2000-11-01November 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
November 1, 2000, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. (arrived at 9:14 a.m.), Ms.
Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Clerk, Ella W. Carey, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:03 a.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Martin.
_______________
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.
Mr. John Martin, representing Citizens for Albemarle, invited the Board members to a Population
Forum scheduled for November 9, 2000, at 7:00 p.m., in City Council Chambers, Charlottesville City Hall.
Mr. Eben Fodor, authority of “Better Not Bigger: How to Take Control of Urban Growth and Improve Your
Community will be the featured speaker, along with Jon Cannor, Director of Environmental Law Studies at
@
the University of Virginia, Rich Collins; Lewis Professor at the University of Virginias School of Architecture,
=
and Francis Fife, a former mayor of Charlottesville.
__________
Mr. Tucker introduced Mr. Ron White, the County's newly hired Chief of Housing. He formerly
worked with the State Housing Office.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion to approve Items 5.1 through 5.9, and to accept the
remaining items on the Consent Agenda for information was offered by Ms. Thomas. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Bowerman.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Dorrier.
__________
Item 5.1. Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission's 2001 Draft Legislative Program.
It was noted in the staffs report that the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC)
=
works with the County and other planning districts each year to develop a legislative program for the
General Assemblys session. The Draft 2001 Legislative Program follows the same format as in prior years.
=
The County's major issues recommended to the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo) are included in
the draft program. The approved TJPDC Legislative Program will be sent to the local legislators prior to the
Boards meeting with them on December 14, 2000. Staff recommends that the Board approve the Draft
=
2001 TJPDC Legislative Program, with the understanding that suggested changes from the Board will be
reflected in the final version of the regional legislative program.
(Ms. Humphris said before the next General Assembly Session, the Board may wish to ask for
enabling authority to establish a revolving fund for historic preservation. She does not know enough about
the question at this time to even make the request. Mr. Tucker said the County Attorney will study the
question and give the Board an update at another meeting.)
By the above recorded vote, the Board approved the Draft 2001 TJPDC Legislative Program
with the understanding that suggested changes from the Board will be reflected in the final version
of the regional legislative program.
__________
Item 5.2. Resolution to accept Garden Gate Court in Garden Gate Farm Subdivision into the State
Secondary System of Highways.
At the request of the Countys Engineering Department, the following Resolution was
==
adopted by the recorded vote set out above:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Garden Gate Farm Subdivision described on the
attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated October 13, 2000, fully incorporated herein by
reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
November 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation
has advised the Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the
Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County
Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the road(s) in
Garden Gate Farm Subdivision, as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A)
dated October 13, 2000, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to
'
33.1-229, 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, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and
drainage as described on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to
the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
___
The road(s) described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1)Garden Gate Court from the intersection of Route 712 (Station 0+00 at
centerline) to the cul-de-sac (Station 5+73.45 at end of cul-de-sac), as
shown on plat recorded 1/24/97 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 1612, pages 388-394, and plat
recorded on 10/4/00 in Deed Book 1959, page 321; with a 50-foot
right-of-way width, for a length of 0.100 mile.
Total Mileage - 0.11 mile.
__________
Item 5.3. Hiring of Adult Protective Service Worker - Department of Social Services.
It was noted in the staffs report that during the FY 01 budget work sessions, the Board approved
=>
an additional 1.0 FTE Adult Protective Services social worker in the Department of Social Services budget
pending the availability of State matching funds. The local match approved for the position was $5143.
According to the Virginia Department of Social Services, caseload standards used by the State to allocate
positions found the department is understaffed by 2.4 social workers for the size of the mandated caseload.
Staff recommends approval of a new Adult Protective Services social worker for the Department of
Social Services funded in the current year with existing local and State resources. Although the Board
approved the position in the FY 01 budget with a local match of $5143 for the current year, the position will
>
have an additional cost of $19,178 in the next fiscal year if the State does not fund the position. If the
position is approved, these additional funds would be incorporated into the recommended FY 02 budget.
>
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved a new Adult Protective Services
social worker for the Department of Social Services to be funded in the current year with existing
local and State resources. Additional funds for the next fiscal year will be incorporated into the FY
2002 budget.
__________
Item 5.4. Set public hearing for proposed FY 2001 Budget Amendment to Appropriate $592,000 in
donated funds to the Esmont Park Project.
It was noted in the staffs report that on December 2, 1998, the Board authorized the County
=
Executive to execute purchase agreements for the Esmont Park property. On February 2, 2000, the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Community Foundation announced a $500,000 gift, made possible by the Dave
Mathews Band and an anonymous donor, to fund construction of the park.
During the final design process the donors asked the project architect and County staff to consider
the feasibility of adding a water-related feature in the park design. The architect designed a spray garden.
This feature includes four different fountainheads in a 55-foot by 40-foot area. The water will drain and be
recycled. There will be no standing water which will eliminate the need for lifeguard supervision. The
additional cost for the fountain is estimated at $92,000. The donors have agreed to fund the additional cost
bringing the total gift to $592,000.
The project is scheduled to be put out to bid in November. Construction will begin in December
with a mid-summer completion schedule. Park construction contracts cannot be signed unless funding is
appropriated. The County Attorney's Office is drawing up an agreement between the County and the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Community Foundation. Under the terms of that agreement, the County will pay
the bills and then submit bills to the Foundation for reimbursement. The Foundation will reimburse the
County up to $592,000.
Based on Virginia Code Section 15.2-2507, the County must advertise and hold a public hearing for
any amendment to the FY 01 budget over one percent or $500,000, whichever is the lesser. Staff requests
>
that the Board set a public hearing on December 6, 2000, for a FY 01 budget amendment on the proposed
>
November 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
appropriation of $592,000 in donated funds for the Esmont Park project.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board set December 6, 2000, as the public hearing
date for an amendment to the FY 2001 budget in the amount of $592,000 from donated funds for the
Esmont Park project.
__________
Item 5.5. Appropriation: Various Funds, $590,914.39 (Form #99088).
Operations for FY 1999-00 resulted in overexpenditures in the following areas which require
approval and supplemental appropriations.
Commonwealth Attorney, $4500.00. A change in staff resulted in salaries exceeding budget due
to pay-off of leave time. Also, the new employee elected health insurance that was not budgeted for the
previous employee.
Sheriff, $120,000.00. Salaries were overexpended due to the extended illness of one employee
for eight months prior to disability retirement. The major item overexpended was reimbursable overtime
that was under budgeted. All reimbursable overtime was recovered in revenues. The new Sheriff has
implemented some changes which resulted in additional expense for police supplies and vehicle
operations.
Fire Prevention and Operations, $59,000.00. Start-up costs for expanded operations exceeded
budget primarily for salaries and overtime.
Regional Jail, $91,000.00. Per diem charges from the Jail exceed projections due to increased
prisoner population.
Tourism Transfer, $113,000.00. The County ordinance requires that 60 percent of Hotel and
Motel Tax revenue be allocated for tourism. Due to excess revenue, the amount budgeted for transfer to
the Tourism Fund must be increased.
Soil & Water Conservation, $100.00. Minor overexpenditure for office supplies.
Tax Refunds, $2000.00. Tax refunds have increased primarily as a result of the State Personal
Property Tax Relief Program. Lease vehicles are often determined to be eligible after receiving payment
from the leasing company.
Education, $198,000.00. Total School operations were $600,000 under appropriation. However,
several appropriation categories were overexpended and must be offset from the Instruction category.
Grants, $21,190.46. Several law enforcement grants exceeded appropriation but were fully
reimbursable from grant revenue.
United Way Day Care Program, $38,458.83. Expenditures incurred in FY 1998-99 were not
recorded until FY 1999-00. The offsetting revenue was recorded in FY 1998-99.
Vehicle Operation, $141,565.10. This is a central service fund for all non-school vehicles
normally serviced and fueled at the Vehicle Maintenance Facility. All expenses were offset by additional
charges to the user departments.
Staff recommends that the Board approve the overexpenditures totaling $590,914.39, as detailed
on Appropriation Form #99088.
(Ms. Thomas said it is rare that a department exceeds its budget. She said Fire Prevention had
done so. Mr. Tucker said staff underestimated the cost of the additional firefighters. The same thing
happened with the Sheriffs category of reimbursable overtime. Revenues will be coming in to replace
=A@
most of the Sheriffs overexpenditures from contracts.)
=
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of
Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1999-00
NUMBER: 99088
FUND: VARIOUS
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: APPROVAL OF FY 99-00 OVEREXPENDITURES
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1000 22010 110000 COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY SALARIES$1,200.00
1 1000 22010 231000 COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY HEALTH INSURANCE3,300.00
1 1000 31020 110000 SHERIFF SALARIES13,000.00
1 1000 31020 120000 SHERIFF OVERTIME8,000.00
1 1000 31020 129900 SHERIFF OVERTIME-REIMB74,000.00
1 1000 31020 210000 SHERIFF FICA6,000.00
1 1000 31020 601000 SHERIFF POLICE SUPPLIES7,000.00
November 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
1 1000 31020 605001 SHERIFF VEHICLE OPERAT12,000.00
1 1000 31022 120000 SHERIFF-SCOTTSVILLE OVERTIME100.00
1 1000 32013 120000 FIRE PREVENTION OVERTIME10,000.00
1 1000 32013 600900 FIRE PREVENTION VEHICLE OPERAT6,000.00
1 1000 32015 110000 FIRE OPERATIONS SALARIES23,000.00
1 1000 32015 600400 FIRE OPERATIONS SUPPLIES13,000.00
1 1000 32015 800100 FIRE OPERATIONS EQUIPMENT7,000.00
1 1000 33020 700002 REGIONAL JAIL91,000.00
1 1000 79000 930209 TOURISM TRANSFER113,000.00
1 1000 82030 600100 SOIL AND WATER OFFICE SUPPLES100.00
1 1000 92010 580301 TAX REFUNDS2,000.00
1 2100 62110 223000 ADMINSTRATION116,000.00
1 2100 62220 113110 ATTENDANCE & HEALTH3,500.00
1 2433 64600 331200 BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS78,500.00
1 2100 61101 112100 INSTRUCTION(198,000.00)
1 1523 31010 930009 COPS GRANT20,386.55
1 1536 31013 120000 DCJ BLOCK GRANT329.15
1 1537 31013 120000 DCJ BLOCK GRANT474.76
1 1550 53110 567910 UNITED WAY DAY CARE38,458.83
1 3910 62341 600800 VEHICLE OPERATION FUEL141,565.10
TOTAL$590,914.39
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 1000 51000 510100 GENERAL FUND BALANCE$389,700.00
2 1523 33000 330001 FEDERAL GRANT1,326.75
2 1523 51000 510100 FEDERAL GRANT F/B19,059.80
2 1536 15000 150101 DCJ BLOCK GRANT329.15
2 1537 15000 150101 DCJ BLOCK GRANT474.76
2 1550 51000 510100 UNITED WAY DAY CARE F/B38,458.83
2 3910 16000 161271 VEHICLE OPERATION FUEL CHARGES141,565.10
TOTAL$590,914.39
__________
Item 5.6. Appropriation: Electoral Board, $20,677.02 (Form #20017).
It was noted in the staffs report that at its October 4, 2000, meeting, the Board approved funding
=
for a new Electoral Board Assistant to provide support to the Electoral Board. This additional staff member
will take on many of the duties previously performed by the retiring Electoral Board Secretary, such as
election day preparation, recruiting poll volunteers and assisting during the redistricting process. This
position has an effective starting date of November 1. Total salary and benefit costs for the eight-month
period are $20,677.02. Staff recommends approval of Appropriation Form #20017 in the amount of
$20,677.02.
By the recorded vote above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20017
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR ELECTORAL BOARD ASSISTANT
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1000 13020 110000 SALARIES-REGULAR$15,885.33
1 1000 13020 210000 FICA1,215.23
1 1000 13020 221000 VIRGINIA RETIREMENT SYSTEM1,464.63
1 1000 13020 231000 HEALTH INSURANCE2,023.33
1 1000 13020 232000 DENTAL INSURANCE64.67
1 1000 13020 270000 WORKER'S COMPENSATION23.83
TOTAL$20,677.02
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 1000 51000 510100 GENERAL FUND BALANCE$20,677.02
TOTAL$20,677.02
__________
Item 5.7. Appropriation: EMS Development Block Grant, $3000 (Form #20018).
It was noted in the staffs report that the Virginia Department of Health, Office of Emergency
=
Medical Services, has approved a mini-grant providing funds to purchase an Automated External
Defibrillator. The purchase is funded by a $3000.00 Office of Emergency Medical Services grant. There is
no local match. Staff recommends approval of Appropriation Form #20018 in the amount of $3000.00.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of
Appropriation:
November 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20018
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR AUTOMATED EXTERNAL DEFIBRILLATOR
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1555 32015 800100 MACH & EQUIPMENT$3,000.00
TOTAL$3,000.00
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 1555 24000 240425 EMS GRANT$3,000.00
TOTAL$3,000.00
__________
Item 5.8. Appropriation: Education, $500.00 (Form #20020).
It was noted in the staffs report that at its meeting on September 28, 2000, the School Board
=
approved the following appropriation: Cynthia Fischer, reading teacher at Western Albemarle High School,
received a donation from Wal-Mart Foundation in the amount of $500.00. This donation is to support the
reading program at WAHS. Staff recommends that the Board approve the appropriation, totaling $500.00,
as detailed on Appropriation Form #20020.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of
Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20020
FUND: SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: DONATION TO SCHOOLS BY WAL-MART CORPORATION
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 2302 61101 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES$500.00
TOTAL$500.00
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation$500.00
TOTAL$500.00
__________
Item 5.9. Appropriation: Capital Improvements Program, $9,773,278.01 (Forms #20019, 20026,
20027, 20028, 20029).
Several capital project funds require reappropriation of project balances from FY 1999-00 to
continue these projects into FY 2000-01. These funds are as follows:
General Capital Projects$3,722,128.98
School Capital Projects 2,799,785.15
Stormwater Projects 592,591.19
Emergency Communications Center 1,629,317.69
Tourism Projects 1,029,455.00
Total$9,773,278.01
Staff recommends that the Board approve the reappropriations as detailed on Appropriation Forms
#20019, #20026, #20027, #20028 and #20029.
