2007-10-03October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on October 3,
2007, at 9:00 a.m., in the Lane Auditorium in the County Office Building on McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Ken C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Dennis S. Rooker, Mr. David
Slutzky, Ms. Sally H. Thomas, and Mr. David C. W yant.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W . Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W.
Davis, Assistant County Executive, Tom Foley, Director of Planning and Community Development, Mark
Graham, Chief of Planning, David Benish, and Clerk, Ella W. Jordan.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:03 a.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Boyd.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Thomas commented that State requirements that stipulate the Board must hold an entirely
new separate public hearing if there is a change to a proffer is tying our hands and making the process
very cumbersome and lengthy.
Mr. Rooker agreed, adding that the legislation has backfired as the re-advertisement policy is
actually hurting the public and not helping them.
Ms. Thomas suggested the Board consider allowing public comments at its work sessions to
allow input during the process instead of only at the public hearing.
_______________
Mr. Dorrier commented on the Village of Rivanna Master Planning procedure. He asked if other
Board members had received emails on the subject. He suggested a committee be appointed to provide
into the process.
Mr. Rooker responded that the Planning Commission would formulate a recommendation after
their next meeting as to how to handle this; they have not yet made that recommendation.
Mr. Benish added that the Commission has agreed that some local group to advise on this would
be beneficial, and County staff would be recommending to them how to form such a body.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Mr. Mark Harris addressed the Board, stating that he operates a small landscape and irrigation
business in the County, with six full-time and four part-time people now operating at 50 percent because
of water restrictions. He stated that the County W ater & Sewer Authority has taken the path of least
resistance and cut them down to nothing, which eliminates the possibility of serving clients who need
landscaping. Mr. Harris said that he has to pay to have water brought in so he can keep the plants alive
that they have already put in.
_______________
Mr. Tom Oakley of TM Turf addressed the Board, stating that local companies have been
discriminated against during the recent water restrictions. He said that the State has legislated that there
should be an exception for new plantings and/or an environmental and economic impact. Mr. Oakley said
that the Virginia Turf Grass Council estimated that this particular industry generated $5 billion a year,
employed 424,000 people, and had a total of 1,699,000 acres under care. He stated that they are asking
for a 30 to 45 day growing period depending on circumstances, and he asked what had been done to
address the water needs of all the new housing and retail development. Mr. Oakley suggested a five-tier
system for water usage. He noted that the green industry does recycle its water as well as support the
local community as citizens.
_______________
Mr. Tim Reese, who works for a local landscaping company, addressed the Board and stated that
four of the eight restrictions imposed by the Service Authority have exceptions. He noted that the
limitation on watering of outside plants and vegetation “shall not apply to commercial greenhouses or
nursery stocks…” Mr. Reese said that the Service Authority seems to want to make it inconvenient for
people to water their plants, and incomplete projects are leading to widespread erosion. He emphasized
that not watering has an incredibly negative impact where erosion is an issue as well as an impact on the
industry, which he is involved in because he really loves it. Mr. Reese said that weather is just another
bump in the road. He said that these restrictions were put into effect months ago.
_______________
Mr. Bruce Baxter addressed the Board, stating that he is with an erosion control company, where
they often use hydra-seeding to stabilize a steep hillside, and the minimum need is 3,000 gallons of water
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
per acre. He emphasized that ponds and streams are often not enough so they are reliant on the W ater
Authority.
_______________
Mr. Bob Freeman of Aquarius Irrigation Supply Company addressed the Board, stating that his
business is to supply vendors with irrigation supplies, and they are the only branch dealing with a “no
water” restriction. He said that although they have been in business since 1969, Aquarius came to
Charlottesville only a year ago because clients were getting supplies from Richmond.
_______________
Mr. Kenny Shiflett of Foothill Irrigation addressed the Board, stating that he has been in business
for 15 years and employs ten people. Mr. Shifflett said that he feels the industry was singled out as the
car wash and concrete companies are still allowed to operate and they use water.
_______________
Mr. Duane Snow addressed the Board, noting that he appreciates all they do to help keep the
County running smoothly. Mr. Snow said that one of the major issues is the erosion problem as plants
die when they are not watered properly. He added that it is impossible to establish ground-cover as well
and that generates even more severe problems.
Mr. Boyd thanked him for his service on the Architectural Review Board, noting that Mr. Snow
would be leaving the area soon.
_______________
Ms. Carol Church of Southern States on Proffit Road addressed the Board, noting that watering
restrictions have had a tremendously negative impact on the nursery and the landscape trade and their
customers. She said that there is approximately $40,000 of retail plant material that needs to be sold.
Ms. Church explained that the new watering guidelines require night watering, and the only method that
can be done at that time is overhead irrigation which is not very efficient. She said that a touch and go
watering wand should be allowed to be used during the day as it is very efficient; current restrictions
should be permitted to use a conservative method such as that. Ms. Church noted that sales volumes
are down: grass seed was down 20 percent in September; straw is down 25 percent; flower and
vegetable seed is down 20 percent; fertilizer is down 40 percent; garden chemicals are down 20 percent
and nursery products are down 30 percent. She noted that staff has been reduced 20 percent. Ms.
Church added that their water bill is getting ready to double, and it is crippling to our business.
_______________
Mr. Dale Dudley of D&D Lawn Care, which employs 35 people, expressed his concern about the
water restrictions. He noted that some of the restrictions actually waste water. Mr. Dudley said that the
restrictions seem to be geared just to the green industry where other industries have been spared or
offered relief.
_______________
Mr. Scott Price, manager of a landscape division of a large company in Charlottesville, addressed
the Board, emphasizing that they use water very efficiently. He said that just because they are highly
visible as users of water does not mean they should be penalized more than other industries. Mr. Price
asked for distinction between what is a drought issue and what is a supply issue, noting inconsistency
with responses from the Service Authority. He emphasized that they are unable to complete several
projects because of the restrictions, and the advertising is adversely affecting perception of the green
industry, even though they are not the most egregious consumers.
_______________
Mr. Corbin Snow addressed the Board, noting that he is president and owner of Snow’s Garden
Company in Charlottesville. He mentioned that his grandfather started the business in 1912. Mr. Snow
reported that the effects of restrictions from the drought of 2002 placed specifically on that industry were
devastating. He said that their retail garden center sales plummeted 80 percent during the fall and winter
months, and new landscaping leads came to a screeching halt. Mr. Snow stated that they had to lay off
employees for the first time ever, and his father pulled through by getting loans to keep the business
afloat. He said that since that time, they have invested in the company and have made capital
improvements and invested in advertising. Mr. Snow said that it is not possible to stockpile water for a
drought year, and long-range computer models say that the problem will only get worse. He emphasized
that erosion further reduces this ability and also pollutes the Chesapeake Bay.
_______________
Mr. Jeff Werner, speaking for himself, addressed the Board. He said that unless the drought itself
goes away, this problem cannot really be resolved. Mr. W erner stated that his family has been collecting
water in buckets so that they can take showers and flush toilets, and there are many others who are
cutting back dramatically on their water usage.
_______________
Mr. John Martin addressed the Board, stating that the issue raised here is a business problem,
and perhaps some drought insurance would help these companies. He said that this is a water supply
issue, and 20 percent of potable water delivered has been for irrigation purposes. Mr. Martin said it is not
these people’s fault; that is what the demand is. You have to ask yourselves what’s creating this demand
and what do we do about this. He also said that the Service Authority prices water for irrigation dirt cheap
and has a policy of allowing for separate meters for irrigation, which allows them to pay a price for water
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
but not sewer. Mr. Martin said irrigation water is cheaper than the water you drink. He commented on
the level of dysfunctionality between the Service Authority and other local government bodies, and the
need to reexamine the relationship between the elected government and the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority and the Albemarle County Service Authority.
_______________
Ms. June Comer addressed the Board, noting that she lives near the intersection of Plank and
Miller School roads. She said that Batesville is known for being a heavily trafficked and speeding area,
adding that the intersection has heavy traffic coming from Route 151 to Route 29 and traffic coming from
Route 250 and Route 29. Ms. Comer suggested flashing warning signs on the Miller School Road ahead
of the curve and signs placed on those roads showing there is an intersection ahead as well as making
the street light solar powered and clearing sand off the road in the winter.
_______________
Ms. Lynn O’Donnell addressed the Board, stating that she is in the green industry, and
emphasizing that shut-off valves, hoses, and sprinkler heads/wands should be used for watering new
plants. She said that using a three-gallon bucket is inefficient because of runoff.
_______________
Ms. Lesley Sewell addressed the Board, stating that water is very valuable to the green industry.
She noted that the industry is very beneficial to the State’s economy with greenhouse/nursery businesses
being the fourth largest agricultural commodity in Virginia now with $185 million in revenues annually.
_______________
Mr. Cliff Fox addressed the Board and discussed a proposed greenway segment to Crozet Park
through the Daily Family property. He stated that the Daily’s will agree to a temporary license agreement
if the County agrees to relinquish its right to eminent domain any of their land for the greenway. He
asked the Board if they could find a way to relinquish its right to any eminent domain action on the Daly
property.
_______________
Mr. Slutzky asked what could be done to spread awareness of cutting back on water usage
among the general public so the green industries can continue to operate as they should, adding that
perhaps the Service Authority could raise water rates.
Mr. Rooker responded that there is some exception for nurseries watering their own plants, so the
restrictions are on individual homes where irrigation and plant-watering are not allowed. He noted that
has led to consumers not buying plants, and he stated that he has a well and is not buying plants or
watering his lawn right now. Mr. Rooker said that that industry has been hit hard by the drought, and the
Authority should consider things like the touch and go wand, but it does get more difficult when it gets
down to the consumer level. He said that the criteria that they establish are objective criteria, they’re not
political criteria, and he thinks that’s important. Mr. Rooker added that it is inappropriate to second-guess
the Authority when they are spending all their time focusing on the drought and its related issues, but he
said he would talk to his representative on the Authority to see if there are ways the results can be
achieved without a disproportionate impact.
Mr. W yant agreed, but he said that a requirement to cut water usage and the methods
recommended may be inefficient.
Ms. Thomas commented that what needs to be considered for the long-term is what plants can
survive a drought as this is probably a problem that will have to be dealt with in the future. She cited the
difficulties encountered during the 2002 drought.
Mr. Rooker added that the process of getting an increased water supply is a tedious job that
requires getting the regulators to accept a plan that the community agrees on, which the Authority has
done very, very well with, and environmental organizations have also supported the approach. He added
that there are some groups in the community who are starting to work against the plan.
Mr. Boyd commented that they have no control over Mother Nature, and the regulatory agencies
will only move so quickly. He said that he would like for the Authority members to meet with
representatives from the green industry to perhaps arrive at some compromise.
Mr. Tucker suggested that a focus group be established as many of these people have
addressed the Authority as they did at this Board meeting.
Mr. Reese said that they have created a Committee and met with Gary Fern, who wants to meet
with them again, adding that it is important to have Board involvement as well with the focus group. He
said that when the warnings were issued, the Authority wanted to save five percent but went right after
the green industry and saved eight percent in the first week.
Mr. Slutzky noted that residential users tend to waste water because they saturate their lawns
and there is runoff.
Mr. Reese said that other communities have implemented measures such as odd/even day
watering days. He said it is going to take a huge effort. He added that the only way to get drought-
tolerant plants, such as black-eyed Susan’s, established is by watering.
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
Mr. Boyd suggested that they keep working with the Authority and the focus group.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda.
Mr. Rooker moved for approval of items 6.1 through 6.6 on the Consent Agenda, and to accept
the remaining items for information. Mr. Slutzky seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. W yant.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Item No. 6.1. Approval of Minutes: November 1, 2006; April 4 and June 20, 2007, removed
from the Consent Agenda.
Mr. Slutzky asked that his portion of the minutes of April 4, 2007 be pulled.
Mr. Boyd asked that his portion of the minutes of November 1, 2006 be pulled.
By the above recorded votes, the minute of November 1, 2006 (pages 17 – end), April 4,
2007 (pages 18-end) and June 20, 2007 were approved as read.
_______________
Item 6.2. FY 2007 Appropriations.
The Executive Summary states that the Code of Virginia § 15.2-2507 stipulates that any locality
may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year as shown
in the currently adopted budget. However, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the total
expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first publishing a notice of
a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies to all
County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
In the past, Code of Virginia § 15.2-2507 required a budget amendment public hearing when the
amendment exceeded one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget or the
sum of $500,000, whichever is lesser. Effective July 1, 2007, this code section was amended removing
the “or the sum of $500,000 whichever is lesser” from this requirement, therefore, a budget amendment
public hearing will only be required after the cumulative appropriations exceed one percent of the
currently adopted budget.
The total of this requested FY 2007 appropriation is $498,500.00. A budget amendment public
hearing is not required.
This request involves the approval of one (1) new FY 2007 appropriations as follows:
• One (1) appropriations (#2007092) totaling $498,500.00 for general fund over expenditures in FY
2007.
Staff recommends approval of the FY 2007 Appropriation #2007092.
Appropriation #2007092 $498,500.00
Revenue Source: General Fund Balance $ 498,500.00
Several general government departments will require an additional appropriation to cover FY 2007
expenditures. This request will appropriate $498,500.00 from the General Fund Balance to the
following departments:
• Circuit Court Jurors and Books/Subscriptions $ 4,500.00
The Circuit Court saw an unusually high number of multi-day jury
trials during FY 2007 that resulted in the line item for juror expenses
to be over-expended. In addition, a new Circuit Court judge was
appointed during FY 2007 resulting in an increase in books and
subscriptions costs.
• Commonwealth’s Attorney Salaries, Overtime wages, FICA $ 45,000.00
The Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office was over budget due to a clerical error
that resulted in an insufficient amount of funding being distributed to this office
during the mid-year salary review of merit and reclassifications. In addition,
two employees received annual leave pay-offs during FY 2007, and two employees
received pay-offs of accumulated comp time.
• City Fire Contract $ 55,100.00
Based on the City Fire Contract terms, the FY 2007 payment due the City
exceeded the appropriated budget.
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
• Regional Jail $ 350,000.00
The regional jail’s budget was within projection however, the County’s share
of inmate population in proportion to other member entities was higher than
anticipated resulting in the County’s share of expenses being over the County’s
budget.
• Inspections Worker’s Compensation $ 2,500.00
Worker’s Compensation Insurance was under budgeted.
• Facilities Development Miscellaneous Expenses $ 2,000.00
The Office of Facilities Development was created in late FY 2007 and was
from existing funds within the General Services’ operating budget. Start up
costs of this new department were slightly higher than anticipated resulting in
an over expenditure for FY 2007.
• Soil & W ater Conservation Salaries and FICA $ 2,400.00
Salary and FICA for the one County-funded position exceeded the FY 2007
appropriation.
• Refunds Tax, Auto Decals, and Business License $ 37,000.00
(Discussion: Mr. Slutzky asked about the County’s share being higher than anticipated in the
Regional Jail, resulting in the need for additional appropriations.
Mr. Tucker replied that there is a correlation between the County’s arrest ability, which has
improved over time, so inmate population is increasing. He said it can change during the year, and that is
what the Board is seeing here.
Ms. Thomas asked about the error with the Commonwealth Attorney’s office. Mr. Tucker
indicated it was a clerical error, and he is not sure whether it happened on their end or the County’s end.
Mr. Boyd commented that perhaps some of the fund balance that would go into the CIP should be
considered to help resolve the anticipated budget shortfall.
Mr. Tucker responded that staff is comfortable with not keeping some of the money as expected
for the fund balance.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the FY 2007 Appropriation
#2007092.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2007092
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: FY07 Overexpenditures
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 21010 580900 Circuit Court-Jurors
& W itnesses
J 1 2,000.00
1 1000 21010 601200 Circuit Court-Books
& Subscriptions
J 1 2,500.00
1 1000 22010 110000 Commonwealth
Attorney-Salaries
J 1 32,000.00
1 1000 22010 120000 Commonwealth
Attorney-O/T
Wages
J 1 11,000.00
1 1000 22010 210000 Commonwealth
Attorney-FICA
J 1 2,000.00
1 1000 32050 560600 City Fire Contract J 1 55,100.00
1 1000 33020 700002 Regional Jail J 1 350,000.00
1 1000 34050 270000 Inspections-
Worker's Comp. Ins
J 1 2,500.00
1 1000 41110 580000 Facilities-Misc
Expense
J 1 2,000.00
1 1000 82030 110000 Soil & Water-
Salaries
J 1 2,000.00
1 1000 82030 210000 Soil & Water-FICA J 1 400.00
1 1000 92010 580301 Refunds-Tax
Refunds
J 1 22,000.00
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
1 1000 92010 580302 Refunds-Auto
Decal Refunds
J 1 6,000.00
1 1000 92010 580304 Refunds-Business
License Refunds
J 1 9,000.00
2 1000 51000 510100 Appropriation - F/B J 2 498,500.00
1000 0501 Est. Revenue 498,500.00
0701 Appropriation 498,500.00
TOTAL 997,000.00 498,500.00 498,500.00
_______________
Item No. 6.3. Resolution to accept roads in Chesterfield Subdivision into the State Secondary
System of Highways.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution to accept
roads in Chesterfield Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways.
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 3rd
day of October 2007, adopted the following resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Chesterfield Subdivision, as described on the attached Additions
Form AM-4.3 dated October 3, 2007, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded
in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of 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 street(s) in Chesterfield Subdivision, as
described on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated October 3, 2007, to the secondary system of
state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229 and §33.1-82, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision
Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as
described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the
recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
* * * * *
The road(s) described on Additions Form AM-4.3 is:
1) South Chesterfield Court (State Route 1623) from the intersection of Route 649 to the
intersection of North Chesterfield Court (Route 1624), as shown on plat recorded in the
office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1654, pages 503-507,
with a 50-foot plus right-of-way width, for a length of 0.02 miles.
2) South Chesterfield Court (State Route 1623) from the intersection of North
Chesterfield Court (Route 1624) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded in the office
the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1654, pages 503-507, with a
50-foot plus right-of-way width, for a length of 0.09 miles.
3) Chesterfield North (State Route 1624) from the intersection of South Chesterfield Court
(Route 1623) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1654, page 503-507, with a 50-foot plus
right-of-way width, for a length of 0.10 miles.
Total Mileage – 0.21
_______________
Item No. 6.4. Petty Cash Resolution to Add a Petty Cash Fund for Hollymead Fire Station.
The Executive Summary states that Virginia Code Section 15.2-1229, provides that the County
may adopt a resolution to establish petty cash funds not exceeding $5,000 to be used to transact daily
County business.
The Board of Supervisors last established petty cash funds by a Resolution adopted on June 6,
2007. Staff recommends adoption of a new Resolution to create an additional $250.00 petty cash fund
for the Fire and Rescue Department at the Hollymead Fire Station. This new petty cash fund will allow for
the payment of minor expenditures related to station operations.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution to add a petty cash fund at the
Hollymead Fire Station and reestablish the existing petty cash funds.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution to add a
Petty Cash Fund for Hollymead Fire Station.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Virginia Code §15.2-1229, provides that the governing body of any
county may establish by resolution one or more petty cash funds not exceeding $5,000 each
for the payment of claims arising from commitments made pursuant to law; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors adopted a Resolution on June 6, 2007
establishing petty cash funds; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors now desires to amend and establish certain
petty cash funds for the above stated purpose.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia establishes the following petty cash funds:
Finance Department $ 4,350.00
Social Services 200.00
Community Development 100.00
Police Department 1,800.00
Sheriff’s Department 100.00
Fire and Rescue 150.00
Fire and Rescue - Monticello Fire Station 250.00
Fire and Rescue – Hollymead Fire Station 250.00
Commonwealth’s Attorney 300.00
Parks & Recreation 100.00
Total $ 7,600.00
_______________
Item No. 6.5. FY 2007 End-of-Year Preliminary Financial Report.
The Executive Summary states that the attached Preliminary Financial Report provides
information on the County’s General Fund operations and Fund Balance as of June 30, 2007. The
financial report includes a bar chart that compares current fiscal year revenue and expenditure data with
data from the previous fiscal year.
A. Attachment A: General Fund Financial Report:
a. Revenues:
Revenues, excluding Transfers and Fund Balance Appropriations, total $195.803
million, $1.437 million, or 0.7%, less than revised appropriations (hereinafter
“Budget”). Combined with the use of $2.139 million in transfers from other funds
and $9.690 million in fund balance, Revenues, Transfers, and Use of Fund
Balance total $207.632 million, $2.257 million, or 1.1%, less than Budget.
Following is a brief revenue analysis for the fiscal year:
• Real Estate Tax revenues total $97.239 million, $3.721 million, or 3.7%,
less than Budget. The shortfall is due to the reduction of the real estate
tax rate from $0.74 to $0.68 for tax year 2007.
• Personal Property Tax revenues, exclusive of PPTR, total $16.810
million, $0.203 million, or 1.2%, more than Budget. The excess is due to
the revised PPTR allocation rate resulting in increased collections.
• Sales Tax revenues total $13.426 million, $0.374 million, or 2.7%, less
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
than Budget. Statewide taxable sales for April through June have
declined 0.6% compared to the prior year due to the economic slowdown
currently being experienced throughout the Commonwealth. The state
has reduced its official FY08 forecast from an increase of 5.2% to 2.8%.
• Business License revenues total $10.078 million, $0.956 million, or
10.5%, more than Budget. Revenues are based on prior year operations
when the economy was stronger.
• Food and Beverage Tax revenues total $5.438 million, $0.288 million, or
5.6%, more than Budget. The excess is due to the continued strength of
the convenience food preparation industry.
• Other Local Tax revenues total $10.363 million, $0.964 million, or 10.3%,
more than Budget. The excess is due to increased Bank Franchise tax
revenues resulting from additional bank branches located in the County,
audit activities, and vehicle registration fees.
• Other Local Revenues total $5.798 million, $0.849 million, or 17.2%,
more than Budget. The excess is primarily due to increased traffic fines,
interest earnings, and police and sheriff fees, offset by reduced
inspection related revenues.
• State Revenues total $23.393 million, $0.129 million, or 0.5%, less than
Budget. The shortfall is primarily due to decreased PPTR funding offset
by additional state funded positions for Constitutional Officers.
• Federal Revenues total $4.627 million, $0.405 million, or 8.1%, less than
Budget. The shortfall is due to less than anticipated public assistance
reimbursements.
• Use of Other Funds total $2.139 million, $0.820 million, or 27.7%, less
than Budget. The shortfall is due to the new Telecommunications law
which became effective January 1, 2007. E911 revenues previously
received separately are now reported as Communications Sales and Use
Tax combined with former Consumer Utility Tax revenues on landline
and wireless communication services. The tax is now assessed by the
state on cable services formerly untaxed by the County. This tax is now
collected by the state and allocated back to localities based on fixed
FY06 locality revenues. The change negatively impacted FY07
revenues.
• Categories with variances of less than $0.100 million have not been
analyzed for this report.
b. Expenditures:
Expenditures, including transfers, total $204.789 million, a $5.099 million, or
2.4%, savings from Budget.
• Departmental expenditures total $71.768 million, a $3.624 million, or
4.8%, savings from Budget. After proposed reappropriations of $1.985
million for uncompleted projects and outstanding purchase orders, the
net savings is $1.639 million, 2.2%.
• The Transfer to the School Division is 100% of Budget.
• Non-departmental expenditures total $10.317 million, a $1.455 million, or
12.4%, savings from Budget. This reflects savings in Contingency
Reserve expenditures of $1.491 million.
