, a cost estimate per
repair/renovation, and a narrative outlining the justification for each repair/renovation.
North River VFD
FY07/08 FY08/09 FY09/10 FY10/11
Roof
Medium HVAC
Medium Bunk room renovation
Total
30,000
15,000
5,000
4.2. County staff will work with volunteer staff to assess the projects to help determine needs,
eligibility and timing.
5. FundinQ Assistance
5.1. Financial assistance shall be provided through a no-interest loan with a five to ten year
payback period. In cases of extreme financial hardship, a grant may be considered.
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
5.2. A volunteer station receiving a no-interest loan will work with County staff to develop a financial
plan to ensure that the loan will be paid in full over time. The plan will be reviewed and
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) before financial assistance is
provided.
6. Other requirements
6.1. Volunteer stations that qualify according to this policy shall submit a requestto the Department
of Fire Rescue by August 1 in preparation for the next fiscal year budget process.
6.2. Approved projects will be procured and completed according to current County policies and
procedures.
Agenda Item No. 11. Update on Retiree Health Insurance.
Due to time constraints, the Board moved this item to the afternoon portion of the agenda for
discussion.
Agenda Item No. 12. Closed Session. At 12:13 p.m., motion was made by Mr. Dorrier that the
Board adjourn into closed session pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A) of the Code of Virginia, under
Subsection (1), to consider appointments to boards, committees and commissions.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Certify Closed Session. At 2:05 p.m., the Board reconvened into open
session.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Dorrier that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the
best of each Board member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open
meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the
closed session were heard, discussed or considered in the closed session.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 14. Vacancies/Appointments
Mr. Boyd then offered motion to make the following appointments:
Appoint Charles Martin as the joint County/City service provider for the Commission on Children
and Families with said term to expire June 30, 2006.
Appoint James Currie to the Charlottesville Albemarle Regional Transportation (CHART)
Committee with said term to expire April 3, 2008.
Appoint Judd Bankert to the Historic Preservation Committee.
Appointed Rodrick Adkins and Scott Wawner to the Fiscal Impact Committee with said terms to
expire July 8,2007.
Second to the motion was given by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 15. FY 2006 Budget Amendment. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 28,
2005) ,
Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, summarized information
from the following executive summary:
The Code of Virginia 915.2-2507 stipulates that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the
aggregate amount to be appropriated during the current fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
budget. However, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the
currently adopted budget or the sum of $500,000, whichever is lesser, must be accomplished by first
publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code
section applies to all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Fund, E-911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
Staff recommends approval of the FY 2006 Budget Amendment in the amount of $3,963,066.31, after the
public hearing, and then approval of Appropriations #2006011, #2006013, #2006014, #2006015,
#2006016, and #2006017.
The proposed increase of this FY 2006 Budget Amendment totals $3,963,066.31. The estimated
expenses and revenues included in the proposed amendment are shown below:
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
General Fund
General Government Programs
Education Programs/Grants
Capital Projects
$
$
$
$
3,800.00
756,802.32
13,792.99
3.188.671.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES - All Funds
$ 3,963,066.31
ESTIMATED REVENUES
Local Revenues
State Revenues
Federal Revenues
General Fund Balance
Other Fund Balance
$
$
$
$
$
163,800.00
188,072.67
607,541.26
1,004,881.97
1.998.770.41
$ 3,963,066.31
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES - All Funds
The budget amendment is comprised of twelve (12) separate appropriations, six (6) of which have
already been approved by the Board, as indicated below:
Approved August 10,2005:
. One (1) appropriation (#2006005) in the amount of $68,249.60 for the Child and Family
Services Review;
. One (1) appropriation (#2006006) in the amount of $34,247.00 for a DCJS grant for
Comprehensive Community Corrections Act and Amendment and eliminates a PAPIS
grant in the amount of $52,733.00;
. One (1) appropriation (#2006007) in the amount of $22,007.00 for a new DCJS grant;
. One (1) appropriation (#2006008) transfers $53,372.00 from the contingency account for
the CTS contract and transit study;
. One (1) appropriation (#2006009) in the amount of $182,366.00 for additional radio units
and accessories for the 800 MHz Radio System; and
. One (1) appropriation (#2006010) in the amount of $160,000.00 in funding for a 29N
Corridor Transportation Study.
The six (6) new appropriations are as follows:
. One (1) appropriation (#2006011) in the amount of $2,760,872.00 for the additional
funding required for the BPKSE computer system replacement project;
. One (1) appropriation (#2006013) in the amount of $13,792.99 in grant funds for physical
education programs;
. One (1) appropriation (#2006014) in the amount of $685,031.72 for public safety grants;
. One (1) appropriation (#2006015) in the amount of $61 ,379.00 for the Sheriff Deputy and
part-time Sheriff Office Assistant positions previously approved;
. One (1) appropriation (#2006016) in the amount of $85,433.00 for grant funds awarded to
the ACE program from the Virginia Land Conservation Foundation; and
. One (1) appropriation (#2006017) in the amount of $3,800.00 to the Commonwealth's
Attorney for a UVA law student intern.
Appropriation #2006011 $2.760.872.00
The BPKSE computer system replacement project will replace current systems with state-of-the-art
technology systems for key human resources, financial, and program management functions. An additional
$2,760,872.00 is needed to fully implement this program.
Appropriation #2006013 $13.792.99
The Albemarle County Public Schools (ACPS) received a grant from the Carol M. White Physical
Education Program. The federally funded program allocates funds for initiating, expanding, or improving
physical education programs for kindergarten through 1 ih grade students by; providing equipment and
support to enable students to participate actively in physical education activities, and providing funds for
staff and teacher training and education, in order to make progress toward meeting State standards for
physical education. The major program goals are to increase teacher knowledge and use of innovative
approaches (including technology-based approaches) to physical education instruction and to support
increased student achievement of the Virginia Physical Education SOL and encourage lifetime habits of
physical activity. There is a fund balance retained by the federal government from FY04/05 which may be
used for FY05/06 in the amount of $13,792.99.
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
Appropriation #2006014 $685.031.72
The Department of Justice (DOJ) awarded the Albemarle County Police Department (ACPD) a
grant in the amount of $49,675.00 in federal funding to assist in the development of our mobile data
system. Specifically, this grant will purchase 10 mobile data computers (MDC's). The MDC's will increase
the efficiency, effectiveness, and privacy of communications between the Emergency Communications
Center and police officers. Their use will allow the officers to run their own vehicle license checks, driver's
license checks, and State/NCIC wanted checks. Increased efficiency and effectiveness should improve
public safety and the local quality of life. There is no local match associated with this grant.
The DOJ awarded the ACPD a grant in the amount of $60,000.00 to purchase 6 MDC's for use by
the School Resource Officers. The MDC's will allow the officers to run their own vehicle license checks,
driver's license checks, and State/NCIC wanted checks. Increased efficiency and effectiveness should
improve public safety and the local quality of our schools. There is a 50% local match that will be
transferred from the CIP.
In 2003, the ACPD investigated 25 serious crashes that resulted in 17 fatalities. This is an 89%
increase over 2001. Of the 13 crashes that resulted in these 17 fatalities, speed was determined to be a
causative factor in 9. In addition, about 3,000 traffic accidents are reported each year and 7,000 traffic
summonses are written each year. Much of this work is handled by the Traffic Unit Officers. They could
work more effectively and efficiently using laptop computers. To increase our efforts at combating this
deadly speeding problem, the DMV approved a grant for Albemarle County in the amount of $6,000.00 to
purchase four laptop computers. There was no local match. Of this amount, $4,500.00 was unexpended in
FY 04/05 and needs to be reappropriated to FY 05/06.
The Police department has been awarded a grant in the amount of $1 ,500.00 for "Increasing
Safety with Overtime Assignments". Funds will be used to pay for approximately 42 hours of police officer
overtime. This time will be spent in additional traffic safety activities such as DUI checks, child safety seat
installation & training, and bike patrol. There is no local match.
The Police department has been awarded a grant in the amount of $1 ,470.00 for "Checkpoint
Strikeforce". Funds will be used to pay for approximately 42 hours of police officer overtime. This time will
be spent in additional traffic safety activities such as DUI check points. This is part of a coordinated effort
across Virginia to increase DUI enforcement. There is no local match.
The DOJ awarded the ACPD a grant in the amount of $9,973.00 with a local match of $1,108.00,
for a total of $11 ,081.00, to fund overtime hours by current officers in support of reducing crime and
improving public safety. Of this amount, $5,890.63 was unexpended in FY 04/05 and needs to be
reappropriated to FY 05/06.
The DOF awarded the ACPD a grant in the amount of $187,500.00 in federal funding to help in the
purchase of more advanced equipment. The goal for these monies is to purchase in-car equipment for the
police department's mobile data computer system.
The County was granted funds in the amount of $72,963.00 to assist the Police Department and
Fire/Rescue in purchasing equipment related to domestic preparedness. These monies were split 50/50
between the two departments. Equipment approved by the Department of Emergency Management
includes self-contained breating apparatus, tactical vests, night vision equipment, surveillance and
monitoring equipment, and cardiac defibrillation equipment. There was no local match. Of the total grant,
$46.75 was unexpended in FY 04/05 and needs to be reappropriated to FY 05/06.
The County was granted funds in the amount of $224,335.00 to assist the Police Department and
Fire/Rescue in purchasing equipment and training related to domestic preparedness. These monies were
split 50/50 between the two departments. Training used approximately 5% with the remainder being used
for equipment. Examples of equipment approved by the Department of Emergency Management includes
self-contained breating apparatus, tactical vests, night vision equipment, surveillance and monitoring
equipment, and cardiac defibrillation equipment. There was no local match. Of the total grant, $5,325.08
was unexpended in FY 04/05 and needs to be reappropriated to FY 05/06.
The County was awarded grant funds in the amount of $280,754.26 to assist in the preparation of
response to incidents involving mass destruction weapons. These funds will be split 50/50 between
Fire/Rescue and the Police Department. The equipment purchased under these grants must come only
from the commodity areas targeted by the Federal government. There is no local match.
The County was awarded grant funds in the amount of $88,370.00 to assist in the preparation of
response to incidents involving mass destruction weapons. Funds will be split 50/50 between Fire/Rescue
and the Police Department. These funds can be used for training and equipment related to domestic
preparedness. There is no local match.
Appropriation #2006015 $61.379.00
At the July 6,2005 Board meeting, the Board approved one additional deputy and a half-time
clerical position for the Sheriff's Department. Funding for these positions had been held in contingency. This
formally appropriates these positions and associated operating costs to the Sheriff's Department.
Appropriation #2006016 $85.433.00
The Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Program was awarded a grant from the Virginia
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
Land Conservation Foundation in the amount of $85,433.00. With this grant, the ACE Program will be able
to leverage funding to acquire a conservation easement on the Page property, a 559 acre tract located in
southern Albemarle County.
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
Appropriation #2006017 $3.800.00
A check in the amount of $3,800.00 was received from the University of Virginia to be disbursed to
the second-year law student intern who works in the Office of the Commonwealth's Attorney. This amount
needs to be appropriated to the part-time line item of the Commonwealth's Attorney budget.
Staff recommends approval of the FY 2006 Budget Amendment in the amount of $3,963,066.31,
after the public hearing, and then approval of Appropriations #2006011, #2006013, #2006014, #2006015,
#2006016, and #2006017 to provide funds for various General Government, Education, and Capital
programs, as described above.
Mr. Boyd asked how the $2.7 million figure came about, as it was presented as $2.1 million in
August. Mr. Breeden replied that some of this funding had been scheduled in the CIP budget, but the
additional amount had to be appropriated for next year.
Mr. Davis said that in order to sign a contract, you must have sufficient funds appropriated, even if it
may be spent over two fiscal years. Mr. Breeden added that it is not an increase in the total project.
Mr. Boyd asked if the VPSA dollars would be used. Mr. Tucker replied that they would be.
Mr. Boyd added that he hopes the $170,000 ongoing maintenance fees for the software contracts
will replace existing costs that the county currently pays for mainframe systems. Mr. Breeden replied that
that is very likely, especially in the ongoing years beyond warranty.