(Mr. Bowerman asked the relationship of this request to the other financial matters on the agenda
today. Mr. Tucker said these appropriations are for ongoing capital projects such as schools and
stormwater management, which have to be carried over each year because the projects have not been
completed. These are totally separate from other requests on todays agenda. There is no overlap in
=
these funding categories.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolutions of
Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20019
FUND: CIP-GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF PROJECTS FROM FY 99-00
EXPENDITURE
November 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 9010 11010 800750 BOARD OF SUPV LAND ACQUISITION$8,000.00
1 9010 12140 950004 DIRECTOR OF FINANCE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM48,259.94
1 9010 12200 800700 INFORMATION SERVICES ADP EQUIPMENT484.64
1 9010 21000 312343 COURT FACILITIES SPACE NEEDS STUDY55,000.00
1 9010 21000 331000 COURT FACILITIES REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE30,044.17
1 9010 21020 800100 GENERAL DISTRICT COURT MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT5,000.00
1 9010 21050 331000 JUVENILE COURT REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE58,854.42
1 9010 31000 800306 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPUTER AIDED DISPATCH600,408.64
1 9010 31000 800915 PUBLIC SAFETY PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY25,717.97
1 9010 31010 800910 POLICE DEPARTMENT FIRING RANGE30,000.00
1 9010 31040 800650 ECC-OPERATIONS BUILDINGS-CONSTRUCTION24,110.11
1 9010 32010 800523 FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE PUMPER-REPLACEMENT250,000.00
1 9010 32010 950092 FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE HOUSE/AERIAL FIRE AP361,790.12
1 9010 32010 950110 FIRE DEPARTMENT RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYS43,791.81
1 9010 41000 312700 ENGINEERING PROF SER CONSULTANTS50,000.00
1 9010 41000 800690 ENGINEERING SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROG99,122.50
1 9010 41000 800960 ENGINEERING STREET LIGHTS76,994.21
1 9010 41000 950035 ENGINEERING NORTH BERKSHIRE ROAD3,079.00
1 9010 41000 950039 ENGINEERING MEADOW CREEK PARKWAY24,275.41
1 9010 41000 950059 ENGINEERING KEENE LANDFILL CLOSURE191,893.30
1 9010 41000 950061 ENGINEERING MEADOW CREEK PATH20,000.00
1 9010 41000 950090 ENGINEERING IVY ROAD51,667.00
1 9010 41000 950091 ENGINEERING BARRACKS RD SIDEWALK46,933.25
1 9010 41020 950024 STREET IMPROVEMENTS LANDSCAPING 29 NORTH81,941.55
1 9010 41020 950051 STREET IMPROVEMENTS AVON ST RT 20 CONNECTOR6,600.00
1 9010 41020 950068 STREET IMPROVEMENTS WAKEFIELD ROAD IMP22,937.50
1 9010 41020 950081 STREET IMPROVEMENTS REVENUE SHARING ROADS553,476.90
1 9010 43100 800687 PUBLIC WORKS/MAINT COB CHILLER REPLACEMENT63,419.00
1 9010 43100 950042 PUBLIC WORKS/MAINT UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS1,954.85
1 9010 43100 950102 PUBLIC WORKS/MAINT COB PARKING LOT50,202.16
1 9010 71000 800665 PARKS & RECREATION ADA STRUCTURAL CHANGES61,729.51
1 9010 71000 800668 PARKS & RECREATION ADA CHANGES SCHOOLS4,074.00
1 9010 71000 800949 PARKS & RECREATION MAINTENANCE PROJECTS17,492.07
1 9010 71000 950003 PARKS & RECREATION CROZET PARK IMPROVEMENTS128,107.49
1 9010 71000 950009 PARKS & RECREATION SCOTTSV COMMUNITY CENTER1,891.03
1 9010 71000 950028 PARKS & RECREATION RED HILL RECREATION IMP7,400.57
1 9010 71000 950033 PARKS & RECREATION WALNUT CREEK REC PROJECTS9,395.50
1 9010 71000 950034 PARKS & RECREATION TOWE PARK REC PROJECTS135,304.75
1 9010 71000 950044 PARKS & RECREATION ATH FIELD STUDY/DEVEL43,022.66
1 9010 71000 950050 PARKS & RECREATION SOUTHERN PARK DEVELOPMENT41,811.47
1 9010 71000 950064 PARKS & RECREATION IVY LANDFILL DEV'L30,000.00
1 9010 71000 950070 PARKS & RECREATION BROWNSVILLE REC IMP12,655.00
1 9010 71000 950079 PARKS & RECREATION STONE ROBINSON REC IMP537.17
1 9010 73020 800700 LIBRARIES ADP EQUIPMENT47,500.00
1 9010 73020 800949 LIBRARIES MAINTENANCE PROJECTS89,980.43
1 9010 73020 950076 LIBRARIES NORTH BRANCH LIBRARY4,223.10
1 9010 73020 999999 LIBRARIES CONTINGENCY FUNDS58,883.00
1 9010 81010 950053 PLANNING NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN67,162.78
1 9010 81010 950108 PLANNING GREENBRIAR PED/BIKE PATH75,000.00
TOTAL$3,722,128.98
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 9010 18000 189916 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE CHAMBER OF COM/29 NORTH$6,775.90
2 9010 24000 240231 CATEGORICAL AID-STATE VA DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION75,705.53
2 9010 24000 240430 CATEGORICAL AID-STATE VDOT 250E LANDSCAPING5,572.84
2 9010 51000 510100 TRANSFERS APPROPRIATION FUND BAL3,033,666.07
2 9010 51000 512023 TRANSFERS FROM E911600,408.64
TOTAL$3,722,128.98
TRANSFERS
1 4101 93010 930010 TRANSFER TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT$600,408.64
2 4101 51000 510100 E911 FUND BALANCE$600,408.64
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20026
FUND: SCHOOL CIP
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF ONGOING PROJECTS FROM FY 99-00
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 9000 60100 800665 SCHOOL BOARD ADA STRUCTURAL CHANGES$208,487.80
1 9000 60100 950051 SCHOOL BOARD AVON ST RT 20 CONNECTOR3,216.79
1 9000 60203 800200 CROZET ELEM FURNITURE & FIXTURES7,431.01
1 9000 60203 800605 CROZET ELEM CONSTRUCTION5,571.33
1 9000 60204 800673 GREER ELEM HVAC IMPROVEMENTS19,317.27
1 9000 60210 312350 STONE ROBINSON ELEM ENGINEERING/PLANNING4,953.42
1 9000 60210 800901 STONE ROBINSON ELEM BUILDING RENOVATIONS32,559.45
1 9000 60211 800987 STONY POINT ELEM PARKING/PLAYGROUND24,438.69
1 9000 60212 800605 WOODBROOK ELEM CONSTRUCTION502.00
1 9000 60214 800605 CALE ELEM SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION1,613.90
1 9000 60217 312350 NORTHERN AREA ELEM ENGINEERING/PLANNING908,739.40
November 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
1 9000 60217 800750 NORTHERN AREA ELEM PURCHASE OF LAND373,257.78
1 9000 60217 950074 NORTHERN AREA ELEM RECREATION FACILITIES300,000.00
1 9000 60251 950062 BURLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL LIBRARY RENOVATIONS297,009.00
1 9000 60253 800901 JOUETT MIDDLE SCHOOL BUILDING RENOVATIONS10,711.65
1 9000 60254 800901 WALTON MIDDLE SCHOOL BUILDING RENOVATIONS30,393.07
1 9000 60255 800200 SUTHERLAND MIDDLE SCH FURNITURE & FIXTURES1,249.33
1 9000 60301 800605 ALBEMARLE HIGH SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION10,193.98
1 9000 60302 312350 W ALBEMARLE HIGH SCH ENGINEERING/PLANNING3,072.07
1 9000 60302 800605 W ALBEMARLE HIGH SCH CONSTRUCTION77,162.25
1 9000 60303 800901 MURRAY EDUCATION CNTR BUILDING RENOVATIONS13,341.03
1 9000 60304 312350 MONTICELLO HIGH SCH ENGINEERING/PLANNING1,241.42
1 9000 60304 800120 MONTICELLO HIGH SCH EQUIPMENT/MATERIALS10,000.00
1 9000 60304 800200 MONTICELLO HIGH SCH FURNITURE & FIXTURES9,000.00
1 9000 60304 800605 MONTICELLO HIGH SCH CONSTRUCTION67,076.11
1 9000 60410 800605 CATEC CONSTRUCTION1,402.98
1 9000 60410 800665 CATEC ADA STRUCTURAL CHANGES14,000.00
1 9000 60410 800686 CATEC COSMETOLOGY LAB7,087.28
1 9000 60510 800901 VEHICLE MAINT FAC BUILDING RENOVATIONS8,354.81
1 9000 61101 800700 CLASS/INSTRUC-REGULAR ADP EQUIPMENT137,807.10
1 9000 61101 800707 CLASS/INSTRUC-REGULAR TECHNOLGY GRANT EQUIP115,459.25
1 9000 62190 800700 ADM-TECHNOLOGICAL ADP EQUIPMENT5,097.78
1 9000 62190 800707 ADM-TECHNOLOGICAL TECHNOLGY GRANT EQUIP78,336.00
1 9000 62420 312310 FACILITY MAINT-BLDG A & E ROOF REPLACEMENT5,668.20
1 9000 62420 800672 FACILITY MAINT-BLDG CHILLERS6,033.00
TOTAL$2,799,785.15
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 9000 18100 181112 DONATIONS AND GIFTS WAHS BASEBALL PRESSBOX$8,358.00
2 9000 24000 240265 CATEGORICAL AID-STATE EDUCATION TECH GRANT237,870.70
2 9000 51000 510100 TRANSFERS APPROPRIATION FUND BAL2,553,556.45
TOTAL$2,799,785.15
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20027
FUND: STORMWATER
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF UNCOMPLETED FY 99-00 PROJECTS
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 9100 41000 800975 ENGINEERING STORMWATER CONTROL IMP$259,282.62
1 9100 41000 950093 ENGINEERING DRAINAGE STUDY/PLAN43,001.72
1 9100 41035 312400 FOUR SEASONS BASIN PROF SER ENGINEERING2,915.54
1 9100 41035 800975 FOUR SEASONS BASIN STORMWATER CONTROL IMP937.58
1 9100 41036 312400 BIRNAM/WYNRIDGE BASIN PROF SER ENGINEERING8,391.45
1 9100 41036 800750 BIRNAM/WYNRIDGE BASIN PURCHASE OF LAND91,750.00
1 9100 41036 800975 BIRNAM/WYNRIDGE BASIN STORMWATER CONTROL IMP51,147.28
1 9100 41049 800975 WOODBROOK CHANNEL STORMWATER CONTROL IMP28,035.00
1 9100 41056 800975 BROOKMILL STORMWATER CONTROL IMP107,130.00
TOTAL$592,591.19
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 9100 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE$592,591.19
TOTAL$592,591.19
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20028
FUND: E.C.C.-CAPITAL PROJECTS
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF UNCOMPLETED FY 99-00 PROJECTS
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 4105 31061 800306 COMPUTER AIDED DISPATCH$1,629,317.69
TOTAL$1,629,317.69
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 4105 16000 160502 CHARGES FOR SERVICES CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE$780,769.04
2 4105 16000 160503 CHARGES FOR SERVICES COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE705,331.64
2 4105 16000 160512 CHARGES FOR SERVICES UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA143,217.01
TOTAL$1,629,317.69
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20029
November 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
FUND: TOURISM PROJECT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF UNCOMPLETED FY 99-00 PROJECTS
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1810 72030 568901 TOURISM VISITOR'S BUREAU MAINT$12,000.00
1 1810 72030 568905 TOURISM TOURISM PROJECTS447,455.00
1 1810 72030 950026 TOURISM RIVANNA GREENWAY35,000.00
1 1810 72030 950055 TOURISM RT 250/616 TURN LANE110,000.00
1 1810 72030 950056 TOURISM IVY ROAD BIKE LANES5,500.00
1 1810 72030 950107 TOURISM RIVER ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS30,000.00
1 1810 72030 950111 TOURISM GREENBELT BOAT ACCESS374,500.00
1 1810 72030 950112 TOURISM GREENBELT FREE BRIDGE15,000.00
TOTAL$1,029,455.00
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 1810 18000 181108 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE CONTRIBUTIONS-DEVELOPER$10,000.00
2 1810 24000 240500 CATEGORICAL AID-STATE GRANT REVENUE-STATE25,000.00
2 1810 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE994,455.00
TOTAL$1,029,455.00
__________
Item 5.10. Letter dated October 11, 2000, to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, from Mr. Roger L.
Clatterbuck, Department of Transportation, providing notice that VDOT is in the process of reviewing a
request from Emmanuel Episcopal Church for disposal of real property (Project 723-G, Route 250, PMI#
6293, former property of Nancy P. & Ronald Tree and F. J. & Ruth C. Fox, Parcel 002). This letter was
received as information only.
(Ms. Humphris said she did not know why the County received this letter. Mr. Tucker said if VDOT
has property it is disposing of, it notifies the locality. The County has no use for that small strip of land.)
__________
Item 5.11. Employee Traffic Reduction Plan Update.
Received for information was a staff report stating that Albemarle County encourages employees
to participate in activities which promote traffic reduction. These efforts will be expanded to include:
Establish a traffic reduction strategy/plan policy that will be shared with all employees.
$
Appoint County Employee Traffic Reduction Coordinator.
$
Appoint department coordinators who will receive training periodically about traffic reduction
$
strategies.
Explore additional ways to encourage employees to use alternate forms of transportation.
$
Provide information about the Countys traffic reduction options to new employees during
$=
orientation.
Place traffic reduction options on the Countys Intranet.
$=
Place traffic reduction articles in throughout the year.
Bits and Pieces
$
Research the feasibility of telecommuting and teleconferencing possibilities for employees.
$
Look for additional ways to provide free or further reduced CTS bus passes.
$
Update this strategy frequently with employee input.
$
(Ms. Humphris said she feels this plan is very important. She hopes the media has access to this
report. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Juan Wade in Planning has been spearheading this effort, and has done a very
good job.
(Ms. Thomas said she was delighted with the traffic reduction proposal. Mr. Tucker said the HOV
spaces are being used, and that is why the number of spaces were increased. Ms. Thomas asked if the
County is participating with the shuttle from the park and ride lot. Mr. Tucker said yes.)
A@
__________
Item 5.12. Letter dated October 19, 2000, to the Honorable Charles Martin, Chairman, from Mr.
Janardan R. Pandey, Department of Environmental Quality, re: notice of application for a Virginia Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) permit from Keswick Utilities, Inc. It is stated that the applicant
proposes to discharge treated wastewater from a sewage treatment facility located at Club Drive, Keswick.
This was received as information only.
(Ms. Humphris asked the significance of the permit request. Mr. Tucker said he did not know. He
sent the letter to Engineering and the Water Resources Manager to look into. He does not know what
significance it might have on the Keswick proposal in front of the Board.
November 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
__________
Item 5.13. Copy of draft minutes of the Planning Commission for October 3, 2000, was received as
information.
__________
Item 5.14. Letter dated October 25, 2000, to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, from Mr. H. W. Mills, Acting
Resident Engineer, regarding transportation matters discussed at the October 4, 2000, Board meeting. Mr.
Mills gave the following responses to concerns of Board members:
1.The pedestrian signal in Crozet is operational as of October 20, 2000.
2.VDOT has reviewed the roads in Earlysville Heights for potholes. This subdivisions streets
=
were last paved in 1997.
3.Route 726 is an 18-foot paved road with narrow shoulders and ditches. Placement of material
will be scheduled at a couple of locations where the ditches are too deep. In addition, VDOT
will schedule further brush cutting. Any improvement to this road will require that it be placed
in the Six Year Plan.
4.Upon its completion, Route 637 (Dick Woods Road) will be reviewed to see if it meets
warrants for placement of centerline (latest traffic count was only 70 vpd).
5.Ms. Humphris concerns about Hessian Hills and Old Garth Road were addressed in an E-
=
mail to her on October 13, 2000, and basically referred to line painting.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: August 9, September 6, September 13 and September
20, 2000.
Ms. Humphris had read the minutes of September 20, 2000 (Pages 12 at Item 10 to the end), and
noted some typographical errors.
Ms. Thomas had read the minutes of September 13, 2000 (Pages 1 to 15 ending at Item #9) and
found them to be in order.
Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of September 13, 2000 (Pages 15 at Item #9 to the end), and
found them to be in order.
Mr. Martin had read the minutes of September 6, 2000 (Pages 1 - 11), and found them to be in
order.
Motion to approve the minutes which had been read was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by
Mr. Bowerman, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Dorrier.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Transportation Matters.
Mr. Bill Mills, Acting Resident Engineer, said VDOT has received approval to paint double yellow
lines on Ricky Road, Bennnington Road and West Park Drive.
(Note: Mr. Dorrier arrived at the meeting at 9:14 a.m.)
__________
Mr. Mills provided an update on Route 693. He has met with the largest property owner. He and
Ms. Thomas met with a nearby resident earlier. The resident they met with brought to their attention some
safety issues. To address those issues, VDOT would need some right-of-way from that largest landowner,
who seems to be in support of the project. VDOT plans to do some temporary things as far as widening of
the pavement. VDOT has not made an estimate for the project, but they are working on it.
__________
Regarding Route 760, Mr. Mills said VDOT is working on that project. They are sending out letters
to see if residents are interested.
__________
Mr. Mills said VDOT will be receiving project bids this month on Route 791 in the Batesville area,
and Route 605 near Greene County. They have also received bids on the Grassmere Road project, but a
contract has not been awarded at this time. Ms. Thomas asked if the bid came in close to budget this time.
Mr. Mills said he was told the bid is within $100 of the previous bid. He thinks the contract will be awarded
this time.
__________
Mr. Mills said VDOT will be installing a deer warning system consisting of light reflectors on
Interstate 64 on November 2. They will be installed between Route 780 and Route 781. There are three
locations in Albemarle County that VDOT is looking at and they would like this Boards reaction and support
=
November 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
before installing the reflectors. The locations are Route 250 between Ivy Commons shopping center and
Turner Mountain Road; between the west end of Route 738 and Route 240; and on Route 654 near
Colthurst Farms. These reflectors have already been installed in Madison County on Route 15 and Route
29 near the McDonalds. When a car light hits the reflectors, it creates a wall of light that deer will not go
=
through. Virginia has not used these reflectors, but they have been used successfully in Maryland. He
suggested the Board take a look at them on the Interstate and provide comments before VDOT installs
them on other County roads.
Mr. Bowerman said he would like to see the reflectors because he cannot get a clear picture of
how they work. Mr. Mills said they are not large reflectors, but close together. The lights create a light
which is perpendicular to the road so the deer or animal coming to the road will not cross at that time.
Ms. Humphris said she saw a report about these reflectors on a local TV show. She said they are
really needed on Barracks Road. Mr. Mills said the Board members will be able to see the reflectors on the
interstate after November 2.
__________
Mr. Mills said the County will start to see significant project cost increases in the Six-Year Road Plan
because of inflation. Also, VDOT now has to do appraisals on land before and after the project. Relocation
of utilities, and new environmental restrictions will cause increases in project costs. In the past, when
contractors had claims for overruns and extension of projects, these costs were not included in the
estimates. Those type of costs have become rampant. The Six-Year Plan has been sent in, but he knows
there will be some adjustments.
__________
Mr. Dorrier said on Route 720 at Keene, there is a turn off to the Green Mountain Country store.
This is at the intersection of Routes 20 and 720. There is a decel lane there to turn onto Route 20 or into
the store. This is a dangerous intersection. He suggested that VDOT install signage to help the situation.
__________
Ms. Thomas thanked Mr. Mills for his report on Dick Woods Road (see VDOT letter above). She
said she did not make herself clear because the residents want a speed limit sign installed at the beginning
of the road. Also, there are a lot of bicyclists using the road, and it is part of a loop that bicyclists make.
She is not sure a centerline is the right response to the fact that they will be sharing the road with bicyclists.
She asked Mr. Mills to keep this in mind.
__________
Ms. Thomas mentioned meeting with some residents of Whippoorwill Hollow Road who are
interested in traffic calming. Mr. Mills said VDOT had done some passive types of traffic calming. He is not
sure if they want traffic calming, or a cut-through restriction. Under the cut-through policy, traffic can be
adjusted by four-ways stops. Traffic calming does not allow for that. In other areas they have restricted
passage by narrowing the lines in certain sections. This road does have a centerline, which he thinks slows
traffic. Ms. Thomas said this was discussed, and the residents are forming a committee. Mr. Mills said if
the lane is wide enough, the lane width could be reduced with an edge line. They need to know the exact
problem before coming up with a solution. Ms. Thomas said the residents would like information
concerning traffic volume counts. Mr. Mills said VDOT did a speed study on the road when it was posted at
35 mph, and 85 percentile was traveling at 35 or 36 mph. The speed limit was reduced to 25 mph and a
few weeks later did another study, and 85 percentile was still traveling at 35 or 36 mph.
__________
Mr. Bowerman mentioned a letter from Ms. Joan Graves to Mr. Mills regarding the McDonalds at
=
Shoppers World which will now have a drive-through window, so there will be increased traffic from
=
Shoppers World. Ms. Graves expressed concern about the existing conflict between permitted U-turns
=
from northbound Route 29 onto southbound Route 29 at the Fashion Square/Shoppers World intersection.
=
Drivers who need to be in the right-hand lane of Route 29 in order to reach their homes in Berkeley and
Four Seasons, as well as the First Citizens Bank, make it imperative that they have the right-of-way over
drivers leaving the business area because they only have the one block in which to maneuver. She asked
that VDOT change the sequence of lighting at the intersection in order to make the U-turn less hazardous
to life and limb. When the light is green for the U-turn it is also green for a right turn out of Shoppers
=
World. Ms. Graves thinks a yield sign there should be considered. Mr. Mills said this is not a new situation
and he has supported a change, but the traffic engineers have not agreed with him. He is continuing to
work on the issue.
__________
Mr. Martin said there is a lot of traffic backing up on Advance Mills Road turning onto Route 29. He
asked that VDOT do a traffic count at the crossover to see if a light is warranted. Mr. Mills said there was a
project bid for that intersection last spring, and no bids were received. It will be bid again in January, 2001.
That project would lift the vertical sag out of the southbound lane so that one could see traffic coming.
After that would be the time to decide on a signal. He said it would be difficult to put in a signal at this time,
because of the configuration of the southbound lane. The intersection did not meet warrants the last time a
traffic count was taken.
__________
Mr. Martin mentioned the widening of Proffit Road from Route 29 to the new elementary school.
He thinks the County needs to do whatever it can to move this project up on the priority list. Mr. Mills said
he believes this project is in the year 2006. Mr. David Benish mentioned that staff has had preliminary
November 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
discussions on the Six-Year Secondary Road Plan. That project has been identified by staff as needing to
be moved up in the list of priorities. After Commission review, they hope to bring the plan to the Board at
the beginning of 2001.
__________
Mr. Martin asked Mr. Mills to give him a call within the next week about items left over from
discussions with Ms. Angela Tucker.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Rivanna River Basin Roundtable, Presentation.
Mr. Ed Imhoff presented to the Board a resolution expressing appreciation to the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors for authorizing the release of water from the Sugar Hollow Reservoir into the
Moormans River. This resolution was adopted by the Rivanna River Basin Roundtable on September 21,
2000.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Presentation by Mr. Jack McHale, member of the Chesterfield County Board
of Supervisors, on Strategic Planning.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. McHale has come this morning to give the Board an idea of what Chesterfield
County is doing with total quality management. He will share the role a board has in strategic planning.
Mr. McHale said this is the first time he has been invited to speak about quality. With him this
morning is Ms. Sharon Rondal, Chesterfields total quality manager. Mr. McHale said one of his business
=
customers was the IBM Federal Systems in Northern Virginia. As big companies often do, they impose their
will on their subcontractors. At the time, they were going through a TQI process and competing for the
Virginia Senate Productivity Quality Award. A company trying to complete the TQI process needs to work
with its providers to insure that they are in step with that company. The portion of the company he worked
for was very involved with supporting IBM and also conforming its employees to the process. When he was
elected to the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors in 1992, as he was being briefed by the county
administrator and learning about the way the County did business, it struck him that Chesterfield County
was really doing good work. Still there was a need to focus on customer service, but there was no
procedure, or approach that carried over from element to element in the organization.
Mr. McHale said in government that is an important process. Local government is probably more
diverse in the services it delivers than most corporations which focus on only a core business. He does not
think the county would be successful in divesting itself of planning, police and fire, and those sorts of
services. More and more, they are finding that service delivery from the police department is not just a
police issue. It can be a complex issue, so all of the people involved need to be talking the same language,
and looking at measures and goals. One way to do that is through what they call total quality initiative. This
initiative has given the County processes to be used as a common thread on the organization.
Mr. McHale said he challenged the county administrator, and the other members of the board of
supervisors backed him up, to try for the Senate Productivity Quality Award for Chesterfield County. No
county had won something like that. It was not a goal unto itself, but a process that focused the county on
the element of service delivery and quality for the organization. He wanted to change fundamentally the
way the county did business and insure that once the process was begun, there would be no turning back,
even if there were a change in the office of county administrator. Five years ago, if someone had asked
him if the way they did business could survive the current county administrator and the majority of the board
of supervisors, he would not have been sure. Their initiative was not so well ingrained in the organization.
Today, he could probably say yes. Top management can impose its will on an organization, but the
A@
frontline people in an organization have to change the way they do business. Middle managers, when they
get pressure from the top and from the bottom, will adjust their behavior as well.
Mr. McHale said the impact of total quality on Chesterfield County has been a reduced cost of
government. This cost is reflected in expanded service delivery while holding the tax rates the same. That
is evidenced in the streamlining of some services. There has been a clear alignment of their goals and
objectives down through the organization. That showed in their Citizen Satisfaction Survey which was taken
a couple of years ago. It has had an impact on the employees at the frontline of service. The person who
most often has an impact on the citizen is that frontline service provider, and they are often the lowest paid
people on staff. If they dont have a clear idea of what the organizations objectives are and how to deliver
==
good service to the citizen, it makes it difficult for them to have successful interaction with the citizen.
Employees have been empowered to change the way they do business. This changes an employees
=
expectations about working in Chesterfield County. It makes them feel they are part of the solution, rather
than part of the problem. It is good for the county because it can retain good people and not become just a
revolving door as other opportunities present themselves to these employees.
Mr. McHale said a lot of organizations use strategic planning. In a diverse organization like county
government it is tough because there are so many different core businesses. Total quality has given them
a methodology to look at goals and objectives. Without objectives and actions to get to those goals, it is just
so much chin music. This is the process they are struggling with in Chesterfield. The goals for the
A@
organization must be known, as well as how you know when you are there, and what actions to take to get
to that point. That information, as it is refined through the budget process and the strategic planning
process, needs to be available to citizens. Looking at it in a detailed, disciplined way forces the county to
November 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
look at the services it provides, the expectations for those services, and the procedures to be followed to
deliver services to the citizens. It is an ongoing process. It is continuous improvement. The county is
probably not there, but in Chesterfield they do have a plan in process.
Mr. McHale said this procedure has focused department managers on the information they need to
present for budgeting. In Chesterfield they are lucky enough to have a public meeting room hooked up to
cable television and all of their meetings are broadcast live. This is the one opportunity each year when
department managers can emphasize to the citizens exactly what they do, where they are going and how
they will get there. This is an opportunity to make the presentation to the citizens, and let the citizens decide
if they like what is presented. It constantly focuses people both in and outside of the department on what
they should be doing.
Mr. McHale said that in organizations of all kinds, particularly governmental agencies, performance
measures are tough. Chesterfield has not completely cracked the code on performance measures. He
said it has to be tried, and then if it doesnt work, adjust the measures. He said they are going on a goal
=
toward quality. Citizens are likely to say they dont like the way something is being done, and ask for a
=
change. The strategic planning process is a continuous process through the budget. One thing that needs
to be done in service delivery to the citizens is to be bold and non-traditional. The county should be
prepared to do something difference. He then asked Ms. Rondal to speak about this program.
Mr. Bowerman said in measuring the countys efficiencies, it was mentioned that the same tax rate
=
was kept and yet the same services were delivered. He asked the sources of revenues during this time that
kept Chesterfield from raising taxes. Mr. McHale said their budget has grown during the last nine years
from just under $500.0 million to just under $700.0 million. They have actually reduced the tax rate by one
penny. The source of revenue growth has been through the health of the economy where real estate
evaluations went up through the assessment process. There are also the State revenues for the school
system. Chesterfield County has 55,000 children in the school system, increased from 40,000 during the
nine years he has been a member of the supervisors.
Mr. Bowerman said it seems Chesterfield has been able to communicate to the citizens the
efficiencies in this process, and even though a few people have been added to staff, they were not added at
the same rate which the revenues increased. Mr. McHale said they looked at things such as number of
employees per capita, and their number is lower than comparable communities around Chesterfield. They
used Henrico County, Prince George County and Chesapeake, and some of the larger urbanizing counties
as benchmarks. Chesterfield County has fewer employees per capita than these counties. They are able
to achieve that through their quality processes. He offered to answer questions.
Ms. Rondal acknowledged Mr. Kirk Dewyea and said she feels Albemarle is fortunate to have hired
such a capable person. Mr. Dewyea visited Chesterfield and she was impressed with his in-depth
knowledge of quality practices and best management practices. She said she joined Chesterfield five years
ago. They created her position after they had won the Quality and Productivity Award. They had already
been involved in the quality process for four years, and had done a lot of training at that point. She handed
to the Board members a number of publications to which she would refer during her presentation.
Ms. Rondal said she senses that Albemarle County has invested a lot in its quality efforts. Her
purpose today is to emphasize how difficult it is to keep the momentum going. In order to do so, every three
to five years there needs to be a boost given to the organization by setting new goals and refocusing sights.
Chesterfield has gone through that cycle a couple of times. They have worked hard in the performance
measurement area. They measure everything that moves. They have data on almost everything. The real
challenge is to figure out which of those things is the most important, and how to present that information
and use it to make day-to-day decisions. They stress their customer service initiative, and are also proud
that they were one of the first twenty counties in the nation to receive a Triple-Triple A bond rating. Since
then, another eight counties in Virginia have done that. They feel their quality improvement effort made a
big difference. Auditing agencies have been impressed with the fact that their approach to the quality effort
is system wide, and is linked to the budget and the strategic plan.
Ms. Rondal said some organizations which have failed in their quality effort did so because they did
not quantify what they were doing. She developed for Chesterfield something called A Success Story
A
System where she has employees submit data for a data base which gives information every time there is
@
an improvement, or every time there is an opportunity to save money. She uses the words cost avoided
A@
rather than cost savings. When a way is found to do something better, cheaper and faster, that money is
A@
then reinvested. That is how they got the ability to absorb the cost of new things. She said that in the last
five years they have had regular and recurring savings, or avoidance of things they would have been
spending money on, of $5.0 million. This is a mutually exclusive number. Employees were asked how
much less time it was taking to do a certain task. Her data base shows they saved over 20,000 hours which
can be translated into 10 full-time positions. She said these figures are conservative because the system
does not capture everything.