• Transfers to the Capital and Debt Service funds total $31.538 million, a
$0.020 million savings from Budget.
c. Revenues less Expenditures:
This report indicates that there will be $2.842 million in unexpended revenues,
transfers, and use of fund balance at the end of the fiscal year. The $2.842
million is comprised of:
• Revenues and transfers experiencing a $2.257 million shortfall.
• $5.099 million in expenditure savings.
B. Attachment B: General Fund Budget Comparison Report:
The chart report tracks changes in revenues and expenditures.
• Revenues in all categories except Other Local Taxes and State Revenue
increased over last year. Both decreases approximate $0.100 million.
• Expenditures in all categories increased over last year.
C. Attachment C: Fund Balance Report:
The report indicates that the County:
• Has an Audited FY06 Fund Balance of $25.079 million as of June 30, 2006,
• Appropriated $9.690 million for FY07 projects,
• Has a remaining FY07 Fund Balance of $15.388 million as of June 30, 2007,
• Estimates Preliminary Revenues in Excess of Expenditures of $2.842 million,
• Reserved $13.000 million for cash flow purposes,
• Approved $0.347 million for FY08 projects,
• Has Proposed Commitments of $3.675 million, and
• Has Projected Unobligated Funds of $1.209 million as of October 3, 2007.
D. Discussion of FY07 Unobligated Balance:
The Board’s approved policy allocates 100% of surplus revenues and 60% of
departmental expenditure savings (after all current year committed amounts from fund
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
balance are appropriated) to the CIP Fund for future capital needs, capital repairs and
maintenance items, and/or debt service. The policy further states that the remaining 40%
of expenditure savings may be used for other projects at the Board’s discretion and
approval. The policy was developed to establish guidelines for the use of end-of-year
excess revenues and expenditure savings.
There are no surplus revenues for FY07. The Preliminary CIP transfer will be calculated
based on 60% of expenditure savings determined as follows:
Expenditures Savings $5.099
Less Budgeted Initiatives and Proposed Reappropriated
Purchase Orders and Uncompleted Projects 2.282
Net Expenditure Savings 2.817
60% expenditure CIP transfer allocation $1.690
This is a Preliminary estimate that will be finalized when the fiscal year audit is completed.
Staff recommends 1) Acceptance of the Preliminary June 30, 2007 End-of-Year Financial Report;
and 2) Approval of the CIP transfer pending final audited financial results of operations.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board accepted the Preliminary June 30, 2007
End-of-Year Financial Report and approved the CIP transfer pending final audited financial results
of operations as recommended by staff.
_______________
Item No. 6.6. Cancel public hearing to grant water line easement to the Albemarle County
Service Authority across property owned by the County located on Tax Map Parcel 045B1 necessary for
the replacement of a water line along Clarke Lane in the W oodbrook Subdivision.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board cancelled the public hearing to grant water
line easement to the Albemarle County Service Authority across property owned by the County
located on Tax Map Parcel 045B1 necessary for the replacement of a water line along Clarke Lane
in the Woodbrook Subdivision.
_______________
Item No. 6.7. Proffer Management – First Quarterly Proffer Report-Cash Proffer Activity was
received by the Board for information.
The Executive Summary states that on January 3, 2007, the Board requested that cash proffer
activity be reported on a quarterly basis. As part of the overall Proffer Management Program, Community
Development staff has been working with Finance and the Office of Management and Budget to keep the
public and affected County departments informed of all cash proffer activity. Additionally, the County is
mandated by Virginia Code Section 15.2-2302.2 to provide an annual report of all cash proffer revenues
and expenditures as well as the amount of future cash payments proffered in all rezonings approved
during that fiscal year to the State Commission on Local Government.
The management of cash proffers has become a significant component in the County’s
administration of proffer monitoring and proffer compliance. The County has implemented new
procedures to monitor cash proffers, including the utilization of monthly spreadsheets produced by
Finance that will be available on the proffer database on the County website and will also be sent to
affected stakeholders. An overview of the report and spreadsheet that will be provided to the State
Commission on Local Government is attached (Attachment A), as well as the Cash Proffer Fund Activity
Report for FY 2006-2007 (Attachment B).
In FY 2006-2007, the County collected $1,189,182 in cash proffers. Of the monies collected:
$629,538 is allocated for general capital improvement programs, $355,000 for affordable housing,
$131,300 for roads or other transportation improvements, $11,000 for schools, $53,000 for parks and
recreation and $9,344 for stormwater management.
In FY 2006-2007, the County expended $181,772 in cash proffers. The monies were spent as
follows: $109,666 for the 29 North Corridor Transportation Study, $12,690 for improvements to Stone
Robinson School, $9,415 on stormwater improvements and $50,000 for the Western Park Master Plan.
In FY 2006-2007, $1,631,100 in cash proffers was approved with rezonings. More detailed
information regarding cash proffer revenue, expenditures and allocations is located on Attachments A and
B.
Proffer funds are one source of revenue for funding the approved CIP. Monies received by
proffers fund capital improvements which would otherwise be funded by general tax revenue. Currently
one dedicated full-time staff person is assigned to monitor and collect proffered funds.
This report is provided for information and no action is required. The Annual Survey to the State
and Cash Proffer Activity for Fiscal Year 2006-2007 is provided for the convenience of the Board and
those interested in the cash proffer program. Since this is the first report of information to be provided on
a quarterly basis, staff requests the Board to note any desired changes to the report.
_______________
Item No. 6.8. Copy of 2007 Statement of Assessed Values for Local Tax Purposes for
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
Railroads and Interstate Pipeline Transmission Companies as prepared by the Department of Taxation
was received by the Board for information.
_______________
Item No. 6.9. Copy of certified 2007 Statements of Assessed Values for electric, gas,
telecommunications and water companies for Albemarle County, including listing of Motor Vehicle Carrier
companies subject to annual Rolling Stock Tax for 2007, as prepared by the State Corporation
Commission, Public Service Taxation Division was received by the Board for information.
_______________
Item No. 6.10. Copy of letter dated September 11, 2007, from Ronald L. Higgins, AICP, Manager
of Zoning Administration, to Lawrence J. Martin, Trustee, BMC Land Trust, re: OFFICIAL
DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS -- Tax Map 30, Parcel 10 (one tax parcel that is
composed of two parcels of record- Property of BMC Land Trust) Section 10.3.1. – W hite Hall
Magisterial District was received by the Board for information.
_______________
Item No. 6.11. Copy of letter dated September 11, 2007, from Ronald L. Higgins, AICP, Manager
of Zoning Administration, to Yellow Mountain LLC, re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS -- Tax Map 70, Parcels 31, 32A & 32B (Property of Yellow Mountain LLC) Section 10.3.1. –
White Hall Magisterial District was received by the Board for information.
_______________
Item No. 6.12. Copy of minutes of the Albemarle County Service Authority for April 19, May 24,
June 21 and July 19, 2007 was received by the Board for information.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Board-to-Board, Monthly Communications Report from School Board,
School Board Chairman.
Ms. Sue Friedman, Chairman of the School Board, addressed the Board, acknowledging Brian
Wheeler and one parent council member, were also present. She shared the annual progress report and
outcome measures, noting that in the last six years AP enrollments have increased from 788 to 1,677.
Ms. Friedman said that the schools have gone from 61 dual-credit enrollments to 676, and they want to
continue to grow that number. She stated that the last “Make a Difference Day” had 936,000 volunteer
hours contributed by students in one day, and this year’s would be held on October 27th. Ms. Friedman
reported that SOL state pass rate goal is 71 percent, but the schools’ goal is 90 percent. She said that
the writing pass rates for elementary are at 92.8 percent; 88.1 percent at the middle schools; and the high
school rate is 93.1 percent.
Ms. Friedman mentioned that in a partnership with Parks & Recreation and an anonymous donor,
the schools are over halfway done with funding new sports fields, and the City is in a similar situation.
She said that schematic designs for Brownsville, Greer, and AHS renovations have been approved and
are on-track and under-budget. Ms. Friedman noted that all schools have been accredited by the Virginia
Department of Education, and there are 29 different categories that have to be met with No Child Left
Behind (NCLB); Albemarle Schools have met 28 of those. She also said that their curriculum framework
is pending approval, stating that the focus would be on problem-solving.
Mr. Dorrier asked about page 31 of the Annual Report, which showed a dropout rate increase
from 5.8 percent to 9.8 percent.
Ms. Friedman responded that the definition and process of calculating those rates has changed,
and it needs to be explained by someone within the school system such as Dr. Benson.
Mr. Slutzky asked about calculating the NCLB unfunded mandates.
Ms. Friedman replied that they have done it in previous years, and they would do it again in the
near future.
Mr. Rooker suggested asking for someone to look into using alternatives to turf fields as the
standard now is to use grass fields in colleges.
Ms. Friedman responded that they have been working with Mr. W yant to talk with some NFL
experts, and the University of Virginia and Luckstone is offering their expertise as well.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8a. Transportation Matters: Primary Road Plan Priorities.
Mr. Benish reported that the primary interstate transit system improvements have been prioritized
by the County for a number of years, and staff has provided a draft with updates and new
recommendations for this fiscal year. He summarized that there are only two substantive changes: a
recommendation for pedestrian crossings on Routes 29 and 250. Mr. Benish explained that most other
changes are more of issues of clarity and updating the status of current recommendations. He said that
staff struck “authority” under the study request and left it as “entity.” Mr. Benish also added that the
University architect’s office has offered a project to improve Route 250 W est that is consistent with a
study done with the City/County and MPO 13 years ago; that project has already been prioritized in the
Six-Year Plan.
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
Ms. Thomas asked about prioritizing bridges.
Mr. Benish replied that of the bridges done in the County now, several have now been upgraded,
and the primary ones are in fairly good shape. He said that a point could be made to the State to assist
with bridge improvements in general, but this plan focuses mostly on primaries.
Ms. Thomas commented that the Route 250 bridge is being repaired for the second time now
because it is not wide enough.
Mr. Alan Sumpter said that the higher district-wide six-year program plans (STIP) would soon
include bridges rather than having them in the secondary plans. He suggested having projects identified
now and recommended as priorities for the County, so that they would be in place when the rollover
process occurs.
Mr. Rooker suggested having staff compile a list of bridges in need of repair or replacement and
develop some criteria for how those projects are rated. He said that several bridges have over 1,000
vehicle trips per day, and some of those bridges have a rating of 50 or less out of 100 total, such as the
Broomley Bridge.
Mr. Boyd asked for confirmation that this would also include railroad bridges.
Mr. Tucker replied that it would.
Mr. Slutzky suggested a comprehensive list of all bridges that VDOT has determined need
attention.
Mr. Sumpter said that he met with Mr. Benish and Juan W ade in the fall, and they discussed
priorities at that time. He explained that the new process would be for new recommended projects as the
others are already included.
Mr. Rooker emphasized the importance of picking a line for cutoff based on the rating each bridge
has.
Mr. Benish responded that he would create a new category called “bridge improvements” to make
a general statement about providing funding. He explained that the rating system currently includes
sufficiency, location within development areas or rural areas, traffic volumes, and road category such as
arterial collector.
Mr. W yant noted that there are a number of bridges that are of concern to the Fire & Rescue
stations as some of those vehicles can not cross them.
Mr. Benish replied that they would continue to address that in the secondary plan, but it would
have to be a gradual process.
Mr. Sumpter mentioned that the final version of the Six-Year Plan would not be approved until
June 2008.
Mr. Boyd said that he would not mind presenting the proposals on behalf of the County.
Mr. Rooker commented that he would likely attend for the MPO.
Mr. Benish said that staff always attends the hearing.
(Note: The statement is set out below:)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY RECOMMENDED PRIORITIES FOR SYIP, FOR PRIMARY ROAD, TRANSIT
AND ENHANCEMENT IMPROVEMENTS
(NOVEMBER, 2007)
The following are Albemarle County’s priorities for each federal funding allocation and each sub-
allocation of the Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds. Attachment A provides a more detailed
explanation of the priority projects.
I. Surface Transportation Program (STP Projects)
Undertake projects in The CHART–UNJam 2025 Regional Transportation Study (adopted May 3,
2004). These include:
1. Construct Meadow Creek Parkway from Route 250 Bypass to Rio Road, including the
interchange at the Route 250 Bypass. The CTB should make every effort to provide
adequate funding and resources to maintain the current construction schedule;
2. Improvements to Route 29 North Corridor:
a. Funding of 29H250 Phase II Study, Option B design recommendations. These
improvements include an extra ramp lane on Route 29 North onto the Route 250
Bypass and an extra lane on Route 29 from Hydraulic Road (in the City);
b. Widening improvements to Route 29 North--construct third lane on northbound
and southbound lanes, from South Fork Rivanna River;
c. Construct Hillsdale Drive extension from Hydraulic Road to Greenbrier Drive in
the City of Charlottesville; and
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
d. Construct Berkmar Drive extension.
3. Widening of Route 20 South, from I-64 to Mill Creek Drive, including bike lanes and
sidewalks.
4. Improvements to Route 250:
a. Improve two intersections on Route 250 W est: the Tilman Road Intersection
(Route 676) and the Owensville Road intersection (Route 678). Otherwise,
maintain the current two-lane road configuration from the Bypass to Yancey Mills;
b. Improve Route 250 East corridor as recommended in the Pantops Neighborhood
Plan (improvements to interchange, pedestrian crossings, parallel road and new
bridge/crossing at Rivanna River); and
c. Improve Route 250 West from Emmet Street to the Route 29/250 Bypass.
5. Improve Route 240 in accord with the recommendations of the Crozet Master Plan:
a. Implement sidewalk plan (per Downtown Sidewalk and Parking Study and Crozet
Master Plan);
b. Create bike lanes to and in downtown;
c. Construct Eastern Avenue, to include the Lickinghole Bridge and a railroad
crossing; and
d. Construct Main Street east from Crozet Avenue.
6. Widen Route 20 North, from Route 250 to Elks Drive/Fontaine Drive intersection,
including bike lanes and sidewalks.
7. Undertake improvements recommended in the Southern Urban Area B Study, including
improvements to Fontaine Avenue and construction of Fontaine Avenue to Sunset
Avenue connector road.
8. Improve two intersections on Route 20 (Valley Street) in Scottsville: the Warren Street
intersection and the Hardware Street intersection.
II. Transit Improvements
1. Regional Transit Authority - Funding to support establishing a regional transit entity with
expanded service to Albemarle County and Charlottesville.
2. Expand Existing Service - Funding to expand existing transit service capacity for CTS,
JAUNT, RideShare, including capital projects to enhance capital operations (such as bus
pull-outs, shelters, etc.).
3. Funding for Transit Operational Costs - Fully fund the State’s existing formula share of
transit operating costs or provide fuel subsidies in the face of rapidly escalating fuel
costs.
4. Inter-City Rail – Improve and increase inter-city rail service to Albemarle County. The
County continues to support the funding and implementation of the TransDominion
Express as a means to provide improved inter-city rail service within the
State.
III. Bridge Projects
Bridge priorities identified by Albemarle County, VDOT Local and District Offices.
1. Route 651, Free State at Norfolk Southern RR
2. Route 743, Advance Mill at North Fork Rivanna
3. Route 708, Dry Bridge Road at Buckingham Branch RR
4. Route 677, Old Ballard Road -Buckingham Branch RR
5. Route 616, Black Cat Road - Buckingham Branch RR
6. Route 637, Dick W oods Road – Ivy Creek
7. Route 641, Frays Mill Road at Marsh Run
8. Route 795, Presidents Road at Hardware River
9. Route 614, Sugar Hollow Road at Moormans River
10. Route 649, Proffit Road at Norfolk Southern RR
IV. Safety Improvements
1. Construction of pedestrian walkways along primary roads in the County’s Urban
Neighborhoods and Development Areas as part of road widening/improvement projects.
Absent major road improvements, the following roads are prioritized for improvement:
a. Route 240 in downtown Crozet;
b. Pedestrian crossings at strategic locations on Rt 29 North.
c. Route 250 East in Pantops-extend from the existing sidewalks and provide
pedestrian crossings at strategic locations;
d. Route 250 W est from the City limits to the Farmington/Ednam entrance;
e. Route 20 South from City limits to Mill Creek Drive extended.
2. Safety improvements in Crozet area including Route 240 underpass.
3. Reconfigure intersection of Route 22 and Route 250. This project is included in the
current SYIP. Provide adequate funding and resources to maintain the current construction
schedule.
4. Intersection improvements on Route 250 W est at 1) Tilman Road and 2) Owensville Road
(noted above).
5. Develop functional plans, including an analysis of safety improvements for Route 22 and
Route 231.
V. Enhancement Projects/Safe Routes to School Program
1. Pedestrian Streetscape improvements in downtown Crozet.
2. Beautification of entrance corridors.
3. Construction of bikeway, pedestrian, and greenway improvements as prioritized in the
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
Jefferson Area Bicycle, Pedestrian and Greenways Plan and the County’s Comprehensive
Plan.
4. Development of portions of the Rivanna River Greenway path system.
5. Removal of non-conforming billboards.
6. Continued support of Scottsville Downtown Streetscape Improvement Project.
VI. National Highway System (NHS)
The Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Policy Board approved the NHS as proposed by VDOT in this
area excluding the Route 29 Bypass.
VII. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program
This does not apply to Albemarle County. The County is not in an area of non-attainment for
ozone or carbon monoxide.
* * * * *
Attachment A
ALBEMARLE COUNTY RECOMMENDED PRIORITIES FOR SYIP, FOR PRIMARY ROAD, TRANSIT
AND ENHANCEMENT IMPROVEMENTS
(NOVEMBER, 2007)
The following are Albemarle County’s priorities for each federal allocations and each sub-allocation of the
Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds.
I. Surface Transportation Program (STP)
Standard Projects:
The following projects, listed in priority order, are eligible for STP funds. The County supports
these projects as referenced.
Undertake those projects in the Charlottesville Albemarle Regional Transportation Study
(CHART) – UnJam 2025 (adopted May 3, 2004) eligible for the primary program in the sequence
as called for in the February 2, 1992 joint resolution between the City, County and University and
agreed to by VDOT. These include:
1. Meadow Creek Parkway from the Route 250 Bypass to Rio Road. The Parkway is the
County's highest priority project after Route 29 North, and is of the utmost importance in
order to maintain an adequate level of service on Route 29 and to improve the overall
roadway system serving the urbanizing area north of the City. This project is being
funded in the County's secondary program and has been approved by the
Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) as a low speed parkway in the City of
Charlottesville and the County. The County asks that this section be designed and built in
accord with the County’s design and alignment recommendations developed with the
assistance of an independent consultant and endorsed by resolution of the County Board
of Supervisors on June 20, 2001 and approved by the CTB on December 18, 2001. This
endorsed design and alignment emphasizes the parkway corridor’s potential as a linear
park and its relationship to the development of adjacent urban land. The linear park
concept is intended to replace McIntire Park land lost due to the project and, at the same
time, link McIntire Park to the Rivanna Trails Foundation trail along Meadow Creek and
the County’s urbanizing area along Rio Road. The County requests that the CTB make
every effort to provide adequate funding and resources to maintain the current
construction schedule for this project.
Meadow Creek Parkway/Route 250 Bypass Interchange. The County also supports
the construction of the Meadow Creek Parkway interchange at the terminus of the
Parkway with Route 250 in the City of Charlottesville. This interchange is essential to the
safe and acceptable future traffic operation of this high volume intersection. The County
is grateful for the funding earmarked in the Federal Transportation Bill for this
interchange. It is recognized that this interchange project, and its funding, is a separate
but related project from the Meadow Creek Parkway mainline project. The County
requests that the CTB make every effort to provide adequate funding and
resources to maintain the current construction schedule for this project.
Northern Free State Road (formerly Meadow Creek Parkway Phase II) is being funded in
VDOT’s Six Year Secondary Road Plan for the county. The County is now studying the
concept/alignment of this road as part of the Places 29 Study, an integrated land use
and transportation master planning study for the Route 29 North corridor.
2. Route 29 North. This highly urbanized area continues to grow and transportation system
improvement needs continue to increase. The County, City, VDOT and the MPO have
completed Phase I and Phase II of the 29H250 (US 29 – Hydraulic – 250 Bypass
Intersection) Study. The County appreciates continued VDOT and Commonwealth
Transportation Board support of initiatives in the Route 29 North corridor. The County, in
coordination with the MPO, is currently utilizing VDOT, developer proffered and County
general funds to study the concept/alignment of Route 29 North as part of a larger
transportation network study for the County’s northern development areas from the City
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
limits to the Greene County line. This study, a component of the County’s Places 29
Study, will include a comprehensive and integrated evaluation of both transportation and
land use issues and planning to establish a series of land use recommendations,
transportation network improvements and multi-modal approaches that will support the
northern development areas and the Route 29 Corridor.
a) The County requests that VDOT plan for the funding of the 29H250 Phase II
Option B design recommendations, which emphasize improving Route 29 to
serve regional trips and changing the character of Hydraulic Road. between
Route 29 and the Route 250 Bypass. These improvements include an extra ramp
lane on Route 29 North onto the Route 250 Bypass and an extra lane on Route
29 from Hydraulic Road (in the City).
b) The County requests funding for a third lane northbound and southbound on
Route 29 from the South Fork Rivanna River to north of its intersection with
Hollymead Drive. These improvements would tie into a third lane recently
constructed in each direction along Route 29 as part of major land development
projects at the Hollymead Town Center. This new third lane section, and other
road improvements in the area, was funded by the developer through zoning
proffers related to the project’s approval. There are significant peaks and valleys
in Route 29 through this area that create an existing dangerous condition and
this will only worsen as traffic increases as development occurs in this area in
accord with the Comprehensive Plan. This section of road already experiences a
high level of vehicle accidents, particularly in the area of Forest Lakes South.
Completion of this section would essentially complete the three phases of
improvements to Route 29 from Hydraulic Road to Airport Road that were
originally programmed in the Six-Year Plan in 1988. These and other
Comprehensive Plan transportation system recommendations envision future
development to be served by a transportation network that ultimately provides a
complete system of urban streets and supports walking and biking and
comprehensively links all land uses.
Other projects listed in CHART in the northern study area must be actively pursued and
completed. These projects include:
c) the Hillsdale Drive Extension Project;
d) Berkmar Drive Extended.
Also, while funding has previously been dropped for Route 29 improvements north of the
South Fork Rivanna River, transportation system improvements as identified by the
County in its Comprehensive Plan are imperative to this area.
3. Complete preliminary engineering and undertake the widening of Route 20 South from I-
64 to Mill Creek Drive. Incorporate sidewalks and bike lane facilities into these
improvements. This is a curvy section of road in the County’s Urban Area that serves the
traffic from Monticello High School and has experienced several accidents with fatalities
in recent years.
4. There are three areas of emphasis the County requests be addressed on Route 250:
a) The County does request funding for the improvements of the Tilman Road
intersection at Route 250 and the Owensville Road/Route 250 intersection
(possible round-about at Ownesville Road). Otherwise, the County recommends
maintaining the present two-lane configuration of the corridor with any short term
or spot improvements being as non-intrusive and consistent as possible with the
special character of this scenic by-way.
b) VDOT has completed a similar study of Route 250 East from Free Bridge to the
Fluvanna County line. This study’s findings have been presented to the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors. The County is considering the recommendations of
this study as part of the Neighborhood Planning process “Pantops Urban Area
Neighborhood Master Plan.” This Pantops Plan focuses on creating a
neighborhood plan that integrates land use and transportation planning to
establish land use recommendations, transportation network improvements and
multimodal approaches that will support neighborhood development. Draft
recommendations include improvements to the I-64 interchange, pedestrian
crossings, parallel roads and a possible new bridge/crossing of the Rivanna River
connecting to the City, and limited widening of Route 250.
c) Improve Route 250 West from Emmet Street to the Route 29/250 Bypass. This
section is covered by the joint Ivy Road Design Study conducted by the City,
County and University of Virginia and originally recognized for improvement in the
Lewis Mountain Neighborhood/University Heights (Area B) Study. Any plans for
the improvement of this section of Route 250 W est need to be coordinated among
the City, County and University.