At this time, the Chairman opened the public hearing. No one came forward to speak, so the
public hearing was closed, and the matter was placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Boyd to approve the FY 2006 Budget Amendment in the amount of
$3,963,066.31 and to approve FY 2006 Appropriations #2006011, #2006013, #2006014, #2006015,
#2006016, and #2006017. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wyant. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
APP#
DATE
BATCH#
2006011
EXPLANATION:
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR BPKSE COMPUTER SYSTEM REPLACEMENT
PROJECT
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 9010 12200 800714 Technology Upgrade J 1 2,760,872.00
2 9010 51000 510100 CIP Fund Balance J 2 600,000.00
2 9010 51000 512049 Trs-From Duplicating J 2 350,000.00
2 9010 51000 512033 Trs. From School CIP J 2 825,141.95
2 9010 51000 512004 Trs. From G/F J 2 985,730.05
1 1910 93010 930010 Trs-To G/F CIP J 1 350,000.00
2 1910 51000 510100 Dup. Fd.-F/B J 2 350,000.00
1 9000 93010 930010 Trs. To G/F CIP J 1 825,141.95
2 9000 51000 510100 S/F CIP Balance J 2 825,141.95
1 1000 93010 930010 Trs. To G/F CIP J 1 985,730.05
2 1000 51000 510100 G/F Balance J 2 985,730.05
9010 0501 Est. Revenue 2,160,872.00
9010 0701 Appropriation 2,760,872.00
1910 0501 Est. Revenue 350,000.00
1910 0701 Appropriation 350,000.00
9000 0501 Est. Revenue 825,141.95
9000 0701 Appropriation 825,141.95
1000 0501 Est. Revenue 985,730.05
1000 0701 Appropriation 985,730.05
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
I
I
TOTAL 9,843,488.00 4,321,744.00 4,921,744.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
APP#
DATE
BATCH#
2006013
EXPLANATION:
Various Education Programs
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 3303 33000 330600 Carl M. White Physical J 2 13,792.99
Education
1 3303 61101 800100 Machinery/Equipment J 1 13,792.99
3303 0501 Est. Revenue 13,792.99
3303 0701 Appropriation 13,792.99
TOTAL 27,585.98 13,792.99 13,792.99
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
APP#
DATE
BATCH#
2006014
EXPLANATION:
Appropriation of Public Safety Grants
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1517 31013 800100 Equipment J 1 49,675.00
1 1522 31013 800100 Machinery & Equip J 1 60,000.00
1 1529 33310 800700 ADP Equip J 1 4,500.00
1 1533 31013 120000 Overtime J 1 1,357.54
1 1533 31013 210000 FICA J 1 112.46
1 1535 31013 120000 Overtime J 1 1 ,385.25
1 1535 31013 210000 FICA J 1 114.75
1 1539 31013 120000 Overtime J 1 5,409.19
1 1539 31013 210000 FICA J 1 481 .44
1 1541 31000 800700 ADP Equip J 1 187,500.00
1 1543 31091 800100 Machinery & Equip J 1 46.75
1 1544 31091 800100 Machinery & Equip J 1 5,325.08
1 1545 31091 550403 Training J 1 1,000.00
1 1545 31091 800100 Machinery & Equip J 1 139,377.13
1 1545 31092 550403 Training J 1 1,000.00
1 1545 31092 800100 Machinery & Equip J 1 139,377.13
1 1546 31091 550403 Training J 1 1,000.00
1 1546 31091 800100 Machinery & Equip J 1 43,185.00
1 1546 31092 550403 Training J 1 1,000.00
1 1546 31092 800100 Machinery & Equip J 1 43,185.00
2 1517 33000 300001 Fed'l Grant Revenue J 2 49,675.00
2 1522 33000 300001 Fed'l Grant Revenue J 2 30,000.00
2 1522 51000 512031 Trs fr G/F CIP J 2 30,000.00
2 1529 33310 330307 Fed'l Grant Revenue J 2 4,500.00
2 1533 33000 330011 Fed'l Grant Revenue J 2 1,470.00
2 1535 33000 330011 Fed'l Grant Revenue J 2 1,500.00
2 1539 51000 510100 Fund Balance J 2 5,890.63
2 1541 33000 300001 Fed'l Grant Revenue J 2 187,500.00
2 1543 51000 510100 Fund Balance J 2 46.75
2 1544 51000 510100 Fund Balance J 2 5,325.08
2 1545 33000 330001 Fed'l Grant Revenue J 2 280,754.26
2 1546 33000 330001 Fed'l Grant Revenue J 2 88,370.00
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
1517 0501 Est. Revenue 49,675.00
1517 0701 Appropriation 49,675.00
1522 0501 Est. Revenue 60,000.00
1522 0701 Appropriation 60,000.00
1529 0501 Est. Revenue 4,500.00
1529 0701 Appropriation 4,500.00
1533 0501 Est. Revenue 1,470.00
1533 0701 Appropriation 1,470.00
1535 0501 Est. Revenue 1,500.00
1535 0701 Appropriation 1,500.00
1539 0501 Est. Revenue 5,890.63
1539 0701 Appropriation 5,890.63
1541 0501 Est. Revenue 187,500.00
1541 0701 Appropriation 187,500.00
1543 0501 Est. Revenue 46.75
1543 0701 Appropriation 46.75
1544 0501 Est. Revenue 5,325.08
1544 0701 Appropriation 5,325.08
1545 0501 Est. Revenue 280,754.26
1545 0701 Appropriation 280,754.26
1546 0501 Est. Revenue 88,370.00
1546 0701 Appropriation 88,370.00
TOTAL 1,370,063.44 685,031.72 685,031.72
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
APP#
DATE
BATCH#
2006015
EXPLANATION:
Sheriff Deputy and Office Associate
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 21070 110000 Salaries-Regular J 1 36,049.00
1 1000 21070 210000 FICA J 1 2,757.00
1 1000 21070 221000 VRS J 1 3,966.00
1 1000 21070 231000 Health Insurance J 1 8,628.00
1 1000 21070 232000 Dental Insurance J 1 300.00
1 1000 21070 270000 Worker's Compensat J 1 389.00
1 1000 21070 311000 Health Services J 1 400.00
1 1000 21070 370000 Dry Cleaning J 1 225.00
1 1000 21070 390006 Car Wash J 1 40.00
1 1000 21070 550100 Travel/Training/Education J 1 320.00
1 1000 21070 580000 Miscellaneous Exp J 1 400.00
1 1000 21070 600800 Vehicle Fuel J 1 1,500.00
1 1000 21070 600900 Vehicle Supply J 1 400.00
1 1000 21070 601000 Police Supplies J 1 500.00
1 1000 21070 601011 Ammunition J 1 100.00
1 1000 21070 661101 Uniforms J 1 1,500.00
1 1000 21070 800100 Machinery & Equipment J 1 3,905.00
1 1000 21070 999998 Strategic Initiative J 1 (66,943.00)
1 1000 95000 999990 Board Contingency J 1 5,564.00
TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
APP#
DATE
BATCH#
2006016
EXPLANATION:
Virginia Land Conservation Fund Grant
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 9010 81010 580409 Conserv. Easements J 1 85,433.00
2 9010 24000 240766 Conserv. Grant (ACE) J 2 85,433.00
0
9010 0501 Est. Revenue 85,433.00
9010 0701 Appropriation 85,433.00
TOTAL 170,866.00 85,433.00 85,433.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
APP#
DATE
BATCH#
2006017
EXPLANATION:
Commonwealth's Attorney Law Student Intern
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1000 18120 181272 UVA Law School J 2 3,800.00
Foundation
1 1000 22010 130000 Part- Time Salary J 2 3,800.00
1000 0501 Est. Revenue 3,800.00
1000 0701 Appropriation 3,800.00
TOTAL 7,600.00 3,800.00 3,800.00
Agenda Item No. 16. Proposed lease agreement between Silvercrest Asset Management Group,
LLC, the County of Albemarle, and the City of Charlottesville for property located at 614 East High
Street, commonly known as the Jessup Building. This property is jointly owned by the City and the County.
The proposed lease would replace the current lease agreement between the same parties that would
terminate on August 31,2006, with a new lease agreement that would terminate on July 31,2010.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 29,2005).
Mr. Thomas Foley, Assistant County Executive, explained that the purpose of the public hearing is
to receive comment on the proposed renewal of lease for the Jessup House on East High Street, one of the
properties purchased by the city and the county jointly to meet the long-term court needs. He added that
there is a study to be done over the next year to layout what the long-term needs are and how this building
will fit into it. Mr. Foley said that the current tenant of this facility is the Heritage Financial Management LLC,
who has merged recently with Silvercrest Asset Management Group, and they are looking at a five-year
lease renewal of $16 per square foot. He explained that there are also credits the group is requesting
through this lease - a $25,000 credit for interior and exterior property maintenance fees and costs to run the
facility. Mr. Foley stated that the city is managing the property and has determined through evaluation that
that credit amount is reasonable for this facility in its condition on an annual basis. He mentioned that the
second is a one-time credit of $55,000 of a $90,000 up-front investment the firm is planning to make in the
facility itself. Mr. Foley noted that the group has committed to performing "overdue property
improvements," that will extend beyond the term of the lease.
Mr. Rooker asked if these improvements would fit in to the potential future use of the property. Mr.
Foley replied that it is likely that they would have to be done anyway, as no repair has been made to the
building since 1993.
Mr. Foley said that the final issue is $100,000 worth of needed improvements to the exterior of the
building - sidewalks, retaining walls, etc. - long in need of repair. He said that the group has requested that
the county perform those repairs, and $243,000 in rent after all expenses would still be realized. Mr. Foley
concluded that this is a positive renewal of the lease, guaranteeing both the city and the county a tenant in
that building. He added that city council just approved the renewal last night.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
Mr. Brewster of Heritage Financial Management addressed the Board, reiterating that they are
planning to spend between $90,000 and $100,000 for repairs on the interior and exterior of the building. He
noted that there would be some reconfiguration of the interior as well as work on the floors and ceilings,
and the outside work would focus on the south side facing East Jefferson, including planting of trees and
landscaping. Mr. Brewster emphasized that these improvements would benefit the city and county if they
leave the building and it becomes vacant for lease again. He explained that they would like to do the
repairs now, as the merger has prompted them to upgrade their facilities.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas to authorize the County Executive to execute the lease
agreement between Silvercrest Asset Management Group, LLC, the County of Albemarle, and the City of
Charlottesville for property located at 614 East High Street, commonly known as the Jessup Building, in a
form approved by the County Attorney. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Roll was called, and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
COMMERCIAL LEASE
THIS LEASE AGREEMENT is made as of this 1 st day of August, 2005, by and between the CITY OF
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, both political subdivisions of
the Commonwealth of Virginia (hereinafter "Lessors"), and SILVERCREST ASSET MANAGEMENT GROUP,
LLC (hereinafter "Lessee").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Lessors are the owners of the Premises described herein, and represents that they
have clear and unencumbered title to said Premises and are able to lease the same and deliver possession of
the Premises to the Lessee upon the Commencement Date as set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, the Lessee is currently in possession of the Premises pursuant to an Assignment of Lease
dated March 31,2005 and desires to continue to lease the Premises for use as commercial office space; and
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein the parties hereby
agree as follows:
1 . LEASED PREMISES. The leased premises, herein referred to as the "Premises", shall be all the
property identified as Parcel 111 on City Real Property Tax Map 53, including the building containing
approximately 6,218 square feet and commonly known as the Jessup Building, 614 East High Street,
and labeled as "Town Hall Two" on the attached Site Plan (Attachment A), together with the parking
area hereinafter designated. The property lies between East High Street and Jefferson Street, and on
the west side of ih Street, N.E. in the City of Charlottesville.
The designated parking area shall include those ten (10) individual parking spaces marked on the
attached Site Plan with an "X".
2. LEASE TERM AND NON-RENEWAL. The term of this Lease shall be for a period of fifty nine (59)
months, beginning August 1 , 2005 ("Commencement Date") and terminating at midnight on June 30,
2010, or sooner as provided herein. There shall be no automatic renewal or extension of the term of
this Lease, and should extension or renewal be desired by Lessors or Lessee, such renewal or
extension shall be accomplished by separate written instrument of equal dignity to this Lease. Absent
such written renewal or extension, this Lease shall automatically terminate at the end of the term
hereof.
3. RENT. (A) The base annual rent for the Premises shall be Seventy-Five Thousand and 00/100 Dollars
($75,000.00) for a total base rent for the entire term of Three Hundred Sixty-Eight Thousand, Seven
Hundred Fifty and 00/100 Dollars ($368,750.00). Said rent is payable in advance in monthly
installments on the first day of each successive month of the lease term commencing on August 1,
2005. Until the same is adjusted as hereinafter set forth, said monthly rental payments shall be Six
Thousand, Two Hundred Fifty and 00/100 Dollars ($6,250.00) (the "Base Monthly Rent"). If such
monthly rental payment is not received by Lessors on or before the fifth (5th) day of the month in which
it is due, Lessee shall pay Lessors a late charge in addition to the monthly rental of five percent (5%) of
such late monthly rental payment(s). All payments shall be made to Lessors at the address specified
herein.
(B) Lessee and Lessors agree that the annual Rent for each year following the initial year ofthe Lease
(August 1,2005 to July 31,2006) shall equal the amount of Rent payable during the previous rent year,
unreduced by any rent credits provided for herein, increased by the "Rent Increase Percentage". The
Rent Increase Percentage shall mean the greater of (i) the percentage increase ofthe Consumer Price
Index for All Urban Consumers for All Items [CPI-U (1982-1984=100)] that occurred during the
preceding Lease Year ending three (3) months before the anniversary date of this Lease; or (ii) three
percent (3%) of the Rent payable during the previous rent year, unreduced by any rent credits provided
for herein.
(C) In consideration for this Lease, Lessee agrees to perform certain renovation work at the Premises,
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
as more particularly described in the "Intended Rehabilitation" section of the attached Memorandum
from Lessee to Lessors, dated August 24,2005, with supporting electronic mail messages attached, all
of which is attached hereto as Attachment B to this Lease. Lessee agrees that during the first year of
this Lease it will expend approximately Ninety Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($90,000.00) for the
Intended Rehabilitation work described in the Attachment. All work shall be performed in a first class
professional manner by licensed contractors, in full compliance with any and all applicable building and
safety codes. Lessee shall be responsible for the prompt payment of all costs, charges and invoices
for the above-described work. All work shall be completed during the first year of the lease term,
unless Lessee and Lessors agree to a longer period.
Subjectto the conditions stated herein, when any of the intended rehabilitation work referenced in this
paragraph (C) has been completed and paid for by Lessee, Lessee shall be entitled to a rent credit
equal to the cost of the repair. Lessee shall submit to Lessors copies of all invoices for the interior
repair work with documentation evidencing payment by Lessee. Lessors shall have the right of access
to the building, upon reasonable notice to Lessee, to verify that the repairs have been performed in a
satisfactory manner. Upon receipt of the required documentation from the Lessee, Lessors shall have
ten (10) working days to give written notice to Lessee if the rent credit is denied, with reasons for the
denial. If Lessors do not give timely written notice of denial to Lessee, Lessee shall be entitled to
deduct from the next month's rental payment the paid costs of the repairs. If the amount of the rent
credit is greater than the monthly rental amount, Lessee may continue to deduct the repair costs from
subsequent monthly rental payments until the entire amount of the rent credit has been exhausted;
provided, however, that in no event shall a credit be claimed by Lessee or allowed by Lessors (i) for
any costs in excess of Fifty-Five Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($55,000.00) over the entire term ofthis
Lease; or (ii) for any repairs not referenced in this paragraph (C), unless such non-routine repairs and
credits therefore are agreed to in writing by Lessors and Lessee prior to such repairs being made.