Ms. Rondal said their employees feel engaged in this process. Chesterfield has what are called
transfer stations which were previously known as landfills. Two of their employees were managing a
A@A@
transfer station and watched contractors come in and bleed out the Freon that was in some of the
appliances dropped off at that station. These two gentlemen felt this was not a difficult process so made a
proposal to their supervisor. They asked for EPA training and a piece of equipment, and said they could do
the job and probably save money for the county. A cost-benefit analysis was done and they found that by
giving the employees the training and buying the equipment, the County could save $35,000 a year. This
came about because these two employees felt empowered to go to their supervisor and make the
November 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
suggestion. In addition, she has been told that they have been able to recycle some of that Freon and use
it for other purposes.
Ms. Rondal said they track whether customer service is being improved, processes improved, cycle
time reduced, and quality of life, which includes safety, improved. They have been looking at how many
formal teams are in place. In the beginning, every time employees got together, they called it a team. Now
they are being a little more careful about how they select and charter teams. There are more informal
teams because more people are trained and possess skills in problem-solving techniques so they dont
=
need a facilitator.
Ms. Rondal said she would like to mention Chesterfields TQI University. This is one of their more
=
phenomenal successes. About 25 percent of the Countys employees have gone through the university.
=
This means they have taken 72 hours of quality related training and translated that into the ability to better
handle problems, improve processes and collect data. She said the good thing about the TQI University is
that there is not an executive level course. They expect all employees, regardless of their position in the
organization, to take the same training so everyone has the same common language. She said the County
Administrator, Mr. Ramsey, just graduated from the TQI University in August and Mr. McHale expects to
graduate in February. From a leadership point, that sends out a strong message that these are skills that
everyone on the payroll should possess regardless of where they are in the organization.
Ms. Rondal said sometimes they receive criticism because people think Chesterfield County is just
patting itself of its back for another award. Actually, their approach is the opposite. They want to be
innovative and do creative things for the citizens. If there is an opportunity to get recognition for it, thats
=
fine. For five years in a row, they received more achievement awards from NACO than any other county in
Virginia. She believes that is an indication of how innovative they are in their practices.
Ms. Rondal said the Baldridge Criteria is an interesting set of criteria which gives feedback when it
is used as a self-assessment tool. It does not measure quality. It measures the entire organization and
how well it is performing. Currently, there is no public sector category in that criteria. She is part of a
national committee working to create that category. The first category was for business, and last year they
added health and education as categories. Actually, the Countys school system is in a position to submit
=
an application under the Baldridge Award as a public sector organization. They are in a better position than
Chesterfield in this regard, although Chesterfield County still believes the criteria is a useful tool, and it is
being used in the county.
Ms. Rondal went over a handout entitled Chesterfield Countys Road Map for the New Millennium
A=@
(on file in the Clerks Office). She said this is a comprehensive approach to how well they are focusing on
=
their customers, how much they are improving, and how well employees are being involved in all of the
efforts. If she were a board member, she would probably ask why do I want to continue this effort?
A@
Simply, all organizations can improve organizational principles and practices, and do it at a faster speed.
They have a steering committee which sets the tone for the whole county, and it is then taken to the division
level, and then to the individual departments. They found that their stages of maturity, the first thing to be
worked on, were a problem. They became good problem solvers. The hardest thing to do was to start
being proactive, and start doing process management. They have a process inventory for every
department, and every department has a list of every one of their processes. They know which ones have
been documented, which ones have been improved, and which ones have been benchmarked. Some
departments have done more than others, but they all know how to identify their processes and how to put
together a process inventory list.
Ms. Rondal said to imagine having a book which showed every process in county government and
the school system, being able to look at the last time the process was looked at, and the last time it was
improved. That is what Chesterfield County has been working on rigorously. What comes to the top are
the system wide issues, such as Human Resources issues, and information technology (IT) issues. When
they got to the systems level, it showed how much IT impacted the entire organization. They had been
running IT as a department and having them be a provider of services to the different departments. Going
through this process led them to see that IT had to be managed as a system. Out of that came an IT
strategic plan which mirrors the capital improvement plan. This has a cross-functional steering committee
which has boosted its ability to keep pace with the times.
Ms. Rondal said she gave the Board members a brochure about Chesterfields TQI University
=
which includes a synopsis of all the courses offered. These courses are listed as core competencies
A@
because these are competencies which all employees should possess wherever they work. Chesterfield
has a partnership with John Tyler Community College so that anyone taking these courses gets continuing
education units. This means a lot to employees who can track all the courses they take and apply for
graduation. She said they did not have to sell this program to the employees. Every six months they send
out the brochure, and usually within two weeks the classes are full for the next six months. They had to
institute a policy of stand-bys because employees cannot always get into the classes they want to take.
She said this program has been a revenue-generator for the county because other localities send their
employees to this university. In charging a nominal fee, the program has almost paid for itself.
Ms. Rondal said several years ago, the county came up with a mission and a vision of guiding
principles. That was done before she became a county employee. When she asked for a copy of the
countys strategic plan, she was told that the county had one but it was not written down, but everyone knew
=
what it was. When she asked that it be articulated, no one could do it. Of the 43 departments in the county,
every department had its own strategic plan. In addition, there were a number of commissions, making a
total of about 54 strategic plans trying to get Chesterfield County going in the right direction. She said they
November 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
needed to go through a strategic planning process (she handed a copy of that plan to the board members).
They developed goals and objectives, key measures, etc. Seven goals were invented by Chesterfield and
they love them. Everything they do in the county goes toward those goals. The planning process
established a vision, mission and guiding principles. They then established goals and objectives. They
have worked on key performance measurements. They have been trying to align targets for where they
want to go, how quickly and who is being benchmarked. Also, they set initiatives and activities.
Ms. Rondal said they have a reporting cycle where they record how they are doing, then back up
and check it to be sure that the information can be given to the board of supervisors and the citizens. They
also use a balanced score card. They found five years ago that most of their performance measurement
centered around financial measurements. They did not have any good measures of how their customers
felt about this. There had been no citizen survey since 1985. With the permission and support of their
board of supervisors, they did such a survey two years ago, and will repeat it again next year. They also
had never gone back and found out the level of satisfaction of the countys employees.
=
She showed a slide representing their performance measurement system. She said they have 87
performance measurements which cross-cut the entire organization of Chesterfield County which tell how
well they are doing and outcome measures. They have worked on it for two years and it has been a
grueling, painful task. They tried to identify the things which are important to the citizens and to the board of
supervisors so they can better manage the county. They are in the process now of deploying that down
through the departments. The county administrator wants every employee in Chesterfield County to have a
balanced score card, an individual score card that is somehow linked to the strategic plan. If an employee
knows how he contributes to the overall organization, he will be more satisfied and be in a better position to
satisfy their customers.
Ms. Rondal said no two localities are alike. The best thing to do is to find a benchmarking partner
in order to compare data. Setting targets is important. It is important to identify things that the locality needs
to stop doing. She said Chesterfield had its library system look at some of its outreach programs which only
serve a small number of people. In looking at the cost of those programs compared to the amount of
money needed for other programs, they needed to decide whether those programs should be deleted. She
said the idea of accountability is to give their board of supervisors useful, meaningful information. Giving
them technical information gets them bogged down in the process, and then they try to solve the problems
for staff. The board needs more strategical score cards so they can manage at a more strategic level. If
they see something that disturbs them, they can then get the technical information.
Ms. Rondal said the activities they are doing for this year are: continue work on the performance
measurement system; get at least five years of trend data from departments; every department is to have
measurable customer service standards; an employee satisfaction survey; a Baldridge self assessment;
and, repeat a citizens satisfaction survey. She then offered to answer questions.
Mr. Dorrier asked who teaches the courses. Ms. Rondal said the staff of their human resources
department administers the TQI University. Most of the courses are taught by volunteer instructors. They
do this as part of an enrichment program. They may have a job which is rather routine or they might just
want to do something different. There are very clear, well laid out lessons plans. They work with slides.
They have training for the instructors so there is little variation.
Mr. Martin thanked Mr. McHale and Ms. Rondal for the presentation. He handed to each a
Jefferson Cup.
(Note: At 10:40 a.m. the Board recessed. They reconvened again at 10:54 a.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. School Board Presentation. (Note: Removed from final agenda. There will
be a joint Board of Supervisors/School Board meeting on November 8, 2000.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. FY 2001 Revised and FY 2002 Estimated General Fund Revenues/Budget
Guidance.
Mr. Tucker said that in October of each year the Department of Finance prepares preliminary
revenue projections for both the current and upcoming fiscal years. These revenue estimates are the first
step in the budget process and form the basis of the recommended budget to come before the Board in
March. At this time, the Board allocates the revenue growth, first to committed expenditures such as
Capital and Debt Service, and then to General Government and School Division operations. He said Mr.
Melvin Breeden is ill today, so Ms. Roxanne White will present the information for him, and also discuss the
revenue allocation.
Ms. White said this is the first step in the process which leads to the budget recommendations
made to the Board in March. There are two objectives in going through the revenues. This will give a brief
overview of major revenues, and make sure the Board has an understanding of how staff projected the
revenues shown on Attachment A (on file in the Clerks Office) forwarded with the papers for todays
==
meeting.
She said the preliminary revenue projections show that in FY 01 revenues are expected to be
>
approximately $3.3 million (2.8%) over the amount projected. Estimated for the General Fund was
$120,490,559. Revised revenue projections are for $123,826,964. The estimated revenues for FY 02 are
>
$129,069,604, or $5,242,640 over the current year budget (4.2%).
November 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
Mr. Dorrier said it looks like the increases have basically been due to the real estate, personal
property and BPOL taxes. Mr. Tucker said that is correct. Mr. Bowerman said these figures show that the
tax bills for the last half of this year reflect the increase that has already been experienced in the
reappraisal. Mr. Tucker said this is the first time the Board will start seeing the potential increase from the
revised projections. In June, 2001, the $3.3 million figure will be revised again, so it may increase or
decrease.
Ms. White said the Board will see these figures as part of the proposed financial reports which staff
will give quarterly. At each point, these reports will show revenues as compared to expenditures. She said
a couple of the major sources of revenue are:
1.Substantial new construction is included in the December, 2000 actual
bills but is below the original projection$(154,000)
2.June, 2001 new construction338,532
3.Biennial reassessment originally projected at 7.0% (3.5%annual) compared
to current projection of 11.0% (5.5% annual) 920,000
Total$1,104,532
At this point, Mr. Perkins took exception to the statement in the staffs report reading: This
=A
increase in the biennial reassessment reverses the general downward trend the County had been
experiencing since 1991 when the biennial reassessment increased by 22.5 percent and then decreased
11.2 percent in 1993, 5.2 percent in 1995, 2.3 percent in 1997, and up slightly 3.5 percent in 1999. He
@
said this statement is misleading. Ms. Humphris said the word to was left out. It should say decreased to
A@A
11.2 percent, to 5.2 percent in 1995, to 2.3 percent in 1997, and was up slightly to 3.5 percent in 1999. Mr.
@
Tucker said it is always an increase, but the rate of increase decreased. Ms. Humphris said she believes it
would be clearer to the average reader if the percentages were used, followed by a dollar amount. Mr.
Dorrier suggested using a bar graph.
Ms. White said estimated revenue for FY 2001-02 includes approximately $3.0 million in additional
revenues from the reassessment, plus $816,900 from new construction. The next highest increase is in
personal property which is increasing as a result of continuing good sales. In the current year, they are
expecting $661,900 over the budgeted projection. Next year, the increase is estimated to be 8.1 percent,
an additional $1,901,000, based primarily on the actual amount of the December, 2000 tax bills. It appears
that the State's Personal Property Tax Relief program is having a positive impact on collections. Since
revenue projections take into consideration collection percentages, the increased revenue is not totally
based on increased assessments. In future years, this will have an impact on delinquent tax collections.
For the sales and use tax, a minor decrease is being projected ($39,300) in FY 2000-01 revenues.
FY 2001-02 receipts are projected to increase by 3.5 percent. There seems to be a general consensus that
the economy is slowing, therefore, it would be unwise to project more than an inflationary increase.
Ms. White said business license fees are primarily based on the businesses' prior year gross
receipts. Based on the actual growth in fees from last year and the relatively good economy for the year
2000 to date, a 12.6 percent increase is projected for FY 2000-01 ($750,700). Due to the uncertainty of the
economy, only a 0.5 percent increase is being projected for FY 2001-02. Although the economy continues
to be strong, there is a concern that there will be a decrease in building permits.
Mr. Bowerman said he would like to give a personal example of the economy. The income
statement for his business for last year and for this year shows that this year his sales are $100,000 ahead
of last year. Last year, with $100,000 less in sales, he made $20,000. This year, with $100,000 more in
sales, he is minus $12,000. His BPOL tax will go up. He has reduced his salary 25 percent and most of the
economy is made up of people from one to six employees. This is a trend which deals with the Internet and
a lot of other things which he thinks the Board members need to keep in mind when looking at revenue
projections. He said these are real numbers from somebody who is making payroll and is seeing the result,
and who will be paying more in taxes and making less money. He said he will personally have less to
spend in this economy.
Mr. Martin asked what Mr. Bowerman is advocating. Mr. Bowerman said he is saying that the
estimates are based on what has been seen for the last five years. In making assumptions about next year
and the following years, he is pointing out that as a small business owner, there is an effect on him that has
not shown up yet in terms of his ability to purchase goods and services in this community. He said this has
been seen by the car dealers, but a lot of it is a reaction to the Internet with lower margins. He just wanted
to show the Board actual figures from a businessman who has up-to-the-minute figures of this year as
compared to last year.
Ms. Humphris said she recently attended a meeting of the Virginia Municipal League and it was
stated that most localities have experienced the same under projection of revenues. People have been
amazed that Albemarle has been publicly-criticized for doing so well. Albemarle is doing better than most,
but is getting public criticism for it. She thinks the Board should hang in there and continue to do better
A@
and just endure the criticism.
Mr. Martin said he keeps telling people that this is a much easier thing to answer for than having
projected too high and having shortfalls. Mr. Bowerman said he is not saying there is anything wrong with
having the BPOL increase at only one-half of one percent. Mr. Tucker said it is not new to the Board
members that staff is fairly conservative in its projections, but this is what happens when there is a strong
economy. There tends to be more revenue. That is a better position to be in. There have been times when
November 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
revenues were over projected. That fosters the need to be more conservative. Staff is open to any
suggestions the Board can provide.
Mr. Martin asked if there were a motion to approve the 2001 allocation. Ms. Thomas said she
thinks there needs to be more discussion on this subject.
Ms. White said she will not go through any more of the revenues. Attachment A is pretty clear on
how they have been anticipated. She said the State and Federal revenues are very iffy at this point. Most
A@
of them are revenues for Social Services and they are very preliminary figures.
Mr. Perkins said that somewhere in this staff report there should be an estimate of the percentage
growth anticipated, particularly in the schools. Also, what percent is projected for inflation. If those two
things are factored in, the amount of money over and above that is the extra amount of money being spent.
Ms. White mentioned Attachment B Preliminary General Government and Schools Split of New
A
Local Tax Revenue (on file in the Clerks Office). She said the second step in the budget process is the
@=
allocation of new local tax revenues (not total revenues), first to committed expenditures, i.e. capital and
debt service, and then to General Government and School Division operations on a 40/60 basis.