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
5. Undertake improvements that will benefit/improve Route 240 in Crozet in accord with
recommendations from the recently completed Crozet Master Plan.
a) Implement sidewalk plan (per Downtown Sidewalk and Parking Study) and Crozet
Master Plan.
b) Create bike lanes to and in downtown.
c) Construct Eastern Avenue, to include the Lickinghole Creek Bridge and a railroad
crossing.
d) Construct Main Street east from Crozet Avenue.
6. Undertake the widening of Route 20 North from north of Route 250 East to the Elks
Drive/Fontana Drive intersection. Incorporate sidewalks and bike lane facilities into the
west side improvements. The County has also listed these improvements under “Safety”
priorities. To date, the County has constructed sidewalks on the east side of Route 20
from Route 250 to Fontana Drive.
7. Undertake improvements recommended in the Southern Urban Area B Study recently
completed in coordination with the City of Charlottesville, County of Albemarle, and the
University of Virginia. The Study recommends improvements to Fontaine Avenue and the
construction of a new connector road between Fontaine Avenue and Sunset Avenue.
8. The Town of Scottsville has requested that VDOT improve Route 20 (Valley Street) at the
intersection of both W arren Street and Hardware Street. VDOT had proposed these
improvements in the 1970’s, but the improvements were not completed. The
improvements will enhance the safety of the traveling public in the Town.
ll. Transit Improvements
1. Regional Transit Authority - Funding to support establishing a regional transit entity with
expanded service to Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville.
2. Expand Existing Service - Funding to expand existing transit service capacity for CTS,
JAUNT, RideShare, including capital projects to enhance capital operations (such as bus
pull-outs, etc.).
3. Funding for Transit Operational Costs - Fully fund the State’s existing formula share of
transit operating costs or provide fuel subsidies in the face of rapidly escalating fuel
costs.
4. Inter-City Rail – Improve and increase inter-city rail service to Albemarle County. The
County continues to support the funding and implementation of the TransDominion
Express as a means to provide improved inter-city rail service within the State.
III. Bridges
The County has worked with VDOT to identify the top ten bridge projects for Albemarle County.
The top three priorities on the list below have been listed on the County’s Strategic Priorities for
Secondary Road Improvements. All priorities were chosen from a comprehensive list of bridges
located in Albemarle County found on Attachment D. This list includes the lowest sufficiency
ratings for all bridge projects. These projects are, in priority order:
1. Route 651, Free State at Norfolk Southern RR
2. Route 743, Advance Mill at North Fork Rivanna
3. Route 708, Dry Bridge Road at Buckingham Branch RR
4. Route 677, Old Ballard Road -Buckingham Branch RR
5. Route 616, Black Cat Road - Buckingham Branch RR
6. Route 637, Dick W oods Road – Ivy Creek
7. Route 641, Frays Mill Road at Marsh Run
8. Route 795, Presidents Road at Hardware River
9. Route 614, Sugar Hollow Road at Moormans River
10. Route 649, Proffit Road at Norfolk Southern RR
The County strongly encourages the Commonwealth Transportation Board to fund all the bridge
projects identified by VDOT and Albemarle County as needing to be upgraded.
IV. Safety Improvements:
Several projects in the County seem to qualify under this 10% set-aside. They are, in priority
order:
1. Construct pedestrian walkways along various primary routes within the County’s Urban
Neighborhoods. Absent the incorporation of such walkways into full road
widening/improvement projects, the following road sections are priorities for pedestrian
walkways:
a) Route 240 in “downtown” Crozet;
b) Pedestrian crossings at strategic locations on Rt 29 North;
c) Route 250 East in the Pantops area as an extension to existing sidewalks and
provide pedestrian crossings at strategic locations;
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
d) Route 250 W est from the City limits to the Farmington/Ednam entrance; and,
e) Route 20 South from the City limits to Mill Creek Drive.
2. The County has placed a high priority on pedestrian improvements in the Crozet area.
The County chose Crozet as the first community to be master planned based on the
County’s adopted Neighborhood Model. The County received TEA 21 funding in July
2004 for Phase I of the Crozet Streetscape Plan and continues to seek additional funding
to undertake needed improvements (see Enhancement Project section). Another
potentially eligible safety project is the improvement of the Route 240 underpass at the
CSX Railroad tracks in Crozet (including pedestrian facility improvements).
3. Reconfigure intersection and install traffic signals at the intersection of Routes 22 and
250. This project is currently scheduled in the SYIP for construction. Provide adequate
funding and resources to maintain the current construction schedule.
4. Improvements to Route 250 W est in the Ivy area to address existing traffic circulation
problems at the Tilman Road intersection and the Owensville Road intersection (as noted
in l.4.a, above), including access to developed properties in this area. Of particular
concern is the Tillman Road intersection (Route 676), which serves school bus traffic and
has poor sight distance. These improvements should be undertaken in accordance with
recommendations approved by the Board of Supervisors in the Route 250 W est Corridor
Study.
5. Functional plans, including an analysis of possible safety improvements, for Routes 22
and 231. The County remains concerned with overall public safety as it relates to traffic
created by large trucks along these road segments, and encourages VDOT to consider
all appropriate measures to ensure that trucks travel safely along these roadways in the
future. The County has repeatedly requested VDOT to restrict through trucks on Route
22 and Route 231.
V. Enhancement Projects/Safe Routes to School Program:
This is a valuable funding source for which several projects appear to be eligible. Unfortunately
funding for new projects is not available this year. The County urges that funds be made
available for new pedestrian and bicycling projects. For the County, new projects, in priority
order, are:
1. Pedestrian streetscape improvements in downtown Crozet. These streetscape
improvements, which were included in an Enhancement Grant submitted in January
2002, June 2003 and October 2004, include the relocation and burial of overhead utility
wires, and construction of historically compatible sidewalks. The County received TEA
21 funding in July 2004 for Phase I and July 2005 for Phase II of the Crozet Streetscape
Plan.
2. Beautification of entrance corridors (particularly Routes 20, 29 and Route 250).
3. Construction of bikeway, pedestrian, and greenway facilities as prioritized in the Jefferson
Area Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Plan.
4. Development of portions of the Rivanna River Greenway path system.
5. Removal of non-conforming billboards.
6. Continued support of Scottsville Downtown Streetscape Improvement Project.
VI. National Highway System (NHS)
The Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Policy Board approved the NHS as proposed by VDOT in this
area excluding the Route 29 Bypass. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has approved
the NHS, which includes the existing Route 29 and the Route 29 Bypass. The County believes
any projects that are included in the NHS should reflect the recommendations that result from the
previously referenced transportation improvement study of the Route 29 North corridor area.
VII. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program
This does not apply to Albemarle County. The County is not in an area of non-attainment for
ozone or carbon monoxide.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8b. Transportation Matters: Advance Mills Bridge Update.
__________
Agenda Item No. 8c. Transportation Matters: VDOT Monthly Report.
Mr. Alan Sumpter said Mr. Dean Gustafson, VDOT’s Regional Operations Director for traffic
engineering issues, cannot attend the November Board meeting; will need to reschedule to December.
Mr. Sumpter commented that crews have begun work on the rural rustic project on Gilbert Station
Road.
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
Mr. Sumpter noted that on Broomley Road Bridge, he has asked for an aerial survey to be done
to better gauge potential impacts to the connector roads on the far side of the bridge.
Mr. Rooker said that railroad companies maintain railroad bridges, but VDOT does the
inspections, and railroad companies have an incentive to keep them at a low weight limit because it
reduces maintenance costs. He also said that if VDOT replaces a bridge, they assume responsibility for
maintenance so the railroad companies should help pay some of those costs for railroad usage.
Mr. Sumpter reported that there have only been two accidents reported since 1990 at the
intersection in Batesville that the speaker mentioned, so it is not going to qualify for the flashing lights. He
did say that rumble strips are an option, but they make a significant amount of noise and nearby residents
tend to complain about that. Mr. Sumpter said that the sign modifications that VDOT is working on would
help mitigate the situation.
Ms. Thomas expressed surprise that there have only been two accidents, and she agreed that
driver inattention is problematic there.
Mr. Sumpter said that there have probably been a lot of calls to Board members about dust and
washboarding on roadways, and the drought is impacting VDOT as well. He noted that in the Advance
Mills and Free Union area, they have applied about 14,000 gallons of calcium chloride on roads there but
that is a limited resource and rain can cause muddy conditions. Mr. Sumpter said VDOT is working on all
of them as quickly as they can.
Mr. Boyd commented that the sign at the one-lane bridge underpass on Polo Grounds Road that
says “Stop, honk, and proceed with caution” was a topic of conversation at a recent event he attended,
adding that it seems a private company put up the sign.
Mr. Sumpter said that he would look into it. He also reported that two of the temporary bridge
companies have submitted plans to David Pierce, that shows their beam dips and widths, and he is
working on an approach for each.
Regarding the Advance Mills Bridge, Mr. Sumpter noted that the RFP’s should be able to go out
for advertisement before the environmental process is completed. He said that as part of the 106
process, the adjacent property owners, Advance Mills Homeowner’s Association, Albemarle County, and
the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) have been notified, and a meeting would be held in October or
November, 2007 to discuss what steps would need to be taken to mitigate impacts. Mr. Sumpter said
that the Department of Historic Resources was sent a letter on September 21st, and their 30 days would
begin on September 24th.
Mr. Sumpter reported that the FHA is not participating in the temporary bridge costs, and they do
not care what type of temporary bridge is put in, how it is designed, or how it is paid for, but they do care
about what happens to the temporary bridge and the impacts to the district going forward to the
permanent project. He said that the projects are funded separately, and the FHA urged VDOT to proceed
cautiously so as not to jeopardize the funding for the permanent bridge.
Mr. Rooker noted that the permanent project is already being advertised.
Mr. Slutzky said that it is a technical point of clarity that the temporary bridge would be
constructed while the evaluation for the permanent bridge was happening. He asked what would happen
if the bridge was in a different location.
Mr. Sumpter responded that all three locations are still in an historic location, and the
environmental process is keeping in the original timeframe planned.
Ms. Thomas encouraged staff to also keep the Historic Preservation Committee in the loop.
Mr. Benish replied that they would be using Tamara Ambler and Margaret Maliszewski as part of
the process as well as himself and Mr. Wade.
Mr. Sumpter emphasized that the citizen information meeting would be held October 11th from
5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at Spring Hill Baptist Church on Frays Mill Road.
Board members thanked him for his work on this issue.
Mr. Sumpter thanked them for their assistance, noting that he has been in his position for one
year.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8d. Transportation Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Dorrier asked about repaving of roads in Lake Reynovia Subdivision. Residents have
expressed concerns that the surface is rough, not smooth. Mr. Sumpter commented that the surface is in
a curing phase. He will provide additional information to Mr. Dorrier on that process.
Mr. Dorrier also asked about putting a crosswalk across Avon Street Extended at Cale
Elementary School.
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
Mr. Sumpter responded that he would look into it, but there is no sidewalk to tie into as required
by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Mr. W yant commented that his company has put some sidewalks in that area.
_______________
Mr. Slutzky noted that the line-painting on Rio Road going down the hill on the east side is
probably the worst lining job that he has ever seen as the lines are all over the pavement.
Mr. Sumpter replied that there are issues with subcontractors that are being addressed.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Overview of Jail Programs, Colonel Ronald Matthews.
Colonel Matthews addressed the Board, providing a briefing on the 30 plus programs offered at
the jail. He introduced Captain Rodriguez, Chief of Security; Captain Rush, Commander of Operations;
Commander Roland Beauford, Captain of Security; Mr. Coomer, Supervisor of Classification; Ms. Gray,
Records Supervisor; Mr. Hammonds, Ms. Vance, Ms. Jones, and Ms. Diaz in the therapeutic field; Sgt.
McLaughlin, Supervisor of Work Release; and Ms. Batten, Programs Director.
Colonel Matthews presented the Regional Jail’s Mission Statement: The Albemarle
Charlottesville Regional Jail is dedicated to the safe, secure, cost-effective, healthy, humane control and
supervision of people committed to our custody to ensure inmates will return to the community with the
goal of becoming productive, law-abiding members of society. He emphasized that the purpose of jail
programs is to reduce recidivism, and that can only be done by changing the way people think. Colonel
Matthews said they have programs in place that actually change the inmates behavior.
Colonel Matthews said that their capacity is 329, but as of Monday that number was 511. He
explained that the urbanization of the area affected that number as did the reputation of the jail as being a
good facility. Colonel Matthews said that from July 2005 to June 2006 the inmate population for
Albemarle increased 25 percent, based on the number of days spent. He emphasized that if this trend
continues, they will have to expand or build another jail. Colonel Matthews said that the jail’s programs
have a specific objective of getting people used to going work, filling out applications, and creating
resumes.
Ms. Phyllis Batten addressed the Board, noting that in 2006-07 the jail serviced 272 inmates in
GED, ABE, and ESL classes. She explained that they also have a special education class for students
with learning disabilities, and they have five teachers in place with a variety of certifications. Ms. Batten
added that 50 of those students received a GED, which is quite high, and they offer job training through
work release. She reported that the jail offers employability classes which teach application and interview
skills; victim impact classes; cognitive thinking and behavior modification classes; and healthy sexuality
classes. Ms. Batten explained that phase two is a work-release phase that enables them to have jobs
and a post-support system that is cooperative with other agencies. She said that the jail partners with
PVCC for college courses. Ms. Batten noted that they currently have a construction academy class, and
they just finished carpentry class and are planning a masonry class, through grants from the Department
of Labor.
Ms. Batten reported that the Therapy Program is 18-months old, and it is very stringent and is
implemented through the courts. She explained that there are also faith-based services, anger
management classes, substance abuse education classes, and safe/health social skills for the general
population and reentry; mental health services and self-esteem classes are also available. Ms. Batten
reported that they do Inmate Art Exhibits at a number of locations, and proceeds from these exhibits go to
organizations that are affiliated somehow with the inmate population, such as SARA and PACEM and
next year, Literacy Volunteers of Charlottesville/Albemarle.
Colonel Matthews reported that the jail just started a crisis intervention program for police that
helps divert people with mental health issues and keep them from coming to jail. He noted that they are
the only facility in the State that has officers who are certified under the CIT program and that would
continue to be expanded. Colonel Matthews said that they have a reentry program to help prepare
people once they go back out into the community, but they are working with OAR and other organizations
to help inmates find housing, employment, and education once they are released. He said all those
things are going to be in place so they won’t set them up for failure.
Colonel Matthews also said the jail is looking at creating a work industry in the jail that would
create income that would go back into the facility. He reported that some students at the University of
Virginia are doing a study on area jails and courts to see how they are working, with an effort to reduce
prison populations; they should have some recommendations by the end of the year. Colonel Matthews
announced the jail would be having an open house on October 21st.
Mr. Slutzky asked if convicted felons were eligible for employment with the County.
Mr. Tucker responded that there is no policy in place to prevent that, and how that criteria would
be used might depend on the job. He added that Parks & Recreation has used people in the work-
release program and have eventually hired them when they got out.
Ms. Thomas asked at what point they check for HIV.
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
Colonel Matthews responded that is not mandatory, only PPD tests.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that communities surrounding a jail suffer from increased infection rates
for HIV, so it is a community concern not just a jail concern.
Colonel Matthews replied that that would require a long time to change the policy, and all of that
testing would need to be done by inmates voluntarily. He noted that the AIDS services group does come
in and speak with the inmates.
Mr. Rooker asked for a breakdown among the prison population: incarcerated but not yet
convicted, misdemeanors, and felons. Colonel Matthews said that there are 428 felons and 70
misdemeanors, and most of the felons would eventually go onto the State system once they are
convicted and sentenced.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Case Study (Avon Park) on Affordable Housing Proffer Policy, Presentation
by Jamie Spence.
Mr. Jamie Spence addressed the Board on behalf of Churchill Homes, stating that there were
nine units as affordable at Avon Park, and their process involved finding those buyers early on, not
waiting until the units were built. He also said that the income levels created a difficult situation for two-
income families because their incomes will put them over the benchmark to qualify, so they ended up with
eight singles and one family. Mr. Spence emphasized the importance of having a down payment
assistance fund as well.
Mr. Greg Slater, Director of Sales and Marketing for Churchill Homes, addressed the Board,
stating that he has never had a more rewarding experience in working with people trying to buy homes.
He added that there were no incentives offered to realtors to bring them buyers, and Ron White came up
with a form for buyers to inquire and/or qualify. Mr. Slater said that there were 50 applicants, narrowed
down to 25, and then nine who actually qualified. He said that of the nine buyers, all of them were above
90 percent of the $175,000; if they were sold at $190,000 none of the units would have been sold. Mr.
Slater said that many applicants were maxed out on debt-to-income ratio based on the VHDA automated
approval system.
Both Mr. Spence and Mr. Slater mentioned that they worked closely with PHA and VHDA. Mr.
Spence said that the sooner you can find more qualified buyers, the better success the program will have.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission Legislative Program,
David Blount.
Mr. David Blount presented the highlights of the legislative program for 2007-08, stating that the
priorities are: increasing CSA administrative funding dollars, requiring State contracting with residential
providers, and requiring the Office of Comprehensive Services to track vendor rates and costs. He said
that public education has focused on re-benchmarking for education costs, increasing teachers’ salaries,
land use and growth management, revising the impact fee/local revenue authority, transportation, and
regulating smoking in public places.
At this time, Ms. Thomas moved for approval of the TJPDC Legislative Program with the
understanding that suggested changes from the Board would be reflected in the final version. Mr. Rooker
seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. W yant.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. CIP Process Overview.
Mr. Bill Letteri, Facilities Development Manager, addressed the Board, stating that staff would like
to review the CIP, discuss ideas for improvement, and seek guidance from the Board. He said that the
process has four components: the capital needs assessment, the CIP (five years), a review procedure
involving groups and committees, and final approval from the Board. Mr. Letteri said that the capital
needs assessment attempts to address projects that are emerging as a result of program changes -
board initiatives and master plan implementations – that result from space-need studies, assessments,
master plans, and transportation studies. He said that initially there is just a broad look, and the capital
program requires a greater level of analysis – site issues, options for the site, infrastructure needs,
building types that are needed, and special equipment requirements.
Mr. Letteri stated that pricing has risen considerably, which has impacted plans and the CIP in
general, and other localities are dealing with the same problem. He said that they want to fully study a
project that is proposed for the CIP, and early on there is a window to influence the project and the cost,
but that falls dramatically as a project proceeds. Mr. Letteri noted that the project review phase consists
of a series of steps, and the Office of Facilities Development intends to provide expertise that leverages
skills in the early review phase. He reported that the review team makes a recommendation for ranking of
project but does not eliminate them at this point; it then it goes to the CIP Oversight Committee which is
made up of two Board members, two School Board members, at large citizens, and staff to ensure that
the projects are in line with long-term County goals and commitments. Mr. Letteri explained that they will
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
also rank the projects at that point and bring forward a recommendation on the projects and funding
capacity; it then goes to the Planning Commission for review and approval and to the Executive Office for
final recommendation and then to the Board.
Mr. Boyd asked if the Planning Commission phase is required by law.
Mr. Letteri confirmed that it was.
Mr. Rooker commented that when he was on the Commission, he asked the same question.
Mr. Letteri said that staff would recommend a more rigorous review by Facilities Development
before it goes forward.
Mr. Slutzky noted that the construction costs are rising at such a rapid rate that it may be
reasonable to build into the process the location of other facilities that could be used instead of building
new ones.
Mr. Letteri responded that one suggestion for improvement is imposing a preliminary phase that
verifies program needs, to examine alternative sites, and evaluate cost allocations. He also said that they
have contemplated a steering committee that has Board member involvement, and each project would be
assigned a formal project manager.
Due to the lateness of the hour, Mr. Boyd suggested resuming the discussion after lunch, as
there are several public hearings scheduled.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Closed Session.
At 12:36 p.m., Mr. Slutzky moved that the Board adjourn into closed session pursuant to Section
2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards,
committees, and commissions; under Subsection (3) to consider two matters related to the acquisition of
real property necessary to provide a park facility; under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and
staff regarding specific matters requiring legal advice relating to an inter-jurisdictional agreement, and
under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel regarding probable litigation related to courthouse
facilities.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. W yant.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Certify Closed Session. The Board reconvened into open session at 2:07
p.m.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Slutzky that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to
the best of each Board member’s knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the
open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion
authorizing the closed session were heard, discussed, or considered in the closed session.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. W yant.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Appointments.
Motion was offered by Mr. W yant moved to:
Appoint William Daggett to the Architectural Review Board, with said term to expire November
14, 2008.
Appoint Mark Rooks to the Jefferson Area Disabilities Services Board, with said term to expire
June 30, 2010.
Reappoint Raymond East to the JAUNT Board with said term to expire September 30, 2010.
Reappoint Dan Maupin, Montie Pace and Fred Shields to the Land Use Tax Advisory Board with
said terms to expire September 1, 2009.
Reappoint Diana Foster and Phil Stokes to the Natural Heritage Committee with said term to
expire September 30, 2011.
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. W yant.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. CIP Process Overview. (Discussion resumed)
Mr. W yant commented that the Oversight Committee looks ten years out.
Mr. Boyd said that there should be some model for future planning of space needs, which should
be driven by population numbers.
Mr. Rooker responded that schools do have criteria that they used to assess space needs, and
an appropriate task for the Oversight Committee would be to establish criteria that provide an objective
look at future needs.
Mr. Foley stated that the Oversight Committee has been restructured over the last two years to
look more closely at future needs and scrutinize fiscal capacity.
Mr. Slutzky said that he would like to have the opportunity to inform the process earlier on and
evaluate the criteria and how it is being used.
Mr. Foley replied that the most significant policy document the Board approves is the Community
Facilities Plan, which is a component of the Comprehensive. Plan, and it has all the standards in it. He
noted that two years ago it was approved by the Board as an updated document. Mr. Foley emphasized
that the Comprehensive. Plan sections are required by law to be updated every five years, and perhaps
the standards can be brought forth at that time, but if they are changed they are considered CPAs and
must go to public hearing.
Ms. Thomas suggested having the information easily available.
Mr. Tucker responded that perhaps the standard could be included with the project and square
footage assessment.
Mr. Boyd suggested having information about just a few indices that drive the CIP.
Mr. Rooker said that staff is doing a better job of using that information than the Board is.
Mr. Foley commented that there are probably some things that need better standards, and in
general it seems that the Board would just like to have the standards presented along with information.
He indicated that the Oversight Committee would start providing that beginning next month, adding that
there are definitely standards already in place.
Mr. Tucker noted that the evaluation process will take longer if more information is provided to the
Board.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that the goals in the Comprehensive. Plan are general goals, and
decisions are made to try to reach those goals but there are fiscal constraints that impede that somewhat.
He said that the five-year business plan is enabling the County to better project operational costs.