4. REAL PROPERTY TAXES. Throughoutthe term of this Lease Lessee shall pay all real property taxes
lawfully assessed against its leasehold interest by the City of Charlottesville pursuantto Virginia Code S
58.1-3203. In the event that the taxing authority of the City of Charlottesville determines that the
Premises is not eligible for an exemption from real property taxation pursuant to Virginia Code S 58.1-
3603, Lessee shall within thirty (30) days of receipt of written notice and proof of payment by Lessors,
reimburse Lessors for the amount of real property taxes each has paid as an owner of the Premises.
5. USE. Lessee shall use and occupy the Premises for general office purposes in the conduct of its
business and shall not use the Premises for activities that would in any way violate any law or
requirement of any public authority, cause structural damage to the improvements, interfere with the
normal operation of the utility systems, cause undue noise or disturbance to neighboring properties or
alter the exterior of the building. Lessee shall not use the Premises for the purposes of storing,
manufacturing or selling any explosives, flammables, or other inherently dangerous substance,
chemical, thing or device.
6. QUIET ENJOYMENT. Lessors covenant that, upon payment of rent and conditioned upon
performance of all of the covenants and conditions of this Lease, the Lessee shall peacefully and
quietly have, hold and enjoy the said leased Premises for the term aforesaid.
7. CONDITION OF PREMISES I CARE AND MAINTENANCE. (A) Except as may be expressly provided
otherwise herein, Lessee accepts said premises and fixtures therein, if any, in their present condition
and agrees to keep said premises and fixtures in a good clean condition; to commit no waste thereon;
to obey all laws and ordinances affecting said Premises; and at termination hereof to surrender the
premises and fixtures in like condition as when taken, reasonable wear and tear excepted.
(B) Lessee shall be responsible for all routine and ordinary interior and exterior maintenance and
repairs to the building and Premises during the term of the Lease, except that Lessors will be
responsible for the following:
(1) Maintenance, repair or replacement of the heating, ventilation and air conditioning
system;
(2) The initial repair of the exterior front and side walkways, and front and side
retaining walls which are at the Commencement Date in a damaged condition;
(3) The initial repainting of the exterior window frames, shutters and roof in a color
scheme mutually acceptable to Lessors and Lessee;
(4) Treatment and or removal of the two existing hemlock trees located in the front of
the building, and if removal is necessary to install appropriate replacementtrees
or plantings.
Any extraordinary repairs or replacements, including but not limited to repair or replacement to the
roof, shall be performed by the Lessors, "extraordinary" being defined as those non-routine repairs
or replacements with a life expectancy longer than the term of this Lease.
8. ALTERATIONS. Lessee shall not, without first obtaining the written consent of the Lessors, make any
alterations, additions, or improvements in, to or about the Premises, except as described in paragraph
3 (C), supra. The Lessors' written consent will not be unreasonably withheld for any alterations,
additions or improvements Lessee deems necessary or convenient to its use of the Premises for its
intended purpose. Any permanent fixtures shall become the property of the Lessors upon termination
of the Lease. Lessee shall be entitled to make improvements and additions to the existing gardens on
the Premises. All alterations shall be in accordance with applicable law, regulations and codes,
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
including but not limited to the applicable building codes and the City of Charlottesville's zoning
ordinance. Any changes to the exterior appearance of the building shall not be made until the Lessee
has obtained a certificate of appropriateness from the City's Board of Architectural Review or, on
appeal, City Council.
9. ORDINANCES AND STATUTES. Lessee shall comply with all statutes, ordinances and requirements
of all municipal, state and federal authorities now in force, or which may hereafter be in force,
pertaining to the Premises, occasioned by or affecting the use thereof by Lessee.
10. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING. Lessee shall not assign this Lease or sublet any portion of the
Premises without the prior written consent of the Lessors, which consent may be withheld for any
reason or for no reason, or which may be conditioned in any way Lessors choose. Any such
assignment or subletting without consent shall be void and the Lessors, at their option, may terminate
this Lease.
11. UTILITIES. Lessee shall provide and pay all charges incurred by Lessee for utilities, including gas,
electricity, water, sanitary sewer and trash disposal services incurred by Lessee during the term ofthis
Lease. Lessee shall be responsible for the costs of any telephone, cable television and internet
services to the Premises. Lessors may interrupt or suspend the supply of any utility service to the
Premises in order to make any necessary repairs or perform any maintenance for which Lessors are
responsible so long as Lessors shall pursue with reasonable diligence the completion of the work. No
such interruption shall exceed a period of one (1) day without prior consent of Lessee. If such
interruption is necessary, Lessors shall give Lessee at least 48 hours prior written notice of the dates
and times of the contemplated interruption, unless such interruption is due to an emergency not
caused by Lessee, and shall cooperate with Lessee in order to minimize any inconvenience to Lessee.
12. ENTRY AND INSPECTION: Lessees shall permit Lessors or Lessors' agents to enter upon the
Premises at reasonable times and upon reasonable notice, for the purpose of inspecting the same,
and will permit Lessors at any time within sixty (60) days prior to the expiration of this Lease to place
upon the Premises any usual "To Let" or "For Lease" signs, and permit persons desiring to lease the
same to inspect the Premises thereafter.
13. INSURANCE. Lessee shall obtain and maintain in full force and effect during the term hereof business
personal property insurance, including fire and extended coverage insurance, to cover its property and
business operations within the Premises, and general liability insurance with policy limits of not less
than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence, and Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) in
the aggregate and not less than One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) with respect to
property damage per occurrence. The Lessee's general liability insurance policy shall name the City of
Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle as additional insureds as it pertains to the Premises. A
certificate evidencing that the Lessors have been named as additional insureds shall be provided to the
City of Charlottesville as fiscal agent for Lessors. The Lessors, at their sole expense, shall adequately
insure the building for fire, casualty, hazard and liability.
14. INDEMNIFICATION. (A) Lessee agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Lessors and their officials,
officers, agents and employees from and against any and all claims, losses, liabilities, damages and
expenses which arise from Lessee's possession, use, occupation, management, repair, maintenance
or control of the Premises, or any portion thereof, which arise from any negligent or wrongful act or
omission of Lessee or Lessee's agents, employees, licensees, or invitees, or result from any default,
breach, violation or nonperformance of this Lease or any provision of this Lease by Lessee. Lessee
shall, at its own cost and expense, defend any and all actions, suits or proceedings which are brought
against Lessors with respect to the foregoing. Lessee shall pay, satisfy and discharge any and all
judgments, orders and decrees which may be recovered against Lessors as a result of the foregoing.
Lessors shall fully cooperate in the defense of any such actions, suits or proceedings.
(B) Lessors shall not be liable for any damage or injury to person or property caused by or resulting
from steam, electricity, gas, oil, rain, ice, snow, or any leak or flow from or into any part ofthe Premises
or the building of which the same is a part, or for any damage or injury resulting or arising from any
other cause or happening whatsoever unless said damage or injury is caused by the negligent or
wrongful act or omission of the Lessors or either of them; and, notwithstanding the foregoing or any
other provision of this Lease, Lessors shall not be liable to Lessee or any insurance company insuring
Lessee for any loss or damage to Lessee's personal property within the Premises or on Lessors'
property which was covered by fire and extended coverage insurance.
15. EMINENT DOMAIN. If the Premises or any part thereof or any estate therein, or any other part of the
building materially affecting Lessee's use of the Premises shall be taken by eminent domain, this
Lease shall terminate on the date when entry onto the Premises is made by the takeover entity. The
rent shall be apportioned as of the termination date, and any rent paid for any period beyond that date
or rent credits shall be repaid to Lessee. Lessee shall not be entitled to any part of the award for such
taking or any payment in lieu thereof, but Lessee may file a claim for any taking of improvements
owned by Lessee, and for relocation expenses.
16. DAMAGE BY FIRE OR OTHER CASUALTY. If all or any portion of the Premises shall be damaged
or destroyed by fire or other casualty, this Lease shall not be terminated unless Lessors decide not to
replace, repair or rebuild in accord with the following provisions. Lessee hereby waives any and all
rights to terminate this Lease by reason of damage to the Premises by fire or other casualty pursuantto
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
any presently existing or hereafter enacted statute or pursuant to any other law. In the event of any
damage to the Premises by fire or other casualty which renders the premises unfit for Lessee's
purposes, in whole or in part, there shall be an abatement of the rent payable hereunder during the
period of such condition for so long as Lessee is not engaged in the conduct of its business operations
in the Premises to substantially the same extent as that prior to said casualty and only to that extent
which the Premises are rendered unusable, and on a pro rata basis. If all or any portion of the
Premises is damaged or destroyed by fire or other casualty that is covered by Lessee's general liability
insurance, then all insurance proceeds under such policy shall be paid to the Lessors or made
available for the payment for repair, replacement, or rebuilding, and the Lessors shall elect as soon as
practical after the damage has occurred, but no later than twenty (20) days thereafter, whether or not
to repair or rebuild the Premises or any such portion thereof to its condition immediately prior to such
occurrence; provided, however, that the foregoing provisions shall not require the Lessor to repair or
rebuild any part of the Premises, or of Lessee's improvements, equipment or appurtenances not
constituting fixtures or otherwise a part of the Premises owned by Lessors. In any event, Lessors shall
provide Lessee written notice of its decision either to elect to or refuse to replace or rebuild said
Premises within the aforesaid twenty (20) day period. If Lessors elect not to replace or rebuild then
said Lease shall be deemed terminated thirty (30) days following the occurrence causing said damage.
If at the time of Lessors' decision to replace or rebuild, Lessors do not agree in writing to complete the
repair or rebuilding within ninety (90) days after the decision is made, or within a reasonable period if
ninety (90) days is unreasonable under the circumstances in light of the nature and extent of the
damages, as decided by both Lessors and Lessee, Lessee shall have the option to terminate this
Lease by written notice to Lessors within fifteen (15) days after Lessors' decision.
17 . DEFAULT PROVISIONS. (A) The following shall constitute events of default:
(1) Abandonment of the Premises;
(2) The default of seven (7) days in payment of rent or other sums due to Lessors hereunder;
(3) Breach of any of the covenants or conditions of this Lease continuing for more than fifteen (15)
days following receipt of written notice thereof from Lessors to Lessee;
(4) Dissolution or commencement of any proceedings to dissolve Lessee;
(5) Termination of existence, insolvency, business failure, appointment of a receiver, assignment for
the benefit of creditors of all or any part of the property of the Lessee, or commencement of any
proceedings under any bankruptcy or insolvency law by or against Lessee.
No failure on the part of the Lessors to enforce any covenant or provision herein, nor the waiver of any
right hereunder by Lessors, shall discharge or invalidate such covenant or provision or any other
covenant, condition or provision hereof, or affect the right of the Lessors to enforce the same in the
event of subsequent breach or default.
(B) REMEDIES ON DEFAULT. Upon the occurrence of any event of default, Lessors shall have the
right, then or at any time thereafter while such event of default shall continue, to terminate this Lease
on not less than ten (10) days notice to Lessee. On the date specified in such notice the term of this
Lease shall terminate, and Lessee shall then quit and surrender the Premises to Lessors, without
extinguishing Lessee's liability. If this Lease shall have been so terminated by Lessors, Lessors may at
any time thereafter resume possession of the premises by any lawful means and remove Lessee or
other occupants and their effects. In the event of default by Lessee, rentals received by Lessors
following reentry shall be applied to liability of the Lessee resulting from said default.
(C) LIABILITY OF TENANT ON DEFAULT. If the Lessors rightfully terminate this Lease or reenters
pursuant to the foregoing section, Lessee shall remain liable for the rent and all of the sums provided
for in this Lease until the date this Lease would have expired had such termination not occurred and
any and all expenses incurred by Lessors in reentering the Premises, repossessing the same, making
good any default of the Lessee, and repairing any damage which may have resulted from Lessee's use
of the Premises excepting normal wear and tear and the expense which Lessors may incur in obtaining
a new tenant. Lessee agrees to pay to Lessors the amount of the foregoing liability with respect to
each month during the term of this Lease, all of which shall be accelerated upon any default. In the
event of default, and in addition to the foregoing, Lessee shall pay Lessors all costs incurred, including
reasonable attorney's fees with respect to any collection efforts, suit, or action taken or instituted by
Lessors against Lessee to enforce the provisions of this Lease provided the Lessors substantially
prevail.
(D) LIQUIDATED DAMAGES. If Lessors rightfully terminate this Lease pursuant to the foregoing
default provisions, Lessors shall have the right at any time, at their option, to require Lessee to pay to
Lessors, on demand, as liquidated and agreed final damages in lieu of Lessee's liability hereinbefore
provided, the rent and all of the charges which would have been payable from the date of such
demand to the date when this Lease would have expired ifit had not been terminated. If the Premises
have been relet for all or part of the remaining balance of the term by Lessors after default by Lessee,
the amount of said rent shall be credited against any liquidated damages. Upon payment of any such
liquidated and agreed final damages, Lessee shall be released from all further liability under this
Lease.
18. RIGHT OF LESSORS TO CURE LESSEE'S DEFAULT. If Lessee shall fail to keep or perform any of
its obligations as provided in this Lease, then Lessors may, upon the continuance of such failure on
Lessee's part for fifteen (15) days after receipt of written notice from Lessors to Lessee and without
waiving or releasing Lessee from any obligations, and as an additional but not exclusive remedy, make
such payment or perform any such obligation and all sums so paid by Lessors and all necessary and
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
incidental costs and expenses incurred by Lessors in making such payment or performing such
obligation together with interest thereon at the judgment rate of interest, from time to time as provided
by the Code of Virginia, shall be paid by Lessee to Lessors on demand, or at Lessors' option may be
added to any installment of rent thereafter falling due.