Attachment B shows an increase in local tax revenues over FY 01 budgeted revenues of $8,960,256
>
followed by the reductions in committed new non-departmental expenditures. In response to statements
made by Board members about wanting to return the $1.2 million (windfall revenue occasioned by the
increased real property tax rate for Calendar Year 2000) to the taxpayers, a proposed one-cent tax rate
reduction in FY 01 is shown in the event the County does not get legislation which would allow it to return
>
the money. This would be a way to start that process.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the $1.17 million is in these figures. Mr. Tucker said no. Ms. Thomas
A@
said she had the same question. Mr. Tucker said that money is being held, and staff did not want to show it
as available revenue for use. Ms. White said that amount could be used to take off the top at the beginning
before allocations and before building a budget. It will be held aside as a reserve and the Board can make
decisions as they go through the budget work sessions. If it is the desire of the Board to consider a tax rate
reduction and give that money back, it would be better to take that money off the top.
Mr. Tucker said the only way to return the $1.17 is through special legislation. Mr. Bowerman said
if the tax rate were reduced by two cents for one year, that would return the money and still not change the
Countys financial position. Mr. Tucker said that is right; it is one way the Board could do it.
=
Mr. Martin said what he has heard most from the Board members is that unless the General
Assembly gives the County some mechanism to return the money, the Board would be looking at some
type of tax rate reduction. When it is discussed next April, it may be two cents, but he suggested to Mr.
Tucker that only the one-cent tax reduction be shown now for the purpose of having it shown upfront.
Ms. Thomas said if one-cent is taken out of the tax rate, it will be taken out of the two-cents that was
added for capital improvements, whereas, the financial consultants assumed the Board would continue that
two cents forever and ever. She wanted to highlight that because she certainly has not agreed that is the
place where the one-cent should be taken. Ms. White said staff has submitted the new proposed Capital
Improvement Plan to the consultants and they are looking at it. Staff needs to look at the impact this
decrease in the tax rate would have on their projections. Mr. Tucker said the financial advisors, in their
review, did not take into account that staff was recommending that $2.0 million of the surplus be put into the
Capital Fund Reserve. Staff may continue to do that if the County continues to have a surplus. That was
the reason staff felt that might be the place to remove the one-cent, and if the Board decides to reduce the
rate by one-cent and not return the $1.17 windfall revenue that has been put aside in a separate account,
that could go to the reserve. That is all the flexibility the Board has.
Mr. Bowerman said a 1.75 percent tax rate reduction for one year would equal the $1.17 million.
Mr. Martin said he did not think the Board should discuss that now. It really doesnt make sense to reduce
=
the tax rate by one-cent because he does not think it would be increased back after one year. He looks at
the one cent reduction as something that will continue, but that is a conversation for a different time. Right
now, the only thing the Board is looking at is how this is being shown, and the fact that there are all kinds of
options. Mr. Tucker said that is the way staff looked at it. This one-cent would be recurring, whereas if the
rate were reduced based on the $1.17 million that is in a separate account, because that is one-time
revenue, the Board might then have to consider raising the rate if they wanted to maintain the level of
revenue.
Ms. Thomas said under committed new non-department expenditures there is the figure of 6.6
A@
percent shown for growth. She asked from where that figure was derived. Ms. White said that on
Attachment A it shows an overall 7.1 percent increase. If the one-cent tax rate reduction is subtracted, it
gives the 6.6 percent figure. Ms. Thomas said she assumes that is what is used for the increase in School
Debt Service. She thought school debt service grows because of projects. Ms. White said this was the
recommendation of the financial advisors. Their formula for growing revenues was two-fold. One, was to
take what the County is doing now, and increase that by the overall rate of growth. The Capital Outlay
Transfer, Debt Service for the School Division, and Debt Service for General Government, have each
grown by 6.6 percent. The Capital Reserve rate was to be kept. The other part of their recommendation
was to take one-half of a percentage of growth and put that into the capital program. The $755,053 figure
shown is the estimate of the one-half percent of the 6.6 percent growth rate put into the capital program.
November 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
Overall, capital outlay and debt service are being increased by about $1.1 million. It has not been
determined how the additional dollars will be allocated between General Government Debt Service, School
Debt Service, and direct capital, because staff is still waiting for an allocation formula from the financial
advisors.
Ms. White said that shown on Attachment A is the $8,960,256 projected increase in local taxes,
less the $713,020 proposed as a one-cent tax rate reduction, less $1,101,360 in committed new non-
departmental expenditures, which leaves a total of $7,145,876 in new local tax revenue to be split by the
current formula of 60 percent ($4,287,526) to School Division operations, and 40 percent ($2,858,350) to
General Government operations. For the Schools this translates into an increase of 7.6 percent over least
years increase, and into a 6.6 percent increase for General Government.
=
Ms. White said if there is the one-cent tax rate reduction of $713,020, one-half of that amount will
have to be made up in the current years budget because tax bills mailed in June under a new rate are
=
actually part of the current years budget.
=
Mr. Bowerman said that usually the Board just spends all of the money it has, but what if the Board
arbitrarily took $2.0 million from the $7,145,876, set it aside, then split the rest 60/40. The Board can deal
with the revenue side and the expenditure side when it begins to deal with specifics later. Why just make
that assumption and just split the surplus 60/40? Mr. Tucker said there is no established Board policy to
deal with the surplus in that way. Normally, if there is a surplus and no identified items to be funded, staff
has recommended that the money be put into the Capital Reserve.
Mr. Bowerman said when the Board gets down to the 60/40 to fund the Schools and General
Government, there is not enough money anyway. He is saying that knowing there will be the same
problem, this would allow the Board to think about the future and not take all of what is termed surplus. Mr.
Tucker said when the Board gets the revised figures in January, the money could be held until the Board
determines what it wants to do with the money. The Board used to do that.
Mr. Perkins said that is why he said the amount projected for growth and inflation should be
established, then any amount above that figure could be set aside. Mr. Bowerman said if the money is
allocated, it will be spent because there are many needs; there are less resources than needs. He said it is
kind of an oxymoron to take $2.0 million out and reduce the available funds for operations and capital
needs that the Board will deal with later. Ms. Thomas said the Board has essentially taken out $2.0 million.
In front of the Board there is the $1.1 million, with $1.2 million in a Capital Reserve Fund. Mr. Bowerman
said he understands.
Ms. Thomas said if the Board intends to make a motion and adopt the staffs proposal, she does
=
not agree that the one-cent tax reduction should come out of the two cents being held aside in a Capital
Reserve. She knows that discussion will come later, but she does not want to imply to staff that the one-
cent should come out of that reserve fund.
Ms. Humphris said she would make a motion that the Board approve the proposed FY 2001-02
allocation of new revenues as recommended by the financial advisors to the School Division and General
Government for operating needs, but not to ignore what Mr. Bowerman brought up. The proposal bears
thinking, but for now, in the documents presented this morning, she believes that a good job has been done
in dealing with capital needs. She would like to echo what Ms. Thomas said. She is not committing herself
to what she will do in March when working on the budget and the new tax rate. All projections will be
changed by that time. She is just agreeing that this proposal is the best at this time based on available
information.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas.
Mr. Martin asked if there were further discussion. Mr. Dorrier said it looks like the total increase in
new local revenues is $7.1 million over the current year. He thinks that is a healthy surplus and he would
be more inclined to look at a two-cent reduction in the tax rate rather than the one-cent. Even with the two
cents, there would be $6.4 million in extra revenues, and it could be more than that. That is a healthy
increase over the current year.
Mr. Perkins asked if the motion includes his request to have the inflation and growth rates
incorporated into the report. Ms. Humphris said to include in the motion that the Board would like to see
those things included in the next report. Ms. Thomas agreed.
With no further discussion, Mr. Martin requested that the roll be called. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Esmont Park Master Plan and Naming of Park, Presentation of.
Mr. Pat Mullaney said the Esmont Park project will be sent out to bid in November with completion
expected in mid-summer. The firm of Heyward, Boyd & Anderson developed the master plan for the park.
He said Mr. Bob Anderson is present this morning to present the master plan. The facilities in the plan were
November 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
based on a survey of the Esmont community by the Neighborhood Team back in 1996-97. The Southern
Albemarle Organization (SAO) has been providing advice to the Parks and Recreation Department in the
planning process for the location and development of the park. The plan has been reviewed and modified
based on meetings with people in the community, neighboring property owners, the Planning Commission
and the donors. He then introduced Mr. Anderson to the Board.
Mr. Anderson explained the plans for the park. The entrance to the park is immediately across
from the entrance to Yancey Elementary School off of Porter Road. A cross-walk will be installed at that
spot, with a signal further up the road which can be operated from the principals office so if students from
=
the school use the park, that signal can be activated to warn drivers that there may be children in the road.
Immediately inside of the parks entrance is a parking lot. There is a soccer field, a shelter with bathroom
=
facilities, a spray ground (a small playground for children containing water features). There is an electric
eye so when there is no one in the park everything goes off automatically, and the features are interactive,
two tennis courts, two basketball courts, a softball (Little League) field, and a walking trail. Below the
softball field is an observation platform where children can come and do nature studies. They have a plan
to put poles in the ground so that classes from the school can mount birdhouses on those poles and
monitor them. It is a park that is useable for both the community and the school. It is simple, it is small.
The County does own another parcel next to the park which will not be used at this time. It will remain wild
and wooded as it is now.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there is anything in the park for elderly people. Mr. Anderson said there is a
picnic shelter where the bathroom facility is located. It is immediately opposite the handicapped parking
spaces so is easily accessible. It is set up so that adults, parents, handicapped people, can sit in the shelter
and watch the kids play in the spray ground. As for things like checkerboard tables, they will wait to see
what the bids are first. If there is any excess money, or the bids are low enough, they have a certain
amount of money which has been set aside for park accessories. Mr. Tucker said there is a goodly amount
of passive area that can be used by adults. Mr. Anderson said the trail has been set up so it can be used by
elderly people. He attended a couple of meetings at Yancey, and a lot of people in attendance were
elderly.
Mr. Martin asked Mr. Mullaney to give a brief synopsis of where the money came from, etc. Mr.
Mullaney said the whole project started with an effort by the Albemarle County Neighborhood Team, which
began as a police effort where several departments got together and went to the community to talk about
their needs. One of the big needs was for a park. Staff worked with the Southern Albemarle Organization,
but had a hard time finding land until a piece of land from Habitat for Humanity became available right
across from the school. The piece of property was small, but it had two adjoining pieces of property which
were vacant, but owned by out-of-town owners. They were able to get those two pieces of property and get
enough land for a park.
Mr. Mullaney said they now had the property, but only incremental funding in the budget to develop
the property ($50,000 a year). That is when the County was contacted by an anonymous donor and they
were put in touch with representatives of the Dave Matthews Band. After discussions with them, it led to a
$592,000 donation for the property. It is not known if that will be sufficient to develop the entire plan, but it
will do the first stage, and there will be a very usable park in Esmont.
Mr. Martin said this has been a tremendous cooperative effort from the community and government
and private sources, and Habitat for Humanity.
Mr. Tucker said there needs to be a name selected for the park. Mr. Mullaney said the Southern
Albemarle Organization was asked to develop a list of potential names for the park. They submitted three
potential names with the favored name being Simpson Park. The other names submitted were Porters
Road Park and Esmont Park. He said the property was part of the old Simpson family farm. A review of
the history files in the Countys Real Estate Office shows Simpson family ownership of the property from at
=
least 1895 until the sale to Habitat for Humanity in 1994. The County bought the property from Habitat for
Humanity in 1998 along with the two adjoining parcels that make up the park. The two adjoining parcels
were purchased from heirs of the Simpson family with those parcels also being part of the original Simpson
family property.
Mr. Mullaney said staff has talked to the donors and they find the name acceptable. He talked to
Mr. Dorrier and he feels the name Simpson Park is appropriate and he feels the Southern Albemarle
Organization represents the Esmont community. Unless Board members feel there is a need for further
public input, staff is recommending the name Simpson Park be approved for the new park to be built in
Esmont.
Mr. Dorrier moved that the new County park to be built in Esmont be named Simpson Park. The
A@
motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. CPA-98-03 Work Session. Post Office Land Trust/Theater (Hollymead Town
Center). Request to amend Comp Plan designation for approx 180 acs w/in the Community of Hollymead
(an existing development area). Proposal to change land use designation from Industrial Service, Office
Service & Regional Service to a mixed-use Town Center Designation. Located on the W sd of Rt 29N
November 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
(Seminole Trail) S of Rt 649 (Airport Rd) & bounded on the S & W by an unnamed stream which crosses Rt
29 just N of the Rt 29/Hollymead Dr intersec.
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning and Community Development, said the 180 acres is on the
west side of Route 29 and lies approximately across the street from the Forest Lakes commercial area and
Holly Memorial Gardens. This proposed amendment originated as a public request to change the land use
designation for approximately 20 acres from Office Service to Regional Service for a multi-plex theatre.
The Planning Commission agreed to study the proposed amendment, but only in the context of a larger
area of the Hollymead Community in order to establish a more unified and comprehensive set of
recommendations that establish the expectations for development in this area. Initially the Commission
studied an area that included the entire southwest quadrant of the Hollymead Community south of Airport
Road and west of Route 29, an area totaling approximately 650 acres. Through the evolution of the review,
the Commission came back to look at a more consolidated area where there was a real patchwork of land
use designations and where most of the commercial area in the southwest quadrant was shown.
Mr. Benish said what the Commission has recommended is a Town Center concept which
generally encourages higher density, more urban-scale development and a mixed use pattern of
development. The most significant difference from the current land use designation is encouragement of
higher density residential in that area. It is a much higher density and intensity of development with a
pattern of development more consistent with the Countys emerging principles for urban area development.
=
He said the Board had been furnished with the Commissions recommended language, plus the prior staff
=
report from the Commissions public hearing.
=
Mr. Cilimberg said the Board has been presented with the language for the amendment as the
Planning Commission is recommending it to the Board. There is additional language for transportation
changes in the Comprehensive Plan for that area, but the Commission still has to hold a public hearing on
that language.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board had received a letter from Mr. Wendell Wood outlining concerns that
eleven landowners he represents had not been contacted about this proposal. He asked if any of these
people had participated in any of the development work sessions over the past two years. Mr. Benish said
that last year staff held two meetings with property owners in this general area. All property owners, or their
representatives, were invited to a meeting to discuss this particular proposal as it was developing. There
were some representatives present, but others chose not to participate. He believes there was a
representative present for some of the property owners adjacent to Mr. Wood.
Mr. Dorrier said this amendment limits commercial structures to 65,000 square feet. Since this
property is directly across from the Forest Lakes mall, he wonders if that is commercially feasible. Mr.
Benish said that number of square feet is generally acceptable for community-scale development. The
proposal forwarded by the Commission does not outright preclude anything above 65,000 square feet. The
language indicates that compatible regional service uses and uses in excess of 65,000 square feet could be
permitted if designed in a manner consistent with development standards for the area.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this language rules out the big box stores. Mr. Benish said one of the issues
A@
the Commission tried to address was low-density, one-story, site-level, sprawling development. They were
trying to encourage a denser use on a piece of property. It will be difficult to meet the standards of
development for a one-story, large parking area, type of use. Through other design methods, there is a
way to achieve a use of more than 65,000 square feet.
Mr. Martin asked for an example of 180 acres. Mr. Benish said one of the interesting things that
happened when they brought in the property owners is that an owner came in with a footprint for
Charlottesvilles downtown mall. That mall from Water Street to Market Street along its entire length fits on
=
a site of this size.
