2007-02-07February 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
February 7, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. (Note: Due to winter weather conditions, meeting time was delayed), 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, Clerk, Ella W . Carey, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Meagan Hoy.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 10:01 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. Recognition: “Albemarle Citizens Safe and Protected."
Mr. Boyd said that a newly formed partnership – Albemarle Citizens Safe & Protected – has been
established with the Commonwealth’s Attorney, the Albemarle County Police Department, and the
Albemarle County Department of Social Services to add an extra level of protection for elderly and
disabled residents. He reported that this was initiated as part of the DSS strategic plan, and the police
department and intends to ensure safe and protected citizenry through collaborative investigation. The
partners feel that a formal collaborative approach would help with criminal protection and/or restitution for
victims.
Mr. Boyd said that the partnership would focus on providing cross-training for staff in all three
agencies, enhancing efforts aimed at aggressive criminal protection and civil action, increasing victim’s
access to services, and increasing community education and awareness about abuse, neglect, and
exploitation of the disabled and elderly. He recognized Kathy Ralston from DSS and Lieutenant Greg
Jenkins. Ms. Ralston introduced Lt. Jenkins and Tricia Czinsky as the drivers in this process, and
commented on the involvement of Jim Camblos and Rick Moore. She also recognized David Cattell-
Gordon, Sue Droston, and Phyllis Hatcher in the audience.
_______________
Not Docketed. Mr. W yant asked if “Other Matters from the Board” could be moved to earlier in
the Board’s meetings.
Mr. Rooker commented that the best approach would be if there’s something substantive that
might require a motion, the Board member(s) should get it to the chairman or Mr. Tucker in advance so it
can be added to the agenda. He said that if something is of such an urgent nature that it ca not be
included beforehand, then it should be brought up at the beginning.
Mr. Slutzky agreed, adding that the Board may want to allow at least a half-hour for those things,
as those items may be contentious or complex. He expressed concern about delaying a meeting.
Mr. Tucker stated that if it is a substantive item, it changes the timing for people who are
addressing the meeting, especially in the case of public hearings.
Ms. Thomas commented that “government by surprise” is not worthy for this Board, and items
should be put on the agenda, even on short notice.
Mr. Boyd said he was willing to try having Other Matters and things such as committee reports
earlier in the agenda.
Mr. Rooker agreed, but added that there still should be some time saved at the end of the meeting
for miscellaneous items.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. From the Public: Matters not listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Ms. Mary Ann Doucette addressed the Board, stating that she is a former member of the Lee
County Commission in Lee County, Florida. She said that county was experiencing similar growth
problems that had an impact on infrastructure, and they adopted impact fees without state-enabling
legislation to do so. She stated that none of the developers opposed impact fees because they felt the
alternative would be moratoriums, so they supported them. She added that Petaluma, California was the
first town to do this, encouraged the county to have staff look into their experience, and offered to help in
the process.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that Virginia is a Dillon Rule state, so it must have legislation to enable
imposing impact fees, but encouraged Ms. Doucette to contact legislators about this.
Ms. Doucette responded that she has contacted Rob Bell’s office and would continue to pursue it.
February 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Mr. Rooker noted that Albemarle has asked for impact fee legislation and adequate public
facilities legislation every year since he has been in government, but year after year the legislation does
not even get out of committee.
__________
Ms. Liz Palmer addressed the Board, and invited them to attend the League of W omen Voters
Natural Resources Committee Annual Meeting on Tuesday, February 27th at noon at the Monticello
Events Conference Center. She indicated that the topic would be: “Global W arming: How Should Local
Governments Respond,” with David Bowerman and Maurice Cox leading the discussion. She said that
she was before the Board today to discuss Supervisor compensation, and emphasized that there needs to
be enough to reflect the hours that the Board members spend researching and studying the impacts of
their decisions on the community. Only the well-heeled can run for office. She added that middle-income
individuals would be unable to run for office, and presented a list of supervisors’ salaries from other
counties, noting that Albemarle is behind. Ms. Palmer also suggested that the increase be effective at the
end of their terms.
__________
Mr. Jay W illard of the Blue Ridge Homebuilder's Association addressed the Board, thanking the
county for their sponsorship of the Green Building W orkshop. He said that there were about 30-40
builders who attended the workshop, and their next event would be a tour of Earthcraft homes in early
June.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. Ms. Thomas moved to approve Items 6.1 through 6.8 and
to accept the remaining items on the Consent Agenda as information. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion,
which passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item 6.1. Approval of Minutes: June 7, June 14 A/N, July 5, September 13 A/N and October 11
A/N, 2006.
Mr. Rooker said he had read his minutes, and they were in order with the exception of some small
typographical errors.
Ms. Thomas said that she had read her minutes and they were very good.
By the recorded vote above, the minutes of July 6 and October 11, 2006 were approved as
read. The remaining minutes were forwarded to the next agenda.
__________
Item 6.2. Interlocal Agreement to Implement the W orkforce Investment Act.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that Federal law and State policy impose extensive
requirements on the composition of local workforce investment boards (LW IBs). W hile the criteria do not
address a local board’s size or composition by jurisdiction, they are exacting in requiring broad
representation from a number of sectors (business, education, etc.).
W hen the W orkforce Investment Act (W IA) program was first started, all jurisdictions signed an
Interlocal Agreement that outlined the basic structure and responsibilities of all parties involved. This
agreement was executed on December 21, 2000. It is specific in a number of areas, particularly about the
number of business representatives from each jurisdiction involved. The Piedmont W orkforce Council
(PW C) recently voted to change the structure of the Board. However, approval of the member local
governing bodies, including the Albemarle Board of Supervisors, is needed.
The proposed amendment would make several revisions to the existing Interlocal Agreement.
Some of the most notable proposed revisions include:
• The Piedmont W orkforce Council (PW C) would be substituted for the Consortium of Chief Local
Elected Officers (CLEOs).
• The Piedmont W orkforce Network Board (PW NB) would be substituted for the W orkforce
Investment Board (W IB).
• The proposed amended Agreement would require less geographical cross-representation,
especially from the Rappahannock Planning District
Though not required, the original agreement apportioned representation by locality, based on
1997 population. That formula has been replaced by a more general standard determined by the PW C
based upon the requirements of the Act. They wish to insure the most effective, regional participation in
the W IA program by all participating jurisdictions, partners and businesses. The solicitation of
nominations for Board members, once assigned to both Planning Districts, will now be handled exclusively
by the TJPDC. Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment and finds it consistent with all applicable
Federal and State law.
According to the Director of the Piedmont W orkforce Network, the existing Interlocal Agreement
has not and the amended Agreement would not obligate the County to any funding requirements. It sets
February 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
up the arrangement among the 11 member jurisdictions in relation to the application of the W orkforce
Investment Act (W IA) program in this area.
Staff recommends approval of the Inter-local Agreement to Implement the W orkforce Investment
Act.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board authorized the Chairman to sign the
Interlocal Agreement to implement the Workforce Investment Act, as set out below:
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
to implement the
WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT
The purpose of this agreement is to amend the Interlocal Agreement to Implement the W orkforce
Investment Act, dated 21 December 2000, which created a Consortium of Chief Elected Officers
(“CLEOs”), to be called the Piedmont W orkforce Council (“PW C”), and set forth the process,
procedures, and responsibilities for implementing the W orkforce Investment Act (W IA) in the City
of Charlottesville and the Counties of Albemarle, Culpeper, Fauquier, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa,
Madison, Nelson, Orange, and Rappahannock. The W IA requires the PW C to take certain
responsibilities and actions which are enumerated in this document and to form a working
relationship with the Area 6 Local W orkforce Investment Board (“LW IB”), to be called the
Piedmont W orkforce Network Board (“PW NB”).
Area covered: The localities named above have been grouped together and approved as a W IA
area by the Governor of Virginia.
PW C formed: By this agreement, the PW C forms a consortium for the purpose of implementing
the tasks and performing the continuous oversight responsibilities set forth in the W IA.
Administration: The local governments have named the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission (TJPDC) as the administrator, working with the Rappahannock Rapidan Regional
Commission (RRRC).
Grant recipient: The City of Charlottesville will be the grant recipient.
Fiscal Agent: The Thomas Jefferson Planning District will be the Fiscal Agent for W IB funds. The
TJPDC will make monthly financial reports to the Consortium in writing. The audit will be
conducted with the TJPDC audit according the requirements of all OMB and federal regulations.
Responsibility for use of funds and implementation of the W IA: Under the W IA, the final
responsibility for use of the federal W IA funds and for carrying out the tasks set forth in the W IA
rests with the PW C. The PW C shall enter into a contract with the TJPDC to perform certain tasks
on behalf of the PW C. Liability insurance for the PW C will be provided out of the administrative
funds. Prior to distribution of any funds under the W IA, the TJPDC will obtain such liability
insurance naming each of the local governments and PW C members as additional insured.
Coverage shall be no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 in the aggregate. A
certificate evidencing such insurance coverage shall be distributed to each of the PW C members
at the inception of this Agreement.
Task One: Creation of the Piedmont Workforce Network Board (“PWNB”)
Piedmont W orkforce Network Board (“PW NB”): The activities of the W IA are carried out by the
PW NB appointed by the PW C. The composition of the PW NB is mandated in the Act. The W IA
requires 51% of the appointees be from private sector business and industry. The remaining 49%
are mandated categories in the Act.
PW NB Membership: The membership of the PW NB is to be determined by the PW C based upon
the requirements of the Act, and in an effort to insure the most effective regional participation in
the W IA program by all participating jurisdictions, Partners and businesses. See Attachment 1 for
current PW NB structure.
PW NB Appointment Process: The appointments to the PW NB are to be made by the PW C using
the following process:
Business and Industry:
1. Letters will be sent to business and industry organizations soliciting nominations to the
Board. This task will be the responsibility of the PW C, with the assistance of the
TJPDC.