19. SECURITY DEPOSIT. Lessors have received a security deposit from Lessee in the amount of Four
Thousand, One Hundred and Sixty-Six and 00/100 Dollars ($4,166.00) as security for the full and
faithful performance by Lessee of every provision, covenant and condition of this Lease, including
without limitation the surrender of possession of the Premises to Lessors as herein provided. If Lessors
apply any part of the deposit to cure any default of Lessee, Lessee shall on demand deposit with
Lessors the amount so applied so that Lessors shall have the full deposit on hand at all times during
the term of the Lease. At the termination of this Lease, In the event that Lessee shall fully and faithfully
comply with every provision, covenant and condition of this Lease, such security deposit or any balance
of it shall be returned to Lessee within thirty (30) days after expiration or earlier termination (without
default of Lessee) of the Lease and delivery of possession of the Premises to Lessors. Acceptance of
the security deposit by Lessors does not constitute any waiver of damages that may exceed the amount
of the security deposit or any waiver of any other rights the Lessors may have against the Lessee, at
law or in equity, by reason of Lessee's default, and in the event of damages suffered by Lessors by
reason of Lessee's default, that exceed the amount of the security deposit, Lessors shall be entitled to
such additional damages directly attributable to Lessee's use of the Premises.
20. ATTORNEY'S FEES. In the event that suit is brought by either party in furtherance of its rights under
this Lease, the prevailing party shall be entitled to all costs incurred in connection with such action,
including a reasonable attorney's fee.
21. WAIVER. No failure of Lessors to insist upon the strict performance of any term or provision of this
Lease or to exercise any right or remedy consequent upon a breach thereof, and no acceptance by
Lessors of full or partial rent during the continuance of any such breach, shall constitute a waiver of any
such breach or of any such term or provision of this Lease. Any waiver by Lessors must be by a written
instrument executed by Lessors clearly describing the waiver and its extent.
22. SURRENDER OF LEASED PREMISES. Upon the expiration or other termination of the term of this
Lease, Lessee shall quit and surrender the Premises in good order, repair, and in clean condition, and
shall remove all of its property therefrom, except as otherwise provided in this Lease.
23. ESTOPPEL CERTIFICATE. Lessee shall, without charge therefore, at any time and from time to time,
within ten (10) days after receipt of a written request by Lessors, execute, acknowledge and deliver to
Lessors a written estoppel certificate certifying to Lessors or any purchaser of the Premises, or any
other person designated by Lessors, as of the date of such certificate, to be prepared at Lessors'
expense, stating whether or not Lessee is in possession of the Premises; whether or notthis Lease is
unmodified and in full force and effect; whether or not there are then existing any setoffs or defenses
against the enforcement of any right or remedy of Lessors known to Lessee at that time; the dates, if
any, to which any rent or other charges have been paid in advance; that Lessee has no knowledge of
any then uncured defaults on the part of the Lessors under this Lease or if Lessee has knowledge of
any such uncured defaults, specifying the same; that Lessee has no knowledge of any event having
occurred that authorizes the termination of this Lease by Lessee; and the address to which notices to
Lessee should be sent. Further, Lessors agree to provide an estoppel certificate covering the same
items to Lessee or other person designated by Lessee without charge, within ten (10) days of Lessee's
request for the same.
24. NOTICES. Any notice which either party mayor is required to give shall be given by mailing the same,
postage prepaid, to the following and, unless otherwise provided for herein, shall be deemed given as of
the date postmarked in the United States mail to the following addresses or at such other addresses as are
specified by written notice delivered in accordance herewith.
To Lessee:
Russell J. Bell
Managing Director
Silvercrest Asset Management Group LLC
614 East High Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
To Lessors:
City of Charlottesville, Virginia
City Hall, 601 East Market Street
P.O. Box 911
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Gary O'Connell, City Manager
and
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
County of Albemarle, Virginia
County Office Building
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
with a copy to: S. Craig Brown, Charlottesville City Attorney
City Hall, 601 East Market Street
P.O. Box 911
Charlottesville, VA 22902
and
Larry W. Davis, Albemarle County Attorney
County Office Building
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
25. HEIRS. ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS. This Lease is binding upon and inures to the benefit of the
heirs, assigns and successors in interest to the parties.
26. SUBORDINATION. This Lease is and shall be subordinated to all existing and future liens and
encumbrances against the property.
27. NONAPPROPRIATION. This Lease is subjectto the approval, ratification and annual appropriations by
the County of Albemarle Board of Supervisors and the City of Charlottesville City Council of the
necessary money to fund the obligations of the Lessors under the Lease for succeeding fiscal years.
Should either or both of the governing bodies fail to appropriate necessary funding, the Lessors shall
promptly give notice of such nonappropriation to Lessee and may terminate this Lease without incurring
any penalty, liability or additional costs whatsoever.
28. COMMISSIONS. Lessors and Lessee agree that no real estate agent or company has provided
services in connection with this Lease, and each party hereto agrees to hold the other harmless from
any claim made for a commission in connection with this Lease.
29. ENTIRE AGREEMENT AND AMENDMENTS. This Lease represents the entire agreement between
the parties, and may only be amended by written addendum executed by authorized representatives of
both the Lessors and the Lessee.
30. APPLICABLE LAW. This Lease shall be governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
31. FISCAL AGENT. As set forth in that certain Agreement dated July 20, 2004, between the City of
Charlottesville (the "City") and the County of Albemarle (the "County"), attached hereto as Exhibit C, the
City shall serve as the Fiscal Agent for the Lessors under this Lease, and the Lessee shall have the
benefit of the provisions of said Agreement as it relates to the Property herein. The City shall be the
recipient of all rents or other monies due.
WITNESS the following authorized signatures and seals, all as of the day and year first herein above
written.
LESSEE:
SILVERCREST ASSET MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC
Russell J. Bell
Managing Director
LESSORS:
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
BY:
Gary B. O'Connell, City Manager
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
BY:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
Agenda Item NO.17. SP-2005-013. Hollymead Swim Club (Sign #67). Requestforswim, golf,
tennis or similar fac, to allow membership to swimming pool from outside of Hollymead Planned Unit
Development in accord w/Secs 20.4.2.1 , 22.2.2.6, 18.2.2.4 & 5.1.16 of the Zoning Ord which allow for
swim, golf, tennis & similar facs. TM 46B2, Sec 2, P A contains 17 acs. Znd Hollymead PUD. Loc at 2000
Hollymead Dr in Hollymead development. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 22
and 29, 2005).
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
Mr. Cilimberg reported that the club that currently serves Hollymead residents would like to expand
its membership to include people from other residential areas. He noted that it shares its entrance with the
Silver Thatch Inn and has adequate parking for pool use, and most users would still be from Hollymead.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that there has been one safety concern raised with sight distance at the entrance to the
pool, and the applicant has agreed with VDOT to correct that particular situation, largely involving the
removal of shrubs. He added that staff has recommended approval with two conditions. The Planning
Commission, at its meeting on July 19, 2005, recommended that the membership be structured based on a
total of 466 memberships, which is the total number of families living in Hollymead. Mr. Cilimberg
emphasized that the club membership has fallen to well below that number. He reported that the Planning
Commission's recommendation is for approval with two conditions: modified to say "family memberships
including residents of the Hollymead PUD shall not exceed 466," and the second pertaining to the entrance
improvements.
Public comment was invited. No one came forward to speak, and the matter was placed before
the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Boyd to approve SP-2005-013, subject to the two conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wyant. Roll was called,
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. Family memberships, including residents of the Hollymead PUD, shall not exceed four
hundred sixty-six (466); and
2. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for the commercial swim club, the applicant shall
provide sight distance at the entrance/exit to the property onto Hollymead Drive to the
satisfaction of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Agenda Item No. 18. SP-2004-032. St. Nicholas Orthodox Church (Sign #34). Request for
church use to be established on a 4.45 acs in accord w/Sec 18.10.2.2.35 of the Zoning Ord. TM 70, P 12A.
Znd RA & EC. Loc on St Rt 250 (7581 Rockfish Gap Turnpike), approx .5 mls W of intersec of St Rt 691
(Greenwood Rd) & Rt 250. White Hall Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 22 and 29, 2005).
Mr. Cilimberg reported that this would allow the 5,220 square foot building to be used as a church
with a sanctuary of up to 100 seats, as it has been a retail establishment in the past. He explained that
there is a parking lot with 75 spaces, and there would be a slightly reconfigured parking lot with
improvement to the entrance to the property and landscaping. Mr. Cilimberg noted that the property is
located on the Route 250 West corridor, and would allow appropriate reuse of a vacant building in the rural
areas with minimal impacts. He noted that there are safety issues with entrances to the property, which the
applicant has agreed to address, specifically reconfiguring and improving the existing entrance on the
eastern side of the property and no longer taking access from an existing drive on the western side of the
property - that would be physically closed off with the new parking area.
Mr. Cilimberg said that there are five conditions recommended by staff, the fifth was slightly
modified to include the proper language by the Planning Commission. Staff and the Commission have
recommended approval. He added that there was a site plan waiver involved in this that is being handled
by the Planning Commission and does not require Board action.
Public comment was invited.
Rev. Father Robert Holet, Pastor of St. Nicholas Orthodox Church, addressed the Board, thanking
them and county staff for enabling the church to move forward. He said that the church is endeavoring to
serve an underserved population as well as the community at large.
Ms. Thomas asked if they have a congregation currently that meets elsewhere. Rev. Holet replied
that the group meets at 2045 Ivy Road, in a space between Bellair Auto and Charlottesville Auto.
Mr. Wyant asked about the parking area on the west side, and how they plan to close it off. Rev.
Holet replied that they are considering putting a curb so that emergency vehicles could get in there if
absolutely necessary. He added that there is existing landscaping that is nice, and they would try to work
with that.
Mr. Larry Claytor addressed the Board. He stated that he lives directly across from the church and
welcomes their use of the building. Mr. Claytor stressed that the entrance is actually the old Route 250,
and he sold the east entrance to the antique shop for a minimal price and donated the west entrance to the
church. He emphasized that from a safety issue, the west entrance is much, much safer, and he thought
that entrance would be used. Mr. Claytor said that he is concerned that the sight distance is not safe for
turning vehicles. He requested that the bank be cut back to improve sight distance at the west entrance,
adding that the east entrance is better. Mr. Claytor stated that additional vehicles parked on Route 250
could also create problems.
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
In response to Mr. Dorrier's question, Mr. Claytor confirmed that his property is directly across from
the entrance to the church.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that this requires VDOT approval, and the indication on the plan shows there is
660 feet in both directions, adding that there would be a relocation of the entrance to shift it westward
somewhat.
Mr. Claytor said that the perspective is different from a car than standing on the site, noting that you
can see about 400 feet to the west and about 500 feet to the east prior to any shifting.
Mr. Wyant said that VDOT will work with object placement to determine sight distance, noting that
that may be why the shift has been recommended. Otherwise, VDOT would not give approval.
Mr. Tucker noted that this still has to go through site plan approval.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that this has a site plan waiver, but there is a condition that it meets VDOT
approval for installation of the required entrance.
Mr. Wyant emphasized that VDOT would not issue a permit unless the entrance was deemed to be
safe.
Mr. Claytor said that the modifications should be made to make it safe.
Mr. Cilimberg commented that that is the condition.
Mr. Harold Jordan addressed the Board. He is the owner of the property being sold to the church,
and has been involved in the process for quite some time. Mr. Jordan said that he is in favor of the new
use, and he will continue to remain on the property east of the church. With regard to the entrance, he said,
the most desirable was the west side but the owner of that property did not want to accommodate an
easement for that, so this new plan is the next best thing. He noted that his wife had holiday events when
the church was a store, and there were as many as 150 attendees with no problems related to parking. Mr.
Jordan confirmed that the easement for the east entrance is across their property.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Board.
Mr. Wyant noted that the plan is showing 60 feet of sight distance on either side, and trust VDOT
will confirm that.
Motion was offered by Mr. Wyant to approve SP-2004-032, subject to the five conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called,
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1 . The site shall be developed in general accord with the plan entitled "Application Plan-SP-2004-
0032", prepared by Blackwell Engineering, PLC, revised July 2005;
2. The area of assembly shall be limited to one hundred (1 OO)-seat sanctuary;
3. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate special
use permit;
4. The applicants shall secure VDOT approval of the entrance from Route 250, prior to the
issuance of a zoning clearance for church use of the site; and
5. No building expansions are permitted without prior approval of a new special use permit.
Agenda Item No. 19. SP-2004-053. Wildon Grove Baptist Church (Sign #33). Request for
church to allow bid addition, in accord w/Sec 18.2.2.35 of the Zoning Ord which allows for church uses in
the RA. TM 36, P 22, contains approx 1 ac. Znd RA. Loc at 6820 Wildon Grove Rd (Rt 645), which is approx
1.5 mls SW of intersec of Rt 645 (Magnolia Rd) & Rt 608 (Happy Creek Rd), approx 2 mls S of the
Albemarle/Orange County line. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 22 and 29,
2005) .
Mr. Cilimberg explained that this proposal is for an addition to the existing 1,700 square foot church,
including an existing parking area in grass that provides 23 spaces. He said that no new parking is required,
but the church may use other grassed areas of the site for parking purposes. Mr. Cilimberg noted that the
plan will involve demolishing an existing historic 666 square foot detached fellowship hall, and is a
contributing structure to the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District. He said that the structure was built
in 1929, with the existing sanctuary built in 1970. Mr. Cilimberg said that the historic structure is in severe
disrepair and is no longer meeting the space needs of the church. He stated that documentation of the
resources is recommended as a condition of the special use permit approval. Staff recommends approval
of the request with four conditions. One of the conditions was modified by the Planning Commission to
have the original building documented by a historian.
Public comment was invited. There being none, the matter was placed before the Board.
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
Motion was offered by Mr. Boyd to approve SP-2004-053, subject to the four conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wyant. Roll was called,
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1 . The site shall be developed in general accord with the plan entitled "Application Plan for Special
Use Permit 2004-53," revised June 13, 2005;
2. The area of assembly shall be limited to the existing ninety-four (94)-seat sanctuary;
3. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate special
use permit; and
4. The church shall make the property available for documentation of the fellowship hall building
(as labeled on the Application Plan Attachment B) by an architectural historian or other person
approved by staff, prior to proceeding with removal.
Agenda Item No. 20. SP-2004-055. Walgreens (Signs #52,63,96). Request to operate two-lane,
drive-thru fac associated w/pharmacy on approx 1.78 acs, in accord w/Sec 24.2.2.13 of the Zoning Ord. TM
32, P 37C. Znd HC & EC. Loc at SE corner of intersec of Rt 29 (Seminole Trail) & Rt 649 (Proffit Rd).
Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 22 and 29, 2005).
Mr. Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development, reported that this is a request for a drive-through for a
proposed pharmacy to be located at the intersection of Proffit Road and Route 29; the location of the
Airport Motel and old Mercer Carpet building. He said that the applicant proposes to build a pharmacy with
a drive through. The request was reviewed for compliance by the site review committee, who support the
design and layout of the drive-through. Mr. Fritz added that the ARB also had no opposition to the plan
subject to conditions which are included in the action. He noted that the Planning Commission
recommended approval, by a vote of 5:1, but did have concerns about circulation and access to the
adjacent property. Mr. Fritz pointed out that the layout of the drive-through does not have the conventional
bypass lane, but uses an adjacent travel aisle. He said that staff is able to support that and believes it's
adequate, adding that access is being improved on this site due to the closure and redesign of entrances.
Mr. Fritz stated that the Planning Commission had significant concerns about the relegated parking on site,
as it does exceed the minimum required (at 112 percent).
Ms. Thomas stated that she was also concerned with the excess asphalt, asking if the county has
the ability to request fewer parking spaces. Mr. Fritz said that the Board could require fewer spaces, as
there are 128 spaces required with the applicant recommending 144. He added that those spaces could
also be deleted from a certain location to minimize impact.
In response to Ms. Thomas' concerns, Mr. Fritz explained that staff would approve anything up to
120 percent of minimum parking and anything over would require a modification that could be granted
administratively.
Ms. Thomas said that there are retail shops there too that have spaces.
Mr. Rooker clarified that Ms. Thomas is asking if parking spaces could be removed to get them to a
minimum.
Mr. Boyd said that the property was approved for that many parking spaces before, and the drive-
through does not impact that.
Citing stormwater concerns, Ms. Thomas emphasized that when the Board has the opportunity to
reduce asphalt, it is an action we should take.
Mr. Wyant asked staff about the access easement on the steep bank. Mr. Fritz answered that
whenever possible, staff tries to provide access to adjoining properties, and in this case it goes to a steep
slope. It's a placeholder right now.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Ned Bickers addressed the Board on behalf of the developer. He explained that on the plans
approved by the Planning Commission, there are 144 parking spaces provided, and there would have been
137 required if they had not gotten credit for the drive-through. Mr. Bickers noted that they have satisfied
the ARB and Planning Commission, adding that his group is also doing a facelift to the building and
improved landscaping. He reported that based on ARB recommendations pertaining to the improvements,
there have been nine parking spaces eliminated, so what is left are 135 spaces provided. They are actually
below what the minimum requirement would be had they not gotten the credit for the drive-through. He
added that with the drive-through credit there are 128 spaces required, so they are seven over the
requirement. Mr. Bickers emphasized that when there is a food business there, there is more parking
needed than for mercantile use.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Board.
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
Motion was offered by Mr. Boyd to approve SP-2004-055, subject to the three conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wyant. Roll was called,
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1 . The site shall be constructed in general accordance with the preliminary site plan entitled
"Walgreens", issue date of 7/13/05 and initialed Y.Q.A. dated 7/15/05;
2. Signage and pavement markings shall be provided at the entrance and exit points of the drive-
through lane, subject to Current Development Division engineering approval to ensure
appropriate and safe travel patterns; and
3. Landscaping beyond that outlined in the ARB Design Guidelines is required to mitigate the impacts
of the site layout. Landscaping shall be provided to the satisfaction of the ARB.
Agenda Item No. 21. Work Session: Human Services.
Ms. Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive, reported that this presentation focuses on the best
way for the county to direct its resources so that they can meet the current and future human service needs.
She explained that the broad range of these services is integral to the county being able to maintain a
quality community, particularly when the vision promoting lifelong learning, affordability, and economic
opportunity is considered. Ms. White said that the focus is to direct all programs, resources, and efforts
towards the county's vision and achieving those goals.
Ms. White explained that the human services system should be looked at as a cohesive group of
related offerings, not just a bunch of separate programs. She said that the range of services seems
confusing because there seems to be so much out there, adding that when families are in distress they
often need the whole spectrum. Ms. White reported that there is an extensive network of agencies that
provide services, which is really an arm of county government to help provide services to citizens. She said
that there are 22 agencies currently funded by the county at a cost of $3.3 million - ranging from large
agencies like Region 10, which brings in $4.5 million into county services, to a small organization like
SACA, to which the county contributes about $3,000. Ms. White pointed out that in 2004, there were local
social services funds of $5.5 million, but that department brought in $55.8 million in other types of funds that
came into the county to provide services and direct benefits.
Ms. White described progress in the human services system since the first human services plan
was finalized in 1995, encouraging a proactive approach rather than just incremental increases in
programs. She stated that they have created a process to improve collaboration, including the creation of
the Commission on Children and Families, and have brought about better communication and less
duplication among agencies. Ms. White said that there was unanimous agreement on the need for early
intervention, which encouraged the start of the Bright Stars and healthy families initiatives. She noted that
there has been progress made in residents' well-being through the human services system, although there
have been shifts in demographics and trends that might impact future programs. Ms. White said that many
of the same needs identified in 1995 have remained, and many people in the community are living even
more "on the edge" of the haves and have-nots because of affordability issues.
Ms. White said that the aim of the entire human services system is to improve the quality of life for
citizens, but there are many definitions as to what that is. She said that that quality of life has been defined
in three ways: people need to be self-sufficient with an adequate income to meet their needs, standard
housing, childcare, food, transportation, and access to health care; residents need to be protected from
risk, as families can thrive when there are healthy and stable conditions that are free from family violence,
child abuse, and substance abuse; residents need opportunities to learn and gain good employment, which
can no longer be achieved just by the schools and require community programs such as after-school
programs and lifelong learning initiatives.
Ms. Saphira Baker of the Commission on Children and Families addressed the Board, expressing
her gratitude to the Department of Social Services and county GIS staff for their data. She explained
progress in each of the three areas as outlined by Ms. White:
Adequate income - she said that children living under the poverty line had decreased, but has now
gone back up, especially with African-American children under age 5. Ms. Baker said that this is in keeping
with national trends. She stated that healthcare showed up as the number one need in both the CCF's
needs assessment of families, and the MACAA analysis of clients. Ms. Baker said that public and private
investments are making a difference in the resources available in the county, with immunization rates up for
children in the Home Visiting programs. She noted that one of the largest unmet needs has been for dental
care, and a new dental clinic is opening that will service Medicaid recipients.
Emotional and physical well-being - Ms. Baker reported that delinquency judgments, teen
pregnancy rates, and risk factors are all decreasing nationwide. She noted that the foster care rates have
been decreasing as well, with emphasis on family support programs to help identify children earlier before
they become adolescents. Ms. Baker stated that drug arrests in the county for adults are decreasing,
although that does not hold true for young people.
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
Opportunities for development and learning - Ms. Baker said that enrichment is critical to success
in school and personal development, with quality preschool as a key part of this support. She referred to
progress being made in this area in the county with support from public and private partnerships. Ms. Baker
reported that there have been overall positive trends for the county as a whole in school achievement.
Ms. Baker concluded that with continued public and private investment, these positive trends will
continue in the county.
Ms. Baker reported that the official poverty rate is based on the cost of food, and does not include
housing and transportation costs. She noted that the actual number of Albemarle County residents at 200
percent poverty - a benchmark used to account for those other costs - is 15,286, with those individuals
facing hard choices about their medical care and housing. Ms. Baker noted that one-third of public school
students are eligible for free or reduced lunch in Albemarle County. She noted that 60 percent or more of
those living at or below the poverty benchmark are clustered around the ring of the city. Ms. Baker
presented information on which schools had the most students eligible for free and reduced lunch, with the
Scottsville District being the highest.
Mr. Bowerman commented that these numbers seem awfully high. Ms. Baker said that some
districts do have much higher numbers, which is not directly reflected in the overall figures.
Ms. Baker presented statistics that show the severe problem of health care provision locally, even
with the free clinics availability.
Ms. Baker reported that the costs for high-risk, high-need youth are increasing, not only the
numbers of kids in this situation so much as the interventions needed by the age when they come into the
system. She noted that this is also affected by state policy and private sector treatment costs. Ms. Baker
presented information on the impact of exposure to family violence and its association with risky behavior
among teens, which results in human and financial costs to the community. She noted that over one-third
of the teens in the juvenile justice system have been exposed to family violence. Ms. Baker noted that it
was striking to her that the kids in Crozet were the ones asking for a youth center and things to do. She
reported that the trend toward substance abuse among young people has continued to go up, with over half
of the people in the court system having exposure to drugs through their parent(s).
Mr. Dorrier asked if this was alcohol, drugs, or both. Ms. Gretchen Ellis responded that the
increase in arrests has been for alcohol alone, but the exposure in the home has been to both alcohol and
drugs, primarily cocaine.
Ms. Thomas asked if there were any substance abuse treatment facilities for youth. Ms. Ellis
replied that there is one facility in Virginia that focuses on substance abuse treatment.
Ms. Thomas noted that when mental health facilities were closed down in favor of community-
based treatment, the result was no treatment facilities for young people with drug and alcohol problems.
Ms. Baker reported that preschools each have a waiting list, and programs like Head Start and
Bright Stars have been proven to improve students' academic achievement and social development. She
presented information on the disparity in SOL scores of students within ethnic groups.
Mr. Gordon Walker pointed out that when you look at the major contributing factors of kids not
doing well in school, it's whether parents have a high school diploma or not.
Ms. Baker said that schools have made closing this gap one of the top priorities in their strategic
plan. She stated that human service agencies and enrichment programs have a primary role to play in
addressing their students' social and educational development through after-school programs, family
support, workforce development, parent involvement initiatives, organized in partnership with public
schools. Ms. Baker presented a slide on the SOL achievement disparity between Caucasian and African-
American students at Western Albemarle High School.
Ms. Baker reported that when asked, students in the rural areas reported lack of transportation as a
barrier to getting to activities, and a lack of summer employment opportunities. She concluded her report
by stating that investment is necessary in programs that are targeted to meet high need, that have
demonstrated effectiveness with good outcomes that are well-managed and efficient, and that generate
high participation among targeted residents, improving the overall quality of life for Albemarle County
residents.
Mr. Boyd asked if there has been any progress in setting up teen centers at middle schools in the
rural areas. Ms. Baker replied that there has been progress made at Walton with after-school activities, but
there has not been movement in Crozet on the teen center. She added that perhaps the Neighborhood
Model in Crozet could accommodate a teen center.
Mr. Boyd commented that the Old Trail discussion next week should also include mention of the
need for youth activities.
Mr. Walker reported that JABA was created by the Board of Supervisors in 1975, along with the
other five localities in the Planning District, and was charged by local governments to plan services, deliver
services, and advocate for the elderly. He thanked the Board for having this session, noting that there was
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
a bus/garden tour for local officials 22 years ago to look at the poverty that existed in Albemarle County.
Mr. Walker said that the Board made substantial changes at that time to improve living conditions, such as
installation of indoor plumbing to almost 1,300 homes that did not have it.
He explained that the number of elderly persons below the poverty line is actually decreasing from
among those who are still able to live at home. He mentioned that the poverty rate is $9,570 a year though,
which is obviously not very much money. Mr. Walker noted that growth in the retired volunteer program is
up 19 percent over the last five years, as many residents are getting out into their community. He added
that the real estate tax relief for the elderly has also been helpful, although the levels set remain far below
what the state will allow the county and city to do. Mr. Walker thanked the Board for their support of
Mountainside, which in part provides 30 assisted living beds to people who are on auxiliary grants.
Mr. Rooker asked if there were both subsidized and non-subsidized beds. Mr. Walker responded
that some of the private-pay residents help subsidize the auxiliary grants.
Mr. Walker reported that the Board's support of Woods Edge apartments brought 97 low-income
housing tax credit units online in Albemarle County, and 90 new units in Parkview on Pantops would provide
low-income tax credit elderly housing. He noted that people are not supposed to spend more than 30
percent of their income on housing under this scenario, so this really targets a middle income group rather
than those at the 200 percent poverty benchmark.
Mr. Walker said that the county helps provide scholarships for people that need Adult Day
Healthcare during the day, and currently there are 31 Albemarle County residents receiving partial
scholarships. He reported that there are 16,000 meals delivered to the homebound through JABA and
Meals on Wheels. Mr. Walker noted that the rising gas prices would obviously impact this service in the
future. He said that the Hillsdale Drive facility has become a "one-stop shopping" for geriatric issues. Mr.
Walker reported that the 2020 Plan would be receiving a national award from the Federal Administration on
Aging for middle-size areas of the country. He said that the plan is an intergenerational approach, with
Western Albemarle students having written one chapter of the plan. Mr. Walker noted that the elderly
population becomes 17 percent of the overall population by the year 2010, and by the year 2020 it will be
20 percent. He mentioned that this is a 77 percent growth in the number of people over age 65 in
Albemarle County, impacted largely by baby boomers. Mr. Walker noted that the 85+ population will
double by the year 2020, which will foster the need for more assistance.
Mr. Walker said that while one out of five of the overall population in Albemarle lives below the
poverty level, one out of four elderly do. He emphasized that the average out-of-pocket expense for the
elderly is $3,100 above and beyond Medicare. Mr. Walker noted that in order to become eligible for
Medicaid in Virginia, "you have to be very poor." He said that four out of ten older women live alone, and
are at greater risk because of that. Mr. Walker said that 91 percent of those who JABA directly serves are
below the 200 percent poverty benchmark, but statistically only 1 out of 4 of those at risk are being served.
He added that one out of three people over age 65 have a disability that limits their ability to perform
activities of daily living.
Mr. Rooker asked how people become clients of JABA, and why such a large segment is not being
served. Mr. Walker responded that a large part of that is getting people to call in the first place, noting that
there is a pride factor that is a barrier to people asking for help. He said that reduced state and federal
funding has also limited JABA's ability to serve the population, noting that there is just one case manager to
serve all of Albemarle County. Mr. Walker stated that the county newsletters and tax notices are helpful in
JABA's effort to identify people in need.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there is a need for more public transportation in the county for the elderly. Mr.