Mr. Dorrier asked how many separate property owners there are for the 180 acres in question. Mr.
Benish said there are 10 properties along Route 29 which are under one ownership. Besides those small
one-acre strips, there are six other lots in the area and some of those have multiple owners, one is part of a
family estate. This is one of the complications the Commission grappled with in an effort to encourage
unified planning for the area. They recognize that there will be difficulty in assimilating one hundred percent
of this area.
Mr. Martin said he likes the concept of a town center. He may have an issue with the 65,000
square feet, and the fact that the only way to get above that number is through height changes. He said
there were basically two applicants for this proposed amendment. He asked how the County goes about
having a Comprehensive Plan amendment involving 180 acres when it started off with a request from an
applicant for a much lesser area. Mr. Benish said initially there was one applicant for a specific piece of
property. He said the amendment process is similar to the Boards service area process for water and
=
sewer. Staff did not feel the amendment should be for such a small area, but should be for a larger, more
unified area. The Commission agreed. Once the request leaves that process, it becomes more of a
Commission amendment just like those done every five years for the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant
who instigates the change then takes a back seat because it becomes the Commission evaluating how
A@
they want to amend the Countys Comprehensive Plan, and recommend that to the Board. As they moved
=
through the process of evaluating this large area, they tried to keep the property owners aware of the
evaluation process, but moving forward with amending the standards that have basically been in the Plan
for that area since 1971.
November 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
Mr. Cilimberg said the Comprehensive Plan amendment criteria which the Board has used for
many years requires that when an application is filed, staff look at the surrounding areas and what changes
might be necessary in those areas as they are associated with the request filed. The Commission, at one
time, was considering the entire southwest quadrant, and they scaled that back.
Mr. Dorrier asked how criteria for a town center was determined. He thinks the town center could
be in any number of places if one is needed. Mr. Benish said part of the decision was based on existing
land uses already shown in the Plan. The map shows that a strip on the west side of Route 29 is already
essentially a regional service, commercial area. That is the most open and intense commercial land in the
area. There are areas shown for Office Service, and areas for Industrial Service. All of those uses in the
area create a fairly intense, non-residential area. The intent was to look at the quadrant of Route 29 and
Airport Road which has long been in the Plan as a commercial center. They were looking at the opportunity
available for the undeveloped and underzoned land, and the lands already designated for these types of
uses. It made for a core area of these services. The land is also across the street from Forest Lakes and
backs up to other residential developments on the west side so it had a nice tie-in to residential areas that
theoretically could be integrated through access points and pedestrian features, to this town center
(Deerwood and Forest Springs). He said that part of that area is just below the intersection with the North
Fork Research Park, so there is a major intersection just north of the area.
Mr. Cilimberg said part of the Commissions discussion centered on a transportation network and
=
the establishment of a network that was different from what is being seen in the new plans for Route 29.
The Board told VDOT representatives last month that it was looking at something different for the area.
The Commission has said there needs to be a land use/transportation network link focused on this area,
and it needs to be focused on having access from other than just Route 29.
Mr. Martin said this is a Comprehensive Plan amendment that affects not only the applicants, but
others as well. He referred to the letter from Mr. Wood and remembered that when the Board approved
Mr. Woods mobile home park, part of the proposal for that mobile home park was to reduce some
=
interests, some of those being for regional service. If Mr. Wood asked for regional service now, what
happens?
Mr. Cilimberg said if this CPA is approved, Mr. Wood would need to make an application for
rezoning and follow the Comprehensive Plan as it currently states what should happen in that area. This
new element would be a major element for review by the Commission and the Board, along with other Plan
guidelines. This amendment would establish a new set of rules for consideration of a rezoning application
by Mr. Wood or others.
Mr. Bowerman said he is a big supporter of DISC. He and Mr. Martin are aware of an applicant
(Bob Hauser) who owns a large piece of land who wants to work with the County in siting a road and
developing a town center which is consistent with the requirements of DISC. He said Mr. Steve Runkle is
working now on a small tract of land on Rio Road where there are only two houses located at this time. He
can get as many as 60 apartments or 40 condominium/townhouses, and some commercial on that small
acreage. He knows of a quadrant bounded by the intersections of Route 29 and Hydraulic, Commonwealth
and Hydraulic, Greenbrier and Commonwealth, and Greenbrier and Route 29 of about 100 acres and there
are things going on at that location where there are willing people who want to accomplish things consistent
with DISC who have the motivation to follow the principles of DISC, and it will be good for everyone. There
is also the Towers property. These are places where there are applicants who are moving ahead in trying
to make DISC a reality. Unless the Board decides it wants to buy 180 acres from these 13 owners, to force
13 different owners to do something without having a whole Hollymead growth area plan done in advance
seems to be an exercise in futility. He said there have to be willing landowners involved. He understands
that the Planning Commission spent two years looking at it using DISC concepts which fit the model of what
the Board would like to see happen, but the other things he mentioned can be done quicker than this 180
acre parcel because of the willingness on the part of the applicants to work with staff and the County as the
DISC neighborhood plans are put together. He thinks this is like a property rights issue.
Mr. Perkins said there are too many players here, and some would be winners and some would be
losers. Mr. Bowerman said they are not involved in a unified scheme. He thinks the town center should be
on much larger acreage, maybe 500 acres to see some synergies between Hollymead and Forest Lakes,
and the industrially zoned land. He is very uncomfortable with this approach.
Mr. Martin said he is in favor of this amendment. He wants these kinds of things across from Forest
Lakes. Although he supports this CPA, he also agrees with Mr. Bowerman. Between now and when the
public hearing is set, he would like to see the 11 landowners work together. One of the sticking points is the
limit of 65,000 square feet unless the building is multi-story. Having heard the DISC Committee discussions
and arguments, he never felt it has to be this way or no way. He does not believe it will work if the County
A@
tries to force an owner(s) into something. Usually when this type of amendment is made to the Plan, it has
been done at the request of an applicant, and basically, no one else cared. He does not think the Board
should schedule a public hearing at this time. He does not want to vote against this, but he does see this as
a property rights issue.
Mr. Bowerman said if there are inequities internally, they would have to be addressed by the
owners. Where certain benefits accrue to some, others are deprived of these benefits because of the way
this amendment is laid out. That does not seem right unless the 13 owners have gotten together and
decided they will have a contract, and share somehow in the coordinated development of this land.
Ms. Thomas said she finds that this conversation has taken a surprising turn. The last time she
knows of where the community gave zoning by request for a large tract of property was about 1970 when
November 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
the County asked everybody on Emmet Street (Route 29) how they wanted their land zoned, and everyone
knows what happened. That land is all zoned commercial because the Board at the time said that
whatever the landowner wanted is what they should get. It wasnt planned. She is intrigued with the
=
suggestion to get the landowners together. The landowner she talked to was enthusiastic about the
proposal. The way the County says it is enthusiastic about a pattern of development is to put it in the
Comprehensive Plan. That is not zoning, and it does not take anyones property rights to have a Plan
=
designation on a piece of property. In fact, it offers the kind of density and intensive use of the property that
developers usually want. Most communities do offer density of development as an incentive to get
developers to do something. It is usually a gift. It is usually not regarded as a taking to say the County
wants a piece of property developed more densely.
Ms. Thomas said that just a month ago, VDOT viewed the Comprehensive Plan as saying this area
was just right for a big box development, and all that was needed was a big road to service it. VDOT has
A@A@
now put off its hearing on the improvements proposed for Route 29 North. However, the Board is still under
some time constraints to get the Plan to fit what the Board thinks the community actually wants in this area.
If this is not done, VDOT will say that what the Plan says is okay.
Mr. Dorrier said Route 29 North is a problematic area. He said a lot of thought should be given as
to whether a town center should be that close to Route 29. Also, if there are 180 acres and only 20 are
subject to the application, then the Board has not heard from a lot people involved. He thinks there should
be a public hearing. He does not know if the Plan took into consideration the whole area around Forest
Lakes. He said there is more or less a town center on that side of the road. He just basically questions
whether this is the best location for a town center because the land slopes down to the creek, and he thinks
it is a problematic land area.
Mr. Cilimberg said the town center proposal is for mixed use. Under the current land use
designation, there is regional service, industrial service and office service. Those are intense uses. The
question is how the development is formed and served by transportation. Development will happen in one
way or the other on this property.
Mr. Martin said the uses that can be placed on the property if there is no change in the
Comprehensive Plan, are scary. That is why he is in favor of doing something. In listening to Ms. Thomas
=
concerns about VDOTs time frame, he thinks the Board should go ahead with the public hearing, try to get
=
the other property owners together and then have a work session after the hearing. That would give the
Board some time, keeping in mind that there are some opposing things going on.
Ms. Humphris said she thought everybody was on the same page last month when the Board had
A@
its session with VDOT. She thought this after reading all of the Planning Commissions minutes, and all the
=
thought they had given to this proposal, that it is not the town center, but only a town center and that it is
relatively small, and there will be others. The Commission worked out how it would work with Hollymead
on the east side of Route 29, as well as the west side, with a connection. She thought that all the Board
members knew they do not sit here for the purpose of making land more valuable to the developer, but to
make land use decisions which are in the best interest of all of the citizens. It is not the Boards business to
=
add value unless it is in the best interest of all of the community; not in the interest of speculators. She said
that in light of the existing situation, and how thoroughly this has been discussed and dealt with, and the fact
that the owners of that property have had plenty of opportunity to participate in the Commission public
hearings, she moved that the Board set a public hearing on CPA-98-03, Post Office Trust/Hollymead Town
Center, and get back to where the Board was before in understanding what is in the best interest of the
County as a whole, that area in particular, and what is about to happen to the County if the Board does not
take this into its own hands and act on it.
Mr. Martin said he supports Ms. Humphris motion but not all of its implications. He does not care
=
anything at all about how much money anybody makes or does not make on this. That is not his concern at
all. The reason he supports the CPA is because he has read all of the Planning Commission minutes, and
kept up with the activities that have taken place up to this point. He was in complete agreement with most
of those activities, although prior to his conversations with some people who are in opposition to the
proposal, he still had issues about the 65,000 square feet. Those issues go back to the issues with the
request for a big box store on Fifth Street Extended. He feels that some citizens need to buy at the big
A@A
box stores. Coming to his attention this week are some issues he finds legitimate, including the fact that
@
out of the 180 acres being discussed, there are owners of about 120 acres who are opposed to this
proposal. He does not think that should be set aside by just saying the Board is not here to make someone
wealthy. He is in favor of the CPA and wants it to go forward, but he wants to see things happen in that
area in the right way. On the other hand he remembers the agreements the Board had with Mr. Wood and
his mobile home park. At the time the mobile home park was approved, people thought it was the most
absurd thing the County could do, but in his opinion it made good sense from the point of view of affordable
housing. He remembers what the Board said, and what Mr. Wood was offering. He thinks those things
need to be taken into consideration. At that time, Mr. Martin said he was giving his word, and he does not
A@
intend to back off from that without a little more pressure. He will go along with setting this CPA for public
hearing, but the Board does need to take into consideration that there is a bigger picture, and the Board
needs to work out something with that bigger picture. If not, he may be forced into not supporting this CPA,
and that is not something he wants to do. He agrees with Ms. Humphris that if he does not support the
CPA, it will be on principle basically, but it may not be in the best interest of that piece of land.
Mr. Bowerman said Ms. Thomas said something very important. It does send a message to VDOT.
Mr. Perkins said if they are as slow in building the improvements to Route 29 North as they are with
everything else, there should be nothing to worry about. Mr. Bowerman said that is true, but on the other
hand, this CPA can be modified to include a larger area before the first bulldozer moves. It is possible that
November 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
with a larger mass and more planning, this could serve as the basis for defining boulevards and main
streets. For those reasons, even though he likes the other three ideas he talked about better, he is willing
to hold a public hearing on the proposal recognizing that this one might not happen until later, and it might
be in a different form.
Ms. Humphris referred to VDOT and said it was very obvious that for reasons unknown to this
Board, they are on a very fast track for their plan, and money seemed to be no obstacle. Also, in the
minutes, staff made clear to the Board that they have neither the money, nor the people power, to do the
huge, complete master plan, and if the Board wants something bigger it will take more time, money and
staff to do it.
Mr. Dorrier said that in the report the Board received, it said the Planning Commission has not
made a recommendation on transportation. Mr. Martin said it has been spoken to in their minutes. Mr.
Tucker said they should have finished by the end of November. He suggested that the earliest date for the
public hearing before this Board is December 13. By that time, the Board may be able to review the
recommendation from the Commission on the transportation element, and perhaps combine the two at the
public hearing.
Ms. Humphris said she would include in her motion to set the public hearing for December 13.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas.
Mr. Perkins said it was exciting to hear from Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Martin that there are some
people looking at incorporating DISC principles into their development, but he thinks Mr. Martin made
another important point. Just not doing all of things DISC calls for should not be call for not approving the
process, or a development. It is tough to meet all of those principles. The Board still needs to keep in mind
that DISC is not part of anything yet. There are no ordinances. He thinks there are people who would like
to use as many of the DISC principles as they can, but he thinks the Board is getting the cart before the
A
horse. Mr. Bowerman said this is an organic process. There are only 12 principles that the Board has
@
formally recognized. Mr. Perkins said there are still too many winners and too many loser here. It is going
to be hard to balance it out with 13 different landowners.
With no further discussion, Mr. Martin asked for a roll call. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
__________
Mr. Benish commented that there are two property owners who have an interest or control in over
100 of the 180 acres (The Kessler Group and Virginia Land Company). They have expressed willingness
to participate in this town center concept.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Closed Session: Personnel Matters.
At 12:41 p.m., motion was made by Mr. Bowerman that the Board go into Closed Session
pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to
Boards and Commissions; and under Subsection (7) to discuss with legal counsel and staff the issue of the
transition of Charlottesville to town status. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Certify Closed Session. At 1:50 p.m., the Board reconvened into open
session. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to
the best of each Board members 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. Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. CPA-2000-04. Historic Preservation (deferred from October 18, 2000), Work
Session on.
Mr. Martin said he would put this matter directly before the Board. He said all Board members, and
everybody in the audience, are completely familiar with the issue before the Board today. He said he needs
to leave the meeting at 2:00 p.m. and hopes the Board can finish with this item by then. He asked for Board
comment.
November 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
Mr. Perkins said he supports the Historic Preservation Plan, but he does not support an ordinance.
He said the County has not been good stewards of some of its own historic properties. Consider the Old
County Jail and the Greenwood School. He said the County would be asking people to make a
commitment which the County in those two cases was not willing to make. A commitment was made on
the old Crozet Elementary School, and about $500,000 was spent to keep that school in good shape. That
is the kind of commitment the Board would be asking people to make. He does not think people should be
forced to do that. If they are able, they will do it. He also has a problem with what is historic. Some
properties were identified as being historic, but the owners did not agree. He thinks the properties should
be identified, and the County should work with them to help the landowners preserve those structures. He
said Ms. Humphris had asked at another meeting if the County could have reduced taxes on historic
structures so the County could help those property owners in maintaining the structure. Mr. Davis replied
that the County cannot have a lower tax rate on a historic structure. There are some tax incentive programs
which would allow the Board to offset real estate taxes for a number of years based on the amount of
investment made to fix up and repair a historic property. A straight plan that would have a lower tax rate is
not enabled.