Mr. Tucker added that Bill Boucher indicated that Albemarle is one of the few counties that has
maintenance costs built into the CIP.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Public Hearing: 2008 Budget Amendment. (Notice of this public hearing
was advertised in the Daily Progress on September 23, 2007).
Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of the Office of Management and Budget summarized the following
executive summary which was forwarded to Board members:
The Code of Virginia § 15.2-2507 stipulates that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the
aggregate amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget.
However, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the
currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a
public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies to all County funds, i.e., General
Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
The total of these requested FY 2008 appropriations is $55,387,978.02. Combined with the
appropriations approved since July 1, the cumulative appropriation total exceeds one percent of the
currently adopted budget requiring a budget amendment public hearing.
The proposed increase of this FY 2008 Budget Amendment totals $57,342,962.49. The estimated
expenses and revenues included in the proposed amendment are shown below:
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
General Fund $ 2,173,465.20
Special Revenue Funds $ 2,039,372.29
School Fund $ 232,735.44
School Program Funds $ 307,108.85
ECC Fund $ 1,076,496.42
Capital Fund $ 49,638,384.92
Stormwater Fund $ 1,875,399.37
TOTAL ESTIM ATED EXPENDITURES – All Funds $ 57,342,962.49
ESTIMATED REVENUES
Local Revenues (Fees, Contributions, Donations, Proffers) $ 1,125,666.77
State Revenue $ 939,795.49
Federal Revenue $ 543,378.75
Loan Proceeds $ 14,515,274.00
General Fund Balance $ 2,072,369.20
Other Fund Balances $ 38,146,478.28
TOTAL ESTIM ATED REVENUES – All Funds $ 57,342,962.49
The budget amendment is comprised of thirty-one (31) separate appropriations, twenty (20) of which
have already been approved by the Board as indicated below:
Approved July 11, 2007:
• One (1) appropriation (#2008001) totaling $359,460.00 for a Department of Homeland Security
Grant;
• One (1) appropriation (#2008002) totaling $159,000.00 for a Riparian Buffer Restoration Grant;
• One (1) appropriation (#2008003) appropriating $70,000.00 from the Glenmore Proffer for the
Village of Rivanna Development Area Master Plan;
• One (1) appropriation (#2008004) in the amount of $3,350.00 for a Circuit Court Clerk Records
Preservation Grant; and
• One (1) appropriation (#2008005) in the amount of $60,000.00 providing funding to Habitat for
Humanity from the Crozet Crossings Housing Trust Fund
Approved August 1, 2007:
• One (1) appropriation (#2008006) totaling $18,946.00 for the State Criminal Alien Assistance
Program;
• One (1) appropriation (#2008007) totaling $24,881.10 in additional AHIP funding;
• One (1) appropriation (#2008008) reappropriating $49,976.16 for Community Relations;
• One (1) appropriation (#2008009) transferring $82,200.00 for additional motor vehicles from the
General Fund to the Motor Vehicle Replacement Fund;
• One (1) appropriation (#2008010) in the amount of $100,000.00 for the Commission on Children
and Families’ Family Functional Therapy Grant;
• One (1) appropriation (#2008011) in the amount of $4,793.00 for minor operating budget
adjustments; and
• One (1) appropriation (#2008012) reappropriating $1,865.00 in donated funds for Woodbrook
Elementary School.
Approved September 5, 2007:
• One (1) appropriation (#2008013) totaling $918,485.00 establishing the Commission on Children
and Families FY08 budget;
• One (1) appropriation (#2008014) in the amount of $12,000.00 for a Smoke Detector Grant;
• One (1) appropriation (#2008015) receiving $3,800.00 in funding for an law student intern in the
Commonwealth Attorney’s office;
• One (1) appropriation (#2008016) totaling $67,382.00 for the Foothills Child Advocacy Center
grant;
• One (1) appropriation (#2008017) in the amount of $1,000.00 for a school donation;
• One (1) appropriation (#2008018) reappropriating $150,131.21 in local government grants;
• One (1) appropriation (#2008023) totaling $10,000.00 for the JILL Study; and
• One (1) appropriation (#2008025) pledging $50,000.00 in funding for the Boys & Girls Club
capital project.
The eleven (11) new appropriations are as follows:
• One (1) appropriation (#2008019) reappropriating $1,857,658.02 for outstanding purchase
orders;
• One (1) appropriation (#2008020) totaling $4,159.00 for a Police Department grants;
• Two (2) appropriations (#2008021 and #2008024) totaling $12,328.00 for two Sheriff’s
Department grants;
• One (1) appropriation (#2008022) reappropriating $46,392.69 for two uncompleted grants;
• One (1) appropriation (#2008026) reappropriating $196,168.00 in uncompleted ECC projects;
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
• One (1) appropriation (#2008027) reappropriating $1,575,243.91 in uncompleted General
Government projects and $152,933.90 for the W ellness Program in the Health Insurance
Fund;
• One (1) appropriation (#2008028) reappropriating $46,804,068.37 for general government
capital projects;
• One (1) appropriation (#2008029) reappropriating $1,875,399.37 for storm water projects;
• One (1) appropriation (#2008030) reappropriating $2,834,316.55 for school capital projects;
and
• One (1) appropriation (#2008031) appropriating $32,679.21 to repair Monticello Fire Station
apparatus from insurance proceeds.
A detailed description of these requests is provided on Attachment A.
Staff recommends approval of the FY 2008 Budget Amendment in the amount of $57,342,962.49
after the public hearing, and then approval of Appropriations #2008019, #2008020, #2008021, #2008022,
#2008024, #2008026, #2008027, #2008028, #2008029, #2008030, and #2008031 to provide funds for
various local government, school, and capital projects and programs as described in Attachment A.
Appropriation #2008019 $1,857,658.02
Revenue Source: General Fund Balance $ 409,779.21
Special Revenue Fund Balance 30,571.10
800 MHz Radio Fund Balance 345,966.26
Mobile Data Fund Balance 534,362.16
School Division Fund Balance 229,870.44
School Special Rev. Fund Bal. 307,108.85
Several departments had funding for projects approved in FY06/07 that had not been completed as
of June 30, 2007. This request reappropriates the remaining balances for the uncompleted projects
for which purchase orders were outstanding as of June 30, 2007.
Appropriation #2008020 $4,159.00
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue (Grant) $ 3,118.00
Transfer from Police Dept. 1,041.00
The Department of Criminal Justice Services has awarded the Albemarle County Police
Department a grant in the amount of $3,118.00 with a local match of $1,041.00, for a total of
$4,159.00. The purpose of this grant is to purchase software, training materials, and participate in
training, to develop criminal investigations and eventual prosecutions. The local match of
$1,041.00 will be provided from existing appropriated funds within the Police Department’s
operating budget.
Appropriation #2008021 $11,328.00
Revenue Source: State Revenue (Grant) $ 9,000.00
Transfer from Sheriff $ 2,328.00
The Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles has awarded the Albemarle County Sheriff’s Office a grant
in the amount of $9,000.00 with a local match of $2,328.00, for a total of $11,328.00. The purpose
of this grant is to fund the purchase and installation of two radar units (and associated equipment)
and to pay for overtime and expenses for selective enforcement for all trained deputies in the use of
radar.
Appropriation #2008022 $46,392.69
Revenue Source: General Fund Balance $ 4,690.71
Federal Revenue (Grant) 35,445.55
Grant Fund Balance 6,256.43
In an agreement with the Virginia Alcohol Beverage Control Board, the Albemarle County Police
Department received $7,000.00 to assist with overtime associated with the combating underage
drinking at special events within the County. The grant balance of $4,690.71 will be reappropriated
for use in FY07/08.
The Department of Justice, through a federal Bureau of Justice Assistant Grant, provides funding
for a primary case manager for foster children whose parent(s) are involved in the Family
Treatment Court Program and for on-going Child Protective Cases whose parents are involved in
the Family Treatment Court Program. This grant will continue and be completed on April 30, 2008.
The grant balance of $41,701.98 will be reappropriated for use in FY07/08.
Appropriation #2008024 $1,000.00
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
Revenue Source: Local Revenue (City) $ 100.00
State Revenue (Grant) $ 900.00
The Office of the Attorney General awarded the Albemarle County Sheriff’s Department a grant in
the amount of $900.00 with a local match of $100.00 for a total grant award of $1,000.00. The
purpose of this grant is to purchase equipment and supplies to assist senior’s in our area to “Say
Safe”. These efforts are in conjunction with the Jefferson Area Board of Aging, Alzheimer’s
Association, and the local Senior Citizens centers throughout the County. The local match will be
paid for by the City of Charlottesville Police Department.
Appropriation #2008026 $196,168.00
Revenue Source: ECC Fund Balance $196,168.00
The Emergency Communications Center had the following uncompleted projects at the end of
FY06/07 that will need to be reappropriated to FY07/08:
• Dispatcher Telecommuting Option - $20,000.00
• Computer Aided Dispatch and Records Systems Review - $50,000.00
• Replacement of current ECC Building Security System - $100,000.00
• Emergency Food Supplies - $1,841.00
• Shelter Training for Local Agencies - $3,000.00
• Replacement Server for the City and County Records Management System -
$7,327.00
• ACPO Emergency Medical Dispatch Program - $14,000.00
Appropriation #2008027 $1,728,177.81
Revenue Source: General Fund Balance $1,575,243.91
Health Insurance Fund Balance $ 152,933.90
The following departments had FY06/07 funds for specific projects that were uncompleted at June
30, 2007 and will require reappropriation for use in FY07/08:
General Fund
• County Executive - $18,431.83 for strategic planning
• Office of Management & Budget - $12,000.00 for financial forecasting model
• Magistrate’s Office - $6,917.82 for FY06/07 expenses that were not billed at
June 30, 2007
• Juvenile Court - $50,051.00 for FY06/07 operating expenses that were not
billed at June 30, 2007
• Police - $ 6,000.00 for uniforms for new police officers approved in FY06/07
but not hired until August 2007
• Fire Rescue - $4,519.03 in donated funds for the Car Safety Seat Program
• Hollymead Fire Station - $49,874.31 for uniforms and equipment for personnel
not purchased by June 30, 2007
• General Services
o $24,489.78 for expenses relating to Keene Landfill
o $650,000.00 for the Rivanna Solid W aste Authority contribution
• Stormwater Management – $261,193.14 for contract services
• Community Development/Planning
o $4,500.00 to augment Piedmont W orkforce Network’s research of
workforce impacts of DIA
o $125,000.00 for Development Area Study
o $37,267.00 for groundwater monitoring
• Housing - $5,000.00 for housing agencies study
• TJPDC - $50,000.00 for the transit study
• CTS – Transit Study - $20,000
• Economic Development Opportunities - $250,000.00
Health Insurance Fund
• The Board approved the use of $227,500.00 in funds from the Health
Insurance Fund for the employee W ellness Program. Funds totaling
$152,993.90 were unexpended at June 30, 2007.
Appropriation #200802 8 $46,804,068.37
Revenue Source: Local Revenues $ 420,250.77
State Revenues $ 270,953.26
Loan Proceeds $14,515,274.00
Gen. Gov. CIP Fund Balance $31,597,590.34
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
This request reappropriates the remaining balances of General Government Capital Improvement
projects that were uncompleted as of June 30, 2007.
Appropriation #2008029 $1,875,399.37
Revenue Source: Storm W ater Fund Balance $1,875,399.37
This request reappropriates the remaining balances of Storm W ater Management projects that
were uncompleted as of June 30, 2007.
Appropriation #2008030 $2,834,316.55
Revenue Source: School CIP Fund Balance $2,834,316.55
This request reappropriates the remaining balances of School Capital Improvement projects that
were uncompleted as of June 30, 2007.
Appropriation #2008031 $32,679.21
Revenue Source: General Fund Balance $ 32,679.21
In FY06/07, Monticello Fire Station had an insurance claim involving their 1993 Pierce Pumper. In
June 2007, the County received a payment from VACo insurance in the amount of $32,679.21 to
pay for damages. The vehicle has been repaired and the invoice has now been received and will
be paid in FY07/08.
__________
Referring to Appropriation #2008023, Mr. Boyd said he thought the JILL study was only $5,000
from the County.
Mr. Breeden said that the total expenditure is $10,000, and JILL would reimburse the County one-
half of the total.
Ms. Thomas asked about stormwater management contract services for $261,000.
Mr. Breeden replied that there was a study done on that and that was the allocation. He also said
that there are some CIP allocations and a small item for vehicle repair.
In response to questions about stormwater allocations, Mr. Foley explained that the Board
approves $600,00 to $700,000 a year in funding for stormwater, and that money stays in a separate cost
center so it is carried over each year for projects to be done. He said that there have been runoff
problems that have required small lagoons to be built, and that has meant additional cost. Mr. Foley
added that this trend would continue as new neighborhoods are built in more urbanized areas.
Mr. Boyd opened the public hearing. There being no comments, the public hearing was closed,
and the matter was placed before the Board.
Mr. Rooker moved to approve the FY 2008 budget amendment in the amount of $57,342,962.49
and to approve Appropriations #2008019, #2008020, #2008021, #2008022, #2008024, #2008026,
#2008027, #2008028, #2008029, #2008030, and #2008031 to provide funds for various local
government, school, and capital projects and programs. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion. Roll was
called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. W yant.
NAYS: None.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2008019
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Reappropriation of Outstanding Purchase Orders
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
SEE ATTACHED DETAIL -
General Fund
Finance -
Administration
J 1 1,000.00
Voter Registration J 1 38,070.00
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
Police J 1 26,223.10
Fire Rescue -
Administration
J 1 7,598.13
Fire Rescue -
Training
J 1 903.45
Fire Rescue -
Operations
J 1 12,022.26
Fire Rescue -
Northern Fire
J 1 9,888.00
General Services -
Solid W ast
J 1 7,965.60
Gen. Services -
Administration
J 1 3,000.00
Gen. Services -
Maintenance
J 1 5,471.23
Stormwater
Management
J 1 85,916.00
Gen. Services -
Grounds Maint
J 1 15,948.00
Parks -
Maintenance
J 1 6,422.86
Parks - Summer
Swim
J 1 108.17
Comm. Devel. -
Admin
J 1 58,917.33
Comm. Devel. -
Planning
J 1 71,249.83
Zoning & Current
Develop
J 1 59,075.25
2 1000 51000 510100 Appropriation - F/B J 2 409,779.21
1000 0501 Est. Revenue 409,779.21
0701 Appropriation 409,779.21
See Attached Fund 9200- Motor
Veh.
Motor Veh.
Replace - Parks
J 1 30,571.10
2 9200 51000 510100 Appropriation - F/B J 2 30,571.10
9200 0501 Est. Revenue 30,571.10
0701 Appropriation 30,571.10
See Attached Fund 4110 - 800
MHz
ECC-Radio System J 1 2,912.50
800 MHz Radio
System
J 1 343,053.76
2 4110 51000 510100 Appropriation - F/B J 2 345,966.26
4110 0501 Est. Revenue 345,966.26
0701 Appropriation 345,966.26
See Attached Fund 4115 - Mobile
Data
Mobile Data J 1 534,362.16
2 4115 51000 510100 Appropriation - F/B J 2 534,362.16
4115 0501 Est. Revenue 534,362.16
0701 Appropriation 534,362.16
See Attached Fund Instructional J 1 48,762.31
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
2111 Support
See Attached Fund
2114
Media Services J 1 11,985.00
See Attached Fund
2115
Computer
Technology
J 1 7,707.47
See Attached Fund
2117
Professional
Development
J 1 1,253.04
See Attached Fund
2118
DPT Guidance &
Evaluation
J 1 123,251.91
See Attached Fund
2410
Executive Services J 1 912.00
See Attached Fund
2411
Community
Engagement
J 1 7,483.13
See Attached Fund
2430
Support/Planning
Services
J 1 10,878.31
See Attached Fund
2433
Building Services J 1 17,637.27
2 2000 51000 510100 Appropriation - F/B J 2 229,870.44
2000 0501 Est. Revenue 229,870.44
0701 Appropriation 229,870.44
See Attached Fund
3104
Miscellaneous
School Grants
J 1 2,675.00
2 3104 51000 510100 Appropriation - F/B J 2 2,675.00
3104 0501 Est. Revenue 2,675.00
0701 Appropriation 2,675.00
See Attached Fund
3202
E D Program J 1 235.40
2 3202 51000 510100 Appropriation - F/B J 2 235.40
3202 0501 Est. Revenue 235.40
0701 Appropriation 235.40
See Attached Fund
3205
Pre-School Special
Ed
44.02
2 3205 51000 510100 Appropriation - F/B J 2 44.02
3205 0501 44.02
0701 44.02
See Attached Fund
3907
Computer Equip.