2. An advertisement will be placed in a paper of general circulation in the Piedmont
W orkforce Network – Virginia W orkforce Area 6 (“PW N”), by TJPDC. The notice will
include information on how to access a nomination form. . Persons may nominate
themselves.
3. Completed nomination forms will be sent to TJPDC for distribution to the PW C. By
law, the PW C must select from those nominated.
February 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
4. The PW C will select the number of business and industry appointments and their
distribution throughout the PW N, based on a plan that has been adopted and
approved by the PW C.
If a locality does not fill all its allocated business positions, the PW C may assign those
positions to one or more other localities.
One-Stop Partners: The Act sets forth certain categories of representation, the One-Stop
Partners. The following process will be used to appoint persons who meet these
requirements:
1. Nominations will be sought from categorical organizations, set forth in the Act.
2. Nomination forms will be received at the TJPDC office.
3. The PW C will meet to prepare a slate of categorically mandated PW NB members.
Full Board Appointments:
1. The PW C will meet to affirm the categorical nominees and the business and industry
nominees.
2. The TJPDC will prepare the Certification Form and submit to the State for the
Governor’s certification.
Vacancies: Vacancies will be filled using the same procedure.
Organization of the PW NB: It is the intent of the PW C to create the full PW NB which will
represent all the localities. It is the desire of the PW C that committees be formed by the PW NB
which will conduct planning and other activities to advise the PW NB in order that the distinct
needs of all localities in the PW N be taken into consideration.
Organization of the PW C:
1. The PW C shall elect a Chair and Vice-Chair from its members. One officer shall be
from each planning district.
2. The Vice-Chair will serve as the liaison between the PW C and the PW NB.
3. The Vice-Chair will serve as the liaison between the PW C and the One Stop
Committee of the PW NB.
4. The Consortium will meet, as a body, at least quarterly, a quorum of >30% will be
required for any action to be taken.
5. It will be the responsibility of each PW C member and the PW N staff to communicate
the activities of the PW C and the PW NB to their respective governing bodies.
Collaboration with the PWNB
1. The Plan:
The PW NB will submit a Yearly Program Plan to the PW C for their concurrence.
Concurrence will be a simple majority of the PW C present and voting.
2. Budget:
The PW NB budget will be submitted to the PW C for approval. Approval will be a
simple majority of the members of the PW C present and voting.
3. Quarterly meetings:
The officers or Executive Committee of the PW NB will meet with the PW C at least
quarterly for the purpose of updating the PW C on the activities and to seek advice
from the PW C regarding the activities of the PW NB.
4. One Stop Operator or System:
The PW NB is charged with designating the One Stop operator or system, in
cooperation with the PW C.
A. The PW NB shall submit the criteria for the One Stop to the PW C for comment
prior to selection of the One Stop operator.
B. The selection of the One Stop operator will be ratified by the PW C by a simple
majority of the PW C members present and voting.
C. The Memorandum of Understanding establishing the One Stop will be presented
to the PW C for their concurrence.
D. Reports on the One Stop operation will be presented to the PW C on a quarterly
basis.
5. Youth Council:
The PW NB is charged with appointing the Youth Council in cooperation with the
PW C.
February 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
A. The PW NB shall present the names of the Youth Council membership to the
PW C for their concurrence prior to their actual appointment to the Council. The
Youth Council membership will reflect the same regional representation as the
PW NB.
B. The Chair of the Youth Council or designated alternate will meet with the PW C on
a quarterly basis.
Shared Liability Among PWC Members
W hile the City of Charlottesville is the Grant Recipient under this W IA Program (the
"Program") all of the local governments named in this Agreement hereby agree to share
equally any and all liability resulting from implementation of the Program.
Effective Dates of this Agreement:
This agreement shall take effect on the date of the last signature and shall remain in effect
until the W IA is no longer in effect.
Amendment of the Agreement:
A majority vote of PW C is required to amend this agreement.
_______
ATTACHMENT #1
Non-Business Members
Partners
Department of Rehabilitative Services (DRS) 1
There are 2 DRS offices in Area 6. Both offices will have ex-officio members on
the Board; only one will have a vote – process to be determined by the offices.
Department of Blind and Visually Impaired 1
Community Action Agencies 1
Title V 1
VEC 1
There are 2 VEC offices in Area 6. Both offices will have ex-officio members on
the Board; only one will have a vote – process to be determined by the offices.
Housing Authority 1
6
Local Educational Entities
Community College 1
There are 3 Community Colleges in Area 6. All will have ex-officio members on
the Board only one will have a vote – process to be determined by the colleges.
Local School Administration 1
There are 11 school districts in Area 6. All will be ex-officio members on the
Board; only one will have a vote – process to be determined by the
Superintendents.
Adult Education 1
There are 2 Adult Education Offices in Area 6. All will be ex-officio members on
the Board, only one will have a vote – process to be determined by Directors
3
Labor (representative of Area 6) 2
Community Based Organizations
Chambers of Commerce 1
There are 7 Chambers of Commerce in Area 6. All will be ex-officio members of
the Board, but only 1 will have a vote. All those involved will determine who
votes.
Other 1
2
Economic Development 2
There are 6 Economic Development Offices in Area 6 and a regional organization
(Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development - TJPED). All will be ex-
officio members of the Board, but only two will have a vote. All those involved will
determine who votes.
Total Non-Business Partners 15
Required Business Partners
There will be one (1) business representative from each County and the City of Charlottesville
11
February 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
One (1) additional business representative will be designated from Fauquier, Culpeper, Louisa
and Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville 5
There will be three (3) “At Large” business representatives named by the Piedmont W orkforce
Council (an effort will be made to make these representative of Area 6 as a whole) These will
be 1 year terms, with an automatic extension of 1 year if needed, used to bring expertise on to
the Board to meet Board and Council strategic plan directives
3
Total Business Partners 19
Total Board 34
Ex-Officio Members of the Board – can serve on committees:
1 DRS Office Representative
1 VEC Office Representative
All Community Action Agencies in Area 6 (one to be designated as voting member)
2 Community College Representatives
10 Local School Board Representatives
5 Economic Development Representatives
2 Representatives of PD-9 and PD-10 Planning District Offices
6 Chambers of Commerce Representatives
1 Job Corps
1 Adult Education Directors
Chairs of the standing committees of the Board (if not already a member of the Board):
- Finance
- One Stop
- Certification
- Youth Council
- Marketing
__________
Item 6.3. Resolution: VRTFP Grant for Rivanna Greenway Segment – Free Bridge Lane
Connector.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that the Virginia Recreational Trails Fund Program is a
reimbursement grant program established for the purpose of providing and maintaining recreational trails
and trails-related facilities. It is funded through the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A), which
establishes a program for allocating funds to the States for recreational trails and trail-related projects.
The State agency responsible for administering the program in Virginia is the Department of Conservation
and Recreation (DCR).
This project includes the construction of approximately 1600 feet of compacted crushed-stone trail
creating an off-road connection between the existing trail in Darden Towe Park to the recently completed
section of trail under Free Bridge which continues an additional 4200 feet downstream. The project also
includes the construction of a 50-foot pedestrian bridge over an existing stormwater discharge culvert area
which currently prevents a continuous off-road pedestrian connection. The estimated project cost is
$96,945. The grant program will provide successful applicants with reimbursement of 80 percent. The 20
percent matching cost will come from funds already appropriated for the development of the Rivanna
Greenway.
This application package requires a resolution of support from the governing body. Greenways
protect important and/or sensitive resources, provide recreational and educational opportunities, provide
alternative transportation opportunities and provide an economic benefit. They therefore support all five
goals of the strategic plan. If the grant application is approved, the County share of the total estimated
project cost of $96,945 would be $19,389. The required County share would come from funds already
appropriated for this purpose.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt a resolution authorizing the County Executive to provide
the necessary materials, and to enter into such agreements as necessary to qualify for a VRTFP grant.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution
authorizing the County Executive to provide the necessary materials and to enter into such
agreements as necessary to qualify for a VRTFP grant.
RESOLUTION
FUNDING ASSISTANCE FOR
RECREATIONAL TRAILS AND TRAILS-RELATED FACILITIES
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
WHEAREAS, the Virginia Recreational Trails Fund Program provides grant funds to
assist political subdivisions of the Commonwealth of Virginia in providing and maintaining
recreational trails and trails-related facilities; and
February 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle desires to develop an accessible section of the
Rivanna Greenway within Darden Towe Park along Free Bridge Lane connecting an existing trail
section in the park with an existing trail section under Free Bridge and downstream; and
WHEREAS, the funding available from the Virginia Recreational Trails Fund Program is
limited to 80% on projects totaling $25,000 to $125,000; and
WHEREAS, funding necessary in addition to the Virginia Recreational Trails Fund
Program share to complete the project will be provided by the County of Albemarle.
NOW, THEREORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle that the County Executive is hereby authorized to cause such information or materials
as may be necessary to be provided to the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
and to enter into such agreements as may be necessary to permit formulation, approval and
funding of the above described segment of the Rivanna Greenway.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Albemarle County hereby agrees to accept all
maintenance responsibilities, and keep this facility reasonably open for public use for the
expected useful life of the project.
__________
Item 6.4. Resolution to accept roads in Fontana Subdivision, Phase 3, into the State Secondary
Road System.
At the request of Engineering Department, and by the recorded vote set out above, the
Board adopted the following Resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Fontana Subdivision, Phase 3, as described on the
attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated February 7, 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 Fontana Subdivision,
Phase 3, as described on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated February 7, 2007, to the
secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the
Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-
way, as described, 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) Milton Village Lane (State Route 1126) from Route 729 (Milton Road) to the end of the
cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 10/07/2001 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit
Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2089, page 288, with a 40-foot right-of-way
width, for a length of 0.39 miles.