Walker replied that the neighborhood approach is supportive of keeping services and facilities near where
people live, acknowledging that it is difficult to get people to drive in or even take JAUNT, as it costs $6
each ride.
Ms. Thomas suggested that there be a map provided that shows where seniors who drive or cannot
drive live. Mr. Walker responded that the census does include that information, and said he would check
into whether the 2020 Plan includes that data.
Mr. Rooker said it would also be helpful to know whether a person with a disability is able to use
transportation if they cannot access public transportation.
Ms. Thomas cited lack of ramps as a big issue, with the federal government recently deciding that
they will not fund them.
Mr. Walker emphasized the importance of considering developments that accommodate
pedestrians and reduce dependency on vehicle transportation.
Mr. Dorrier commented that there are more assisted living facilities springing up in Albemarle.
Mr. Walker replied that they are pricey, with the average cost of an assisted living bed at $3,000 per
month, with only 15 to 20 percent of the population able to afford that.
Mr. Wyant said that there are people in the rural areas who really want to stay in their homes. Mr.
Walker commented that people in rural areas end up in nursing homes sooner because of that, because
they do not receive services.
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
Ms. White said that the focus of this process has been how local government makes a difference in
terms of how resources are directed to be most effective, narrowed down to four primary areas - taking
action tomorrow, building upon success, investing in new strategies, and advocating for change. She noted
that she would be concluding by emphasizing the first area, as the other three are presented in Board
packets.
Ms. White stated that there are five top areas within taking action tomorrow:
Expanding high-quality preschool programs - getting three and four year olds ready for school, as
they are a key part of the county's prevent strategy and are working. She emphasized that brain research
shows that those brain cells need to be expanded at a young age.
Mr. Boyd asked if the county should get out in front of the state on this issue.
Ms. White replied that the state has not increased state funding for Bright Stars, although they have
increased the numbers of eligible children. She noted that the state dollars have stayed level, although the
numbers have gone up, adding that the county should provide more funding and advocate at the state level
for increases.
· Expanding school-based family support programs - putting workers in each of the
elementary schools and middle schools to prevent foster care and CSA rates. She said
that schools want those workers as they are a link to getting those families services, noting
again that funding responsibility has shifted to local government. Ms. White added that
mental health programs in the schools sponsored by Region Ten are also critical.
· Closing the achievement gap in school performance - Ms. White said that it is critical for
the county to work along with the schools and the community to make this happen. In
response to Mr. Boyd's comments, Ms. White agreed that the Board would likely see
requests for funding for programs to help close the gap, adding that early childhood and
prevention activities can make a difference.
Mr. Rooker commented that items one and two affect item three. Ms. White and Board members
agreed.
Ms. Thomas asked if we know how to do number three, noting that locally all achievement has
improved, which is a good thing, but the gap has remained the same.
Ms. White responded that there are other local models that have helped to close this gap. She
added that there would need to be a pilot program that started with prenatal, health issues, reading with
children. There are just so many things and maybe it is that we try to focus on some areas of particular
need and try to develop a system that really gets at all different points.
Mr. Dorrier noted that there is a St. John's Foundation program at Yancey Elementary, and that is
making a difference in people's lives.
Mr. Boyd wondered if some of the remediation monies might be redirected into the preschool
programs.
Mr. Rooker agreed, adding that perhaps the most likely target group for success would be
preschoolers, rather than high school students.
Mr. Walker said that the achievement gap between blacks and whites at Clarke Elementary School
has basically closed. He stated that Charles Martin's Urban Vision has been instrumental in making this
happen, while they cannot take all the credit for this. Mr. Walker said that the after-school programs at both
Clarke and Yancey have made tremendous strides towards closing the gap. He added that there also need
to be higher expectations of teachers and principals.
Mr. Boyd said that he is not sure that can be afforded to be done county-wide, as there is a
tremendous among of spending at Yancey through public funds and grants.
Ms. White added that there are several communities that are trying to get the business sector
involved also.
· Fostering a neighborhood approach to planning and delivery of services - Ms. White
reported that it is critical to get more GIS data to look at where resources should be
targeted, instead of a scattershot approach.
· Aging in place - Ms. White said that allowing the elderly to stay in homes by identifying the
at-risk population is also a key component of improving the quality of life for county
residents.
Ms. Thomas commented that in Scandinavia, they have encouraged "Places to Age" rather than
"Aging in Place," by creating beautiful living environments that the elderly actually look forward to going to.
Ms. White concluded by stating there needs to be continuation of programs that work, investment in
new strategies, and advocating for policy changes at the federal, state and local levels (businesses,
community, etc).
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
Mr. Rooker said that the federal government is backing away from Medicaid and Medicare, and the
state is under extreme pressure to pick up those costs.
Ms. Thomas agreed, stating that Virginia has some of the lowest eligibility rates, and worst
reimbursement rates in the country.
Mr. Dorrier asked about a strategic plan for elderly needs in the community.
Mr. Walker responded that the 2020 Plan is serving that function.
Mr. Boyd commented that he does not know how much more the county can stretch property taxes
to cover all of these programs," citing the need for safety, transportation, and stormwater management.
Ms. Thomas said that she works with VACo on the Financing Steering Committee, constantly
bringing up the issue of increased local support of programs previously supported by state and federal
sources.
Mr. Boyd emphasized the need to be smart with the dollars there, rather than always seeking more
money as it is obviously increasingly difficult to come by.
Ms. White concluded that it is important to help the young and elderly - those who cannot help
themselves.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this could be put into brochure format. Ms. White said that she would look into
th at.
Note: At 4:00 p.m., the Board took a recess. The Board reconvened at 4:15 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 22. Work Session: Transportation Strategy.
Mr. Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive, said as a result of a work session held in the fall of
2004 on "Urbanization", the Board directed staff to pursue an "Urbanizing County" level of service for the
County's transportation and streetscape needs. At the time, the Urbanizing County level of service for
transportation was defined as the County providing essential link transportation projects, supplementing the
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) sidewalk maintenance program and continuing to rely on
VDOT and property owner's associations for road/street maintenance. Also in the fall of 2004, the Board
added a transportation related goal to the Strategic Plan that stated, "Develop and implement policies,
including financial, that address the County's growing transportation needs." Finally, in April of 2005, the
Board adopted the FY '06 budget which included an additional $1.5 million for transportation funding in the
CIP (an additional $1.0 million for the CIP's Transportation Improvement Program and an additional
$500,000 to participate in VDOT's Revenue Sharing Program).
Mr. Foley said that over the past year considerable work has been done through the MPO's
Transportation Funding Options Working Group to develop solutions for important regional projects. In
addition, staff spent time considering the Board's direction to develop new strategies outlining how the
County can move forward and address local transportation needs. In the past the County's transportation
strategy focused on maximizing leveraging of State Revenue Sharing Funds, utilizing local funds for studies
and design, and relying to some degree on proffers as a component of funding for transportation
improvements. The County has also sought regional solutions for important regional projects and provided
funding for public transportation.
Mr. Foley said while staff recognizes that each of these current strategies will remain important
components of the County's approach in addressing transportation needs, the purpose of this work session
is to receive directions from the Board on how additional funding in the CIP and the Board's recent direction
should be focused to address local transportation projects. For the purpose of this work session, local
transportation needs will be defined as those projects not considered by the MPO's Transportation Funding
Options Working Group. Although staff realizes the decisions of the MPO will influence the Board's
direction on local transportation policy, this issue in brought forward at this time due to the Board's recent
commitment to fund transportation in the CIP, the reality of current unmet local needs in the adopted Six-
Year Secondary Road Plan and the increasing prospect of needed critical links to provide interconnectivity
and optimally implement the County's Master Plans.
Mr. Foley reviewed the Board's current transportation strategies:
. Continue to pursue all available VDOT funding as a primary first step in transportation
. Maximize the leveraging of State Revenue Sharing Funds
. Pursue regional solutions for important regional projects
. Utilize local funds for studies and design, and in certain circumstances, construction
. Utilize proffers as a component of funding for needed improvements
. Provide funding for public transportation.
Mr. Foley said as future strategies are considered, including use of the $1.5 million, the question
remains: Should local funds be used to accelerate priority road projects?
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
Mr. Cilimberg said there seems to be a general consensus from the MPO's Transportation Funding
Options Working Group that Federal and State funds should remain the primary source of transportation
funding, that more flexibility should be used with State funding for local priorities, and that the State should
consider ways localities can generate additional funds without having to hold a local referendum or seek
State enabling legislation. They feel State funds should be available to match locally-generated funds.
Mr. Cilimberg said as part of the greater region the County wants to utilize all existing alternative
funding sources. VDOT's Revenue Sharing Program and proffers have been used and should continue to
be used, but there are is the possibility of providing local funding through bonds. He said that CDA's
(Community Development Authority) have been talked about as a way to raise funds as well as public-
private approaches to transportation. There is the possibility of creating a City-County transportation district
supported by a local sales tax committed by contract to such a district; that would require State legislative
action.
Mr. Cilimberg said there are identified regional transportation needs in the community, and the
question is whether local dollars can make a difference in those needs. In study and design work there is
the strong possibility local money can playa significant role, such as with the work presently being done on
alignments for an Eastern Connector. He noted that several projects have fallen behind schedule - such
as Georgetown Road - because of limited VDOT staffing. It is possible the County could help get that
project underway sooner. There are roads with critical needs which are not currently eligible for State
funding; these roads have been identified in master plans. There is a public expectation that the County will
provide infrastructure in Crozet like an Eastern Avenue or the Lickinghole Creek Bridge.
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, said there are two categories of local
projects - those in the Six-Year Secondary Road Plan and those that are not in the Plan. The projects in
the Six-Year Plan are easier because they are already approved for VDOT funding and are recognized for
construction. However, State funding is limited and the amount the County receives is decreasing each
year. Although revenue is increasing it is going to maintenance expenses so less money is available for
construction.
Mr. Graham said local dollars can make a difference in three areas: preliminary engineering -
doing location and design on roads such as Jarmans Gap Road. The County does not have transportation
engineering project managers on staff, and even though consultants can be hired, someone still needs to
manage the project.
Mr. Graham said the second area considered for local dollars was to have the County fund right-of-
way acquisition, but again there is not enough County staff and it would require the hiring of attorneys. He
said it may not be appropriate for the County to take over that part of the process with Secondary Road
projects.
Mr. Rooker stressed the importance of watching this closely on the Meadow Creek Parkway so it
can meet the 2008 construction date. He mentioned irregularity of its borders and design challenges as
potential hindrances to the schedule. Mr. Graham replied that VDOT is expected to have the right-of-way
plans done in early February 2006, with the process then moving forward to right-of-way acquisition. He
noted that VDOT requires 70 percent of a project's funding to be in place prior to construction beginning;
perhaps County dollars could be used to push projects to an earlier start date. He again pointed out the
need for project managers.
Ms. Thomas said the sidewalk project on Route 20 North was not an easy project to manage. Mr.
Graham replied that was a steep learning curve; the County learned a lot about sidewalk construction from
that project.
Mr. Graham said local projects coming out of master plans, and critical connectors, are not all
eligible for State funding. He said that may change, such as the Southern Connector did, but it is
impossible to know.
Mr. Rooker suggested having traffic counts run at Mill Creek to make sure that Southern Connector
is still necessary in light of two new proposals coming forward.
Mr. Graham continued. He said local dollars can be used to proactively address future needs by
going into the location and design part of the process, by setting road alignments, and by working with
developers and property owners along those lines. He said the Berkmar Drive extension and Main Street in
Crozet are important to transportation network components as urban infrastructure is developed.
Mr. Graham said the County would function as a private developer in construction of roads such as
Berkmar Drive Extended, as the Airport Authority did with Route 606. He explained that the County would
be designing the road, getting the right-of-way, building the road, and then turning it over to VDOT using
strictly local dollars rather than VDOT funds. He said that would relieve the County from processes
required when using State funds.
Mr. Graham concluded with a report on State trends. He said the decrease in Secondary Road
funding will probably continue. Also, Revenue Sharing Funds will continue to be promoted at the State
level with an emphasis on local governments managing their own programs. He said the City of
Charlottesville takes road construction money and manages its own programs. Everything points to the
State reducing its responsibility for the Secondary Road system. He does not think that is going to
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
change. Localities are either going to have to increase funding for roads or accept increasing road
deficiencies.
Mr. Foley said the master plans are creating an expectation that the County will provide funds for
road construction. One of the strategies concerns having attractive urban areas as a way to keep people
from developing in the rural areas. The Board will have to consider investing funds to try and create the
kind of neighborhoods laid out in the Neighborhood Model. The question is whether to amend that strategy
to include local funds for road projects and staff has come up with some recommendations. Staff feels
there should be some funding dedicated to accelerating priority road projects rather than taking the whole
$1.0 million in extra funds and putting it into a regional fund; some of that money should be committed to
moving forward projects. Staff needs to do an assessment with VDOT to see if the goal to accelerate can
be realized, and the same needs to be done with the local critical connectors in the Master Plans.
Mr. Foley said after that is done there needs to be a commitment to the next level of preliminary
engineering design and location studies, and that will require additional expertise on staff. He emphasized
that this shift does not take away from the pressure put on VDOT for more funding, noting that this is just a
first step in moving projects along more quickly.
Mr. Rooker stated that at a minimum staff should do some preliminary work on existing projects,
and engage in discussions with VDOT about moving those projects forward. He cited Jarmans Gap Road
as an example that could be dealt with in this way.
Mr. Boyd asked if that means Jarmans Gap Road becomes more of a priority than other roads
ahead of it in the plan.
Mr. Rooker responded that the Jarmans Gap project is already a priority project in the County. The
Eastern Connector, for example, will be recommended as a regional project through the work of the MPO's
Transportation Funding Options Working Group.
Mr. Boyd asked how long that Group has been meeting, and when they will provide a report?