Replace
J 1 304,154.43
2 3907 51000 510100 Appropriation - F/B J 2 304,154.43
3907 0501 Est. Revenue 304,154.43
0701 Appropriation 304,154.43
TOTAL 3,715,316.04 1,857,658.02 1,857,658.02
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
Fund Cost Object PO#Cost Desc Obj ect Amount
1 000 12 141 317 000 20061 169 FINANCE-ADM INISTR ATION OTHER P ROFESSIONAL SRV CS 1,000.00
1 000 13 020 800 100 20062 071 DEPT OF VOTER REG & ELECT MA CHINER Y & EQUIPM ENT 38,070.00
1 000 31 013 601 011 20061 688 POLICE AM MUNITION 282.60
1 000 31 013 601 011 20061 752 POLICE AM MUNITION 11,744.50
1 000 31 013 800 100 20061 663 POLICE MA CHINER Y & EQUIPM ENT 4,606.00
1 000 31 013 800 125 20061 970 POLICE FIREARMS & EQUIPM ENT 9,590.00
1 000 32 011 800 100 20062 065 FIRE RE SCU E-ADM INIS TRATIO MA CHINER Y & EQUIPM ENT 7,598.13
1 000 32 012 601 100 20060 549 FIRE RE SCU E-TRAI NING UNIFORMS & APPARE L 903.45
1 000 32 015 600 400 20062 054 FIRE/RE SCU E-OPE RATIONS ME DICAL & LAB. SUPPLIES 201.95
1 000 32 015 600 900 20060 612 FIRE/RE SCU E-OPE RATIONS VE HICLE & EQUIP. REPAIRS 11,820.31
1 000 32 017 601 100 20062 003 NORTHERN FIRE S TATION UNIFORMS & APPARE L 9,888.00
1 000 42 040 390 001 20060 481 GS SOLI D WASTE/RECYCLING CONTRAC T SERV-K L ANDFIL L 7,965.60
1 000 43 001 580 000 20061 767 GEN SERV ICES-A DMI NIST DI V MISCELL ANEOU S EXP ENS ES 3,000.00
1 000 43 002 331 200 20060 286 GEN SERV ICES-M AIN T DIV R&M EQUIP.-BUIL DINGS 4,271.23
1 000 43 002 331 200 20060 619 GEN SERV ICES-M AIN T DIV R&M EQUIP.-BUIL DINGS 1,200.00
1 000 43 005 301 210 20060 816 STORM WATE R MA NAGEM ENT CONTRAC T SERVICE S 60,416.00
1 000 43 005 301 210 20061 616 STORM WATE R MA NAGEM ENT CONTRAC T SERVICE S 25,500.00
1 000 43 006 301 211 20060 543 GR OUN DS MAINTE NANC E CONT SE RV-M EDIA N MOWIN G 4,980.00
1 000 43 006 301 221 20060 543 GR OUN DS MAINTE NANC E MA INT CONT - LANDSC API NG 10,033.00
1 000 43 006 331 920 20060 543 GR OUN DS MAINTE NANC E POLO GROUNDS MAINTENANCE 935.00
1 000 71 012 332 200 20041 185 PARK M AINTENCE MA INT. CONTRACT-BUIL DING 1,950.00
1 000 71 012 540 000 20060 622 PARK M AINTENCE LEA SES A ND RENTAL S 327.86
1 000 71 012 800 502 20061 331 PARK M AINTENCE MOTOR VE H-EXTRA EQUIPM ENT 4,145.00
1 000 71 013 540 000 20060 622 P & R SU MMER SW IM PROGRAM LEA SES A ND RENTAL S 108.17
1 000 81 021 312 105 20061 650 COMM DE VE LOPM ENT A DMIN CONSUL TING SERVICES 53,317.33
1 000 81 021 312 700 20061 973 COMM DE VE LOPM ENT A DMIN PROF. SER. CON SULTANTS 5,600.00
1 000 81 022 312 342 20041 801 PLANNING-CD DEV ELOPMEN T ARE A'S STU DY 62,974.83
1 000 81 022 312 700 20060 334 PLANNING-CD PROF. SER. CON SULTANTS 8,275.00
1 000 81 024 312 105 20061 282 ZONI NG & CUR RENT DEVE LOP CONSUL TING SERVICES 55,000.00
1 000 81 024 312 700 20061 757 ZONI NG & CUR RENT DEVE LOP PROF. SER. CON SULTANTS 4,075.25
9 200 71 012 800 500 20061 331 PARK M AINTENCE MOTOR VE HICLE S 30,571.10
4 110 31 050 312 700 20050 529 ECC-RADIO SY STE M PROF. SER. CON SULTANTS 2,912.50
4 110 31 060 312 700 20030 704 800 M HZ RAD IO SYSTEM PROF. SER. CON SULTANTS 45,186.13
4 110 31 060 800 300 20060 906 800 M HZ RAD IO SYSTEM COMMUN ICATION EQUIPMENT 1 00,302.00
4 110 31 060 800 300 20061 612 800 M HZ RAD IO SYSTEM COMMUN ICATION EQUIPMENT 4,000.00
4 110 31 060 800 305 20030 254 800 M HZ RAD IO SYSTEM RADI O S YSTEM 22,989.88
4 110 31 060 800 308 20041 445 800 M HZ RAD IO SYSTEM RADI O-SUBS CRIBER UNITS 1 70,575.75
4 115 31 065 312 700 20060 059 MOBIL E DATA PROF. SER. CON SULTANTS 6,000.00
4 115 31 065 800 316 20041 446 MOBIL E DATA MOBILE DATA PROJECT 5 27,387.46
4 115 31 065 800 714 20061 762 MOBIL E DATA TECH NOL OGY UPGRADE 974.70
1,3 20,67 8.73
Fund Cost Obje ct PO #Cost Desc Obj ect Amount
2 111 61 112 601 300 20061 660 CLASS/I NSTRUC -E SOL EDUC . & RE CREATION S UP. 365.57
2 111 61 112 601 300 20061 890 CLASS/I NSTRUC -E SOL EDUC . & RE CREATION S UP. 5,000.00
2 111 61 311 601 300 20061 891 IMP ROV /INSTRUC-REG A DM EDUC . & RE CREATION S UP. 2,442.00
2 111 61 314 601 300 20051 956 IMP ROV /INSTRUC-GIFTED ADM EDUC . & RE CREATION S UP. 5,330.27
2 111 61 330 312 500 20060 016 IMP ROV /INSTRUC-SYST. P ROJ PROF. SER. INSTRUC TIONAL 4,464.61
2 111 61 330 312 500 20061 121 IMP ROV /INSTRUC-SYST. P ROJ PROF. SER. INSTRUC TIONAL 10,000.00
2 111 61 330 580 000 20061 121 IMP ROV /INSTRUC-SYST. P ROJ MISCELL ANEOU S EXP ENS ES 14,992.00
2 111 61 330 601 200 20060 300 IMP ROV /INSTRUC-SYST. P ROJ BOOKS & SUBSCRIP TIONS 1,335.75
2 111 61 332 601 300 20061 890 IMP RV/INSTR-LNG.ARTS 6-1 2 EDUC . & RE CREATION S UP. 3,656.43
2 111 61 339 601 300 20061 813 IMP ROV /INSTR-ART & MUS IC EDUC . & RE CREATION S UP. 1,175.68
2 114 61 101 602 000 20062 018 CLASS/I NSTRUC -RE GULAR TEXTBOOKS 11,985.00
2 115 61 320 600 710 20050 373 INSTRU C/SUP-STAFF-ME DIA PA RTS & MA TERIA LS - DP 1,233.10
2 115 62 190 800 700 20050 371 ADM .-T ECHNOLOGICA L SE RVIC ADP EQUIPME NT 190.80
2 115 62 420 520 304 20061 995 FACILI TY MA INT-BL DG SER VC TELECOMM .-D ATA LINES 1,914.00
2 115 62 420 520 304 20061 996 FACILI TY MA INT-BL DG SER VC TELECOMM .-D ATA LINES 4,369.57
2 117 61 311 540 100 20060 926 IMP ROV /INSTRUC-REG A DM LEA SE/REN T-EQUIPM ENT 1,253.04
2 118 61 337 301 210 20060 594 IMP RV/INSTR-PRGRAM A NALYS CONTRAC T SERVICE S 1,150.00
2 118 61 337 301 210 20061 121 IMP RV/INSTR-PRGRAM A NALYS CONTRAC T SERVICE S 83,854.31
2 118 61 337 601 300 20060 600 IMP RV/INSTR-PRGRAM A NALYS EDUC . & RE CREATION S UP. 13,247.60
2 118 61 337 800 710 20061 121 IMP RV/INSTR-PRGRAM A NALYS DATA PR OCESSING SOFTW A RE 25,000.00
2 410 62 110 540 100 20060 203 ADM -S CHOOL BOA RD SERVI CES LEA SE/REN T-EQUIPM ENT 456.00
2 410 62 120 540 100 20060 203 ADM -E XECUTIV E A DMINIS TRAT LEA SE/REN T-EQUIPM ENT 456.00
2 411 61 241 360 000 20061 772 INSTRU C/SUP-COMM RE LA TION ADV ERTI SING 2,937.62
2 411 62 130 312 700 20050 771 ADM -COM MUNITY SERVICE S PROF. SER. CON SULTANTS 2,826.14
2 411 62 130 800 700 20061 871 ADM -COM MUNITY SERVICE S ADP EQUIPME NT 1,719.37
2 430 62 150 580 500 20061 919 ADM -S UPPORT/PL ANNING S ERV STAFF DEV ELOPMENT 10,090.70
2 430 62 150 800 700 20061 969 ADM -S UPPORT/PL ANNING S ERV ADP EQUIPME NT 787.61
2 433 62 410 312 300 20050 052 FACILI TY MA INT-MANAGEM ENT PROF. SER. ARCHITECTUAL 3,253.75
2 433 62 410 312 700 20061 541 FACILI TY MA INT-MANAGEM ENT PROF. SER. CON SULTANTS 11,929.52
2 433 62 420 600 700 20061 184 FACILI TY MA INT-BL DG SER VC REP AIR & MA INT. SUPP LIE S 1,552.00
2 433 62 420 601 100 20061 201 FACILI TY MA INT-BL DG SER VC UNIFORMS & APPARE L 902.00
3 104 60 253 800 700 20061 862 JOUE TT MIDD LE SCHOOL ADP EQUIPME NT 2,675.00
3 202 61 102 601 300 20061 803 CLASS/I NSTRUC -S PEC ED EDUC . & RE CREATION S UP. 235.40
3 205 61 108 601 300 20060 303 CLASS/I NSTRUC -P RES CH/HAND EDUC . & RE CREATION S UP. 4 4.02
3 907 61 101 800 700 20050 371 CLASS/I NSTRUC -RE GULAR ADP EQUIPME NT 333.90
3 907 61 101 800 700 20050 509 CLASS/I NSTRUC -RE GULAR ADP EQUIPME NT 238.50
3 907 61 101 800 700 20050 552 CLASS/I NSTRUC -RE GULAR ADP EQUIPME NT 1,073.25
3 907 61 101 800 700 20050 878 CLASS/I NSTRUC -RE GULAR ADP EQUIPME NT 2,509.65
3 907 61 101 800 700 20060 700 CLASS/I NSTRUC -RE GULAR ADP EQUIPME NT 2 99,999.13
5 36,979.29
1,8 57,65 8.02 __________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2008020
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: DCJS Grant
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1521 33000 330001
Grant Revenue -
Federal J 2 3,118.00
2 1521 51000 512004
Transfer - General
Fund J 2 1,041.00
1 1521 31013 550100
Travel/Training/Educa
tion J 1 3,414.00
1 1521 31013 601600
Data Processing
Supplies J 1 745.00
J
1 1000 31013 930210
Transfer - Misc Police
Grants J 1 1,041.00
1 1000 31013 550100
Travel/Training/Educa
tion J 1 (854.00)
1 1000 31013 601600 DP Supplies J 1 (187.00)
1521 0501 Est. Revenue 4,159.00
0701 Appropriation 4,159.00
TOTAL
8,318.00 4,159.00 4,159.00
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2008021
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Operation Strobe Blue grant for Sheriff Department
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1214 21070 120000 Overtime J 1 5,000.00
1 1214 21070 601000 Police Supplies J 1 6,328.00
2 1214 24000 240010 Grant Revenues -
State
J 2 9,000.00
2 1214 51000 512004 Transfer from G/F J 2 2,328.00
1214 0501 11,328.00
0701 11,328.00
TOTAL 22,656.00 11,328.00 11,328.00
_________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2008022
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Reappropriation - Foxfield Overtime Grant and Family Treatment Court
Grant
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1000 51000 510100 Appropriation - F/B J 2 4,690.71
1 1000 31013 120310 PD - Overtime -
Special Event
J 1 4,331.87
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
1 1000 31013 210000 FICA J 1 358.84
1000 0501 Est. Revenue 4,690.71
0701 Appropriation 4,690.71
2 1562 33000 330020 Federal-Family
Treatment
J 2 35,445.55
2 1562 51000 510100 Appropriation - F/B J 2 6,256.43
1 1562 53158 110000 Salaries - Regular J 1 32,010.91
1 1562 53158 210000 FICA J 1 2,448.75
1 1562 53158 241000 VRS Life J 1 245.76
1 1562 53158 332104 Maint Contract - DP
Equip
J 1 1,555.00
1 1562 53158 520300 Telecommunications J 1 1,745.00
1 1562 53158 540200 Lease/Rent -
Buildings
J 1 1,486.68
1 1562 53158 600100 Office Supplies J 1 1,333.53
1 1562 53158 800700 ADP Equipment J 1 876.35
1562 0501 Est. Revenue 41,701.98
0701 Appropriation 41,701.98
TOTAL 92,785.38 46,392.69 46,392.69
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2008024
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Sheriff's Department Grant
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1514 18000 181316 Local Revenue - City
PD
J 2 100.00
2 1514 24000 240000 State Revenue J 2 900.00
1 1514 21070 600100 Supplies J 1 1,000.00
1514 0501 Est. Revenue 1,000.00
0701 Appropriation 1,000.00
TOTAL 2,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00
__________
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2008026
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: ECC Reappropriations
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 4100 51000 510100 Appropriation - ECC
F/B
J 2 196,168.00
J
1 4100 31041 312210 ECC Admin-Contract
Services
J 1 14,000.00
1 4100 31041 331800 ECC Admin-R/M
Buildings
J 1 100,000.00
1 4100 31041 800700 ECC Admin-ADP
Equip
J 1 20,000.00
1 4100 31045 312500 Emerg. Svcs-Prof.
Services
J 1 3,000.00
1 4100 31045 600200 Emerg. Svcs-Food
Supplies
J 1 1,841.00
1 4100 31046 312210 CAD-Contract
Services
J 1 50,000.00
1 4100 31046 800700 CAD-ADP Equipment J 1 7,327.00
4100 0501 Est. Revenue 196,168.00
0701 Appropriation 196,168.00
TOTAL 392,336.00 196,168.00 196,168.00
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2008027
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Reappropriation of Uncompleted Projects
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 12010 312390 Co. Exec. - Strategic
Plan
J 1 18,431.83
1 1000 12015 301200 OMB-Contract
Services
J 1 12,000.00
1 1000 21030 700003 Magistrate's Office J 1 6,917.82
1 1000 21050 700004 Juvenile Court J 1 50,051.00
1 1000 31013 601101 Police - Uniforms -
New
J 1 6,000.00
1 1000 32015 561415 Fire Rescue - Car
Seat Prgm
J 1 4,519.03
1 1000 32017 601100 Hollymead Fire -
Uniforms
J 1 49,874.31
1 1000 42040 390001 Gen. Serv.- Keene
Landfill
J 1 24,489.78
1 1000 42040 999851 RSWA Contribution J 1 650,000.00
1 1000 43005 301210 Stormwater Mgmt-
Contract
J 1 261,193.14
1 1000 81021 317000 Comm. Dev. - Prof.
Services
J 1 4,500.00
1 1000 81022 312342 Comm. Dev. - Dev.
Area Study
J 1 125,000.00
1 1000 81022 950172 Comm. Dev.-
Groundwater
J 1 37,267.00
1 1000 81030 580417 Housing Agencies
Study
J 1 5,000.00
1 1000 89000 562501 TJPDC-Transit Study J 1 50,000.00
1 1000 89000 580418 CTS - Transit Study J 1 20,000.00
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
1 1000 95000 999987 Economic Dev.
Opportunities
J 1 250,000.00
2 1000 51000 510100 Appropriation - F/B J 2 1,575,243.91
1000 0501 Est. Revenue 1,575,243.91
0701 Appropriation 1,575,243.91
1 1020 91044 311004 Wellness Program J 1 152,933.90
2 1020 51000 510100 Health Ins. F/B J 2 152,933.90
1020 0501 Est. Revenue 152,933.90
0701 Appropriation 152,933.90
TOTAL 3,456,355.62 1,728,177.81 1,728,177.81
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2008028
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Reappropriation of projects and programs from FY07 General Government CIP
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
See Attached Information
Technology
J 1 504,299.88
Court Facilities J 1 579,056.49
General District Court J 1 5,000.00
Juvenile Court J 1 7,142,167.37
Clerk of Circuit Court J 1 225,715.58
Public Safety J 1 1,049,159.13
Police Department J 1 906,664.93
Fire Department J 1 115,307.17
Northern Fire Station J 1 5,217,397.24
Pantops Fire Station J 1 2,112,000.00
Monticello Fire Station J 1 354,257.00
Volunteer Fire Dept J 1 2,292,308.98
East Ivy Station J 1 1,634,000.00
Volunteer Rescue Sq. J 1 827,843.53
Engineering J 1 1,689,439.18
Street Improvements J 1 5,744,739.70
Crozet Streetscapes II J 1 923,810.00
Sidewalk Program J 1 1,495,186.41
Public Works J 1 1,122,999.97 .
COB Phase II J 1 2,467,713.60
Health Department J 1 42,869.67
Parks & Recreation J 1 2,862,034.33
Tourism J 1 994,864.95
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
Libraries J 1 3,899,787.59
Planning J 1 2,394,640.06
Neighborhood Plan J 1 200,805.61
2 9010 16000 160536 City-Visitor's Center J 2 95,296.32
2 9010 18110 181128 Contributions J 2 5,000.00
2 9010 19000 190315 City Share-Eastern
Study
J 2 174,954.45
2 9010 24000 240800 Clerk'sTech. Trust
Fund
J 2 270,953.26
2 9010 41000 410500 Loan Proceeds J 2 14,515,274.00
2 9010 51000 510100 Appropriation - F/B J 2 31,597,590.34
2 9010 51000 512040 Glenmore Proffer J 2 145,000.00
9010 0501 Est. Revenue 46,804,068.37
0701 Appropriation 46,804,068.37
TOTAL 93,608,136.74 46,804,068.37 46,804,068.37
GENE RAL GOVERNM ENT CAP ITAL
Cat Fund Dept Obje ct Dept De sc Objec t Balance
1 9 010 12 200 8 0070 0 INFORM ATIO N TECHNOLOGY A DP EQUIPM ENT $20 9,604 .34
1 9 010 12 200 8 0071 4 INFORM ATIO N TECHNOLOGY TECHNO LOGY UPGRADE $29 4,695 .54
1 9 010 21 000 3 3100 0 COURT FA CILITI ES REPAIRS & MAINTE NANCE $12 8,337 .74
1 9 010 21 000 9 5013 5 COURT FA CILITI ES COURT SQUAR E ENHANCE MENTS $4 5,000 .00
1 9 010 21 000 9 5017 6 COURT FA CILITI ES S ALL YPORT $40 5,718 .75
1 9 010 21 020 8 0010 0 GEN ERAL DIS TRICT COURT M ACHIN ERY & EQUI PME NT $5,000 .00
1 9 010 21 050 3 3100 0 JUVENILE CO URT REPAIRS & MAINTE NANCE $10 7,384 .52
1 9 010 21 050 8 0090 1 JUVENILE CO URT B UILDIN G RENOVATIONS $7,03 4,782 .85
1 9 010 21 060 8 0070 8 CLERK OF C IRCUIT COURT DOCUM ENT IMAGING S YS TEM $22 5,715 .58
1 9 010 31 000 8 0030 5 PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO SY STEM $3 7,903 .14
1 9 010 31 000 8 0091 0 PUBLIC SAFETY TRA INING CTR /FIRING RANGE $1,01 1,255 .99
1 9 010 31 010 8 0071 4 POL ICE D EPARTME NT TECHNO LOGY UPGRADE $89 4,798 .27
1 9 010 31 010 8 0073 3 POL ICE D EPARTME NT V IDEO EQUIPM ENT $1 1,866 .66
1 9 010 32 010 9 9999 9 FIRE DEP ARTM ENT CONTI NGE NCY FU NDS $11 5,307 .17
1 9 010 32 017 3 1235 0 NORTHERN FIRE STATION E NGINEE RING/P LANNI NG $5 4,554 .10
1 9 010 32 017 3 1236 7 NORTHERN FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION ADMIN $5 0,270 .00
1 9 010 32 017 6 0131 5 NORTHERN FIRE STATION S AFETY EQUIPMENT/SU PPL IES $9 5,013 .47
1 9 010 32 017 8 0020 0 NORTHERN FIRE STATION FURN ITURE & FIX TURES $9 1,171 .00
1 9 010 32 017 8 0060 5 NORTHERN FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION $3,26 5,455 .80
1 9 010 32 017 8 0074 1 NORTHERN FIRE STATION I/T COST(EQUIP /FIBE R)$3 5,000 .00
1 9 010 32 017 8 0074 2 NORTHERN FIRE STATION A LER TING SYSTEM S $10 6,000 .00
1 9 010 32 017 8 1120 1 NORTHERN FIRE STATION NORTH ERN-EN GIN E $61 6,515 .00
1 9 010 32 017 8 1120 2 NORTHERN FIRE STATION NOTHERN-LADDER T RUCK $61 9,751 .50
1 9 010 32 017 9 9999 9 NORTHERN FIRE STATION CONTI NGE NCY FU NDS $28 3,666 .37
1 9 010 32 018 8 0060 5 PANTOPS FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION $39 0,000 .00
1 9 010 32 018 8 0075 0 PANTOPS FIRE STATION P URCHA SE OF PROPE RTY $1,72 2,000 .00
1 9 010 32 019 8 0074 1 MONTI CELL O FIR E S TATION I/T COST(EQUIP /FIBE R)$13 9,257 .00
1 9 010 32 019 8 1110 1 MONTI CELL O FIR E S TATION M ON TICEL LO-A MBULANC E $21 5,000 .00
1 9 010 32 020 8 1009 9 VOL UNTEE R FIRE DEPT V FD-CONTINGENCY $1 5,152 .37
1 9 010 32 020 8 1040 1 V OL UNTEE R FIRE DEPT E ARL YSVILLE -TK 49 & E QUIP $1 3,724 .53
1 9 010 32 020 8 1040 2 V OL UNTEE R FIRE DEPT E ARL YSVL-UTIL 4 7 & EQUIP $37 7,500 .00
1 9 010 32 020 8 1060 3 V OL UNTEE R FIRE DEP T S TO NY POI NT - ENG. 62 $62 9,000 .00
1 9 010 32 020 8 1061 0 V OL UNTEE R FIRE DEP T S T/PT-F A CILITY UNG RADES $41 7,686 .00
1 9 010 32 020 8 1080 1 V OL UNTEE R FIRE DEP T S EM INO LE-DE SIGN/S T UDY $1 4,746 .08
1 9 010 32 020 8 1080 2 V OL UNTEE R FIRE DEP T S EM INO LE-SA LA VE 87 &EQUIP $28 7,500 .00
1 9 010 32 020 8 1080 3 V OL UNTEE R FIRE DEP T S EM INO LE - E NG 84 $53 7,000 .00
1 9 010 32 021 8 0075 0 E AST IVY STA TION P URCHA SE OF PROPE RTY $1,63 4,000 .00
1 9 010 32 030 8 1510 1 A MBUL ANCE /RE SCUE SE RVICE CARS-A MB. & E QU IP $26 0,108 .85
1 9 010 32 030 8 1510 2 A MBUL ANCE /RE SCUE SE RVICE CARS-S QU AD 1 33 $30 0,000 .00
1 9 010 32 030 8 1550 2 A MBUL ANCE /RE SCUE SE RVICE W ARS - AMB 501 $17 8,000 .00
1 9 010 32 030 8 1570 2 A MBUL ANCE /RE SCUE SE RVICE S CO TTSV -A MB 707 & E QUI P $8 9,734 .68
1 9 010 41 000 7 0000 6 E NG INEE RING IV Y L ANDFILL $33 1,719 .43
1 9 010 41 000 8 0096 0 E NG INEE RING S TREE T LIGHTS $28 9,929 .21
1 9 010 41 000 9 5003 9 E NG INEE RING M EA DOW CREE K PARK W A Y EN GIN $2 8,125 .74
1 9 010 41 000 9 5005 9 E NG INEE RING K EE NE L ANDFILL CLO SU RE $46 0,664 .80
1 9 010 41 000 9 5006 1 E NG INEE RING M EA DOW CREE K PATH $2 0,000 .00
1 9 010 41 000 9 5011 0 E NG INEE RING RECO RDS MAN AG EM ENT S YS.$55 9,000 .00
1 9 010 41 020 9 5008 1 S TREE T IMP ROVEM ENTS REVE NUE SHA RING RO ADS $2,07 4,697 .90
1 9 010 41 020 9 5011 5 S TREE T IMP ROVEM ENTS A IRPORT ROA D LA NDSC API NG $2 4,132 .20
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
1 9 010 41 020 9 5013 6 S TREE T IMP ROVEM ENTS TRA NS PO RTATION PL/CO NS TR $2,88 1,083 .30
1 9 010 41 020 9 5017 1 S TREE T IMP ROVEM ENTS S UNRIDG E RO AD $8,808 .54
1 9 010 41 020 9 5020 0 S TREE T IMP ROVEM ENTS RT 22/25 0 INT E RSECT IO N DV $14 5,000 .00
1 9 010 41 020 9 5020 3 S TREE T IMP ROVEM ENTS S CO TTSV ILLE STRE ETS CAP E $25 1,065 .14
1 9 010 41 020 9 5020 4 S TREE T IMP ROVEM ENTS E AS TERN CON NECTOR S TUDY $33 1,459 .07
1 9 010 41 020 9 5050 1 S TREE T IMP ROVEM ENTS TRA FF IC STUDY RT 2 50E $2 8,493 .55
1 9 010 41 023 3 1235 0 CRO Z E T STRE ET S CAPE P H II E NG INEE RING /P LANNI NG $42 8,810 .00
1 9 010 41 023 8 0060 5 CRO Z E T STRE ET S CAPE P H II CONS T RUCT IO N $49 5,000 .00
1 9 010 41 350 9 5003 8 S IDEW ALK PROGRAM RI O R OA D $13 7,089 .00
1 9 010 41 350 9 5051 0 S IDEW ALK PROGRAM S . PA NTOPS $51 2,000 .00
1 9 010 41 350 9 5051 1 SIDEW ALK PROGRAM A VON STREET $7 3,000 .00
1 9 010 41 350 9 5051 2 SIDEW ALK PROGRAM COB 5TH S TREE T $4 1,280 .00
1 9 010 41 350 9 5051 3 SIDEW ALK PROGRAM HI LLTOP TABOR $20 0,000 .00
1 9 010 41 350 9 5051 4 SIDEW ALK PROGRAM S T GEORGE A VENUE $10 4,617 .00
1 9 010 41 350 9 5051 5 SIDEW ALK PROGRAM RT 250/W ESTMINISTER/R OL KIN $27 5,000 .00
1 9 010 41 350 9 9999 9 SIDEW ALK PROGRAM CONTI NGE NCY FU NDS $15 2,200 .41
1 9 010 43 100 8 0066 6 PUBLIC W ORKS/MA INT. PROJ.FACILITY MAI NT.$52 1,392 .91
1 9 010 43 100 9 5012 8 PUBLIC W ORKS/MA INT. PROJ.COB ENTR Y CORRIDOR BEAUTY $4 1,998 .10
1 9 010 43 100 9 5016 8 PUBLIC W ORKS/MA INT. PROJ.COB MCIN TIRE RENOVA TIONS $11 0,072 .85
1 9 010 43 100 9 5016 9 PUBLIC W ORKS/MA INT. PROJ.ROADW AY LANDSCA PIN G PRGM $20 8,584 .40
1 9 010 43 100 9 5017 4 PUBLIC W ORKS/MA INT. PROJ.HI LLSD ALE SIDE WA LK/IM P $16 1,056 .85
1 9 010 43 100 9 5018 9 PUBLIC W ORKS/MA INT. PROJ.COB-AUDITORIUM REN OV ATION $7 9,894 .86
1 9 010 43 101 3 1234 3 CO B-M C REN OV ATION PHSE II S PA CE NE EDS ST UDY $9,780 .00
1 9 010 43 101 3 1235 0 CO B -M C REN OV ATION PHSE II E NGINEE RING/P LANNI NG $20 2,713 .60
1 9 010 43 101 5 8000 0 CO B -M C REN OV AT IO N PHSE II M ISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE S $3,500 .00
1 9 010 43 101 8 0020 0 CO B -M C REN OV AT IO N PHSE II FURN ITURE & FIX TURES $5 3,000 .00
1 9 010 43 101 8 0060 5 CO B -M C REN OV AT IO N PHSE II CONSTRUCTION $1,77 5,000 .00
1 9 010 43 101 9 9999 9 CO B -M C REN OV AT IO N PHSE II CONTI NGE NCY FU NDS $42 3,720 .00
1 9 010 51 020 8 0067 3 HE ALTH DEP ARTM ENT HVAC IMPR OV EM ENTS $4 2,869 .67
1 9 010 71 000 8 0094 0 P ARK S & RECR EATI ON P ARK ENH ANCE MEN TS $1 7,804 .55
1 9 010 71 000 8 0094 9 P ARK S & RECR EATI ON M AINTE NAN CE PRO JE CTS $4 5,994 .06
1 9 010 71 000 9 5000 3 P ARK S & RECR EATI ON CR OZE T PA RK I MPRO V EME NTS $1,571 .56
1 9 010 71 000 9 5000 9 P ARK S & RECR EATI ON S CO TTSV CO MMUN ITY CENT ER $1 6,182 .58
1 9 010 71 000 9 5004 4 P ARK S & RECR EATI ON A TH. FIE LD S TUDY/DE VEL.$28 3,573 .92
1 9 010 71 000 9 5007 4 P ARK S & RECR EATI ON RECRE ATION FA CILITIE S $2,03 0,000 .00
1 9 010 71 000 9 5012 1 P ARK S & RECR EATI ON S IMP SON P ARK $7 5,221 .70
1 9 010 71 000 9 5015 2 P ARK S & RECR EATI ON COM M.RE C.FAC.N EED S A SSM NT $1 2,655 .86
1 9 010 71 000 9 5016 6 P ARK S & RECR EATI ON P VCC - DO G P ARK $1 0,000 .00
1 9 010 71 000 9 5020 1 P ARK S & RECR EATI ON M T SP RINGS F IS HING A CCES S $19 6,000 .00
1 9 010 71 000 9 5020 2 P ARK S & RECR EATI ON CR OZE T GREE NW AY S $9 5,340 .00
1 9 010 71 000 9 5021 8 P ARK S & RECR EATI ON S TO NE ROB INSON FIE LD IM PV $1 2,690 .10
1 9 010 71 000 9 5021 9 P ARK S & RECR EATI ON W ESTE RN P ARK MA STE R PLA N $5 0,000 .00
1 9 010 71 000 9 5051 5 P ARK S & RECR EATI ON W ESTE RN P ARK PL AN/DESIGN $1 5,000 .00
1 9 010 72 030 5 6890 1 TO URIS M V ISIT O R'S B UREA U-MAIN T.$19 0,602 .65
1 9 010 72 030 5 8041 6 TO URIS M CONS ERV. EA SE ME NT-TOU RISM $11 4,190 .33
1 9 010 72 030 9 5002 6 TO URIS M G RE ENW AY P ROGRAM $11 3,258 .42
1 9 010 72 030 9 5010 7 TO URIS M RI VER ACCE SS IMP ROVEMENTS $15 9,354 .50
1 9 010 72 030 9 5011 1 TO URIS M G RE ENB ELT -B OAT AC CESS $1,711 .00
1 9 010 72 030 9 5017 7 TO URIS M B YROM FORE ST P RES ERV E $41 5,748 .05
1 9 010 73 020 8 0094 9 LIB RAR IES M AINTE NAN CE PRO JE CTS $4 9,670 .23
1 9 010 73 020 9 5011 4 LIB RAR IES CR OZE T LIB RARY $3,85 0,117 .36
1 9 010 81 010 5 8040 9 P LANNI NG CONS ERV. EA SE ME NTS-A.C.E.$1,56 9,865 .36
1 9 010 81 010 9 5013 6 P LANNI NG TRA NS PO RTATION PL/CO NS TR $6,000 .00
1 9 010 81 010 9 5014 7 P LANNI NG G .I.S . P ROJE CT $49 5,279 .51
1 9 010 81 010 9 5016 2 P LANNI NG CR OZE T PH1 -S T SC APE S $15 3,552 .26
1 9 010 81 010 9 5017 3 P LANNI NG 2 9N CORRIDO R STUDY $5 8,297 .00
1 9 010 81 010 9 5017 8 P LANNI NG CI T Y VI EW P RO JECT $1 6,957 .00
1 9 010 81 010 9 5019 9 P LANNI NG M AIN S T RE ET-CROZET $9 4,688 .93
1 9 010 81 110 9 5055 0 NE IG HBORHO OD PL AN P LAC ES 29 MA STER P LAN $13 5,000 .00
1 9 010 81 110 9 9999 9 NE IG HBORHO OD PL AN CONTI NGE NCY FU NDS $6 5,805 .61
$46,80 4,068 .37 _________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2008029
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Reappropriation of projects and programs from FY07 Storm Water Management
Fund
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 9100 41000 800975 STORM WATER
CONTROL IMP
J 1 1,563,335.82
1 9100 41000 950093 DRAINAGE
STUDY/PLAN
J 1 24,969.86
1 9100 41037 800975 IVY ROAD
DRAINAGE
IMPROVE
J 1 34,587.50
1 9100 41058 800975 KEY WEST DAM J 1 82,058.67
1 9100 41059 800605 WOODBROOK
LAGOON
IMPROVEM
J 1 83,155.00
1 9100 41060 800605 CLAUDIUS CROZET
PARK
J 1 81,907.43
1 9100 41061 800975 CROZET
STREETSCAPES
J 1 5,385.09
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
PHS 1
2 9100 51000 510100 APPROPRIATION -
F/B
J 2 1,875,399.37
9100 0501 EST. REVENUE 1,875,399.37
0701 APPROPRIATION 1,875,399.37
TOTAL 3,750,798.74 1,875,399.37 1,875,399.37
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2008030
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Reappropriation of FY 2007 School CIP Projects
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 9000 60204 800909 GREER ATHLETIC
TRACK
J 1 670.00
1 9000 60214 800605 CALE
CONSTRUCTION
J 1 1,483,636.33
1 9000 60216 800909 MURRAY ELEM
ATHLETIC TRACK
J 1 5,288.87
1 9000 60252 800901 HENLEY BLDG
RENOVATIONS
J 1 25,000.00
1 9000 60304 950179 MONTICELLO
AUDITORIUM
J 1 1,191,169.33
1 9000 61101 800700 ADP EQUIPMENT J 1 34,120.34
1 9000 62190 800700 ADM.-TECH. ADP
EQUIPMENT
J 1 14,020.08
1 9000 62420 360000 F/M - ADVERTISING J 1 3,500.00
1 9000 62420 800949 F/M.- MAINT.