Total Mileage – 0.39
__________
Item 6.5. Resolution to accept roads in Fontana Subdivision, Phase 4A, into the State Secondary
Road System.
At the request of the Engineering Department and by the recorded vote set out above, the
Board adopted the following Resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Fontana Subdivision, Phase 4A, as described on the
attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated February 7, 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
February 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised the Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street
Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) in Fontana Subdivision,
Phase 4A, as described on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated February 7, 2007, to the
secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the
Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-
way, as described, 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) Aviano Way (State Route 1774) from the intersection of Route 1771 (Verona Drive) to
the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 07/14/2004 in the office of the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2296, pages 120-130, with a 50-foot
right-of-way width, for a length of 0.14 miles.
Total Mileage – 0.14
__________
Item 6.6. Resolution to accept roads in Milton Village Subdivision into the State Secondary Road
System.
At the request of the Engineering Department, and by the recorded vote set out above, the
Board adopted the following Resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Milton Village Subdivision, as described on the attached
Additions Form AM-4.3 dated February 7, 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 Milton Village
Subdivision, as described on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated February 7, 2007, to
the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the
Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-
way, as described, 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) Milton Village Lane (State Route 1126) from Route 729 (Milton Road) to the end of the
cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 10/07/2001 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit
Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2089, page 288, with a 40-foot right-of-way
width, for a length of 0.39 miles.
Total Mileage – 0.39
__________
Item 6.7. Joint Resolution Providing for the Implementation of the Comprehensive Community
Corrections Act for Local Responsible Offenders, the Pretrial Services Act and the Establishment of the
Thomas Jefferson Area Community Criminal Justice Board (TJACCJB).
The Board received the following letter from Patricia L. Smith, Executive Director of OAR/
Jefferson Area Community Corrections:
February 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
“As you are aware, we receive most of our funding for the Local Probation and Pretrial Programs
through the Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS). W e have been doing so since 1995
when the legislation entitled ‘Community Corrections Act for Local Responsible Offenders’ and the
‘Pretrial Services Act’ were adopted. As you also know, Albemarle County has graciously been
serving as the fiscal agent for the 9 localities served by our program.
In addition to the services provided by OAR/Jefferson Area Community Corrections, each locality
has participated in the Thomas Jefferson Area Community Criminal Justice Board. This is the
Advisory Board that oversees local probation, pretrial services and public inebriate services.
Our programs recently were required to submit new Standard Operating Procedures (SOP’s)
detailing our operation. W e have completed those and provided them to DCJS. W e recently were
informed that they want updated resolutions by each locality participating. The request is being
made due to the changes in the legislation and the need to keep the updates on file with DCJS. I
am attaching a model resolution and ask that you adopt this at the earliest meeting possible. W e
would make every effort to attend the meeting when this resolution will be discussed to answer
any question the Board of Supervisors may have.
I appreciate your assistance with this effort. I can also email you a copy that can be modified to
address your locality. DCJS is requesting that we make every effort to have all of our participating
localities be as uniform as possible in adopting the resolution.”
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution:
JOINT RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE COMPREHENSIVE COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS ACT FOR LOCAL RESPONSIBLE
OFFENDERS, THE PRETRIAL SERVICES ACT AND THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE THOMAS JEFFERSON AREA COMMUNITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE
BOARD [TJACCJB]
WHEREAS, the Virginia General Assembly has adopted legislation entitled the
Comprehensive Community Corrections Act for Local Responsible Offenders, Article 9 (§ 9.1-173
et. seq.) of the Code of Virginia and the Pretrial Services Act, Article 5 (§ 19.2-152.2 et seq.) of
the Code of Virginia, both of which were effective July 1, 1995; and
WHEREAS §§ 9.1-174 and 19.2-152.2 of the Code of Virginia require Albemarle and
Nelson Counties and the City of Charlottesville that pursuant to § 53.1-82.1 were approved for a
jail project to participate and establish services and in accordance with both Acts; and
WHEREAS the Counties of Fluvanna, Goochland, Greene, Louisa, Orange and Madison
have elected to participate and establish services in accordance with both Acts; and
WHEREAS §§ 9.1-178 and 19.2-152.5 of the Code of Virginia require that each county
and city establishing and operating community-based probation and pretrial services establish a
Community Criminal Justice Board, and in the case of multi-jurisdictional efforts, that each
jurisdiction mutually agree upon the number of appointments to said board.
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the County of Albemarle jointly agrees with the City
of Charlottesville and the Counties of Greene, Nelson, Madison, Fluvanna, Louisa, Orange, and
Goochland to implement the services and programs required by the Comprehensive Community
Corrections Act for Local Responsible Offenders and the Pretrial Services Act with Albemarle
County, pursuant to § 9.1-183, acting as the administrator and fiscal agent on behalf of the
participating localities; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Albemarle County, as administrator and fiscal agent
shall establish local community-based probation services for all of the participating jurisdictions
and for pretrial services for Albemarle, Charlottesville and Nelson pursuant to a contract with
OAR/Jefferson Area Community Corrections, and for pretrial services for Fluvanna, Greene,
Louisa, Madison and Orange Counties pursuant to a memorandum of understanding with the
Central Virginia Regional Jail Board; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County of Albemarle jointly establishes the
Thomas Jefferson Area Community Criminal Justice Board [TJACCJB], and that said board shall
fulfill its responsibilities pursuant to § 9.1-180, and shall be composed of the following members
pursuant to § 9.1-178 of the Code of Virginia:
• One representative of the governing bodies of each participating jurisdiction,
• A circuit court judge of any one of the participating jurisdictions as agreed upon
by the judges to represent all circuit court judges,
• A judge of the general district court of any one of the participating jurisdictions as
agreed upon by the judges to represent all general district court judges,
• A judge of the juvenile and domestic relations district court of any one of the
participating jurisdictions as agreed upon by the judges to represent all juveniles
and domestic relations district court judges,
• A chief magistrate,
February 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
• A Commonwealth’s Attorney to represent all of the Commonwealth’s Attorneys of
the participating jurisdictions,
• An attorney experienced in the defense of criminal matters who is a current
member of the Virginia State Bar, and a public defender, where applicable, each
representing the participating localities,
• The administrator of the Albemarle/Charlottesville Regional Jail or the Central
Virginia Regional Jail,
• A Sheriff of any county or city not served by a police department and a chief of
police to represent all law enforcement agencies of the participating jurisdictions,
• A Community Services Board Administrator representing all agencies providing
such services to participating jurisdictions,
• A representative of a local adult education agency representing all agencies
providing such services to participating jurisdictions, and
• A director of a Department of Corrections Probation and Parole District Office
serving and representing all of the participating jurisdictions.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution supersedes and replaces all prior
resolutions approved by the locality relating to the establishment of required services and the
formation of the Thomas Jefferson Area Community Criminal Justice Board.
__________
Item 6.8. FY 2007 Appropriation for Mountainside Senior Living Center was received for
information.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that in 2002, the Jefferson Area Board for Aging (JABA)
took over management of the Mountainside Senior Living Center as a limited partner. At that time, the
County of Albemarle provided a grant of $177,617 to assist Mountainside during its transition phase as it
worked to become self-supporting. Funding requested by JABA at that time was to subsidize 30 County
Auxiliary Grant recipients who lived at the facility until the private pay residents began to offset the costs.
In April 2003, due to unanticipated expenses that were not disclosed by the previous owner, as
well as a delay in having the facility ready to accept private pay clients, JABA requested additional funding
to operate the center. The Board supported JABA’s request to provide $12,500 per year for FY ‘04, FY
‘05 and FY ‘06.
Approximately two-thirds of the residents at Mountainside receive Auxiliary Grant (AG) support
from the State. AGs are offered only to indigent individuals that reside in an assisted living facility.
However, the State funding of $982 per resident per month is not sufficient to cover JABA’s expenses of
$1,600 per resident per month. As a result, JABA requested funding in the amount of $50,450 for
Mountainside during the budget development process for FY ‘07. At that time, the Board approved funding
for Mountainside contingent on the receipt of a business plan.
JABA submitted a business plan to the County in April, 2006. After review of the business plan,
County staff had several questions. After meetings with representatives from JABA, the County, and the
City of Charlottesville, JABA submitted a revised business plan in December 2006 that addressed those
questions.
W hen the County initially approved funding for Mountainside, it was with the understanding that
Mountainside would eventually become self-sustaining and would not require ongoing support from the
City and County. However, because funding from the State for AG residents is not adequate and plans to
market to private pay residents has met with limited success, JABA feels they need ongoing assistance
from the City and County to assure that AG beds are available to seniors in our community who are in the
greatest need.
Because JABA is in compliance with the terms for providing funding for FY ‘07, staff recommends
appropriating $50,450 to Mountainside for the current fiscal year. This amount is included for Board
consideration as part of today’s FY ‘07 Budget Amendment. For future years, staff recommends that the
Board carefully consider whether they want to provide ongoing support for assisted living.
__________
Item 6.9. Copy of minutes of the Albemarle County Service Authority for September 2006,
October 2006, November 2006 and December 2006, were received as information.
__________
Item 6.10. Update on progress of the Scottsville Historic Streetscape Project was received as
information.
The Board received the following letter from James P. Hogan, Chair, Quality of Life Committee,
Scottsville Town Council:
“This is to provide you with an update on the progress of the Scottsville Historic Streetscape
Project.
W e really value your partnership and assistance towards completion of East Main Street for total
closure of the project. To this end, we have applied for a 2007 TEA-21 grant to match the
County’s $250,000 contribution.
February 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
In the enclosure you will find our vision and mission statements, current letters of support from
Monticello, Preservation Piedmont, and the Piedmont Environmental Council; all of which support
the completion of East Main Street, and progress of the project by week to date.