Mr. Rooker said the Working Group will issue a report in the next month. It took projects which
were already prioritized. He explained that the City has indicated a desire to put up $0.5 million for an
Eastern Connector interchange, as has the County.
Mr. Boyd said that was on the table months ago.
Mr. Rooker said when it comes to transportation things do not happen in 30 days or 45 days. He
suggested that Mr. Boyd "jump in any time" anywhere and tell the Group how it can come up with the funds
that are needed to do these projects. He emphasized that the Eastern Connector is not a defined project
now. It has no location. The Group is talking about getting a location study. It is trying to get the City to
participate on an equal basis with the County in the process. The City has indicated it would probably be
willing to put up $0.5 million.
Mr. Boyd asked what items are on the list.
Mr. Foley offered the list to Mr. Boyd, stating that staff can bring forward a list of priorities - local
and regional - for which a difference can be made. He said from that list, as well as the regional projects in
the MPO effort, staff will be identifying opportunities to expedite some items, whereas others might be
accelerated with local dollars.
Ms. Thomas said the Eastern Connector is an example of one road that a developer is interested in
helping with, emphasizing that delay is going to cost. She added that when there are crises the County
should have the flexibility to deal with the items it can influence.
Mr. Foley commented that there are opportunities to accelerate road projects just by being in a
mode of operation where the County sits down with developers. Those are the kinds of opportunities that
are being missed now by being in a status quo kind of position.
Mr. Boyd asked if it is possible to set aside dollars through a bond issue if those dollars are not
targeted to a specific project. Mr. Tucker said there would have to be a referendum on the question.
Mr. Boyd said he voted for the additional $1.5 million for Debt Service, and the community should
decide through a referendum about putting money toward road projects. Mr. Foley said the County cannot
put anything on a bond referendum until it is well defined and aligned for public consideration. That is
where staff is at this time.
Mr. Boyd said his question is whether the County could afford a $20.0 million bond issue. He would
like to separate through this whole process a pool of money this County is willing to commit to
transportation issues.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that the MPO Working Group report includes a recommendation for creating
a service district, or a transportation district, comprised of the City and County that would be funded with a
contract for bond issuance. The reason for considering that is to get at the list of projects that both
communities want to see built, sooner rather than later.
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50)
Mr. Boyd asked what the joint projects are, other than Eastern Avenue and the Southern
Connector. Mr. Foley said there are: Hillsdale Drive, Meadow Creek Parkway, Southern Parkway, transit
improvements, park and ride lots, Route 29 North, Hydraulic Road, Route 250 Bypass improvements, the
Eastern Connector, and the Southern Area B.
Mr. Rooker said those projects are estimated to cost well over $100 million. He said after the
report is released the County might decide not to go that route, adding that each entity has projects the
other entities are not interested in, such as the County's Jarmans Gap Road project.
Mr. Boyd asked how long it would take staff to define those projects and determine a cost. Mr.
Foley said staff is not talking about engineering. They are predicting that it come forward fairly quickly
depending on VDOT. It should be timed with the MPO recommendations.
Ms. Thomas said that unlike VDOT, the County can decide whether it makes more sense to do a
transit project rather than a road project, and look at whether land use decisions could be different if
alignments are chosen related to them. She wishes needed improvements would not impact the real
estate tax rate, but if they are going to, then at least decisions can be made smartly.
Mr. Wyant said roads outside of the MPO recommendations will need to be considered separately.
Mr. Foley said he sees two lists, and they may compete for funding.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that a location can be chosen for a road, but it will probably be a
secondary road, and that funding is increasingly limited. There may never be the funds necessary to build
that road.
Mr. Boyd stressed that the County should just make the decision to "do it" and "fund it."
Mr. Rooker mentioned that there are decisions that have a degree of uncertainty, as money spent
might not turn into a project later.
Mr. Boyd said that the Eastern Connector has been discussed for 20 years.
Mr. Rooker stated that no real money has ever been assigned to it.
Mr. Bowerman felt the Board should ask staff to make recommendations as to what projects could
be done if money were applied today, and get a priority list from which to make decisions.
Mr. Foley said the next level of planning deals with the actual building. Right now the issue is
whether to use transportation money to clarify opportunities. He added that the regional projects would be
too large for the County to handle alone unless they were bonded.
Mr. Rooker said the City needs to put up the maximum amount to realize the most Revenue
Sharing Funds, as the County did this year. He added that it would be nice to move forward on both fronts,
funding local projects if possible, and also establishing a regional approach.
Ms. Thomas suggested joining Virginians for Better Transportation, which includes highway
builders and transportation groups, to try and get the General Assembly to give more money for
transportation. She said there is never going to be enough local money to build all of the needed roads.
Agenda Item No. 23. Ivy Landfill - Cell 3 Evaluations.
Mr. Tucker referenced a memorandum dated August 22 from the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority
(RSWA) Board of Directors. It has been determined that there is a problem at Cell Three at the Ivy Landfill,
as the leachate collection system has likely failed, blocking the full capability of draining it from those cells.
He said the permanent cap is not functioning as it should and there is a plan being developed to resolve
those two issues. That plan is being reviewed by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). He said
the RSWA Board has authorized over $500,000 to study the problem further and then implement plans to
resolve the problem.
Mr. Tom Frederick, Executive Director of the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority, addressed the Board,
noting that they are still in an investigative mode after a fugitive air scan revealed that there were releases of
methane and other gasses at the site. They found information that led the RSWA to spend an additional
$350,000 to expand the gas collection system. He noted that it was discovered that that cell was not
producing gas representative of a cell with waste matter of that particular age, and internally they
determined there were no environmental consequences such as odor releases. They had been dealing
with underground conditions, and what elevated their concern was more accumulated leachate in the cell
than the conditions it was designed for. Malcolm Pirnie did a preliminary structural analysis to test stability.
They had to use conservative evaluations so the problem would not be accelerated. Their findings painted
a "bad case scenario" that prompted them to start removing leachate from the cell. They approached the
RSWA at that time so the structural problem would not be made more severe during the investigation
process. They are leachate drilling from the top and pumping while collecting data, along with identifying
specific locations where the cap was not working and water was entering the solid waste. He added that
they are also investigating leachate treatment disposal options including trucking it to the Moores Creek
Wastewater Treatment Plant, although the volume might dictate other options. The cost may be higher
than the current appropriation of $500,000 from the RSWA.
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 51)
In response to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Tucker explained that the money is funding what the
County and City would be providing to RSWA through the agreement for environmental costs. That money
would need to be appropriated ahead of schedule, and it is likely the RSWA would have to come back to
the County for more RSWA funds.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is also money in escrow. Mr. Tucker said if that money is returned
through the DEQ, it would cover most if not all of this expense.
Mr. Rooker stated this money was put in a while back at DEQ and they are holding it in escrow.
Ms. Thomas said that money will then not be there for future environmental costs.
Ms. Anne Bedarf, Environmental Safety Manager for RSWA, presented a footprint of the Cell Three
boundaries, which encompasses 11.74 acres. She explained that it contains gas extraction wells which
have been drilled in clusters. She then pointed out the location of the leachate collection system noting the
size of the accumulated liquid area.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is the alternative of trucking the leachate to the Moores Creek STP. Ms.
Bedarf said there would be onsite treatment through a temporary facility. She said there could be a
permanent system put in place of the current pond. She added that a third option is a connection to the
Crozet interceptor; this idea was explored in 1995 and 1996. She said some of that is dependent on
VDOT's use of the system in its rest areas which are located in that area.
Ms. Thomas asked the quantity of waste involved. Ms. Bedarf replied that the worse case scenario
would put 47.0 million gallons in Cell Three. If the system had been working properly it shouldn't have
produced much because the cap is supposed to prevent infiltrating water. She said the first step is to
confirm that number. They have been pumping out through a moving unit around the cell. The goal is to
have 13 new extraction wells which will also function as water level indicators to determine trash saturation.
She added that the stability evaluation will continue throughout the process.
Ms. Bedarf pointed out that the worse case scenario is system failure, but there is no indication of
that now. They do not see an impact on the surface water below the cell either on Broad Axe Creek or its
tributaries. She said they are also looking at the cap's integrity, which is an ongoing process. The worse
case would be for an entire cap replacement, with disking in Bentonyte (a substance that expands when
water gets in it) to fill the crack in the cap, or using polyethylene as a cover, or a combination of those
options.
Mr. Boyd asked for information on costs.
Mr. Frederick said plans are constantly changing, but they are finding from wells being drilled that
the water in the cell is moving very slowly. The potential positive result of that is there may not be a critical
structural problem as indicated earlier, but the flip side of that is taking a longer time for water extraction,
probably longer than three months. He said the 47.0 million gallon figure was taken from well samples. It
could be that the water is not saturated all the way to the bottom, which is good news related to volume. He
added that it could cost more than $1.0 million, but would probably not be as high as Mr. Boyd's guess of
$10.0 million. He said if there are leaks, they have to be capped quickly.
Mr. Bowerman commented that there could be some contractor recovery.
Mr. Frederick said that is not being ruled out. The unlined portion of this cell was opened in the
mid-1970s, which is where the failing leachate system is located. The lined portion was opened in the late
1980s, and the capping system was approved in 1998. He said there is liquid in any solid waste, but you
want to minimize what water is added through rainfall. He added that the cap is put on when the cell is
closed.
Mr. Wyant said the standards were just established ten years ago.
Ms. Thomas said there have been new standards adopted related to overlapping. She asked if
there was a plan in place for what to do with the water system.
Mr. Frederick replied that there is a plan evolving plan to address that.
Agenda Item No. 24. ZMA-2004-007. Belvedere (Signs #62,76 & 84). Public hearing continued
from August 10, 2005, on a request to rezone approx 206.682 acs from R-4 to NMD to allow up to 775 du
w/overall density of 3.74 du/ac ranging from density of 1.6 du/ac in some areas to 9.4 du in others. TM 61,
Ps 154, 157, 158, 160 (portion) & 161, TM 62, Ps 2A (portion) 2B (portion), 2C, 3, 5 & 6A, & TM 62A3, P11.
Loc on E side of Rio Rd (Rt 631) immediately E of Southern Railroad. (The Comp Plan designates this
property as Neighborhood Density in northern portion of property (3-6 du/ac), Urban Density in middle &
southern portions (6-34 du/ac) & Community Service adjac to railroad, in Neighborhood 2. Rio Dist.
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, presented the last set of proffers which
had just been received from the developer this afternoon. He explained that this petition is not ready for a
decision as the Application Plan and Code of Development referenced by the unsigned proffers have not
been received. He said the three instruments have to work together. He said there is no way this petition
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 52)
can be ready for the Board's meeting next Wednesday.
Mr. Graham said Proffer NO.2 related to affordable housing calls for a contribution of $1 ,000 per
single-family detached dwelling unit, $750 for a single-family attached unit or townhouse, and $500 for a
multi-family unit. The proffer also calls for a certain number of carriage units even though it does not
assure that there will be affordable housing provided in the development.
Regarding the Northern Free State Connector, Mr. Graham said the area will be noted as a final
design for that road to ensure the connector will be built in the future; that would have to be verified at time
of site plan review. He emphasized that there is just not enough detail to determine the exact location right
now, noting on the map where the area in question is located.
Mr. Graham said Proffer No. 3.2 related to the greenway path is now offered by the applicant to
give enough area to get in a 1 O-foot wide trail and drainage.
Mr. Rooker asked if that is adequate. Mr. Graham replied that it is adequate to build a trail, but the
previous plan showed a 1 OO-foot wide greenway.
Mr. Rooker recalled that at the last meeting the 1 OO-foot greenway was not seen to be a problem.
Mr. Boyd recalled a problem with the slope to accommodate the greenway.
Mr. Rooker asked if the greenway was expected to be wider.
Mr. Wyant asked if the strip of land is adequate to even put in a greenway. Mr. Davis said it could
be a lot wider than 100 feet, but it could also be as narrow as 10 feet.
Mr. Rooker said that in the past the Board has tried to pin down a width.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board is not looking for less than 100 feet.
Mr. Rooker noted that the other issue is whether anything has changed on the road compression
issue. Mr. Graham replied that staff has reached an acceptable solution with the developer to
accommodate a future Northern Free State Connector, adding that the sidewalk issue has also been
resolved with the caveat that a four-lane road would move the sidewalk to each side instead of one side.
Mr. Rooker asked if the form of the road has changed. Mr. Graham confirmed that the applicant
did what has been asked by for by planning for a smaller two-lane road by the Swim Club.
Mr. Dorrier asked how much money would be put into the affordable housing trust fund. Mr.
Graham replied that he couldn't estimate that without knowing how many of each housing type would be
constructed.
Mr. Rooker estimated the figure at between $500,000 and $600,000. Mr. Davis noted that it might
be awhile before that money is realized.
Mr. Rooker suggested proceeding with hearing from the applicant and holding the public hearing,
although the Board cannot vote on it this afternoon. He added that when the request comes back to the
Board, the public hearing will be opened again.
At this time, Mr. Frank Stoner addressed the Board on behalf of Stonehaus Development. He
thanked staff for their help. He said they all tried to tie up loose ends before this meeting, but couldn't quite
get everything done.
Mr. Stoner said the language included in the proffer for affordable housing was suggested by Mr.
Ron White, County Housing Director. He added that he thinks there will be affordable units at Belvedere.
There was no consistent formula available, so they opted for a cash proffer. He said the open space and
greenway proffer was crafted in response to concerns aired at previous Board meetings. He recalled Mr.
Rooker leaving it open-ended as to how it would be placed. He offered to modify that proffer if there is still
concern about width and limitations.
Mr. Rooker suggested simply saying "no less than 100 feet" to solve that issue.
Mr. Stoner said they have modified and added several proffers related to road construction and
reservation of right-of-way, with the road being split into two sections - between Rio Road and the Free
State Connector, and the Free State Connector Extension. He stated that they added Proffer No. 4.5
related to access to the Fairview Swim Club. They met with representatives from the Swim Club to address
land and right-of-way issues, resulting in a written agreement.