PROJECTS
J 1 19,360.95
1 9000 62420 950154 F/M- BROADUS
WOOD ROOF
J 1 19,243.90
1 9000 62420 950182 F/M-
ENVIRONMENTAL
COMP
J 1 1,798.32
1 9000 62420 950188 F/M-EMERGENCY
GENERATOR
J 1 36,508.43
2 9000 51000 510100 APPROPRIATION -
F/B
J 2 2,834,316.55
9000 0501 EST. REVENUE 2,834,316.55
0701 APPROPRIATION 2,834,316.55
TOTAL 5,668,633.10 2,834,316.55 2,834,316.55
__________
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2008031
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Repair of Monticello Fire Station apparatus from insurance proceeds
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1000 51000 510100 Appropriation - F/B J 2 32,679.21
1 1000 32019 600900 Monticello - Vehicle
Repair
J 1 32,679.21
J
1000 0501 Est. Revenue J 32,679.21
0701 Appropriation J 32,679.21
TOTAL 65,358.42 32,679.21 32,679.21
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Public Hearing: ZTA-2005-009 Density Bonus for Affordable Housing.
Amend Sections 3.1, Definitions; 12.4.3, Low and Moderate Cost Housing; 13.4.3, Low and Moderate
Cost Housing; 14.4.3, Low and Moderate Cost Housing; 15.4.3, Low and Moderate Cost Housing; 16.4.3,
Low and Moderate Cost Housing; 17.4.3 Low and Moderate Cost Housing and 18.4.3, Low and Moderate
Cost Housing of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend
Section 3.1 to add a definition of "affordable housing" and would amend the density bonus regulations for
affordable housing in the VR, R-1, R-2, R-4, R-6, R-10 and R-15 zoning districts by changing the
references to such housing from "low and moderate cost housing" to "affordable housing," by reducing
the percentage of bonus units required to be affordable from 100% to 50% of the allowed bonus density,
by increasing the period during which rental units must remain affordable from 5 to 10 years, and by
establishing the minimum requirements for qualifying prospective purchasers and renters and the terms
and conditions of the affordable rental period. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily
Progress on September 17 and September 24, 2007).
Mr. Ron W hite, Director of Housing, summarized the following executive summary which was
forwarded to Board members:
On June 1, 2005, the Board of Supervisors adopted Resolutions of Intent to amend the County’s
Zoning Ordinance to reflect the recommendations of the Albemarle County Housing Committee for
implementation of the County’s Affordable Housing Policy, specifically to amend the density bonus
regulations to promote production of affordable housing. The Housing Committee’s original
recommendation was to allow a 100 percent increase in density with one-half of the additional units being
affordable.
Since that time, the Housing Committee and staff have worked with the Planning Commission to
get a recommendation to the Board for adoption. Several work sessions were held with the Commission
from August 2005 through October 2006 with a public hearing on August 15, 2006, at which the
Commission did not take action. On June 13, 2007, a joint work session was held with the Commission
and the Board.
The recommendation to amend the current density bonus provisions found in the Zoning
Ordinance was first made by the Housing Committee as a strategy in the County’s Affordable Housing
Policy adopted in February 2004. Subsequent to the adoption of this policy, an ad-hoc Affordable
Housing Policy Advisory Committee was created to assist the Housing Committee in defining
implementation measures for the policy. The ad-hoc committee also recommended changes to the
current density bonus provisions specifically to provide an incentive for developers to consider increased
density in exchange for providing affordable housing. A number of interest groups were represented on
the ad-hoc committee including developers, lenders, and nonprofit housing providers/agencies. The
consensus of the group was that the existing density bonus which allowed up to a 30 percent increase in
density but required that all of the units created by the additional density be affordable was not being
utilized because it provided no incentive. The group and the Housing Committee recommended allowing
up to a 100 percent density bonus with one-half of the additional units being affordable.
It was clear from the first two work sessions with the Planning Commission that a potential for
doubling density administratively was not acceptable. However, the Commission did provide a favorable
response to maintaining the 30 percent density bonus provision with one-half of the additional units being
affordable.
Staff identified another weakness in the existing provisions in that it did not restrict who could buy
and/or occupy the affordable units based on household income. The sales price and rental rates were
restricted but the ordinance would allow anyone to purchase and/or occupy the units at those restricted
prices. The proposed revisions to the ordinance will provide for the Office of Housing to approve
purchasers of for-sale units created through the density bonus. The revisions also define affordable sales
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
prices and affordable rents on commonly-accepted indices consistent with the definitions proposed as
revisions to the Affordable Housing Policy. The definitions have been recommended by the Housing
Committee and are currently used for affordable housing proffers.
During the June 13 work session, at least two Board members and one Commission member
indicated that revising the density bonus could create an ordinance that will work as opposed to the
current density bonus which has been utilized on only a few projects although it was adopted some
twenty years ago.
Mr. W hite stated that the recommended change in language would maintain the 30 percent
density bonus, require that half of the additional units be affordable, but make clear definitions of sales
price, maximum rents, and give the County the opportunity to approve the occupancy based on incomes.
He also said that the term would be changed for affordable rental properties from five to ten years, and
the Housing Committee has approved these recommended changes. Mr. W hite explained that the
Planning Commission unanimously approved a motion to implement these changes, with the Village
zoning designation removed so it would not be offered in rural areas, and also encouraged Energystar
standards be used. He said that staff is recommending approval of this ZTA with or without the VR
designation.
Mr. Davis said that the Planning Commission had an issue with the VR zone being included, and
most of the recent large developments that have been approved are Neighborhood Model or Planned
Development.
Ms. Thomas suggested making a motion that does not make changes.
Mr. Davis indicated that repealing it would require another public hearing, and there has never
been an application for this in Village Residential as this is unlikely for affordable housing.
Mr. Tucker added that it is almost impossible because 60,000 square foot lots are required for
VR, and some type of public utility would be needed. He said he thinks it is a moot issue. Mr. Tucker
suggested approving this and then bringing it back.
Mr. Slutzky said that he has argued in the past to make the affordable housing stipulation last for
a longer period of time, longer than ten years.
Ms. Thomas commented that if this went through a housing committee, those things should have
been considered.
Mr. W hite pointed out that the original recommendation was for five years, and that was changed
to ten years, which the Planning Commission supported. He added that two other ways to provide
incentive for affordable housing would be taking money from the local housing fund and that would
require a ten-year affordable restriction, and the Internal Revenue Service code provides a low-income
housing tax credit program for 15-year restrictions. Mr. White said once we start putting the dollars in
[ourselves], then we can start requiring longer terms and if it is enough of an incentive, we will get those
longer terms.
Mr. Slutzky said one of the weaknesses in the proffer policy is the short period of time that the
units are made affordable, noting that he would like the density bonus increased but with a stipulation of
15 years as affordable.
Ms. Thomas emphasized that the hope for development areas is that developers will come in and
put in a Neighborhood Model, and the more offered to them in by-right, the fewer proffers will be given.
Mr. Rooker commented that this would likely not be applicable to large projects anyway.
Mr. W hite said that the Planning Commission invited in three developers for a work session and
discussed the 30 percent, which was agreed upon by the development community and the Commission.
He added that they did not discuss the longer affordability term, but the Housing Committee tried to get
the 100 percent down to 50 percent, but the developers felt that would not be feasible by-right.
Mr. Davis noted that the density bonus is achieved by by-right cluster provisions in the R-zoned
lots, but it is not widely used. He said that there are other categories that can be met to get the density
bonuses as well.
Mr. Slutzky responded that this would not be the first time the Board came to a different
conclusion than the Commission, and he reiterated his preference for a longer term for affordable housing
designation.
Ms. Thomas said she is concerned about the term. She stated, however, that she does not want
to create a disincentive for developers so she is happy to leave it as is for the time being.
At this time the Chairman opened the public hearing for comments.
Mr. Neil Williamson of the Free Enterprise Forum addressed the Board, stating that this is a
potential market solution for affordable housing. He noted that this seems like a carrot, but he is not
convinced the market needs the additional density even though this provides an incentive. Mr.
Williamson said that there are other mechanisms that can help accomplish this as well, adding that there
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
was a recent article in the Washington Post where couples who qualified for affordable ended up not long
after purchase making fairly large salaries.
Mr. Jeff Werner of PEC addressed the Board, stating that he agrees with Mr. Slutzky on the
longer time period. He also said that there are many units already approved that could be built, and
perhaps an option is providing a subsidy for market-rate housing; people with lower incomes such as
teachers and police officers could be better compensated, and that would also help address the issue.
There being no other comments, Mr. Boyd closed the public hearing.
Mr. Slutzky asked Mr. White for an inventory of available units.
Mr. W hite responded that Mr. Cilimberg has developed a map of this, and he could bring it to the
next meeting.
Mr. Slutzky said that he would like to reopen the issue of a timeframe in the near future.
At this time, Ms. Thomas moved to adopt the proposed ordinance amendments under ZTA-2005-
009 excluding amendments to Section 12.4.3. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. W yant.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Rooker asked for a Resolution of Intent to revise some of the language as discussed today.
Mr. Davis indicated that staff would work on the exact wording and bring it back to the Board.
ORDINANCE NO. 07-18(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, AND
ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18,
Zoning, Article I, General Regulations, and Article III, District Regulations, is hereby amended and
reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
Sec. 13.4.3 Low and Moderate Cost Housing
Sec. 14.4.3 Low and Moderate Cost Housing
Sec. 15.4.3 Low and Moderate Cost Housing
Sec. 16.4.3 Low and Moderate Cost Housing
Sec. 17.4.3 Low and Moderate Cost Housing
Sec. 18.4.3 Low and Moderate Cost Housing
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Regulations
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
Affordable housing. The term “affordable housing” means safe decent housing where housing costs do
not exceed thirty (30) percent of the gross household income. For purposes of this definition, “housing
costs” for homeowners are principal, interest, real estate taxes, and homeowner’s insurance (PITI), and
for tenants are tenant-paid rent and tenant-paid utilities with the maximum allowances for utilities being
those adopted by the county’s housing office for the Housing and Urban Development housing choice
voucher program. For purposes of this chapter, an “affordable unit” is a dwelling unit that meets the
definition of affordable housing.
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 13.4.3 Affordable housing
For providing affordable housing units, a density increase of thirty (30) percent shall be granted,
subject to the following:
a. At least one-half of the additional housing units allowed by this density bonus shall be
developed as affordable housing units.
b. The initial sale price for sale units or the rental rate for a period of at least ten (10) years
for rental units shall qualify as affordable housing under either the Virginia Housing
Development Authority, Farmers Home Administration or Housing and Urban
Development housing choice voucher program.
c. If rental units, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the County of Albemarle
restricting the rental rates of the affordable units for a period of at least ten (10) years or
until the units are sold as affordable units, whichever comes first.
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
d. If sale units, the developer shall provide the chief of housing with confirmation of the
initial sale price for the affordable units prior to the issuance of building permits for the
bonus units. (Amended 8-14-85)
e. Manufactured homes for rent in an approved manufactured home park shall be
considered rental units under this section provided they qualify as affordable housing
under the Housing and Urban Development housing choice voucher program. (Added 3-
5-86)
f. Manufactured home lots for rent in an approved manufactured home park shall qualify for
this bonus provided the developer enters into an agreement with the County of Albemarle
that the lots shall be available for rent to manufactured home owners for a period of at
least ten (10) years. (Added 3-5-86)
g. Manufactured home lots for sale in an approved manufactured home subdivision shall
qualify for this bonus provided the developer restricts the use of the lots to manufactured
homes or other affordable housing for a period of at least ten (10) years. (Added 3-5-86)
h. The decision to extend the periods beyond the ten (10) year minimum provided in
subsections (b), (c), (f) and (g) shall be in the sole discretion of the developer.
i. The occupancy of the affordable units shall be restricted to those households with
incomes at or below eighty (80) percent of the area median income for for-sale units and
at or below sixty (60) percent of the area median income for rental units. The chief of
housing or his designee must approve all purchasers of for-sale units based on
household income. Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for a building
providing affordable rental units, the developer shall enter into a rental rate agreement
with the county, approved by the county attorney, that delineates the terms and
conditions pertaining to rental rates, occupancy and reporting during the minimum ten
(10) year period.
Sec. 14.4.3 Affordable housing
For providing affordable housing units, a density increase of thirty (30) percent shall be granted,
subject to the following:
a. At least one-half of the additional housing units allowed by this density bonus shall be
developed as affordable housing units.
b. The initial sale price for sale units or the rental rate for a period of at least ten (10) years
for rental units shall qualify as affordable housing under either the Virginia Housing
Development Authority, Farmers Home Administration or Housing and Urban
Development housing choice voucher program.
c. If rental units, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the County of Albemarle
restricting the rental rates of the affordable units for a period of at least ten (10) years or
until the units are sold as affordable units, whichever comes first.
d. If sale units, the developer shall provide the chief of housing with confirmation of the
initial sale price for the affordable units prior to the issuance of building permits for the
bonus units. (Amended 8-14-85)
e. Manufactured homes for rent in an approved manufactured home park shall be
considered rental units under this section provided they qualify affordable housing under
the Housing and Urban Development housing choice voucher program. (Added 3-5-86)
f. Manufactured home lots for rent in an approved manufactured home park shall qualify for
this bonus provided the developer enters into an agreement with the County of Albemarle
that the lots shall be available for rent to manufactured home owners for a period of at
least ten (10). (Added 3-5-86)
g. Manufactured home lots for sale in an approved manufactured home subdivision shall
qualify for this bonus provided the developer restricts the use of the lots to manufactured
homes or other affordable housing for a period of at least ten (10) years. (Added 3-5-86)
h. The decision to extend the periods beyond the ten (10) year minimum provided in
subsections (b), (c), (f) and (g) shall be in the sole discretion of the developer.
i. The occupancy of the affordable units shall be restricted to those households with
incomes at or below eighty (80) percent of the area median income for for-sale units and
at or below sixty (60) percent of the area median income for rental units. The chief of
housing or his designee must approve all purchasers of for-sale units based on
household income. Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for a building
providing affordable rental units, the developer shall enter into a rental rate agreement
with the county, approved by the county attorney, that delineates the terms and
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
conditions pertaining to rental rates, occupancy and reporting during the minimum ten
(10) year period.
Sec. 15.4.3 Affordable housing
For providing affordable housing units, a density increase of thirty (30) percent shall be granted,
subject to the following:
a. At least one-half of the additional housing units allowed by this density bonus shall be
developed as affordable housing units.
b. The initial sale price for sale units or the rental rate for a period of at least ten (10) years
for rental units shall qualify as affordable housing under either the Virginia Housing
Development Authority, Farmers Home Administration or Housing and Urban
Development housing choice voucher program.
c. If rental units, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the County of Albemarle
restricting the rental rates of the affordable units for a period of at least ten (10) years or
until the units are sold as affordable units, whichever comes first.
d. If sale units, the developer shall provide the chief of housing with confirmation of the
initial sale price for the affordable units prior to the issuance of building permits for the
bonus units. (Amended 8-14-85)
e. Manufactured homes for rent in an approved manufactured home park shall be
considered rental units under this section provided they qualify as affordable housing
under the Housing and Urban Development housing choice voucher program. ; (Added 3-
5-86)
f. Manufactured home lots for rent in an approved manufactured home park shall qualify for
this bonus provided the developer enters into an agreement with the County of Albemarle
that the lots shall be available for rent to manufactured home owners for a period of at
least ten (10) years. (Added 3-5-86)
g. Manufactured home lots for sale in an approved manufactured home subdivision shall
qualify for this bonus provided the developer restricts the use of the lots to manufactured
homes or other affordable housing for a period of at least ten (10) years. (Added 3-5-86)
h. The decision to extend the periods beyond the ten (10) year minimum provided in
subsections (b), (c), (f) and (g) shall be in the sole discretion of the developer.
i. The occupancy of the affordable units shall be restricted to those households with
incomes at or below eighty (80) percent of the area median income for for-sale units and
at or below sixty (60) percent of the area median income for rental units. The chief of
housing or his designee must approve all purchasers of for-sale units based on
household income. Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for a building
providing affordable rental units, the developer shall enter into a rental rate agreement
with the county, approved by the county attorney, that delineates the terms and
conditions pertaining to rental rates, occupancy and reporting during the minimum ten
(10) year period.
Sec. 16.4.3 Affordable housing
For providing affordable housing units, a density increase of thirty (30) percent shall be granted,
subject to the following:
a. At least one-half of the additional housing units allowed by this density bonus shall be
developed as affordable housing units.
b. The initial sale price for sale units or the rental rate for a period of at least ten (10) years
for rental units shall qualify as affordable housing under either the Virginia Housing
Development Authority, Farmers Home Administration or Housing and Urban
Development housing choice voucher program.
c. If rental units, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the County of Albemarle
restricting the rental rates of the affordable units for a period of at least ten (10) years or
until the units are sold as affordable units, whichever comes first.
d. If sale units, the developer shall provide the chief of housing with confirmation of the
initial sale price for the low or moderate cost units prior to the issuance of building permits
for the bonus units. (Amended 8-14-85)
e. Manufactured homes for rent in an approved manufactured home park shall be
considered rental units under this section provided they qualify as affordable housing
under the Housing and Urban Development housing choice voucher program. (Added 3-
5-86)
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
f. Manufactured home lots for rent in an approved manufactured home park shall qualify for
this bonus provided the developer enters into an agreement with the County of Albemarle
that the lots shall be available for rent to manufactured home owners for a period of at
least ten (10) years. (Added 3-5-86)
g. Manufactured home lots for sale in an approved manufactured home subdivision shall
qualify for this bonus provided the developer restricts the use of the lots to manufactured
homes or other affordable housing for a period of at least ten (10) years. (Added 3-5-86)
h. The decision to extend the periods beyond the ten (10) year minimum provided in
subsections (b), (c), (f) and (g) shall be in the sole discretion of the developer.
i. The occupancy of the affordable units shall be restricted to those households with
incomes at or below eighty (80) percent of the area median income for for-sale units and
at or below sixty (60) percent of the area median income for rental units. The chief of
housing or his designee must approve all purchasers of for-sale units based on
household income. Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for a building
providing affordable rental units, the developer shall enter into a rental rate agreement
with the county, approved by the county attorney, that delineates the terms and
conditions pertaining to rental rates, occupancy and reporting during the minimum ten
(10) year period.