Mr. Dorrier said he is in favor of the plan to allow an owner who improves the property to be given a
tax break for the improvement. That could be in the form of a deferral in the increase in value for a number
of years. Also, he is in favor of a revolving loan fund for historic properties to enable people to fix up their
property. He is basically in favor of the plan feeling it was well thought out. The Board has heard citizen
input from both sides. He has questions about who decides what places are historic, and what part the
landowner has in that decision-making. He is in favor of the plan, and will vote for it.
Ms. Thomas said one of her goals today is not to weaken the existing Comprehensive Plan that
talks about historic preservation for ten pages. Whatever the Board does with the Plan, it should leave this
meeting with a request to staff that the committee, if it wants to work further, bring back a specific list of
things that should be done for historic preservation. It may be that the County should look first at its own
buildings. There is nothing in this new plan that says the County should enforce maintenance on people or
on itself. At the bottom of page 30 of the report it says: Rather than make maintenance a mandatory
A
regulatory requirement in Albemarle County, it is recommended that a variety of programs be established to
educate owners of historic properties about the importance of voluntarily maintaining their historic
resources. She said nothing in the plan requires anything. She would like the Board to require of itself to
@
pick out some strategies it would like to carry forward. She thinks there are a number of things to be done
before even starting a process toward an ordinance. These things carry tax implications, and if there is to
be a staff person to identify what is meant by historic and actually identify the most endangered sites, that
has implications on the budget, and if there is to be a loan fund, that has budgetary implications. There is a
lot to discuss. She hopes that by the time the Board meeting ends today, the Board will have some
directive for staff if it adopts this plan.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Ms. Thomas suggestion included maintaining the language she just read,
=
or would that be reworded, or would it be revisited to enable what she is suggesting happen, rather than
directing staff to go off and do something to implement this. Ms. Thomas said there are two different
issues. The language she read is what the Board asked the Committee to do. If Board members dont like
=
that language, it should be discussed. As to leaving here today with a directive to staff, she assumes that
directive would not be to go form an ordinance. She said there are 60 strategies in the plan. Which one of
those strategies does the Board want to start on? Which of those strategies does the Committee think are
the most important?
Mr. Martin said he is 100 percent in favor of the plan. If it looks as if the whole issue of having a
plan versus not having a plan boils down to something as small as the language read, he would be in favor
of a compromise in order to have the plan as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Martin said he has to
leave the meeting at this time, but he wants the Board members to know he is in favor of the plan, and if it
takes some compromise to get the plan in force, he suggests that be done. If it looks like there will not be a
plan, he asks that the vote be postponed until he gets back. (Note: Mr. Martin left the meeting at 2:00
p.m.)
Ms. Thomas assumed the chair and asked for further Board comment.
Ms. Humphris said she liked Ms. Thomas suggestion. It would be her preference that the Board
=
adopt CPA-2000-04, Historic Preservation, today. She believes the Committee that worked for five years
did a superb job in what they brought forward. This Board has never had a discussion about the possibility
of an ordinance. It is simply one of 50+ recommendations of this committee, and has been reduced to a
footnote. So much of what the Board heard at the public hearing was addressed to an ordinance.
Statements showed a great deal of misunderstanding and misperception, and there was a lack of facts.
She thinks this Board needs to keep the possibility of an ordinance in the plan whether or not it is something
that happens in the future. She said what has been presented to the Board gives a lot of options and
requires a lot of work. She likes what Ms. Thomas has suggested, although she does not think the Board
could give the staff any directions today.
Ms. Humphris suggested that the staff and committee be requested to give the Board a list of what
they consider to be the top ten strategies. There is much work to be done, so staff would have to narrow it
down to the most important things, and start to work on what is possible. If the plan is adopted today, she
feels the Board will have many more discussions about the work that lies in the future.
Mr. Bowerman said he would like to add that a good portion of that footnote refers to voluntary
November 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
actions being necessary. If the Board in its instructions to staff could make it clear that it would be looking
first solely at those items that can be voluntary, prioritize them, and then consider something else if they are
not effective. He does not think the Board needs to change the footnote, as long as it is clear from the
Board that there is language in the footnote that recognizes the importance of voluntary measures. He
would like staff to be directed to come back with a list of ten implementation measures or ideas that begin
with the voluntary part.
Mr. Dorrier asked if Mr. Bowerman would include a tax incentive and a loan incentive. Mr.
Bowerman said to the extent they are allowed by law. The one thing that struck him at the meeting last
week is that for many people it would not be a big issue to go through a two-year plan working with staff,
and then ultimately demolish the building. There are other people who do not have the resources, nor the
means, to do that. In that sense, he thought it was unequitable. If the Board concentrates on the positive
first, rather than the regulatory, he thinks that will allow everybody an equal chance to protect their property
without any unnecessary bureaucratic burdens being placed on them.
Ms. Thomas said she understands that Mr. Bowerman is suggesting that the Board ask the
committee and staff to come back with the top ten strategies beginning with voluntary measures and
incentives. Mr. Bowerman said yes and that they form the basis for the Boards initial strategy for
A@=
implementing an historic preservation plan which all recognize as being necessary, but he also recognizes
that if it starts out in the reverse, it may have a very deleterious effect. He thinks both can be accomplished
by that vote.
Ms. Thomas asked if that was a motion.
Mr. Bowerman moved that the Board adopt CPA-2000-04, Historic Preservation Plan, as
recommended to the Board by the Committee. This is done with the understanding that staff and the
Historic Preservation Committee will bring back to the Board, at their earliest convenience, a set of priority
measures, based on incentives and voluntary actions, that will enable the plan to be functional and
workable.
Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion.
Ms. Thomas asked that staff give the Board the budgetary implications of this motion. Mr. Tucker
said staff will provide any financial information available.
Mr. Dorrier asked if as part of this motion the Board is asking staff and the committee to tell the
Board the number of structures being dealt with. Ms. Humphris said the discussion about structures was
misrepresented. What staff said is that about 2000 structures have been surveyed. It would take 100 years
to identify 2000 structures as being historic and that will never happen. Obviously, in such identification,
they would start with the most obvious, those properties already on or eligible for designation on the
National Register of Historic Places or the Virginia Landmarks Register. That would take a very long time.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board is leaving the term historic ambiguous for the time being. Ms.
A@
Humphris said the term historic is very clearly identified in the plan as the same definition as under the
national designation. She asked Ms. Margaret Pickart from the Planning Department for the language. Ms.
Pickard said there is a difference between historic and significant. A building can be 50 or more years
A@A@
old and not be significant. Significance is based on the architecture of the building as well as its connection
to historic events, or important people, or other issues like that. Ms. Humphris said it is clearly stated in the
plan. Ms. Thomas said she thinks what will be affected by this, is a good issue. That is a little different than
what is just old. Also, what does it mean to be affected by the plan? If the Board is saying it is to be
voluntary and incentive programs, that gives a different implication to the plan altogether. Mr. Bowerman
said it will leave the Board and the public with a different feeling for what is being contemplated as being
positive and one that is not going to cause undue hardship on them if they choose to follow this procedure.
With no further discussion, Ms. Thomas asked for a roll call. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
(Set out below are amendments to the text of Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Plan to
correspond to updated text in the Historic Preservation Plan:)
·
Page 112: Under "Surveys and Historic Resources" change 1998 to 2000.
·
Page 112: In the second paragraph under Existing Historic Resources Surveys add "under the
auspices of Professor K. Edward Lay" in the first line after "University of Virginia School of
Architecture" and "have conducted".
·
Page 112: Delete the third sentence of the second paragraph under Existing Historic Resources
Surveys and replace it with this sentence "Professor Lay has also written a book on the
architectural history of Albemarle County, which was released in February, 2000." In the last
sentence of this paragraph change "will document" to "documents".
·
Page 113: Under Historic Resource Listings, in the middle of the first paragraph change "end of
1998" to "beginning of 2000". Also change "60 individual sites " to "64 individual sites".
·
Replace the "Registered Historic Properties in Albemarle County" table beginning on page 116 with
the updated table included in the plan.
November 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Appointments.
Mr. Bowerman offered motion to make the following reappointments:
Reappoint Mr. Vernon Jones to the Industrial Development Authority, as the White Hall District
representative, with his new term to expire on January 19, 2005.
Reappoint Chief John Miller to the James River Alcohol Safety Action Program with his new term to
expire on January 1, 2004.
Reappoint Mr. Stephen F. Ashby to the Single-Occupant Vehicle Alternatives Committee with his
new term to expire on January 12, 2003.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Amendments to the FY 2000-01 Operating Budget (deferred from October
18, 2000), Discussion of.
Mr. Tucker said staff broke down the various requests into three areas: urgent projects, necessary
projects and one-time operational needs (see staffs report which is on file in the Clerks Office). Staff also
==
showed a list of appropriations that it feels are necessary to move forward with. Appropriation Form #20021
in the amount of $371,058.33 for FY 00 Purchase Orders which were not completed before the end of the
>
fiscal year; Appropriation Form #20022 in the amount of $543,449 for FY 00 reappropriations for approved,
>
but not yet completed projects; Appropriation Form #20023 in the amount of $299,675 for FY 01
>
appropriations for projects approved during the budget process; Appropriation Form #20024 in the amount
of $577,205 for FY 01 appropriations for new projects in the Operating Fund; and, if the Board chooses to
>
move forward with the appropriation of $4,537,527 for FY 01 appropriations for new projects in the Capital
>
Fund there is Appropriation Form #20025.
Mr. Tucker said staff gave some alternative scenarios for the Board to consider. One alternative
would be to fund only the Urgent/Committed and Necessary projects and put the remaining $311,887 in a
rainy day fund or add it to the Capital Reserve. A second alternative would be to fund only the Urgent
A@
projects and reserve the remaining $1,468,335 for a rainy day fund or the Capital Reserve Fund. A third
alternative would be to consider the projects requested by the School Board to determine if they are a
higher funding priority than some of the previously requested General Government projects.
Mr. Tucker said the Chairman of the School Board has officially requested a 65 percent share of a
$5.5 million surplus, or $3,575,000, which includes $1.2 million for property acquisition, 65 percent of the
$2.0 million recommended for the Capital Reserve (that amounts to $1.3 million), and then there were
three other projects, $245,000 for additional textbooks, $430,000 for bus replacement and $400,000 for
maintenance projects.
Mr. Tucker said that in response to that request, staff said the 65 percentage share was based on
an historical average for School projects to General Government projects over the past seven years of the
Capital Improvement Program. However, since the financial advisors are currently analyzing both General
Government and School Division capital project requests to develop a manageable and equitable capital
resource allocation plan for the next ten years, staff thinks it would be premature to make that allocation at
this time. Staff also wants the Board to know that the School Boards request to fund the three projects
=
totaling $1,075,000 is not included in the current budget amendment. Preliminary estimates by the Director
of Finance show that the School Board has approximately $1.0 million in its own Fund Balance that could
be used to fund these projects. The School Division should also have surplus funds available in the current
year since slightly under $1.0 million was budgeted for growth based on 230 new students while actual
September 30, 2000, enrollment growth was only 50 new students. Some of these revenues are expected
to be used for increased fuel costs.
Mr. Tucker said that in response to requests at the public hearing to return the surplus to the
taxpayers, not only does the County not have the legal authority to do that, but implementing such a
reimbursement would be extremely difficult due to the number of revenue sources that made up the
surplus.
Mr. Tucker said staff recommends approval of the appropriations he mentioned above, at least
Appropriation Forms #20021 and #20022. Staff also recommends that a minimum of at least $2.0 million
be transferred to the Capital Reserve Fund leaving a balance of $3,414,548 to the Board's discretion based
on the above alternatives.
Ms. Thomas asked how much the School Board needs in its Fund Balance. Mr. Tucker said there
is no minimum for that. Ms. Thomas said the $1.0 million noted as being in their Fund Balance does not
appear in this paperwork, and it would cover a major portion, if not all, of the three specific items. Mr.
November 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
Tucker said that is correct. In addition, they may have another $1.0 million based on the savings on the
number of new students. There are a lot of variables attached to that figure, so it may change.
Ms. Thomas asked how the Board should proceed at this point. Mr. Tucker asked that
Appropriations #20021 and #20022 be discussed first.
Mr. Perkins asked if this is an unusually large amount of purchase orders carried over into the new
year. It was large enough to cause the Board to have a budget amendment. Mr. Tucker said he does not
know if this number if high or low. These are purchases which were made prior to June 30, and the
materials were not delivered in time to have them paid within the fiscal year. Some of these purchases
pertain to large capital projects.
Ms. Thomas said she feels the Board needs to approve the two appropriations, otherwise she
thinks the department heads will hurry to spend their money before the end of the fiscal year.
Mr. Dorrier moved that the Board adopt Resolutions of Appropriation #20021 and #20022, as set
out below. The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins.
(Note: Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting at this time.)
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Sheriffs request for $120,000 was approved this morning. Mr. Tucker
=
said yes.