W hile projects of this nature almost always provide a more attractive result, the real value is in
tourism and economic development, we have established a first hand relationship with the Virginia
Tourism Council. They will take an active part in the 2007 Virginia Garden W eek, which is
centered in Albemarle County’s Historic Scottsville.
In addition, we are about to embark on a branding and business building opportunity with a
Community Development Block Grant from VDHCD. The marketing firm is Arnett Muldrow &
Associates, who are currently working with Nelson and Amherst Counties.
W ith all the projects the Board of Supervisors are involved in, the Scottsville Historic Streetscape
Project should serve as a very positive example of conservation, preservation and enhancement.”
__________
Item 6.11. Board-to-Board, Communications report of activities from the Albemarle County
School Board, dated February 7, 2007, was received as information.
______________
Agenda Item No. 7a. Transportation Matters: VDOT Monthly Report, and Agenda Item No. 7b.
Transportation Matters not Listed on the Agenda were heard together.
Mr. Allan Sumpter, Residency Administrator, reported that VDOT has just begun to clear the
secondary roads this morning. He said that on Route 20 there were two accidents that involved VDOT
trucks which put them behind in snow removal.
__________
Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Sumpter to report on what he learned about revenue-sharing money. Mr.
Sumpter responded that there has been citizen concern about leaving the road to Ragged Mountain as
rustic as possible, although it needs to be upgraded to accommodate equipment when the dam is being
worked on. He said that he researched funding possibilities and found that it would be best to do the
project as revenue-sharing and spot improvements, because if the road improvements become part of the
regular six-year plan there would have to be design standards that would require paving and widening.
Ms. Thomas commented that the latter option would be very expensive, and Tom Frederick of
RW SA said that their engineers would ensure that the dam would be designed so that the road could
accommodate the transported materials.
Mr. Slutzky asked why the rate-payers that support the water project are not ultimately responsible
for paying for the repairs.
Ms. Thomas replied that it would be a thorny issue as to who’s paying for it, because there’s a
long segment of road that is city road, etc. It is going to be a good discussion.
__________
Ms. Thomas asked about the light at Bellair Subdivision on Route 250 W est. Mr. Sumpter replied
that VDOT had received a lot of comments about that light. He said the light works on a regular program
computer phase, and does not detect traffic as a normal signal would. They are in the process of planning
an upgrade which will put a video camera detection system on it. He assured the Board that he is pushing
engineering to get results.
__________
Mr. W yant commended VDOT on the great work they did last night during the wintry weather.
__________
Mr. W yant commented that he had received a petition concerning W hite Mountain Road which
could benefit from some spot improvements, and VDOT is aware of this.
__________
Mr. W yant noted that Millington Bridge has had some improvements done to it. He is happy to see
the alternative for Milton Bridge Road.
__________
Mr. W yant asked if the Jarman’s Gap Road project would be phased. Mr. Sumpter responded
that it would be, and a decision needs to be made as to whether to leave in the second phase or not.
__________
Mr. Rooker said the residents of Canterbury Hills have been very pleased with VDOT’s response
to the litter problems there and thanked Mr. Sumpter.
__________
Mr. Rooker said that Board members walked areas of Georgetown Road and he asked about the
aerial photograph that is scheduled for the road. Mr. Sumpter stated that it is scheduled to be taken, but
he would check on it, noting that the timeframes discussed are still on-target.
__________
February 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Mr. Slutzky mentioned a concern from a constituent regarding confusion in who has the right-of-
way northbound on Greenbrier Drive as the roadway runs into Rio Road at Gasoline Alley. Mr. Sumpter
said that area is being looked as part of the signal study on Rio Road.
__________
Mr. Slutzky said several constituents in Dunlora have received notices from VDOT that their
property will be taken, and they would like to see a map of the final road configuration for the Meadow
Creek Parkway. Mr. Joel DeNunzio of VDOT said they created a map and sent it to the County on Friday.
The map will be available on the website. VDOT will send a copy to Mr. Slutzky along with the date and
time of the meeting with residents of Dunlora.
__________
Mr. Boyd noted that on High Street and on Route 250 there are rubber barricades which have
created a dangerous situation, especially during rush hour. Mr. Sumpter said that was done by the City.
Mr. Tucker said he would have Mr. Jack Kelsey talk with the City regarding those bollards.
__________
Ms. Thomas said that she had asked about litter pickup, and wondered if VDOT had had any
problems with it.
Mr. Sumpter replied that it works similarly to the “Adopt A Highway” program, and people can
contact the VDOT office, noting that Ms. Sherry Lawhorne is the coordinator of that program.
__________
Mr. Rooker commented that north of Hydraulic Road on Route 29, a lane ends near Golden
Corral and people tend to hit the curb because the lane appears to be continuous.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Green Building/Sustainability Initiative, Status Report.
Mr. Sean Dougherty reported that the Board had given direction to staff to work with the
community and generally expand the public’s access to information on green building and sustainability.
He said that the County worked with the City, the University, and the Downtown Design Center on a public
outreach initiative. The County also had Earthcraft training at the County Office Building – hosted by the
Blue Ridge Homebuilders Association. Mr. Dougherty said that the County is participating in the Earthcraft
courthouse campaign, which works to reduce local government’s use of energy and also enables them to
access grants and fund more efficient equipment. He noted that the final direction from the Board was to
amend the Comprehensive Plan in support of green building. He added that the Executive Summary
included some draft language as to where the County might go with amendments – presented in three
categories of items; those not affecting staff and budget, those that would have some impact, and those
that would have a lot of impact.
Mr. Dougherty commented that staff is realizing that more information is needed about the ability
to build, construct, design and manage the green buildings here, and what the impacts might be.
Ms. Sarah Temple addressed the Board, stating that the County joined Energy Star in December
2006, a joint program of the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency that
encourages organizations to conserve energy. She said that the basic steps in the program are drafting
and adopting an energy conservation policy, forming an energy management team, tracking current and
past energy usage, and setting goals for future energy reduction. Ms. Temple indicated that the County is
in the early phases, but hopes to reach the last two steps by the end of October 2007.
Ms. Temple said that staff’s plan is to research cost-related information more in-depth, and there
are certification options: self-certification, involving the county establishing its own green building
standards which may be less credible to stakeholders; and LEED, which is promoted by the U.S. Green
Building Council and internationally recognized. She emphasized that the sustainable or high-
performance buildings are designed to pay for themselves over time through reduced operational costs.
Ms. Temple mentioned several area buildings that will be LEED certified, and U.Va. has adopted new
sustainability standards approving LEED certification for all building design and construction.
Ms. Temple noted that there are bills currently under consideration in the General Assembly,
including one requiring LEED Silver certification for all new state building and renovation projects. She
commented that the costs could be broken down into hard costs, including minimal fees for project
registration and certification, and soft costs, such as design-related costs and project
documentation/application. Ms. Temple noted that soft costs are hard to predict, but between 1 and 3
percent of project cost is needed to achieve basic LEED certification.
Mr. Dougherty said that staff has done some research on potential energy sources. They found
that if 35 percent of Crozet Library’s energy came from wind, it would only cost $663 per year, saving
emissions equivalent to taking 18 cars off the road. He added that the next steps would be to go to the
Planning Commission for a worksession, gather more information on the Crozet project, and devise a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment stemming from the worksession.
In response to Mr. Rooker’s question regarding solar panels and thin panels for roofing, Mr.
Dougherty noted that when the program for the library becomes clearer, the Board could give some
direction as to design elements such as energy-efficient paneling.
February 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
Mr. W yant stated that Crozet residents are supportive of such measures, and he would not like to
have to wait for 10 years or more.
Mr. Boyd commented that he is pleased to see that organizations such as BRHA are behind
implementing green and sustainable building measures, but he is not necessarily interested in working
through Comprehensive Plan changes and the County staff W ork Plan.
Mr. Slutzky responded that the Board could pass already existing model legislation, and requiring
LEED certification is not a huge time-drain on staff. He added that making a decision and passing an
ordinance are not particularly time-consuming.
Ms. Thomas commented that there is limited amount that local government can do without the
schools, so if it is going to be pursued it should be put on an agenda with them soon. She added that
there is research that shows that daylighting improves students’ learning capability.
Mr. Dougherty said that even if there is a 3 percent up-front cost for the LEED buildings, there are
long-term savings that end up paying for the cost difference.
Mr. Boyd asked what it would take to re-price the $100 million cost for school buildings.
Mr. Rooker commented that it sounds like the Board seems willing to look at certification as a
goal, and staff has already worked cooperatively with builders and developers to forward the concept of
LEED certification. The more the public is engaged, and the more they become aware of the value of
going in this direction, the more the consumers will demand it. He thinks the builders are recognizing that
this is something of value that may set them apart from other builders. He emphasized that the Board
should focus on achieving concrete results from the time, effort, and money spent, not so much on the
process.
Mr. Boyd commented that he is not convinced that government needs to step in and tell
organizations such as BRHA that they can do it better.
Mr. Slutzky noted that the County does not want to stifle any builder’s unique development of their
own process or certification, and emphasized the importance of viewing the benefits that are not readily
monetized.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that the California Sustainable Building Task Force found a payback of 10
times the initial investment of $100,000 to incorporate green-building features, and turned into a million-
dollar savings over 20 years.
Mr. Dougherty stated that there would likely be cost differences between building in Palo Alto,
California versus Lynchburg, Virginia. He also said that the professionals – such as architects and
engineers – need to integrate to achieve the best and most efficient possible product. Those
professionals are here, but we do not have a lot of buildings that are built; we can only reference 14 that
are certified in the state.
Ms. Temple added that the integrated design process is really paramount to the success of this
whole thing.
Mr. Dougherty also said that this ties in well to value engineering, unless the green components
are cut to save costs.