Sec. 17.4.3 Affordable housing
For providing affordable housing units, a density increase of thirty (30) percent shall be granted,
subject to the following:
a. At least one-half of the additional housing units allowed by this density bonus shall be
developed as affordable housing units.
b. The initial sale price for sale units or the rental rate for a period of at least ten (10) years
for rental units shall qualify as affordable housing under either the Virginia Housing
Development Authority, Farmers Home Administration or Housing and Urban
Development housing choice voucher program.
c. If rental units, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the County of Albemarle
restricting the rental rates of the affordable units for a period of at least ten (10) years or
until the units are sold as affordable units, whichever comes first.
d. If sale units, the developer shall provide the chief of housing with confirmation of the
initial sale price for the affordable units prior to the issuance of building permits for the
bonus units. (Amended 8-14-85)
e. Manufactured homes for rent in an approved manufactured home park shall be
considered rental units under this section provided they qualify as affordable housing
under the Housing and Urban Development housing choice voucher program. (Added 3-
5-86)
f. Manufactured home lots for rent in an approved manufactured home park shall qualify for
this bonus provided the developer enters into an agreement with the County of Albemarle
that the lots shall be available for rent to manufactured home owners for a period of at
least ten (10) years. (Added 3-5-86)
g. Manufactured home lots for sale in an approved manufactured home subdivision shall
qualify for this bonus provided the developer restricts the use of the lots to manufactured
homes or other affordable housing for a period of at least ten (10) years. (Added 3-5-86)
h. The decision to extend the periods beyond the ten (10) year minimum provided in
subsections (b), (c), (f) and (g) shall be in the sole discretion of the developer.
i. The occupancy of the affordable units shall be restricted to those households with
incomes at or below eighty (80) percent of the area median income for for-sale units and
at or below sixty (60) percent of the area median income for rental units. The chief of
housing or his designee must approve all purchasers of for-sale units based on
household income. Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for a building
providing affordable rental units, the developer shall enter into a rental rate agreement
with the county, approved by the county attorney, that delineates the terms and
conditions pertaining to rental rates, occupancy and reporting during the minimum ten
(10) year period.
Sec. 18.4.3 Affordable housing
For providing affordable housing units, a density increase of thirty (30) percent shall be granted,
subject to the following:
a. At least one-half of the additional housing units allowed by this density bonus shall be
developed as affordable housing units.
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
b. The initial sale price for sale units or the rental rate for a period of at least ten (10) years
for rental units shall qualify affordable housing under either the Virginia Housing
Development Authority, Farmers Home Administration or Housing and Urban
Development housing choice voucher program.
c. If rental units, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the County of Albemarle
restricting the rental rates of the affordable units for a period of at least ten (10) years or
until the units are sold as affordable units, whichever comes first.
d. If sale units, the developer shall provide the chief of housing with confirmation of the
initial sale price for the affordable units prior to the issuance of building permits for the
bonus units. (Amended 8-14-85)
e. Manufactured homes for rent in an approved manufactured home park shall be
considered rental units under this section provided they qualify as affordable housing
under the Housing and Urban Development housing choice voucher program. (Added 3-
5-86)
f. Manufactured home lots for rent in an approved manufactured home park shall qualify for
this bonus provided the developer enters into an agreement with the County of Albemarle
that the lots shall be available for rent to manufactured home owners for a period of at
least ten (10) years. (Added 3-5-86)
g. Manufactured home lots for sale in an approved manufactured home subdivision shall
qualify for this bonus provided the developer restricts the use of the lots to manufactured
homes or other affordable housing for a period of at least ten (10) years. (Added 3-5-86)
h. The decision to extend the periods beyond the ten (10) year minimum provided in
subsections (b), (c), (f) and (g) shall be in the sole discretion of the developer.
i. The occupancy of the affordable units shall be restricted to those households with
incomes at or below eighty (80) percent of the area median income for for-sale units and
at or below sixty (60) percent of the area median income for rental units. The chief of
housing or his designee must approve all purchasers of for-sale units based on
household income. Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for a building
providing affordable rental units, the developer shall enter into a rental rate agreement
with the county, approved by the county attorney, that delineates the terms and
conditions pertaining to rental rates, occupancy and reporting during the minimum ten
(10) year period.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Public Hearing: Finance Tax Ordinances. (Notice of this public hearing
was advertised in the Daily Progress on September 17 and September 24, 2007).
Mr. Richard W iggans, Director of Finance, summarized the following executive summary which
was forwarded to Board members:
The 2006 and 2007 General Assemblies adopted several statutory changes that require
updates to the Albemarle County Code. The attached ordinances bring the Albemarle County Code
into compliance with the most recent changes to the Virginia Code.
The four proposed ordinances attached (one for each affected chapter of the Albemarle
County Code) make revisions to nine different areas of the County Code. Most of the proposed
revisions are needed to stay current with recent changes to state law.
• Sec. 1-120 Increases the penalty for returned checks:
This revision increases the penalty for returned checks from $20 to $35. This
revision is also amended to track Virginia Code § 2.2-614.1(C).
• Sec. 8-305 Excludes excise taxes from BPOL receipts:
This revision clarifies that the motor fuels tax, whether paid directly or
indirectly, is exempt from gross receipts for BPOL purposes. This revision is
needed to comply with a 2007 amendment to Virginia Code § 58.1-3732.
• Sec. 8-601 Revises licenses for bondsmen:
Virginia Code § 58.1-3724 has modified the licensing of bondsmen in several
areas. This revision will bring our local license requirements up-to-date with
the more limited state enabling authority.
• Sec. 8-604 Repeals “small loan company” provisions from BPOL:
The “small loan company” provisions originated a long time ago when
operations were significantly different. Over time, business practices have
evolved to the point to where a “small loan company” is now deemed to be a
financial service, which is governed by Albemarle County Code § 8-615 (c).
• Sec. 8-617 Caps BPOL gross receipts of gas retailers:
This revision sets a cap on the gross receipts taxes on fuel sales of gas
retailers in the event that gas prices rise dramatically. While this cap may
never be triggered, this revision is needed to comply with new Virginia Code §
58.1-3706(E).
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
• Sec. 9-410 Excludes certain public service companies from decal requirements:
Virginia Code § 46.2-752 now exempts vehicles owned by public service
companies having a fleet of at least 2,500 vehicles garaged in the
Commonwealth from having to display any local license, decal, or sticker.
This revision is needed to comply with a 2007 amendment to Virginia Code §
46.2-752(G).
• Secs. 15-910 & 15-911 Revises transient occupancy tax penalties:
This change decreases the maximum penalty for transient occupancy tax from
30% to 25% or the amount of the tax, whichever is less; decreases the
maximum penalty for failure or refusal to file a required transient occupancy
tax return to 10% of the tax assessable or $10.00, whichever is greater; and
makes unlawful and punishable as a misdemeanor any willful failure or refusal
to file any required transient occupancy tax return. This revision is needed to
comply with Virginia Code § 58.1-3916.
• Sec. 15-1203 Excludes certain gratuities from food and beverage tax:
Virginia Code § 58.1-3833 was revised to exempt discretionary gratuities (tips)
and restaurant-imposed gratuity/service charges that do not exceed 20% of
the sales price. This revision is needed to comply with a 2006 amendment to
Virginia Code § 58.1-3833(E).
• Secs. 15-1213 & 15-1214 Revises food and beverage tax penalties:
This change decreases the maximum penalty for food and beverage tax from
30% to 25% or the amount of the tax, whichever is less; decreases the
maximum penalty for failure or refusal to file a required food and beverage tax
return to 10% of the tax assessable or $10.00, whichever is greater; and
makes unlawful and punishable as a misdemeanor any willful failure or refusal
to file any required food and beverage tax return;. This revision is needed to
comply with Virginia Code § 58.1-3916.
The budgetary impact is anticipated to be minimal, a net decrease of less than $5,000.
Mr. W iggans said staff recommends that the Board, after the public hearing, adopt the attached
four ordinances.
Mr. Davis recommended individual motions for each ordinance.
Mr. Boyd opened the public hearing. There being no comments, the public hearing was closed,
and the matter was placed before the Board.
_______________
Item No. 18a. To amend Chapter 1, General Provisions, of the Albemarle County
Code to increase the penalty from twenty dollars ($20.00) to thirty-five dollars ($35.00) if a check or other
means of payment made to the County or any agency thereof is not paid by the financial institution on
which it is drawn. The proposed effective date of this ordinance is January 1, 2008.
Mr. Rooker moved to adopt Ordinance No. 07-1(2). Ms. Thomas seconded the motion. Roll
was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. W yant.
NAYS: None.
ORDINANCE NO. 07-1(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 1, GENERAL PROVISIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter
1, General Provisions, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 1-120 Fee for returned checks
CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 1-120 Penalty for returned checks or other payment.
If any check or other means of payment tendered to the county or any agency thereof in
the course of its duties is not paid by the financial institution on which it is drawn, because of
insufficient funds in the account of the drawer, no account is in the name of the drawer, or the
account of the drawer is closed, and the check or other means of payment is returned to the
named payee unpaid, the amount thereof shall be charged to the person on whose account it
was received, and his liability and that of his sureties, shall be as if he had never offered any such
payment. A penalty of thirty-five dollars ($35.00) shall be added to such amount. This penalty
shall be in addition to any other penalty provided by law, except the penalty imposed by § 15-103
shall not apply.
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
(Ord. No. 97-1(1), 2-12-97; Code 1988, § 1-9; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 07-1(2), adopted 10-3-
07, effective 1-1-08)
State law reference—Va. Code § 2.2-614.1(C).
This ordinance shall be effective on and after January 1, 2008.
_______________
Item No. 18b. To amend Chapter 8, Licenses, of the Albemarle County Code to
clarify that amounts received for motor fuels tax are exempt from gross receipts for purposes of the
business, professional, and occupational license (BPOL) tax, to revise license provisions for bondsmen,
to eliminate the requirement that small loan companies be subject to a license tax of two hundred dollars
($200.00), and to cap gross receipts on fuel sales by gasoline retailers for purposes of their business,
professional, and occupational license (BPOL) tax. The proposed effective date of this ordinance is
January 1, 2008.
Mr. Rooker moved to adopt Ordinance No. 07-8(1). Ms. Thomas seconded the motion. Roll
was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. W yant.
NAYS: None.
ORDINANCE NO. 07-8(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 8, LICENSES, ARTICLE III, DETERMINING GROSS
RECEIPTS, AND ARTICLE VI, SCHEDULE OF TAXES, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 8,
Licenses, Article III, Determining Gross Receipts, and Article VI, Schedule of Taxes, are hereby amended
and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 8-305 Amounts excluded from gross receipts
Sec. 8-601 Bondsmen
Sec. 8-617 Retailers or retail merchants
By Repealing:
Sec. 8-604 Loan agencies
CHAPTER 8. LICENSES
ARTICLE III. DETERMINING GROSS RECEIPTS
Sec. 8-305 Amounts excluded from gross receipts.
For purposes of determining a license tax, gross receipts shall not include any amount not
derived from the exercise of the licensed privilege to engage in a business in the ordinary course of such
business, and the following amounts:
A. Amounts received and paid to the United States, the Commonwealth or any county, city
or town for the Virginia retail sales or use tax, or for any local sales tax or any local excise tax on
cigarettes, or amounts received for any federal or state excise taxes on motor fuels.
B. Any amount representing the liquidation of a debt or conversion of another asset to the
extent that the amount is attributable to a transaction previously taxed (e.g., the factoring of accounts
receivable created by sales which have been included in taxable receipts even though the creation of
such debt and factoring are a regular part of its business).
C. Any amount representing returns or trade-in allowances granted by the business to its
customer.
D. Receipts which are the proceeds of a loan transaction in which the licensee is the obligor.
E. Receipts representing the return of principal of a loan transaction in which the licensee is
the creditor, or the return of principal or basis upon the sale of a capital asset.
F. Rebates and discounts taken or received on account of purchases by the licensee. A
rebate or other incentive offered to induce the recipient to purchase certain goods or services from a
person other than the offeror, and which the recipient assigns to the licensee in consideration of the sale
of goods and services shall not be considered a rebate or discount to the licensee, but shall be included
in the licensee's gross receipts together with any handling or other fees related to the incentive.
G. Withdrawals from inventory for which no consideration is received and the occasional
sale or exchange of assets other than inventory, whether or not a gain or loss is recognized for federal
income tax purposes.
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
H. Investment income not directly related to the privilege exercised by a licensable business
not classified as rendering financial services. This exclusion shall apply to interest on bank accounts of
the business and to interest, dividends and other income derived from the investment of its own funds in
securities and other types of investments unrelated to the licensed privilege. This exclusion shall not
apply to interest, late fees and similar income attributable to an installment sale or other transaction that
occurred in the regular course of business.
I. Amounts paid by real estate brokers to real estate agents as a commission on any real
estate transaction shall be excluded from real estate brokers’ gross receipts. Each real estate broker
claiming the exclusion shall identify on its license application each agent to whom the excluded receipts
have been paid, the amount of the receipts paid to each such agent, and the jurisdiction in the
Commonwealth of Virginia to which the agent is subject to business license taxes.
(3-15-83, § 65; 6-13-73; 5-15-75; 4-21-76; 3-10-82; Ord. 96-11(1), 11-13-96, § 11-18; Ord. 97-11(1), 5-
7-97, § 11-18; Code 1988, § 11-18; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 07-8(1), adopted 10-3-07, effective 1-1-08)
State law reference--Va. Code § 58.1-3732.
ARTICLE VI. SCHEDULE OF TAXES
DIVISION 1. GENERALLY
Sec. 8-601 Bondsmen.
Each person engaged as a bondsman shall be subject to the license tax, and other provisions,
set forth herein:
A. Every person who shall, for compensation, enter into any bond or bonds for others,
whether as a principal or surety, shall be subject to a license tax of one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00),
which shall not be prorated or transferred.
B. No professional bondsmen or his agent shall enter into any such bond or bonds in the
county until he shall have obtained such license unless he has obtained such required license in another
city or county, in which he engages in the business of bail bonding.
C. With the exception of any bondsman or his agent who has heretofore obtained a
certificate and license under this section and whose certificate, license and right to act as a bondsman
continues to remain in full force and effect, no such license shall be issued unless and until the applicant
shall have first obtained a bail bondsman license from the Department of Criminal Justice Services.
(Ord. 96-11(1), 11-13-96, § 11-31; Code 1988, § 11-31; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 07-8(1), adopted 10-3-
07, effective 1-1-08)
State law reference--Va. Code §§ 58.1-3724
Sec. 8-604 (Repealed 10-3-07)
DIVISION 4. PERSONAL, PROFESSIONAL, BUSINESS OR
REPAIR SERVICE BUSINESS, OCCUPATIONS AND PROFESSIONS
Sec. 8-617 Retailers or retail merchants.
Each person engaged as retailer or retail merchant shall be subject to the license tax, and other
provisions, set forth herein:
A. Each person engaged as a retailer or retail merchant shall be subject to a license tax of
twenty cents ($0.20) for each one hundred dollars ($100.00) of gross receipts, other than as provided in
subsection (B) herein.
B. Each person engaged as a retailer or retail merchant shall be subject to a license tax of
ten cents ($0.10) for each one hundred dollars ($100.00) of gross receipts for direct retail sales. For
purposes of this section, a “direct retail sale” is defined as a retail sale made to a remote buyer ordering
by telephone, internet, or mail, in which the item(s) sold is/are shipped by common carrier or by the U.S.
Postal Service.
C. Retailers or retail merchants include, but are not limited to, the following:
Aircraft or aircraft parts.
Alcoholic beverages.
Antiques.
Auto accessory, tire, battery.
Automobile graveyards.
Auto sales, motor vehicle dealers.
Bakeries, caterers.
Bicycles.
Boats, motors.
Books, stationery.
Building materials.
Candy, nut stores.
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
Cigar, tobacco stands, newsstands.
Confectionery.
Custom tailor.
Dairy products.
Delicatessen.
Department stores.
Drapery, curtain, upholstery.
Drugs.
Dry goods stores.
Eggs, poultry.
Family clothing.
Farm equipment.
Filling stations.
Firearms.
Fish, seafood market.
Floor covering.
Florists.
Fruit stores, vegetable markets.
Fuel, ice.
Furniture.
Furriers.
Garden supplies.
General stores.
Gift, novelty, souvenir.
Grocery.
Hardware.
Heating, plumbing, electrical equipment.
Hog, grain, feed, seed.
Hosiery.
Jewelry.
Junk or secondhand merchandise.
Lightning rods.
Luggage.
Lumber goods.
Meat markets.
Men's and boy's clothing.
Millinery.
Motorcycle.
Musical instrument.
Office, store, appliance supply.
Optical.
Other clothing.
Paint, glass, wallpaper.
Photographic, supply, equipment.
Radio, television or household appliances.
Restaurants, eating places, nightclubs.
Secondhand stores, other than junk.
Scientific, medical supplies.
Shoes.
Soda fountain.
Sporting goods.
Travel bureau or tour agent.
Used cars.
Variety stores.
Workmen's clothing.
All other retail stores and retail merchants' occupations, businesses or trades not included herein
and not otherwise taxed by this chapter.
D. In any case in which the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy determines
that the weekly U.S. Retail Gasoline price (regular grade) for PADD 1C (Petroleum Administration for
Defense District - Lower Atlantic Region) has increased by 20% or greater in any one-week period over
the immediately preceding one-week period and does not fall below the increased rate for at least 28
consecutive days immediately following the week of such increase, then, notwithstanding any tax rate on
retailers imposed by this chapter, the gross receipts taxes on fuel sales of a gas retailer made in the
following license year shall not exceed 110% of the gross receipts taxes on fuel sales made by such
retailer in the license year of such increase. For license years beginning on or after January 1, 2006,
every gas retailer shall maintain separate records for fuel sales and nonfuel sales and shall make such
records available upon request by the local tax official.
The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to any person or entity (i) not conducting
business as a gas retailer in the county the entire license year immediately preceding the license year of
such increase or (ii) that was subject to a license fee in the county pursuant to Virginia Code § 58.1-3703
for the license year immediately preceding the license year of such increase.
The Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy shall determine annually if such increase
has occurred and remained in effect for such 28-day period.
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
For purposes of this subsection, the following definitions shall apply:
1. "Fuel sale" or "fuel sales" shall mean retail sales of alternative fuel, blended fuel,
diesel fuel, gasohol, or gasoline, as such terms are defined in Virginia Code § 58.1-2201.
2 "Gas retailer" means a person or entity engaged in business as a retailer offering
to sell at retail on a daily basis alternative fuel, blended fuel, diesel fuel, gasohol, or gasoline, as such
terms are defined in Virginia Code § 58.1-2201.
(3-15-73, § 55; 4-21-76; 3-10-82; Ord. 96-11(1), 11-13-96, § 11-68; Code 1988; § 11-68; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-
5-98; Ord. 06-8(1), adopted 5-3-06, effective 1-1-07; Ord. 07-8(1), adopted 10-3-07, effective 1-1-08)
State law reference--Va. Code §§ 58.1-3703, 58.1-3706.
This ordinance shall be effective on and after January 1, 2008.
_______________
Item No. 18c. To amend Chapter 9, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, of the Albemarle
County Code to exempt a public service company having a fleet of at least 2,500 vehicles garaged in the
Commonwealth from being required to display a local motor vehicle decal or sticker.
At this time, Mr. Rooker moved to adopt Ordinance No. 07-9(1). Ms. Thomas seconded the
motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. W yant.
NAYS: None.
ORDINANCE NO. 07-9(1
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 9, MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC, ARTICLE IV, COUNTY
VEHICLE LICENSES, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 9, Motor
Vehicles and Traffic, Article IV, County Vehicle Licenses, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 9-410 Display of license decal, etc.
CHAPTER 9. MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC
ARTICLE IV. COUNTY VEHICLE LICENSES
Sec. 9-410 Display of license decal, etc.
Decals or other stickers issued pursuant to this article shall be displayed on the vehicle in
accordance with state law and regulation. A decal may not be attached to any motor vehicle, trailer or
semitrailer for which it has not been assigned.
The display of a local decal or sticker shall not be required on any vehicle owned by a public
service company, as defined in Virginia Code § 56-76, having a fleet of at least 2,500 vehicles garaged in
the Commonwealth.
(Code 1967, § 12-99; Ord. of 2-14-90; Code 1988, § 12-31; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 05-9(2), 12-7-05,
effective 1-1-06; Ord. 07-9(1), 10-3-07)
This ordinance shall be effective immediately.
_______________
Item No. 18d. To amend Chapter 15, Taxation, of the Albemarle County Code to
decrease the maximum penalty for the late remittance of transient occupancy tax from 30% to
25% or the amount of the tax, whichever is less; to decrease the maximum penalty for failure or
refusal to file a required transient occupancy tax return to 10% of the tax assessable or $10.00,
whichever is greater; to make unlawful and punishable as a misdemeanor any willful failure or refusal to
file any required transient occupancy tax return; to decrease the maximum penalty for the late remittance
of food and beverage tax from 30% to 25% or the amount of the tax, whichever is less; to decrease the
maximum penalty for failure or refusal to file a required food and beverage tax return to 10% of the tax
assessable or $10.00, whichever is greater; to make unlawful and punishable as a misdemeanor any
willful failure or refusal to file any required food and beverage tax return; and to exclude from being
subject to the food and beverage tax any amount paid by a purchaser as a mandatory gratuity or service
charge added by a restaurant in addition to the sales price to the extent that such mandatory gratuity or
service charge does not exceed 20% of the sales price. The proposed effective date of this ordinance is
January 1, 2008.
Mr. Dorrier moved to adopt Ordinance No. 07-15(2). Mr. Rooker seconded the motion. Roll
was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. W yant.
NAYS: None.
ORDINANCE NO. 07-15(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 15, TAXATION, ARTICLE IX, TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX,
AND ARTICLE XII, FOOD AND BEVERAGE TAX, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 15,
Taxation, Article IX, Transient Occupancy Tax, and Article XII, Food and Beverage Tax, are hereby
amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 15-910 Penalty for late remittance or false return
Sec. 15-911 Violations of article
Sec. 15-1203 Tips and service charges
Sec. 15-1213 Penalty for late remittance or false return
Sec. 15-1214 Violations of article
CHAPTER 15. TAXATION
ARTICLE IX. TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX
15-910 Penalty for late remittance or false return.
A. If any lodging provider whose duty it is to do so shall fail or refuse to remit to the director
of finance the tax required to be collected and paid under this article within the time and in the amount
specified in this article, there shall be added to such tax by the director of finance a penalty in the amount
of ten percent (10%) of the total amount of tax owed if the failure is not for more than one month, with an
additional penalty of five percent (5%) of the total amount of tax owed for each additional month or
fraction thereof during which the failure continues, such penalty not to exceed twenty-five percent (25%)
of the taxes collected but not remitted, provided, however, the minimum penalty shall be ten dollars
($10.00), or the amount of the tax assessable, whichever is less.