A@
Roll was called at this time, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20021
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF OUTSTANDING PURCHASE ORDERS FROM
FY 99-00
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1000 11010 600100 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICE SUPPLIES$800.00
1 1000 12030 580040 HUMAN RESOURCES QUALITY COUNCIL INIT FND 3,500.00
1 1000 12143 800710 FIN-ACCOUNTING/PAYROLL DATA PROCESSING SOFTWARE 44,000.00
1 1000 31013 580904 POLICE PATROL SERVICE DARE EXPENSES89.10
1 1000 31013 601102 POLICE PATROL SERVICE UNIFORMS REPLACEMENT2,853.95
1 1000 31013 800501 POLICE PATROL SERVICE MOTOR VEHICLES REPL41,814.42
1 1000 31020 800125 SHERIFF FIREARMS & EQUIPMENT2,340.85
1 1000 31020 601000 SHERIFF POLICE SUPPLIES4,426.78
1 1000 32012 601500 FIRE RESCUE-TRAINING MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE822.00
1 1000 32012 601200 FIRE RESCUE-TRAINING BOOKS & SUBSCRIPTIONS433.25
1 1000 32015 600400 FIRE/RESCUE-OPERATIONS MEDICAL & LAB SUPPLIES1,201.00
1 1000 32015 601100 FIRE/RESCUE-OPERATIONS UNIFORMS & APPAREL1,020.14
1 1000 32015 800100 FIRE/RESCUE-OPERATIONS MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT1,432.62
1 1000 41000 312700 ENGINEERING PROF SER CONSULTANTS995.50
1 1000 41000 312700 ENGINEERING PROF SER CONSULTANTS32,553.00
1 1000 41000 312700 ENGINEERING PROF SER CONSULTANTS1,147.50
1 1000 41000 331901 ENGINEERING MAINT-DETENTION BASIN3,360.50
1 1000 41000 312700 ENGINEERING PROF SER CONSULTANTS2,500.00
1 1000 41021 540405 STREET SIGN MAINTENANCE RENTAL - UNIFORMS178.00
1 1000 43002 301211 PUBLIC WORKS-MAINT DIV CONT SERV-MEDIAN MOWING6,120.70
1 1000 43002 331200 PUBLIC WORKS-MAINT DIV R&M EQUIP-BUILDINGS28,870.00
1 1000 43002 332200 PUBLIC WORKS-MAINT DIV MNT CONTRACT-BUILDING593.79
1 1000 43002 331200 PUBLIC WORKS-MAINT DIV R&M EQUIP-BUILDINGS627.69
1 1000 43003 540405 PUBLIC WORK-CUSTODIAL RENTAL - UNIFORMS108.50
1 1000 43003 600500 PUBLIC WORK-CUSTODIAL LAUNDRY/JANITORIAL SUP277.21
1 1000 43004 540405 PUBLIC WORKS-COPY CNTR RENTAL - UNIFORMS301.00
1 1000 53011 800710 VPA MANAGEMENT DATA PROCESSING SOFTWARE2,677.60
1 1000 53011 520300 VPA MANAGEMENT TELECOMMUNICATIONS230.00
1 1000 53012 301212 VPA BENEFITS PROGRAMS FS ISSUANCE-CONTRACT3,727.97
1 1000 53012 520300 VPA BENEFITS PROGRAMS TELECOMMUNICATIONS460.00
1 1000 53013 520300 VPA SERVICE PROGRAMS TELECOMMUNICATIONS230.00
1 1000 53014 312700 VPA EMPLOYMENT SERVICE PROF SER CONSULTANTS2,189.50
1 1000 53014 520300 VPA EMPLOYMENT SERVICE TELECOMMUNICATIONS230.00
1 1000 71013 540000 P & R SUMMER SWIM PROGRAM LEASES AND RENTALS180.00
1 1000 71013 601100 P & R SUMMER SWIM PROGRAM UNIFORMS & APPAREL1,545.00
1 1000 71014 600700 REC-ATHLETICS & CLASSES REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES547.20
1 1000 71014 800100 REC-ATHLETICS & CLASSES MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT3,800.00
1 1000 71015 540000 P & R COMMUNITY CENTERS LEASES AND RENTALS630.00
1 1000 81010 312700 PLANNING PROF SER CONSULTANTS5,400.00
1 1000 81010 312342 PLANNING DEVELOPMENT AREAS STUDY4,922.96
1 1000 81010 312700 PLANNING PROF SER CONSULTANTS4,733.85
1 1000 81010 301210 PLANNING CONTRACT SERVICES2,416.76
1 1000 81010 800201 PLANNING FURNITURE & FIXTURES-REPL169.99
November 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
1 1000 81010 301210 PLANNING CONTRACT SERVICES29,600.00
1 1000 81017 312385 E-911/PLANNING AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY125,000.00
TOTAL$371,058.33
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
21000 51000 510100 GENERAL FUND BALANCE$371,058.33
TOTAL$371,058.33
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20022
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF PROJECTS FROM FY 99-00
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 1000 12013 560416 COMMUNITY NEIGHBORHOOD TEAM$2,000.00
1 1000 12030 580040 HUMAN RESOURCES QUALITY IMP PROGRAM16,333.00
1 1000 21020 800201 GENERAL DISTRICT CT CHAIR1,300.00
1 1000 21060 312800 CLERK, CIRCUIT CT AUDIT3,000.00
1 1000 31013 530010 POLICE INSURANCE DEDUCT15,000.00
1 1000 31013 600800 POLICE VEHICLE & EQUIP3,600.00
1 1000 31013 600900 POLICE VEH & EQUIP REPAIRS3,900.00
1 1000 31013 601011 POLICE AMMUNITION4,000.00
1 1000 31013 601101 POLICE UNIFORMS-NEW2,900.00
1 1000 31013 601103 POLICE UNIFORMS-SPECIALTY2,300.00
1 1000 31013 800301 POLICE COMM EQUIP8,000.00
1 1000 41000 312341 ENGINEERING GROUNDWATER35,000.00
1 1000 41000 601302 ENGINEERING FORESTRY GRANT500.00
1 1000 41000 950023 ENGINEERING AUTOMART3,170.00
1 1000 71012 800101 PARKS & REC SLOPE MOWER18,500.00
1 1000 81010 160801 PLANNING WORK STUDY 11,276.00
1 1000 81010 301210 PLANNING AERIAL PHOTO32,017.00
1 1000 81010 312342 PLANNING DEV'L AREAS STUDY 109,716.00
1 1000 81010 312700 PLANNING CONSULTANTS29,834.00
1 1000 81010 350000 PLANNING COMP PLAN8,991.00
1 1000 81010 550400 PLANNING TRAVEL2,246.00
1 1000 81010 800100 PLANNING MACH & EQUIP14,139.00
1 1000 81010 800201 PLANNING FURN & FIXTURES3,227.00
1 1000 81017 301210 PLANNING TAX MAPS200,000.00
1 1000 81017 350000 PLANNING PRT & BINDING7,500.00
1 1000 81017 550400 PLANNING EDUCATION5,000.00
TOTAL$543,449.00
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
21000 51000 510100 GENERAL FUND BALANCE $543,449.00
TOTAL $543,449.00
__________
Ms. Roxanne White was present to discuss Appropriation Form #20023. Ms. Thomas asked if the
projects listed are on the Project Priority List. Ms. White drew the Boards attention to Attachment C which
=
is part of the paperwork for this meeting. She said the projects are listed in priority order in the column
entitled New Projects Supported in FY 01 Adopted Budget.
A>@
Ms. Thomas asked if these are projects which were discussed during the budget work sessions and
which were part of the public hearing on the budget, and were essentially approved by the Board at that
time, but the Board knew they would have to be funded by carry-over (surplus) moneys, so they were not in
the formal appropriation action. Ms. Humphris said to clarify, the projects listed on Appropriation Form
#20023 are shown in the column entitled New Projects Supported ... and then #20024 and #20025 are
A@
listed under the column entitled New Projects Recommended. She said she will not pick the
A@
recommendations of the County Executives staff and the Finance Department to pieces because she
=
believes that if the Board does not fund the one-time projects and the necessary projects, they will keep
coming back for funding in the future. She would just as soon deal with them right now. She then moved
that the Board adopt Resolutions of Appropriation #20023, #20024 and #20025.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier.
Mr. Bowerman asked if these approvals bring the Board to the 60/40 split. Mr. Tucker said these
actions have nothing to do with that. Mr. Bowerman said it was mentioned this morning that the Board
would be discussing that split this afternoon. Mr. Tucker said staff said they were asking the financial
advisors to look at how that might be split in the future, but that is up to the Board. If the Board would want
to split this surplus in that manner, it could. Mr. Bowerman said that in the past, the Board has just taken
whatever carryover funds there were, followed through with the commitment to finance those the Board had
talked about in the past, or had under way, and then automatically did the 40/60. Mr. Tucker said that was
not the surplus. Normally, the surplus just stays in the Fund Balance, or if the Board had specific items it
wanted to fund, whether schools or local government, it dealt with that then, but it normally stayed in the
General Fund.
Mr. Dorrier said the items presented, although they are new, include maintenance and repair and
November 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
land acquisition, and there do not seem to be any frills. Mr. Tucker said the Board has talked about many
of these projects, but no action has been taken on funding any of them until today. That was the purpose of
the public hearing, as well.
Ms. Thomas said something like the tipping fee has good implications to illegal dumping along
County roads. She thinks there has been improvement in that area.
With no further discussion, the roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20023
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: NEW PROJECTS SUPPORTED IN FY 01 BUDGET TO BE
FUNDED FROM CARRYOVER
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1000 12144 520100 FINANCE REASSESSMENT-POSTAGE$14,994.00
1 1000 12144 600100 FINANCE REASSESSMENT-OFFICE SUPP10,000.00
1 1000 13020 500000 REGISTRAR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION10,948.00
1 1000 13020 800901 REGISTRAR OFFICE MOVE4,800.00
1 1000 13020 500000 REGISTRAR REDISTRICTING10,836.00
1 1000 31013 601000 POLICE UNDERWATER RECOV13,430.00
1 1000 31016 601000 POLICE ANIMAL CONTROL1,869.00
1 1000 31013 601000 POLICE FIREARMS TRG UNIT2,110.00
1 1000 31013 601000 POLICE POLICE PATROL6,110.00
1 1000 32012 800100 FIRE/RESCUE THERMAL CAMERAS34,000.00
1 1000 34000 800501 INSPECTIONS VEHICLE19,500.00
1 1000 41000 312341 ENGINEERING HYDROGEOLOGIC STUDY50,000.00
1 1000 43001 800100 PUBLIC WORKS MAIL MACHINE20,000.00
1 1000 81010 301210 PLANNING PLANIMETRIC MAPPING100,000.00
1 1000 83000 130000 EXT SERVICES P/T WAGES1,078.00
TOTAL$299,675.00
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
21000 51000 510100 GENERAL FUND BALANCE$299,675.00
TOTAL$299,675.00
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20024
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: NEW GENERAL FUND PROJECTS FUNDED FROM
CARRYOVER
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 1000 12030 580030 HUMAN RESOURCES CUSTOMER SURVEY$20,000.00
1 1000 12040 130000 COUNTY ATTORNEY P/T WAGES15,000.00
1 1000 12141 310000 FINANCE FINANCIAL CONSULT30,000.00
1 1000 12143 800710 FINANCE PAYROLL SOFTWARE60,000.00
1 1000 12143 800710 FINANCE FINANCIAL SFTWR190,000.00
1 1000 21010 800101 CIRCUIT CT TECHNOLOGY6,500.00
1 1000 21020 580100 GENERAL DISTRICT CT DUES80.00
1 1000 21020 800100 GENERAL DISTRICT CT PRINTER STAND480.00
1 1000 21020 800201 GENERAL DISTRICT CT FLAGS200.00
1 1000 21020 800201 GENERAL DISTRICT CT PORTRAIT600.00
1 1000 21060 130000 CLERK, CIRCUIT CT PART-TIME WAGES5,200.00
1 1000 21060 331100 CLERK, CIRCUIT CT R&M1,000.00
1 1000 21060 350200 CLERK, CIRCUIT CT BINDING1,000.00
1 1000 21060 600100 CLERK, CIRCUIT CT OFF SUPPLIES1,500.00
1 1000 21060 601700 CLERK, CIRCUIT CT COPY EXPENSE1,000.00
1 1000 21060 800101 CLERK, CIRCUIT CT MACH & EQUIP8,300.00
1 1000 21060 800201 CLERK, CIRCUIT CT FURN & FIXTURES1,700.00
1 1000 34000 800201 INSPECTIONS FURN & FIXTURES2,000.00
1 1000 41000 312341 ENGINEERING HYDROGEOLOGIC STUDY30,000.00
1 1000 41000 312700 ENGINEERING DESIGN CONSULTANT20,000.00
1 1000 42040 510430 SOLID WASTE TIPPING FEES25,000.00
1 1000 53011 510000 SOCIAL SERVICES UTILITIES10,000.00
1 1000 53011 330000 SOCIAL SERVICES MAINTENANCE2,000.00
1 1000 53011 301214 SOCIAL SERVICES CUSTODIAL12,000.00
1 1000 53013 800501 SOCIAL SERVICES VEHICLE19,000.00
1 1000 71012 130000 PARKS & REC P/T WAGES3,090.00
1 1000 71012 540000 PARKS & REC LEASE/RENT650.00
November 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
1 1000 71012 540200 PARKS & REC RENT2,400.00
1 1000 71012 580505 PARKS & REC SECURITY5,405.00
1 1000 71012 600700 PARKS & REC R&M SUPPLIES1,000.00
1 1000 81010 130000 PLANNING P/T WAGES27,000.00
1 1000 81010 301210 PLANNING PLANIMETRIC MAPPING44,000.00
1 1000 81010 312342 PLANNING DEV'L AREAS STUDY20,000.00
1 1000 81010 800710 PLANNING SOFTWARE1,100.00
1 1000 81040 800100 ZONING PHOTO EQUIP2,000.00
1 1000 81040 800100 ZONING SCANNER8,000.00
TOTAL $577,205.00
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
21000 51000 510100 GENERAL FUND BALANCE$577,205.00
TOTAL $577,205.00
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20025
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: NEW CAPITAL FUND PROJECTS TO BE FUNDED FROM
CARRYOVER
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 9010 11010 800750 BD OF SUPV LAND ACQUISITON $1,200,000.00
1 9010 11010 999979 BD OF SUPV CAPITAL RESERVE500,000.00
1 9010 11010 999979 BD OF SUPV CAPITAL RESERVE 2,000,000.00
1 9010 21050 331000 JUVENILE CT REPAIRS & MAINT14,527.00
1 9010 41000 950039 ENGINEERING MEADOW CREEK PARKWAY 140,000.00
1 9010 43100 800664 PUBLIC WORKS COB SECURITY 40,000.00
1 9010 43100 950117 PUBLIC WORKS SOCIAL SERV RENOVATIONS276,000.00
1 9010 43100 950119 PUBLIC WORKS BOARD ROOM75,000.00
1 9010 43100 950120 PUBLIC WORKS REGISTRAR SPACE 30,000.00
1 9010 71000 950034 PARKS & REC TOWE PARK BERMUDA GRASS12,000.00
1 9010 71000 950118 PARKS & REC SCOTTSVILLE REC CNTR ROOF150,000.00
1 9100 41000 950093 STORMWATER STORMWATER PLAN100,000.00
TOTAL$4,537,527.00
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
29010 51000 512004 TRS FROM GENERAL FUND$4,437,527.00
29100 51000 512004 TRS FROM GENERAL FUND100,000.00
TOTAL$4,537,527.00
TRANSFERS
1 1000 93010 930010 G/F TRANSFER TO CIP$4,437,527.00
1 1000 93010 930202 G/F TRANSFER TO STORMWATER$100,000.00
2 1000 51000 510100 G/F BALANCE$4,537,527.00
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board.
Mr. Tucker said the earliest the Board can hear the CPA amendment request for the Hollymead
area is December 13. The Clerk has said there are eight other items already scheduled for that meeting.
They may not all be major issues, but the Board may wish to reschedule this item until January. It was the
consensus to leave the amendment request on December 13.
__________
Mr. Dorrier mentioned a meeting with Charlottesville City Council concerning the Lewis & Clark
Center. He asked if that date has been set. Ms. Carey said the meeting has been set for December 6 at
8:00 a.m. immediately before the next regular day meting.
__________
Ms. Thomas handed to Mr. Tucker a copy of an unsigned letter concerning the Stonewall Jackson
commemorative sign at the Mechum River. She said the sign is down and it is requested to be reinstalled.
The letter is addressed to the Albemarle County Historical Society so she does not know if the County is
involved or not. Mr. Tucker said it is actually a Highway Department sign.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she went to a hearing held by the Department of Conservation and Recreation in
Charlottesville, and they sent to her the Virginia Land Conservation Foundation Fund Grant Program which
may open up some money for the Countys ACE Program, but not until the ACE Program is actually set up
=
and going. Mr. Cilimberg said staff has been keeping track of this information. He believes the County can
make application in next year's cycle. He added that the grant cannot be used for a general program; it
must be used for specific acquisitions. Mr. Cilimberg said there has been discussion recently emphasizing
that the County have a general marketing of the program. Mr. Foley indicated that the application date
should be delayed one month to be sure the marketing is out to the public first. One thing still to be
November 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
completed is the easement which the County Attorneys Office and the ACE Committee is working on.
=
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. Adjourn to November 8, 2000, 4:30 p.m., for Joint Meeting with School
Board.
At 2:45 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, motion was offered by Ms.
Humphris to adjourn this meeting until November 8, 2000, at 4:30 p.m. for a joint meeting with the School
Board. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date 02/21/2001
Initials LAB