Mr. Slutzky pointed out that when he got LEED certification for his office space, they would have
received comparable credit points to upgrade a $45,000 HVAC system to geothermal, versus spending
less money on putting bike racks in. He said that value-engineering might unwittingly undermine the goal
as they are different strategies. He added that the National Landscape Architecture Organization is
contemplating creating an equivalent to the LEED standard, but where the building envelope is taken in
context with geographic considerations.
Mr. Rooker noted that some common sense things might not necessarily be on the checklist for
certification, and the things that are presented by staff that impose little impact to budget and staff time
should be pursued. Mr. Rooker also said that if projects such as the Crozet Library are going to include
LEED certification, then staff should go ahead and know that so that elements can be worked into the
project.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that the Crozet Library architecture firm does have a LEED-certified
architect on the project team. She also noted that the current ordinance does not require green building
standards above and beyond regular requirements.
Mr. Rooker commented that more builders want to do these things because customers want
them, adding that he does not know to what extent the County wants to interject themselves into the
process. He said that on the public side, there should be emphasis on education and working with the
development community, such as getting certifications.
Mr. Dougherty indicated that there is a liaison with the Blue Ridge Homebuilders and they have
gone to the Green Building Committee.
February 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
Mr. Tucker suggested that staff move forward with some of these ideas and bring them back,
adding that he is hearing a consensus from the Board to move forward on County building projects to
include Green Building initiatives and follow LEED certification, subject to funding and the financial review.
Ms. Thomas said that other goals might override LEED – such as finding sites that will allow for
walkable distances to school.
Mr. Dorrier stated that if the cost differential is over three percent, he feels that it should be
reviewed. Mr. Boyd responded that it would be reviewed anyway.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. FY 2005-06 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR).
Mr. Dorrier reported that this is the annual audit as prepared by Jack Farmer of Farmer, Robinson
& Cox and Richard W iggans from the County. He indicated that he, Mr. Boyd, Roxanne W hite, and a
School Board member serve on the review board and publish an annual report each year. Mr. Dorrier
stated that this year three improvements were recommended: dealing with child nutrition, reconciling Excel
workbooks with the County, and review of inter-fund transfer processes. He said that these are minor
errors, and everything else is exemplary. Mr. Dorrier stated that education is the largest item, and 42
percent is available for spending as undesignated fund balance, with $25.0 million this year ($12.0 million
assigned for future capital projects by the Board and $13.0 million to go in a rainy day fund.)
Mr. Farmer stated that the financial statements have been give a clean opinion, and the audit was
conducted in accordance with government audit standards and single auditing standards to ensure
compliance with federal programs.
Mr. Rooker commented that he reads the statement as saying the assets (cash and investments)
were $18.0 million, and $10 million was due from other governments. You really did not have $25.0
million sitting in the bank. You had $18.0 million sitting in the bank. He emphasized that those fund
balances are not really money that’s available to spend in current operations.
Mr. Farmer explained that it is the county’s net working capital.
Mr. Dorrier moved to accept the 2005-06 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, as presented.
Mr. Rooker seconded the motion, which passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. FY 2006 Department of Social Services Annual Report.
Ms. Brenda Daniel, outgoing chair of the Social Services Advisory Board, addressed the Board.
She introduced former board member Lincoln Lewis and Sonja Jamies, who helped developed the report,
and Kathy Ralston. Ms. Daniel acknowledged and thanked Roxanne W hite, who serves as liaison with
the county. She said that in 2006, they were able to get “Friends of DSS” up and running, and they held
one meeting prior to the General Assembly and one after the session. Ms. Daniel said that they serve as
advocates for the department.
She explained that the timelines for processing Medicaid applications had a drastic increase from
2005 to 2006, and the department has met or exceeded goals in almost every area. Ms. Daniel added
that the advisory board is aware of shortfalls, and the department believes they are due in large part to
staffing shortages and increasing caseloads. She noted that the department has worked to form
partnerships with other community agencies and individuals to pool resources and manpower, with
several examples highlighted in the report. Ms. Daniel said that DSS gets support from Albemarle County
but also leverages funds from other sources, for instance: $64 million from state and federal programs in
2006.
Mr. Rooker asked how many total foster care placements occur in a typical year.
Ms. Daniel responded that there were 44 new foster care cases in 2006, with 39 of those requiring
specialized placement for children with more intensive needs.
Ms. Ralston pointed out that specialized placements usually refer to older children and children
who are more troubled. Once they hit three placements, the goal is not met, affecting the statistics related
to meeting goals. She noted that when the goal is not met statewide, there are usually sanctions, and
Virginia is on the verge of having to pay a federal sanction because of that. None of us are meeting these
goals because they are just too challenging. Ms. Ralston mentioned that there have been legal changes
in the juvenile justice system, meaning that some kids can only receive services if they come into foster
care through the CSA system.
Ms. Thomas commented that it’s marvelous that all eligible children have been enrolled in
Medicaid, but it’s terrible that there are 100 families on the waiting list for child care services.
February 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
In response to Mr. Rooker’s question, Ms. Ralston pointed out that this is the first time there has
been a waiting list in seven years, and prior to losing about $250,000 in match funding, they were meeting
goals.
Mr. Rooker commented that the welfare-to-work program does not work very well if you do not
have child care.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Bright Stars Annual Report.
Ms. Charity Hanes presented the Bright Stars Program report to the Board. She recognized
Eileen Hilton, family coordinator at Greer; Terry Higgins, family coordinator at Stone Robinson; Mary
Stevens, family coordinator at Scottsville; John Freeman, Assistant Director of Social Services; Kathy
Ralston, Director of Social Services; and Roxanne W hite. Ms. Hanes emphasized the success of the
program, noting that teachers in kindergarten and 1st grade indicate that these children are well-prepared
for school. She said that in the fall of 2005, only 24 percent of children entering the Bright Stars class
were able to pass or exceed the benchmark range necessary to be successful in kindergarten; when they
were reassessed in May, 80 percent of them reached or exceeded the benchmark range. Ms. Hanes said
that this year, when kindergarten students were assessed in language and literacy, 88 percent were able
to reach or exceed benchmark goals. She said that prevention programs like Bright Stars aim to enhance
the quality of life for children and families who are enrolled. They wish to increase their ability to be self-
sufficient, access healthcare, qualify for adequate housing, create safe and stable living environments,
prepare for employment opportunities that offer benefits and a career ladder, and engage in recreational
and leisure time activities as well as think about lifelong learning activities.
Ms. Hanes added that in 2006, 90 to 100 percent of Bright Stars children were enrolled in either a
public or private health insurance plan, so that they were not relying on costly services of hospital
emergency rooms. These services were often facilitated by Bright Stars coordinators. She added that all
Bright Stars participants have at least 60 minutes of gross motor activity every day, thereby reducing the
risk for obesity and other chronic illnesses. Ms. Hanes also said that all children receive well-balanced
meals and snacks daily, and all the parents have information on good nutrition to further reduce risks of
illness and tooth decay. She added that the County will realize reduced education costs associated with
grade retention, special education services, and will see an increase in high school graduation rates. Ms.
Hanes also said that there will be reduced costs to the community related to criminal activity, substance
abuse, and early teen pregnancy. She shared a story of a single-parent family that benefited from Bright
Stars coordination, with improvements noted in the two boys’ school attendance and the mother’s meeting
of monthly expenses by finding full-time employment.
Ms. Thomas asked what kind of cooperation the Bright Stars program was getting with elementary
schools.
Ms. Hanes replied that they have a very strong relationship with the schools, and one of the
advantages of this program is the collaboration.
Mr. Rooker asked if Albemarle’s Bright Stars program had been contacted by Governor Kaine’s
preschool panel.
Ms. Hanes responded that things are evolving at the state level, and the County has met with
representatives from the “Start Strong” council at regional meetings as well as ongoing contact by various
media. She said that the State is looking for innovative programs that take some risks, adding that the
County has received a $70,000 grant from the Virginia Preschool Initiative to be awarded February 16th.
Ms. Daniel pointed out that the money the governor has tried to put in the budget for preschool
next year is in trouble, so anything the Board could do to support this would help.
Mr. Rooker suggested sending a letter to the General Assembly.
Mr. Boyd commented that a lot of letters have been sent this year and that it seems like every
time he turns around they have sent a letter.
Mr. Slutzky responded that every time they turn around the programs are cut.
Mr. Rooker added that there are thousands of bills floating around and the County weighs in on 10
or 12.
Mr. Davis suggested directing the letter to the Budget Committee.
Mr. Slutzky and Mr. Rooker agreed that representatives should be contacted directly in addition to
committee members.
In response to Mr. W yant’s question about how schools are selected, Ms. Hanes explained that
they are chosen based on who has the highest educational or social service needs. These are based on
available space at the schools as well as things such as free and reduced lunch counts, reports to child
protective services, and low income housing areas. She added that schools provide things such as
classroom space, utilities, maintenance, and transportation as in-kind contributions. Ms. Hanes
February 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
emphasized that this is a prevention program that impacts many aspects of the community, noting that the
hours are the same as K-5 (6.35 hours).
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Human Resources Annual Report.
Ms. Kimberley Suyes addressed the Board regarding Human Resources, noting that the County
employed 119 new local government employees: 34 female, 36 male, 12 minorities and 58 non-minorities.
She noted that recruitment from County referrals increased from 23 to 26, indicating that employees like
where they work and are telling other people about it; turnover is at 6.28 percent, which is also quite low.
Regarding EEO data, Ms. Suyes said that there are 261 females, 312 males, 90 minorities and 483 non-
minorities, and said that Asians and Hispanics needed to be better targeted. She noted that 137
employees (24%) are over 50 years old, and 19 employees (3%) are over 60 years old, so the County can
anticipate some upcoming retirements. Ms. Suyes said that Human Resources focused a lot on training
last year, with at least one training per competency. She stated that employee satisfaction is assessed,
and the reward and recognition program is being tracked as well.