B. If any lodging provider whose duty it is to do so shall fail or refuse to file any return
required by this article within the time specified in this article, there shall be added to such tax by the
director of finance a penalty in the amount of ten percent (10%) of the tax assessable on such return or
$10, whichever is greater; provided, however, that the penalty shall in no case exceed the amount of the
tax assessable.
C. It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully fail or refuse to file any return required under
this article or to make any false statement with the intent to defraud in connection with any return required
by this article. It shall be a Class 3 misdemeanor if the amount of the tax lawfully assessed in connection
with the return is $1,000 or less, and it shall be a Class 1 misdemeanor if the amount of the tax lawfully
assessed in connection with the return is more than $1,000.
(§ 8-43; Code 1988, § 8-51, Ord. No. 98-8(2), 6-10-98; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 07-15(2), adopted 10-3-
07, effective 1-1-08)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 58.1 – 3916, 58.1-3916.1
Sec. 15-911 Violations of article.
Any corporate or partnership officer as defined in Virginia Code § 58.1-3906, or any other person
required to collect, account for and pay over a tax under this article, who willfully fails to collect or
truthfully account for and pay over such tax, and any such person who willfully evades or attempts to
evade any such tax or payment thereof, shall be guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor. Conviction under this
section shall not relieve any person from the payment, collection or remittance of the taxes or penalties
provided for in this article. Any agreement by any person to pay the taxes or penalties provided for in this
article by a series of installment payments shall not relieve any person of criminal liability for violation of
this article until the full amount of taxes and penalties agreed to be paid by such person is received by the
director of finance. Each failure or violation, and each day’s continuance thereof, shall constitute a
separate offense.
(Code 1988, § 8-52; Ord. No. 98-8(2), 6-10-98; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 07-15(2), adopted 10-3-07,
effective 1-1-08)
State law reference--Va. Code §§ 58.1- 3906, 58.1 - 3907; as to punishment for class 1 misdemeanor, see
§ 18.2-11.
ARTICLE XII. FOOD AND BEVERAGE TAX
Sec. 15-1203 Tips and service charges.
No tax shall be imposed under this article on (i) that portion of the amount paid by purchaser as a
discretionary gratuity in addition to the sales price; (ii) that portion of the amount paid by the purchaser as
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
a mandatory gratuity or service charge added by the restaurant in addition to the sales price, but only to
the extent that such mandatory gratuity or service charge does not exceed 20% of the sales price.
(§ 8-78, 12-10-97; Code 1988, § 8-78; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 07-15(2), adopted 10-3-07, effective 1-
1-08)
State law reference—Va. Code § 58.1-3833(E)
Sec. 15-1213 Penalty for late remittance or false return.
A. If any seller whose duty it is to do so shall fail or refuse to remit to the director of finance
the tax required to be collected and paid under this article within the time and in the amount specified in
this article, there shall be added to such tax by the director of finance a penalty in the amount of ten
percent (10%) of the total amount of the tax owed if the failure is not for more than one month, with an
additional penalty of five percent (5%) of the total amount of the tax owed for each additional month or
fraction thereof during which the failure continues, such penalty not to exceed twenty-five percent (25%)
of the taxes collected but not remitted, provided, however, the minimum penalty shall be ten dollars
($10.00), or the amount of the tax assessable, whichever is less.
B. If any seller whose duty it is to do so shall fail or refuse to file any return required by this
article within the time specified in this article, there shall be added to such tax by the director of finance a
penalty in the amount of ten percent (10%) of the tax assessable on such return or $10, whichever is
greater; provided, however, that the penalty shall in no case exceed the amount of the tax assessable.
C. It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully fail or refuse to file any return required under
this article or to make any false statement with the intent to defraud in connection with any return required
by this article. It shall be a Class 3 misdemeanor if the amount of the tax lawfully assessed in connection
with the return is $1,000 or less, and it shall be a Class 1 misdemeanor if the amount of the tax lawfully
assessed in connection with the return is more than $1,000.
(§ 8-88, 12-10-97; Code 1988, § 8-88; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 07-15(2), adopted 10-3-07, effective 1-
1-08)
State law reference—Va. Code §§ 58.1-3916, 58.1-3916.1
Sec. 15-1214 Violations of article.
Any corporate or partnership officer as defined in Virginia Code § 58.1-3906, or any other person
required to collect, account for and pay over tax under this article, who willfully fails to collect or truthfully
account for and pay over such tax, and any person who willfully evades or attempts to evade any such
tax or payment thereof, shall be guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor. Conviction of such violation shall not
relieve any person from the payment, collection or remittance of the taxes or penalties provided for in this
article. Any agreement by any person to pay the taxes or penalties provided for in this article by a series
of installment payments shall not relieve any person of criminal liability for violation of this article until the
full amount of taxes and penalties agreed to be paid by such person is received by the director of finance.
Each failure, refusal, neglect or violation, and each day’s continuance thereof, shall constitute a separate
offense.
(§ 8-89, 12-10-97; Code 1988, § 8-89; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 07-15(2), adopted 10-3-07, effective 1-
1-08)
State law reference—Va. Code § 58.1-3907
This ordinance shall be effective on and after January 1, 2008.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. Public Hearing: To amend Chapter 15, Taxation, of the Albemarle County
Code to adjust the eligibility requirements for tax relief under Article VII, Real Estate Tax Exemption for
Certain Elderly and Disabled Persons. Specifically, the proposed ordinance amends Section 15-702,
Definitions, to increase the acreage excluded from a taxpayer’s net worth from five to ten acres; amends
Section 15-704, Persons Eligible for Exemption, to increase the total combined income eligibility limit for
taxpayers from $50,000 to $69,452 and the net combined financial worth eligibility limit for taxpayers from
$125,000 to $200,000; and amends Section 15-705, Amount of Exemption, by increasing the percentage
of real estate tax exempted based upon the amended total combined income and net combined financial
worth factors. The proposed effective date of this ordinance is January 1, 2008. (Notice of this public
hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on September 17 and September 24, 2007).
Mr. W iggans summarized the following executive summary which was provided to Board
members:
Albemarle County has a Tax Relief for the Elderly and Disabled Program that provides a tax
exemption for the elderly and/or disabled owners of real estate and mobile homes. The exemption is
based on a matrix of income and net worth levels. The limits of the Program are dictated by state law.
During its discussion of the FY 2007/08 Budget, the Board directed staff to prepare an ordinance
to increase the income and net worth eligibility limits and the acreage excluded from net worth
calculations to the maximums allowed by state law.
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50)
As directed by the Board, staff has prepared an ordinance to amend the County’s Tax Relief for
the Elderly and Disabled Program that revises the current income and net worth matrix by increasing the
allowable income limit from $50,000 to $69,452 and the allowable net worth limit from $125,000 to
$200,000. The $69,452 and the $200,000 amounts are the maximum amounts allowed for Albemarle
County under Virginia Code § 58.1-3211.
The ordinance also increases the acreage excluded from the net worth calculation. Currently,
five acres are excluded from an applicant’s net worth. The ordinance increases this exclusion to ten
acres, the maximum amount allowed by state law.
The FY 08 budget funded $678,638 for the Tax Relief for Elderly and Disabled Program. It is
estimated that the budgeted amount will be sufficient to fund the proposed expanded tax relief Program.
The actual cost for the Program for the last three fiscal years has been $240,698 in FY 05, $291,448 in
FY 06, and $406,009 in FY 07.
Mr. W iggans said staff recommends that the Board, after the public hearing, adopt the ordinance.
In response to Mr. Dorrier’s question about how many participants are in the program, Mr.
Wiggins replied that there have been 500 to 600 people so far, with more expected as the levels are
raised.
Mr. Boyd asked if it is possible for people to shelter an expensive home, since the value of a
primary residence is not counted in net worth.
Ms. Thomas said that if there seem to be a lot of cases of abuse, that is concerning, and it would
be helpful to know if there are loopholes in the program.
Mr. W iggins offered to provide more detail on what types of homes are being excluded.
Mr. W yant said that he has referred many people to the program who were not previously aware
of it, even though it was in the tax updates.
Mr. W iggins responded that they are in the process of creating the flyer announcement to go in
the tax bills.
In response to Mr. Slutzky’s question about additional relief measures, Mr. Davis reported that
Charlottesville received enabling legislation through a charter amendment that allows them to do a
different type of program, which they have implemented. He also reported that Alexandria is the only
other locality that has this capability.
Mr. Rooker commented that he is in favor of this program, but there are other groups who might
need the assistance just as much such as working single-parents.
Mr. W yant asked what would be done if cases of abuse were discovered.
Mr. Tucker replied that the County would look for ways to close the loophole.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the Board was interested in pursuing the same enabling legislation as the
City.
Mr. Rooker responded that he would like to see how much this impacts the budget. He noted that
the Homestead Exemption legislation may pass, and the County would need to decide about that
program as well, which is also going to impact the County from a fiscal standpoint.
Ms. Thomas suggested having the City share with the County their experience before expanding
the program at all.
Mr. Boyd opened the public hearing. There being no comments, the public hearing was closed,
and the matter was placed before the Board.
Mr. Dorrier moved to adopt Ordinance No. 07-15(1). Mr. W yant seconded the motion. Roll was
called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. W yant.
NAYS: None.
ORDINANCE NO. 07-15(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 15, TAXATION, ARTICLE VII, REAL ESTATE EXEMPTION
FOR CERTAIN ELDERLY AND DISABLED PERSONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 15,
Taxation, Article VII, Real Estate Exemption for Certain Elderly and Disabled Persons, is hereby
amended and reordained as follows:
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 51)
By Amending:
Sec. 15-702 Definitions
Sec. 15-704 Persons eligible for exemption
Sec. 15-705 Amount of exemption
CHAPTER 15. TAXATION
ARTICLE VII. REAL ESTATE TAX EXEMPTION FOR
CERTAIN ELDERLY AND DISABLED PERSONS
Sec. 15-702 Definitions.
The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and enforcement of this article:
(1) Dwelling. The term “dwelling” means a building occupied as a residence.
(2) Income. The term “income” means the total gross income from all sources comprising the
amount of money received on a regular basis which is available to meet expenses, regardless of whether
a tax return is actually filed, the money is taxable or deductible from the taxpayer’s income tax return.
(a) Income shall include: (i) retirement payments, including the portion that
represents the contribution of the retiree; (ii) nontaxable social security retirement benefits; (iii) disability
payments; and (iv) rental income.
(b) Income shall not include: (i) life insurance benefits; (ii) receipts from borrowing or
other debt; and (iii) social security taxes taken out of the pay of a retiree.
(c) The income of a self-employed person received from the business shall be the
gross income of the business, less the expenses of the business.
(3) Manufactured home. The term “manufactured home” means a structure subject to federal
regulation which is transportable in one or more sections; is eight (8) body feet or more in width and forty
body feet or more in length in the traveling mode, or is three hundred twenty (320) or more square feet
when erected on site; is built on a permanent chassis; is designed to be used as a single-family dwelling,
with or without a permanent foundation, when connected to the required utilities; and includes the
plumbing, heating, air conditioning, and electrical systems contained in the structure.
(4) Net combined financial worth. The term “net combined financial worth” means the net
present value of all assets, including equitable interests, and liabilities of (i) the owners, (ii) the spouse of
any owner, and (iii) the owner’s relatives living in the dwelling. The term “net combined financial worth”
shall not include: (i) the value of the dwelling and the land, not exceeding ten acres, upon which it is
situated; (ii) the value of furniture, household appliances and other items typically used in a home; and (iii)
the outstanding balance of any mortgage on the subject property, except to the extent that the subject
property is counted as an asset.
(5) Owning title or partial title. The term “owning title or partial title” means owning the usufruct,
control or occupation of the real estate, whether the interest therein is in absolute fee or is in an estate
less than a fee, such as the holding of a life estate.
(6) Permanently and totally disabled person. The term “permanently and totally disabled person”
means a person who is unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically
determinable physical or mental impairment or deformity which can be expected to result in death, or can
be expected to last for the duration of such person's life.
(7) Real estate. The term “real estate” includes manufactured homes.
(8) Relative. The term “relative” means any person who is a natural or legally defined offspring,
spouse, sibling, grandchild, grandparent, parent, aunt, uncle, niece, or nephew of the owner.
(9) Taxable year. The term “taxable year” means the calendar year for which the exemption is
claimed.
(10) Total combined income. The term “total combined income” means the income received
from all sources during the preceding calendar year by the owners of the dwelling who use it as their
principal residence and by the owners’ relatives who live in the dwelling. The following amounts shall be
excluded from the calculation of total combined income:
(a) The first sixty-five hundred dollars ($6500.00) of income of each relative who is
not the spouse of an owner living in the dwelling and who does not qualify for the exemption provided by
subdivision 9 c hereof.
(b) The first seventy-five hundred dollars ($7500.00) of income for an owner who is
permanently disabled.
(c) If a person otherwise qualifies for the exemption and if the person can prove by
clear and convincing evidence that the person's physical or mental health has deteriorated to the point
that the only alternative to permanently residing in a hospital, nursing home, convalescent home or other
facility for physical or mental care is to have a relative move in and provide care for the person, and if a
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 52)
relative does move in for that purpose, then none of the income of the relative or of the relative’s spouse
shall be counted towards the income limit, provided that the owner of the dwelling has not transferred
assets in excess of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) without adequate considerations within a three (3)
year period prior to or after the relative moves into the dwelling.
(2-15-73; 3-20-75; 11-9-77; 8-13-80; Ord. of 12-19-90; Ord. of 4-7-93; Code 1988, § 8-23; Ord. 98-A(1),
8-5-98; Ord. 03-15(2), 11-5-03; Ord. 05-15(4), 12-7-05, effective 1-1-06; Ord. 07-15(1), adopted 10-3-07,
effective 1-1-08)
State law reference--Va. Code §§ 36-85.3, 58.1-3210, 58.1-3211, 58.1-3217.
Sec. 15-704 Persons eligible for exemption.
Persons who satisfy all of the following requirements are eligible for the exemption established in
section 15-703:
A. The person claiming the exemption shall have either:
1. Reached the age of sixty-five (65) years prior to the taxable year for which the
exemption is claimed; or
2. Became permanently and totally disabled prior to the taxable year for which the
exemption is claimed.
B. The person claiming the exemption shall be a person owning title or partial title in the
dwelling.
1. The person claiming the exemption shall own title or partial title to the real estate
for which the exemption is claimed on January 1 of the taxable year.
2 A dwelling jointly owned by a husband and wife may qualify if either spouse is
sixty-five (65) years of age or older or is permanently and totally disabled.
3. Except as provided in paragraph (B.2), the exemption shall not apply to a
dwelling jointly owned by a person who is sixty-five (65) years of age or older or who is permanently and
totally disabled (an “exempt person”), and a person who not an exempt person.
C. The person claiming the exemption shall occupy the dwelling as that person’s sole
dwelling.
1. The dwelling shall not be used for commercial purposes.
2. The fact that a person who otherwise qualifies for exemption established by this
article resides in a hospital, nursing home, convalescent home or other facility for physical or mental care
for extended periods of time shall not be construed to mean that the real estate for which the exemption is
sought does not continue to be the sole dwelling of the person during such extended periods of other
residence so long as such real estate is not used by or leased to others for consideration.
D. A manufactured home is real estate eligible for the exemption established by this article if
the person claiming the exemption demonstrates to the satisfaction of the director of finance that the
manufactured home is permanently affixed. Either of the following shall be evidence that the
manufactured home is permanently affixed:
1. The person claiming the exemption owns title or partial title to the manufactured
home and the land on which the manufactured home is located, and the manufactured home is
connected to permanent water and sewage lines or facilities; or
2. Whether or not the manufactured home is located on land on which the person
claiming the exemption owns title or partial title, the manufactured home rests on a permanent foundation
and consists of two (2) or more units which are connected in such a manner that they cannot be towed
together on a highway, or consists of a unit and other connected rooms or additions which must be
removed before the manufactured home can be towed on a highway.
E. The total combined income shall not exceed sixty-nine thousand four hundred fifty-two
dollars ($69,452.00) for the calendar year immediately preceding the taxable year.
F. The net combined financial worth shall not exceed two hundred thousand dollars
($200,000.00) as of December thirty-first of the calendar year immediately preceding the taxable year.
(2-15-73; 3-20-75; 11-9-77; 8-13-80; 6-12-85; 5-13-87; Ord of 12-19-90; Ord. of 4-7-93; Ord. 96-8(2), 12-
11-96; Code 1988, § 8-26; 9-9-81; Ord. 12-19-90; Code 1988, § 8-26.1; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 00-
15(2), 9-20-00; Ord. 03-15(2), 11-5-03; Ord. 04-15(2), 12-1-04, effective 1-1-05; Ord. 06-15(3), adopted
11-1-06, effective 1-1-07; Ord. 07-15(1), adopted 10-3-07, effective 1-1-08)
State law reference--Va. Code §§ 58.1-3210, 58.1-3211, 58.1-3212, 58.1-3214, 58.1-3215.
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 53)
Sec. 15-705 Amount of exemption.
The amount of the exemption established by this article from the real estate tax for any taxable
year shall be as follows:
Percentage of Real Estate Tax Exempted
Net Combined Financial Worth
$0 to $100,000 Over $100,000 to
$150,000
Over $150,000 to
$200,000
$0 to $30,000 100.0% 90.0% 80.0%
Over $30,000 to
$50,000 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% Total
Combined
Income Over $50,000 to
$69,452 40.0% 30.0% 20.0%
(2-15-73; 11-9-77; 8-13-80; Ord. of 12-19-90; Ord. of 4-7-93; Code 1988, § 8-27; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98;
Ord. 00-15(2), 9-20-00; Ord. 04-15(2), 12-1-04; Ord. 06-15(3), adopted 11-1-06, effective 1-1-07; Ord. 07-
15(1), adopted 10-3-07, effective 1-1-08)
State law reference--Va. Code § 58.1-3212.
This ordinance shall be effective on and after January 1, 2008.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. From the Board: Committee Reports.
__________
Item No 20a. Voting Credentials for VACo Annual Business Meeting.
Ms. Thomas moved to appoint Ken Boyd as the voting representative and Lindsay Dorrier as the
alternate for VACO, adding that they should attend the nominating committee as well. Mr. Rooker
seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. W yant.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Ms. Thomas reported that there have been some recent issues regarding land held in
conservation easement through the ACE Program, noting that this is a growing responsibility for the
County that is placing increasing demands on staff.
_______________
Mr. W yant noted that the County would be receiving an award from RideShare at a luncheon on
October 16th at the OMNI in Charlottesville. Mr. Boyd said that he would be attending the luncheon to
receive the award.
_______________
Mr. Rooker asked about current easement restrictions for properties in conservation.
Mr. Davis responded that it is a negotiated process, and ACE makes sure the minimum
requirements are met although there are aspirational standards similar to what VOF has, but they are
usually compromised to some degree.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the County could take a conservation easement that had nothing other than
the retirement of development rights.
Mr. Davis replied that the minimum standards must be met in order for the County to hold that
easement.
Ms. Thomas noted that she has been asked to make some presentations in W est Virginia later
this month about the County’s conservation measures, such as ACE.
Mr. Rooker said that it is important to get before and after information with conservation
easements.
Mr. Davis replied that a baseline study is always done.
_______________
Mr. Rooker asked about the status of the “Cool Counties” program.
Mr. Tucker said that staff, in particular, Sarah Temple of Environmental Management, would bring
back an update on what is being done.
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 54)
Mr. Rooker commented that there are measures that are reasonably feasible.
_______________
Mr. Rooker also said that he had received an article written by W hit Clement describing the new
transportation acts and what they provide for, including impact fees.
Mr. Davis reported that Ms. Thomas and County staff attended a meeting back in July on how
that was being examined by other localities, particularly Chesterfield, which is going to public hearing with
their Planning Commission this week. He added that the process has become controversial, but they are
going to try to get it in front of their Board in the next month. Mr. Davis said that where the Board wants
to apply the measures will dictate how staff moves forward with it, noting that existing lots would be
exempt from it. He added that there is some dispute as to whether “benefit” is the standard in all cases.
Mr. Rooker commented that it may not be perfect, but the longer the County waits, the more lots
are exempt. He also reported that the University of Virginia is going to request County participation in
funding the Route 250 Corridor plans by using revenue-sharing monies.
Mr. Boyd said that he is interested in discussions beyond the three primary projects to see what
can be funded with revenue-sharing, citing Hillsdale as an example and the extra lane on 29 South and
the ramp on Best Buy.
Mr. Rooker noted that Frank Cox had a time limit on his proffer for that stretch, and they need to
amend it.
Mr. Davis said that the proffer was not for cash but was for the developer to actually make
improvements, noting that it is hung up in the City.
Mr. Rooker responded that it was in debate, but the City has made clear that they want to do this
project.
Mr. Davis said that the County proposed language months ago, and the developer wants to time
this with the opening of Albemarle Place.
Mr. Tucker said that Mr. Cox has the language, and there is a deadline for the proffer itself.
_______________
Mr. Slutzky stated that the Safer Chemicals Committee is planning to come to the Board with a
proposed policy for pesticides, herbicides, and non-toxic cleaners, hopefully by January. He said that
some using the test chemicals were initially skeptical of the alternatives, but those using them are now
finding many of them to be effective.
Mr. Slutzky also said that City Council unanimously approved the easement for the Meadow
Creek Parkway project, including Hillsdale Drive. He plans to draft a resolution in response to Council’s
recent action for the Board’s consideration next week.
Ms. Thomas stated that it would be valuable to have some fact examples of how the County has
set aside funding for the projects.
_______________
Mr. W yant commented that it would be helpful if the Official Determination letters included a map
of the location of the parcels.
_______________
Mr. Boyd reported that there have been about 11 options presented for the Eastern Connector,
which would likely be whittled down to nine options to go for public input, then narrowed down to three
options.
Ms. Thomas asked if the County was still opposed to any option that goes south to Free Bridge.
Mr. Slutzky responded that is not considered an Eastern Connector, although it may be a decent
road.
Mr. Rooker noted that the City does not want to consider anything south of the 250 Bypass as an
Eastern Connector.
Ms. Thomas said that allowing an easy bicycle commute route would also relieve some traffic.
_______________
Mr. Boyd noted that he has an unanswered email about the Affordable Housing Task Force and
who would be the independent chair.
Mr. Slutzky responded that Leonard Sandridge has designated the University Architect, David
Neuman, as an active member, and Mr. Slutzky and Dave Norris would be representing their respective
Boards. He said that all three would be meeting in the very near future to decide the chair.
_______________
Ms. Thomas said that someone needs to respond to Nancy O’Brien’s letter.
October 3, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 55)
Mr. Slutzky said that he would respond. Mr. Tucker agreed to provide a copy, adding that David
Brown should also respond.
_______________
Mr. Dorrier said that Lake Renovia residents have asked him about Biscuit Run. Mr. Tucker
informed him that the Board would receive continuous updates as the project moves forward.
_______________
Referring back to the Board’s discussion on removing density bonus provisions for affordable
housing from the Village Residential Zoning District regulations, Mr. Davis noted that the quickest way for
a resolution of intent to be processed would be to ask the Planning Commission to take the initiative since
they initially made the recommendation.
It was the consensus of the Board that staff review the needed changes and the Planning
Commission initiate the ZTA.
_______________
Mr. Slutzky commented on the length of Board meetings.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. Adjourn. At 4:21 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board,
Mr. W yant offered motion, seconded by Mr. Rooker, to adjourn to October 10, 2007, at 2:30 p.m.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. W yant.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 03/12/2008
Initials: EWJ