Pursuant to a comment from Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney, Mr. Stoner said he
added Section 7.2 regarding mitigation of construction impact, and also added Item 8.1 under Architectural
Standards under Code Enforcement as recommended by staff.
Mr. Davis said that he has not had an opportunity to review the proffers in detail.
Mr. Rooker said the first available date for final consideration of this petition by the Board is at its
meeting on October 7.
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 53)
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 54)
Mr. Bowerman commented that the contributions would be given in addition to the carriage house
units. Mr. Davis noted that this proffer has improved upon the original proffer, but the County's preference
is still that there not are strings attached to the money so it can be used for whatever affordable housing
program is most productive. He does not know why the developer wants to tie it to this particular program.
Mr. Stoner said in the prior version, one-half of the money went to the County's trust fund, and the
other one-half went to the Workforce Housing Fund. The reason is that through a cooperative agreement
with the real estate community, the total proffer could be expanded and enhanced, which "didn't fly" with the
County.
Mr. Davis stated that if the money is proffered to the County's affordable housing office, it does not
limit it, but the developer was trying to "tie the County's hands," which is not appropriate.
Mr. Rooker suggested changing the language to "to Albemarle County for affordable housing
purposes." Mr. Davis agreed, as did Mr. Stoner. Mr. Rooker added that if there is a leveraging program for
affordable housing, Mr. Stoner should bring that forward to the County.
Mr. Rooker asked if the agreement with Fairview changes the plan in any way.
Mr. Stoner responded that it does not; it just facilitates the expanded right-of-way through the pinch
point, providing for the conveyance of the strip of land between Belvedere Boulevard and Fairview to the
swim club. He added that that land is currently shown as parkland.
Mr. Rooker asked if that would enable him to match the profile of the road all the way through. Mr.
Stoner confirmed that it would.
At this time, Mr. Rooker opened the meeting for public comment.
Mr. Rob Tewels addressed the Board. He said he lives on Loring Run which is in a tight-knit
neighborhood of 50 homes housing about 200 people, many under the age of 10. He does not want to see
Loring Run open up to through traffic, as it would become a speed strip for people cutting through. He said
Loring Run is too narrow and winding to accommodate through traffic, and he asked the Board not to
approve the subdivision because of these traffic concerns.
Mr. John Putalik, president of the RivercresUDunlora Homeowners Association, addressed the
Board. He said the developer plans to lower the ridgeline and reduce the width of the wooded area
between the two communities to a mere 90 to 100 feet. The plan showed two condo-block multi-story
buildings, each 200 feet in length and three or four stories. He said Rivercrest residents on the upper
section of Shepherd's Ridge Road would be impacted by noise and illumination, weakening of trees from
soil disturbance, and soil erosion from a critical slope. The wooded buffer composed largely of deciduous
trees would likely be annihilated if the treed area was too narrow. He stated that without a forested area,
snow and rain will runoff through bare soil which accentuates flooding conditions. The Neighborhood
Model does set up new challenges in contrast to R-4 zoning. He asked what happens with this new runoff,
and how would the added drainage into Dunlora ponds be accommodated. There have already been
drainage problems at Rivercrest, and residents are concerned about the additional impact to the water
level. He cautioned about hostility between neighbors of the developments, and requested that the wooded
buffer zone be extended to 600 feet minimum from the present gully that runs behind the Shepherd's Ridge
villas on the west side of the street of Phase B.
Mr. Rooker noted that this project has been in the hearing process for quite a long time. He does
not recall that the Rivercrest Homeowners took any position on this question at the last Planning
Commission meeting. Mr. Putalik disagreed.
Mr. Rooker recalled that Rivercrest indicated their satisfaction with the 1 OO-foot buffer, and he
wondered if something had happened to change their position. Mr. Putalik said the residents recognize the
hilly/mountainous terrain, and are concerned about the possibility of storm situations. They have had more
time to reflect on the situation. He acknowledged that they did not pay as much attention to the buffer zone
as they should have. He asked the Board to examine this potential problem closely.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Putalik had seen the extensive overlot grading plan staff developed to
deal with this runoff issue. He said it might put to rest some of the community's concerns because it deals
with exactly what he was talking about.
Mr. Rooker said this is the exact reason why the new overlot grading plans are being required. The
property is zoned R-4 today, and could accommodate 800 units, and the developer could build by-right with
minimum requirements without a grading plan. There are limitations as to what the County can impose on
a developer who can develop the property as a matter of right. Te question is how to get the best plan from
the developer given all the facts and circumstances.
Mr. Mike Horn addressed the Board. He is a resident in RivercresUDunlora. His home backs up to
the highest density area proposed in Belvedere. He was at the last Planning Commission meeting and
recalled that the Commission voted against the plan as submitted because their list of concerns had not
been resolved.
Mr. Rooker said the Commission voted not to recommend the petition because of eight reasons, all
of which have now been dealt with.
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 55)
Mr. Horn said the Planning Commission should have an opportunity to review this again.
Mr. Bowerman said if the Commission recommends that changes be made and they are then
made, the Board can move forward with those recommendations without the request being returned to the
Commission first.
Mr. Horn said the $500,000 to $600,000 wouldn't buy two homes in Dunlora, and he would rather
see the affordable housing go to a project that benefits more of Albemarle County. He also noted that
there has been nothing done to accomplish the additional buffers requested by Rivercrest residents.
Mr. Rooker commented that the Affordable Housing Trust Fund provides down payment assistance
to people in the community, many of whom have gone through the Homebuyers Club to learn the process.
He added that the typical down payment assistance is $13,000 to $15,000, which would put about 35 to 40
people in homes that might otherwise not be able to buy one. He said the carriage house units are
affordable housing alternatives.
Ms. Thomas said it is fair to say that the $750 average per unit is small compared to what some
other developers have offered. She wishes the figure were higher. She will take into account all of the
proffers when making her decision.
Mr. Rooker acknowledged that he would not have supported just the $750 contribution, but
providing the carriage house units in addition is helpful to him.
Mr. Bowerman said he recognizes that there will be increased development in the urban ring, but
it's "like residences next to like residences." He emphasized that this property will develop as residential
units regardless because of its R-4 zoning, and through this procedure there is more control over this
development than a by-right development.
Mr. Graham commented that the overlot grading was designed to address the concerns raised.
There is a preservation buffer of almost 100 feet adjoining the Rivercrest properties.
Mr. Bowerman said that is what the County typically gets between one residential use and another.
Mr. Dorrier said this is a Neighborhood Model where the developer and the County have worked
well together. This has not been an easy process; in any compromise there will be unhappy parties on both
sides. He thinks this is a good project.
Mr. Rooker reiterated that the Planning Commission brought up eight problems and they have all
been addressed. In a by-right situation there would be no requirement to proffer the affordable housing, the
greenway, the right-of-way for roads, the connection to Dunlora, the access to Fairview, the overlot grading
plan, the archeological survey, the phasing to minimize impacts, or architectural standards. Those are all
things that the County would not be able to obtain in a by-right development.
Mr. Davis stated that as part of the deferral there would need to be another public hearing.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman to defer ZMA-2004-007 until October 5, 2005, for another
public hearing. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 25. Hurricane Katrina Relief Fund, Discussion of.
Mr. Tucker said VACo has agreed to accept donations from localities for Hurricane Katrina relief
efforts and then transfer those funds to the Red Cross. He also received an e-mail from NACo offering to
accept donations for affected counties and parishes to be distributed throughout Louisiana, Mississippi and
Alabama.
Mr. Davis said there is still discussion going on about how this can be done, as there are legal
restrictions as to whom counties can give money to - normally only charitable organizations providing
services within the County. He said the consensus is that the Red Cross is an entity that could be used, and
VACo should ensure that is where the funds would go. He suggested authorizing it through VACo or
donating directly to the Red Cross.
Mr. Bowerman said there are citizens in the County doing this on their own. He has some hesitancy
about making a public contribution in addition to that effort.
Ms. Thomas said she shares that concern over use of local taxpayer dollars for this purpose.
Mr. Rooker asked if this is the same thing as giving to a local charity.
Mr. Dorrier said there are different ways to contribute, and these displaced people need help.
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 56)
Mr. Bowerman agreed that housing displaced people locally might be a better means of support.
Anybody that wants to give can give, and he thinks the County's citizens have opened their hearts and their
pockets for this cause.
Mr. Rooker said an announcement was made yesterday on the Mall that the County was joining the
City, the University, and others, to help. He said the Governor has asked that communities coordinate as
much as possible locally so that the community as a whole can help.
Ms. Lee Catlin said there is to be a meeting with agencies in the community who are working on
plans to help meet this need.
Mr. Tucker said he did not want the County to embark upon its own initiative when there are so
many other entities locally working on this.
Ms. Thomas said this area has very low unemployment, and this community could open up to help
these people.
Ms. Catlin said the message Mr. Rooker gave yesterday about contributions being meaningful and
productive is important.
(At this time the Board took up Agenda Item No. 11. Update on Retiree Health Insurance.
Mr. Tucker reported that several retirees, specifically in law enforcement, have expressed concern
that their healthcare benefits under the County's early retirement program will run out before they are
eligible for Medicare insurance. During the last budget work sessions, the Board appropriated $200,000 to
supplement those healthcare contributions. He said staff has now learned that VRS gave the County bad
information. He said Mr. Melvin Breeden will present information on different options.
Mr. Breeden said that under the teachers' plan, in order to be eligible the person must have at least
15 years of service. Each year of service is multiplied by $2.50 and that is added to their monthly VRS
retirement check, a total of $50 more than normal. They have to submit proof of having health insurance
somewhere. That is part of the VRS rate the County is pays now.
Ms. Thomas asked how the pay-in compares to what retired teachers are getting back. Mr.
Breeden noted that changes in accounting rules will force full funding of these programs, so the cost of the
teachers' program would probably double in the next few years.
Ms. Thomas asked if something different could be done. Mr. Breeden said if other employees are
brought in, it is "an irrevocable election." He confirmed that the County must stay with the VRS agreement
for teachers.
Mr. Rooker cautioned that he would not go down this path with any other employees, as there are
several legal issues surrounding how these contributions are levied.
Mr. Davis said Mr. Breeden's recommendation is to do a flat number of years, not an amount until
age 65 is reached, noting that there are several cases in the system now regarding this issue.
Mr. Breeden said the employee can stay under the County's health insurance, or can take the
money and apply it as they see fit.
Mr. Davis noted that the County has the age 65 cutoff component, but in a district court decision in
Pennsylvania, it was found that may not be in full compliance with federal law. He is not sure that the law is
settled enough for the Board to be worried about it at this point.
Mr. Rooker commented that it is a trap because of the irrevocable nature of the agreement. He
noted that a $45.00 per month contribution towards $800 in insurance is a meaningless benefit anyway.
Mr. Breeden said just the VREP health insurance payment requires the employee to be at least 55
years of age with at least 20 years of service. He recommended that a dollar amount be set.
Mr. Rooker said that is basically setting up a retirement plan.
Ms. Thomas said the suggestion is for a payment of almost $6,000 per year from the County to
each retiree for a period of five years, and $3,000 for an additional five years.
Mr. Davis added that they would only get the second five years if they have 20 years or more of
service.
Mr. Breeden noted that the current VERIP plan calls for an employee to be 50 years of age with 10
years of service, as the first five years is already there.
Ms. Thomas confirmed that the County is already doing $6,000 per year for someone who retires
with at least 10 years of service and is at least 55 years of age.
Mr. Breeden said family coverage now costs almost $10,000 per year, with the County paying 60
September 7,2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 57)
percent of that. If someone retires at age 55 and has a big medical bill at age 60, there is a gap.
Mr. Rooker stated that this program encourages people to retire early.
Ms. Thomas said employees used to be encouraged to retire early, but now that is shifting in the
other direction.
Mr. Davis agreed with Mr. Boyd that Human Resources agrees the program is a real sales tool
because it encourages people to stay with the County for at least 10 years, and if they're not age 50 yet, for
longer than that so that they get that benefit.
Mr. Breeden said the shift to 20 years is some improvement. He noted that it does give the benefit
to the professional school group.
Mr. Tucker said the County should request the State to have school employees and local
government employees in different categories.
Mr. Rooker said if you ask for something else, VRS will likely dump the responsibility back on the
County. He said that private companies are trying to get out from under these tail-end benefits.
Mr. Breeden mentioned that the group of employees that came in raised the issue of a significant
difference in what the City offers over what the County offers.
Mr. Boyd asked if this has impacted recruiting. Mr. Tucker responded that most people do not even
know the County offers this program.
Mr. Dorrier commented that most of the retired deputies worked for many years and were not paid
that well. If the Board does not support them, it's doing the wrong thing.
Mr. Rooker said that could be said about any benefit. He suggested leaving the provision as it is
now, and revisiting it at another time. Mr. Breeden noted that there are many, many options.
Agenda Item No. 26. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Boyd said Chesterfield County put together a proffer program in four months and it has survived
a number of lawsuits. He understands many other localities are using it as a model.
Mr. Boyd said the BPS-Key $4.0 million project for improving computer systems involved $600,000
to study existing systems, and it still didn't yield a savings. Mr. Breeden said part of it is identifying current
costs and putting in measurements as to what savings will be realized.
Mr. Rooker agreed, noting that a mainframe system could not continue.
Mr. Dorrier mentioned communication from a constituent regarding the penalty levied on the real
estate Land Use taxation. Mr. Davis said there was no penalty for those who paid on time. The individual
who communicated with Board members only paid his back taxes. He paid no penalty. He paid no interest.
He said the issue exists only for people who did not pay on time, and they will be assessed a penalty.
Agenda Item No. 27. Adjourn to September 9,2005,9:00 a.m., Zehmer Hall, Board's Annual
Strategic Planning Retreat.
With no further business to come before the Board, at 7:22 p.m., motion was offered by Mr.
Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Boyd to adjourn this meeting until September 9,2005, 9:00 a.m., Zehmer
Hall for the Board's Annual Strategic Planning Retreat.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 03/01/2006
Initials: DM