Ms. Suyes explained that they have been holding “W ise Up W orkshops” that address balancing
life at work, long-term care and things of that nature. She said that HR had a 70 percent response rate
with employee surveys, and the greatest improvements included the County’s use of technology, the
directors of departments regularly engaging employees in conversation, cooperation between
departments, and employees regularly receiving information on the County’s Strategic Plans, goals and
progress. She noted that the Leadership Council put emphasis into areas previously identified as needing
work, and also said that one of the things HR is focusing on is health, safety, wellness, W orkers’
Compensation and unemployment.
Mr. Boyd asked why premiums for W orkers’ Compensation have increased so much: $141,000 to
$200,000 in the last three years.
Ms. Suyes responded that she is not sure, but she would look into it. Staff is focusing on safety
issues that may reduce risks so there are fewer accidents. She said that the County has provided annual
flu immunizations and mobile mammography.
Ms. Suyes reported that the County has also focused on organizational development with three
objectives: creating infrastructure to support continuous and consistent learning for all employees,
developing talent/skill sets, and creating partnerships to build technology skill sets. She reminded the
Board that the County had given a 2.5 percent increase for classified scale and 3.9 percent for merit. The
behaviors tracked showed 26.7 percent performed above and beyond normal duties, 21.4 percent
exemplified teamwork, and 17.8 percent showed exemplary customer service. Ms. Suyes noted that HR
continues to utilize feedback for the leadership council and management group, and is implementing the
technology training programs that offer training in MS Office, Sharepoint, and eventually General
Dynamics.
Mr. Boyd asked how much of the budget was dedicated to the Total Rewards program.
Ms. Suyes replied that the County spends $50,000 total, or about $87 per employee.
Regarding broad-banding, Ms. Suyes said that staff is researching it but she is not convinced that
that is the best approach for the County.
Mr. Rooker commented that he liked the report, and liked the way things are broken down.
Mr. Boyd asked if information on sick leave could be brought forth to see if the wellness programs
are working.
Ms. Suyes agreed, adding that having medical cost reductions is a positive reflection too.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Appeal: SUB-2006-224, Rolling Meadows – Request for Private Street to
serve 4 lots. Request for preliminary subdivision plat approval to create 4 lots on 18.62 acres zoned RA.
Tax Map 56, Parcel 112. Located 900 feet west of Normandy Drive and 200 feet off the Rockfish Gap
Turnpike (U.S. Route 250). (The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Areas in Rural
Area 3.) W hite Hall District. (Deferred from December 6, 2006)
Mr. Fritz reported that the Planning Commission had denied a request for a private street serving
four lots. The applicant met with VDOT, who confirmed that the applicant had provided a design that met
standards for a public street within the alignment shown for the private street. He said that the private
street results in substantially less earthwork than the public street, noting that the total length of the street
is 1,070 feet.
Mr. Rooker said that the question is whether the public road would cause significantly more
impact than the private road.
Mr. W yant noted that a private road would be about 30 dump-truck loads of dirt, with the public
road requiring about 100. It’s a substantial change and going from a public to a private road effects the
environment.
February 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
Mr. Boyd said that this is not officially a public hearing, but asked if anyone wanted to speak.
No one came forward, and the Board resumed their discussion.
Mr. W yant moved for approval of the applicant’s request for a waiver to allow a private street in
Rolling Meadows. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Closed Session.
At 1:00 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Slutzky that the Board adjourn into closed session
pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to
boards, committees and commissions; and, under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff
regarding matters of pending litigation related to a law enforcement incident, and under Subsection 7 to
consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific matters requiring legal advice relating to an inter-
jurisdictional service agreement.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Certify Closed Session. The Board reconvened into open session at 2:13
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. Dorrier. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Appeal: SDP-2006-0071, Gillispie Preliminary Site Plan - Critical Slopes
waiver/curb and gutter request. Request for Preliminary Site Plan to allow the construction of two (2)
residential condominium units totaling 16,023 s.f., and 7 total dwelling units on 1.71 acres, and is zoned
R4 (Residential). The property is described as Tax Map 61K, Parcels 10-0A and 10-0A2, and is located in
the Jack Jouett Magisterial District at the end of Inglewood Drive, near its intersection with Hydraulic Road
(Route 631). The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Density in Urban Area
7.
Mr. David Pennock, Planner, said this is an appeal of a denial by the Planning Commission of a
waiver for a critical slopes disturbance in order to construct the Gillespie Preliminary Site Plan. The site is
located in the Jack Jouett District at the end of Ingleside Drive. The request is based on a preliminary site
plan requesting construction of seven condominium units. It is an administrative review of the plan but
part of it requires two waivers. One waiver is for a portion of curb and gutter not shown on the original
plan. The other waiver would be for disturbance of critical slopes. Since the time of the original submittal,
the applicant has indicated a willingness to construct the curb and gutter, so the only thing left to talk about
is the critical slopes waiver.
Mr. Pennock said the site consists of about 30 percent critical slopes. This plan would
necessitate disturbance of almost 60 percent of those slopes. Staff analysis of any critical slopes waiver
is based on several factors including determination of critical resources that may be present on the site.
There are five engineering analyses to determine if site design can accomplish the disturbance using
sound engineering practices. Those items are summarized (see staff’s report on file) with three
recommendations based on the three criteria the Commission can use to grant waivers. Staff was not able
to conclude that any of those criteria had been met, therefore, staff’s recommendation was for denial of
the critical slopes waiver.
Mr. Pennock said the applicant had submitted a packet of information which was forwarded to the
Board. It included justifications that basically go through the original staff report. The applicant also
submitted an alternative plan (Diagram “B”), but staff has not had time to do a full analysis of it. However,
in preliminary review, that plan would also necessitate Commission approval of a critical slopes waiver.
Mr. Rooker said he understands that the plan was put forward by the applicant to show another
way the project could be built. In his view it is worse than the plan he was asking be approved. Mr.
Pennock said even though this plan would have almost as much disturbance of critical slopes area, some
February 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
of those areas would be exempted because they are for travelways, etc. Things like parking areas and
grading related to buildings could not be exempted and could require a waiver.
Mr. Boyd asked if the critical slopes waiver is the only thing before the Board today. Mr. Davis
said that is correct. Neither staff nor the Commission has made a final decision on the site plan, so the
plan has not been denied at this point. The only thing before the Board today is whether to grant the
critical slopes waiver for the application plan that was reviewed by the Commission. Mr. Cilimberg said
the Commission agreed with staff regarding the critical slopes waiver. They did not feel it was consistent
with waiver criteria, and the vote was unanimous.
Ms. Thomas said that part of this property drains to the south, and part to the north. Mr. Pennock
said there was no dispute over the drainage areas as shown.
Ms. Thomas asked if the riprap channels are doing okay now. The applicant is suggesting that
their decisions about the critical slopes were made based on engineering concerns. Since that will
probably be part of the Board’s thinking, she wanted more facts about how this situation works. She does
not think there is more impervious surface on the south drainage, so if the riprap channels are working
fine today on that section, that is not an engineering concern. She thinks the north drainage section
should be taken care of with the detention basin. Mr. Pennock said the concern was based on the plan
which concentrated flows in different patterns than had been done previously. Even if the outfall was the
same volume in specific points than it had been previously, it was more concentrated. In other words, in
some areas there was sheet flow and in other areas there were ditches. Based on the final plan, more of
it was going to a concentrated point than had been going there before. That raised concern about
possible offsite disturbance of the neighbor’s property.
Mr. Boyd asked that Mr. Brooks address that from an engineering standpoint.
Mr. Glenn Brooks, County Engineer, said that the section coming out of the detention basin
concerns staff. There is more water going in that direction, but it is managed now by the basin. There
was also a distinction made because natural drainage divided the property in two directions. That natural
drainage line was being moved so more was being collected in the back of the site and going through the
basin in the channel now. The natural drainage divide has changed with the proposed plan.
Ms. Thomas asked if the applicant would be required to handle that drainage. Mr. Brooks
confirmed that that was true. He said that a basin does not cure the problem, it helps the problem. There
is still more water going in that direction and it is still collected in a pipe and discharged in a way that was
not done naturally.
Mr. Boyd asked if that is Mr. Brooks’s reason for being opposed to this request. Mr. Brooks said
there were lots of reasons, and this was only one factor.
Mr. W yant asked if the applicant can meet the requirements of an E&S19 plan. Mr. Brooks said
that is hard to determine at this time since this is a preliminary plan.
Mr. Boyd said if there were no further questions for staff, he would ask the applicant to speak.
The applicant, Mr. Bill Daggett of Daggett & Gregg Architects, addressed the Board on behalf of
the Gillespies. He said they hope to address the question of drainage which was most of the reason for
recommending denial of the critical slopes waiver. They have asked for a letter of intent for the
stormwater easement on the next property. That has been discussed thoroughly, but they have more
information to add relative to the design of the property.
Mr. Daggett showed Diagram “D in which about 60 percent of the site is qualified as critical
slopes. Part of the issue that has been raised is that there is an exemption for building on critical slopes
for accessways. He pointed out that there are only two ways to get onto this property. The first is at upper
Inglewood Drive where there is an easement shared between this property and the adjacent property, but
the configuration of the road prohibits a driveway entrance permit because there is no sight line. They are
forced to come off of lower Inglewood Drive so in order to access the property they have to traverse the
end of the property; no matter how they do it they have to cross critical slopes for access.
Mr. Daggett said it was suggested that since there are areas on the property in non-critical slopes
that they look at those areas and come back with a plan that does not require building in the critical
slopes. He showed a rendering of the property and explained which areas are buildable slopes by
ordinance. They would essentially have to go through an existing house in order to meet the grades they
are allowed. The buildings were broken into three sets so they would have areas for construction, but that
would cause the applicant to cross the swale with a road which would cause them to build more
impervious surface area to get parking to the three units that would be there. The applicant looked at this
possibility, but it was a less reasonable solution.
Mr. Daggett then showed Diagram “B” which is called the alternative approach. He said this
alternative was explained to the Commission verbally, but there was no diagram at that time. Effectively,
this brings the accessways, sewer, etc. from the same direction into the site and turns it so they avoid
going across the swale and builds the units on the “white” area. W hen they looked at this situation, they
were crowding the house by putting it adjacent to the property line in order to stay off of the critical slopes,
and yet they still disturb the critical slopes with the road.
February 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
Mr. Daggett said this takes him to what they proposed which was to swap the building and the
road. That will increase the distance between the house at the lower section of the property and reduce
the travelway by about 1,000 square feet, creating a situation where all of the units are facing into the
open space. That gives a relationship between the buildings which is similar to the relationship everybody
in the neighborhood has between each other now; they are looking at backyards. Under Diagram “B”
everybody who now looks at the open space is looking at a parking lot. They felt it was a reasonable
approach as opposed to what is seen in Diagram “B” because it is a better neighborhood model. It
conceals the parking from everyone.
Mr. Daggett then showed another diagram which showed open space at the swale and a better
relationship between neighborhoods. It provides more than 100 feet between their single neighbor to the
south and the parking is concealed from that neighbor and the building is concealed from all the other
neighbors. They felt these are positive aspects and are reasons why they should be permitted to attain a
slopes waiver. He said stormwater management and issues were apparently why Engineering could not
support the slopes waiver. He then asked Mr. Clark Gathright, his firm’s engineer, to address the Board.
Mr. Gathright said he wanted to discuss two items relative to the plan and the slopes waiver
request. He talked about requirements in the Zoning Ordinance for preliminary site plans. He said from
the County’s review of the plan in October, six of the eight comments made were final site plan
requirements and not preliminary. The comments contained phrases such as “provide written
documentation of how stormwater runoff is addressed” and this involves extensive calculations; they are
not conceptual in nature. Another was “more specific design information as requested for the design and
construction” i.e., details of a particular storm structure. Another one called for “timeframes for
inspections for particular work” and he sees no relevance to either preliminary or final site plans. This is a
means and methods issue to be worked out by a contractor after this plan is approved. This project is a
prime example of why they need to adhere to the process set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. There are
many other issues that determine the feasibility of a site’s development. Only when such feasibility is
established should their clients incur the expense of providing detailed engineering calculations.
Regarding excessive stormwater runoff, Mr. Gathright said Section 17-3.14 states that land and
receiving waterways which are downstream from land development be protected from stormwater runoff
damage. The applicant is exempt from that section if the land development disturbs one acre or less of
land area. Excluding work in the right-of-way, their proposed disturbed area on the site plan is 1.07 acres,
and approximately 20 percent of that disturbed area is associated with stormwater management and BMP
construction. By adhering strictly to the ordinance, they can develop this project without providing any
stormwater measures, i.e., if they do not add the 20 percent basin (bio-filter), they would not have to
provide any control of velocity, even peak runoff. He said water quality measures are non-existent in this
neighborhood so they thought some water measure was of importance. Other stormwater planning
considerations concerned the drainage areas. Their site has 1.07 acres and it straddles two drainage
areas which total about .48 acres. Of the two drainage areas, the larger one to the north is about .38
acres, and about two-thirds of their site contributes to that drainage area and contributes about 1.6
percent of the total impervious area. He then explained some of his engineering calculations.
Mr. Gathright showed pictures of the current drainage area and explained his engineering of the
site. He emphasized that the stormwater flow from the site creates no jeopardy to damage downstream
property. From a conceptual standpoint, there is no merit to obtaining easements or detailed design at
this time. He said the drainage has no relevance on the critical slopes issue. Excessive stormwater runoff
is primarily a concern for critical slopes if the runoff is above and across from these critical slopes. They
do not have that since the water is in the swale at the bottom of the hill.
Mr. W yant asked how much drainage area passes through this property coming in from the south
where the head wall is placed. Mr. Gathright said where it passes off of their property it is about 30 acres
now.
Mr. W yant said that that drainage is just passing through the applicant’s site, so if some mitigation
were done it would help. He said Mr. Gathright showed a picture of the downstream area which is much
steeper, and is not favorable to this site. Additional flow from this site will only make the situation worse.
That stormwater is of concern to the adjacent property owner downstream. Mr. Gathright said he would
like to point out that in his storm pipe routing calculations, water is running at 13 to 14 feet per second at
the swale where it goes off of the property. W here the water discharges from the pipes, it is running at a
speed of 10 feet per second so it is not faster than what is coming off of the property.
Mr. W yant asked how stormwater will be handled at the proposed entrance into the property. Mr.
Gathright said he has provided two Filtera Boxes along that travelway. On the site, there will be no
significant decrease in impervious area over what’s there now, and in the right-of-way, there is a
significant paved area which will only be increased by about 1,400 square feet. He said his intent is to
over-detain in the bio-filter swale for any extra runoff on that side.
Mr. W yant said that Mr. Gathright talked about infiltration trenches being used for recharge. Mr.
Gathright said he showed typical French drains on the back of the houses on the last plan to catch the
back half of the buildings.
Mr. W yant said that is being used for the rooftops and then for the asphalt and the change in
grades, it will be taken care of through the bio-filters. Mr. Gathright said at this time, he plans on sending
that to the bio-filter. He said that the one-acre exemption would allow him to leave the swale there. He
could put another Filtera Box in the corner of his parking lot and the pipe that takes it back out to the swale
takes them to .8 acres. There would be no need for significant grading to try and balance the cut and fill
February 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
on the site so as not to haul it away. He said there are other options. His point was that they are so close
to not having to do anything, from a conceptual standpoint he thinks they should be able to go forward
from the preliminary plan.
Mr. W yant said the County is trying to protect critical slopes, so he is looking for something with
less environmental impact if he allows critical slope use. If whatever is being done can be enhanced, that
is the position he is looking for. Mr. Gathright said this will be the only water quality element in this entire
neighborhood and that the bio-filter is about three times larger than it needs to be so that it might capture
some runoff from houses to the north.
Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Gathright to point out the detention pond locations on Diagram “A”. Mr.
Gathright replied that “detention” is a strong word for this. He has essentially designed a bio-filter with
some detention on top.
Ms. Thomas asked if it will receive drainage from the south watershed as well as from the north.
Mr. Gathright said no. He noted that there are the two Filtera Boxes on the south end of the site, and they
would catch the first half-inch of runoff and then filter it through a compost type medium.
In response to Mr. Boyd’s question about maintenance of the bio-filters, Mr. Gathright indicated
that the Filtera Boxes in many stormwater treatment structures are underground so they cannot be seen
and ca not tell if they are working. The bio-filters at this site are in the open, so if there is standing water
seen there for any length of time, maintenance is needed. The soil in it can be replaced. Hopefully, as
these things develop there will be mature trees and shrubs so they may or may not blend into the native
environment, but it is a landscaping feature as well.
Mr. Boyd asked who maintains that bio-filter if it is not working. Mr. Gathright said there is a
question about any stormwater structure that is built. For bio-filters, companies ask that you sign a service
contract.
Mr. Boyd said as the County gets more bio-filters, he thinks it might come back on the County to
take care of them. He does not want that to happen. Mr. Gathright said he does not see these as being
any different from the old stormwater detention basins.
Mr. Davis said he would like to focus the Board’s discussion since it does not typically handle
many of these requests. He drew the Board’s attention to Section 4.2.5 of the Zoning Ordinance which
sets out three findings that could be made. If the Board makes any one of those findings, then it may
grant the critical slopes waiver. If the Board cannot make any of those findings, the ordinance would not
allow a critical slopes waiver to be granted. It’s still an action that has some discretion in it, but that
discretion ca not be exercised unless one of those findings can be made.
Mr. Davis said there are a number of factors that can be considered in whether or not a critical
slopes waiver is appropriate, and one of those factors is whether or not excessive stormwater results from
the disturbance of the critical slopes. If the Board finds that disturbance of the critical slopes has created
excessive stormwater, that is an issue which is separate from whether or not adequate detention
measures can be imposed at the final site plan stage. If the Board finds there will be excessive
stormwater created by disturbance of the critical slopes as proposed, it would not be appropriate to grant
the waiver unless it finds in the criteria set forth in the ordinance that there is a valid public purpose for still
granting that critical slopes waiver despite the excessive stormwater. He said the issue today is primarily
the stormwater issue, but there are other factors which have been identified by staff. The Board needs to
determine if that is a result of the disturbance of critical slopes, and whether or not an appropriate finding
can be made that would allow the granting of the waiver.
Mr. Rooker said staff of the Engineering department recommended against approval of this
waiver request. He asked if anything presented today has changed that recommendation.
Mr. Brooks said the applicant made a good presentation today, and he is sorry Engineering did
not receive all of that information before they first reviewed the plan. He said it is hard to reply without
going over the calculations. He would like to know, from a qualitative standpoint, if the critical slopes
waiver were not granted would that large pipe pass through the site to collect stormwater and perhaps
speed it up going into the neighbor’s property?
Mr. Rooker read the comments of Engineering from the staff’s report. He said a number of
people living in the neighborhood were present to talk about the water problems they already have,
problems they feel will be exacerbated by the amount of impervious surface and water coming off of this
site.
Mr. Brooks said one other thing not mentioned is the erosion control measures at the perimeter of
the site. W hen a site is developed this much, there is basically no perimeter at the property line, so it is
hard to establish perimeter control measures that will keep the sedimentation measures well contained on
the site. At that point they start asking for offsite easements.
Mr. Rooker asked if this waiver were approved and the plan presented showed less than one acre
of disturbance, would they be exempt from having to do any of things talked about? The applicant made a
case that if they disturbed less than an acre they were exempt from a number of the water quality, water
volume requirements. Mr. Brooks said they would be exempt from the detention requirement which is for
water quantity control. They are not exempt from water quality control. On the front of the site where they
February 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
are putting in the Filtera Boxes, there is no detention provided. They would still have to have those boxes
for water quality. The bio-filter in the back would still have to be provided.
Mr. Rooker asked if they would be required to slow down the volume of water coming off the site.
Mr. Brooks said Mr. W yant referred to the State Code requirements for adequate channels. If it affects
the downstream channel, some detention can be required to try and mitigate that impact.
Mr. Slutzky asked if a conditioned waiver can be granted. Mr. Davis said another way staff has
dealt with issues like this in the past is to grant a critical slopes waiver conditional upon meeting certain
standards. Staff has not identified those conditions should the Board wish to grant the waiver
conditionally.
Mr. Rooker said this area has substantial water problems today. In this case, the site is being
developed to its maximum. He thinks that is part of the problem. This site is sensitive with a lot of critical
slopes in a neighborhood that does not generally have good water control measures. This proposal will
basically max out the site which maxes out the impermeable surfaces. At this time, the reasons that staff
recommended denial of the waiver are still present. He will not personally support this request because
he is concerned that if this is built as proposed, it will significantly increase water problems to the
surrounding neighborhood. He does not think there is any assurance that won’t occur.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the applicant could withdraw the request, and let staff make
recommendations for conditions that would be satisfactory to address the water issues, that would still
allow the applicant to max out the site.
Mr. Rooker said there was mention of loss of aesthetic resources, so if a different plan with
different information was presented, he would want it to go back to the Commission for review. He said
there was unanimous rejection by the Commission of this waiver request and staff also recommended
denial. He thinks the reasons for denial are still there.
Ms. Thomas said she walked over this site yesterday. She knows that in general the County
needs to encourage in-fill so the development area will be where people live. It is not totally out of
character with this neighborhood to have duplexes or triplexes. She looked at the plan and thought that if
they cut off one unit at each end, they would affect less of the critical slopes and also fit better with the
character of the neighborhood. She is favorably disposed to wanting this site to be developed as opposed
to not wanting it to be developed. She thought that more of the drainage issues were being handled, so
she is no longer as favorably disposed. The proposal uses so much of the land that there is no area left
for the mitigation this site should have.
Mr. W yant said he did not know how the applicant arrived at the drainage shown on the plan. He
is concerned about the 30-inch pipe. That pipe will pass a lot of water and could cause damage to
adjacent property. If that water could be handled differently, he would look more favorably on this request.
He does not support a lot of curbs, gutters and pipes because the County does not do any detention with
pipes. He is more for dispersing of water and the bio-filters, but the water still has to pass though pipes
and the 30-inch pipe is the largest one on the plan. He said the applicant cannot work on the channel
downstream because he does not have an easement.
Mr. Boyd said this is not a public hearing, but he asked if there was anyone present who would
like to comment.
Mr. Dale Chadwick noted on a map the location of his house. He said there is an easement to get
the water from this property down to his yard. He said someone built a catchment and it is a 30-inch tube
that runs under his yard right next to his house. He said that maybe he owns that as well because no one
takes care of it. He was surprised to see that he may also be the owner of two of the filter boxes. Mr.
Gathright said they belong to the developer.
Mr. Chadwick asked who will take care of these boxes. Mr. Gathright said it would be the
developer.
Mr. Chadwick said the existing house is not located on the site as shown on the plan; it is 15 feet
from the boundary. He said that is a concern for Ms. Cullen who lives there because she is so close. She
has some water coming through her basement.
Mr. Dorrier asked the location of the pipe in relation to Mr. Chadwick’s house. Mr. Chadwick said
in the middle of the property is an outlet and it comes through his property as a creek. They have an
easement for the property where it starts, but not on his property, but they run the water on it. Someone
put a catchment there, so the water comes down and there is a 15-foot drop with a big steel thing over the
top of it. There is a 30-inch tube which runs from there down to the other creek where the water is
dumped.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the 30-inch pipe bypasses Mr. Chadwick’s property. Mr. Chadwick said it runs
right through it; it is on his property.
Mr. Dorrier asked if it disperses on his land. Mr. Chadwick said it does disperse before it runs into
the catchment, otherwise the water does not come out on his property. W hen the creek got full of debris
up above, then water ran over the catchment and down through their side yard. He said that has only
happened one time since they lived there.
February 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
Ms. Margaret Faye Engel said she is the property owner on the other side, so is at the top of the
water flow. She thinks she will be entertaining a parking lot from her view. She said one of these two lots
could be characterized as a ravine. The density of the development is the basis of her concern with the
plan. She understands the County is all about development, but she thinks it is to the max, plus Solomon
Place is being developed at the other end of Solomon Road.
Mr. Davis there are a couple of procedural things he would like to suggest. He said staff should
be given an opportunity to further review the submittal that was made today. If the Board can develop a
consensus on its position, it should then defer this matter until March 7 to allow staff to prepare written
findings for the Board to adopt to support its decision. If the Board is inclined to support the waiver,
appropriate conditions can be developed. If the Board is inclined not to support it, staff can develop
appropriate findings to support denial.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks what was summarized in the staff’s report indicates that the applicant
cannot provide adequate perimeter erosion and sediment control measures to protect adjacent properties.
The volume of water will increase coming off of this site. And, granting the critical slope waiver would
result in significant degradation of the site or adjacent properties.
Mr. Slutzky said he was going to suggest that the Board defer this appeal, send it back to staff
and ask them to review the new information. He would be interested in supporting this development at
this location so long as the water control issue is adequately addressed by the proposal. He would
request that staff present a series of conditions sufficient to adequately address the water issues. If that is
possible and the applicant comes forward with a proposal to satisfy staff’s conditions, when it came back
he would be inclined to support it. Short of that, he would not.
Mr. Rooker said he is concerned because there is a proposal that completely maxes out the
number of units on the site, and part of that site is a ravine. A lot of it is in critical slopes. He said Mr.
Cilimberg notes that there would be no significant perimeter left on the site. He is not convinced that
during rain storms there would not be significant runoff onto adjacent properties.
Mr. Slutzky said he thinks staff should be allowed to address that issue in a technical way and set
out conditions that would need to be met to satisfy that standard. He said maxing out development of the
property is another issue.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks the request needs to be looked at carefully. He tends to agree with Mr.
Slutzky and Ms. Thomas. He read from Paragraph 2 of Section 6.5 of the Code which says a conceptual
site development creates several potential drainage problems. The conceptual SW M facility creates a
concentrated flow from a 30-inch pipe that flows directly into the adjacent property. “Directly into” is the
magic language. He said Mr. Chadwick said it flows through his property, so he does not know if that
means that when it spills over it goes into this property, or flows through his property. He thinks there is
more discussion needed about that issue. Also, the Board needs to know whether the pipe keeps the
water in its boundaries or whether it overflows that pipe and then overflows onto distance property owners.
The site is difficult, but it is in the development area. He thinks it should be developed and if that is
possible without harming the neighbors, the plan should be allowed to go forward.
Mr. Rooker said there could be plans for this site that might be less intense. He is not saying the
property is not proper for development of some kind. The proposed intensity on this site which contains
substantial amounts of critical slopes, and which is already surrounded by properties that have water
problems, is somewhat less than optimal. He thinks this plan is based on the fact that they think adjacent
properties will be impaired.
Mr. Dorrier said a pipe was allowed in there to let it go past adjacent property.
Mr. Rooker said that was in the plan before; there was no change in that pipe. Staff pointed out
that it increases the volume and velocity of water leaving the site. It concentrates the flow of water; it does
not dissipate that flow.
Mr. Boyd asked Ms. Thomas for her comments.
Ms. Thomas said this plan shows too much disturbance of critical slopes so she does not believe
the waiver should be granted. She suggested the applicant bring back a different plan since she feels this
is a developable property.
Mr. W yant said he is not supportive of this waiver, mainly because of the drainage going through
the property. He asked staff and the applicant to look at that. An open channel, not a paved channel,
would create less flow velocity. He does not know how the bio-filter would be worked in, but he would
prefer that there not be a 30-inch pipe.
Mr. Boyd said as a point of clarification he does not think there is enough support for the waiver,
but that does not preclude the applicant from putting together another plan and coming back. Mr. Davis
said denial of the waiver would make the plan that has been submitted to the County unapprovable. The
applicant can either amend this plan or submit a new plan to address the critical slopes issue.
Mr. Boyd said if someone wants to makes a motion, they need to decide if it is better for the Board
to move forward on this, or let the applicant ask for a deferral. Mr. Tucker said if they submit a new plan it
will have to go back through the Commission.
February 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
Mr. Davis said this plan has not been called up by the Commission, so it is a plan that is being
reviewed by staff for all purposes other than the critical slopes waiver. Once the Board makes a decision
about the critical slopes waiver, staff will proceed to give additional comments or denial of the plan
depending on how the developer wants to deal with it. If the critical slopes waiver is denied and the
developer wants to amend the plan, staff will review that amended plan. If they choose not to, it would be
denied.
Mr. Boyd asked if the critical slopes waiver is denied forever if this appeal is denied. Mr. Davis
said a second plan could ask for a critical slopes waiver. He said if the consensus of the Board is to not
support the critical slopes waiver, he would recommend that the Board defer the appeal and let staff
prepare a clear set of findings to adopt at a future meeting so the record would be clear as to the legal
basis for denial.
Mr. Rooker asked that that take place. He then moved to defer this item until March 7, 2007.
Ms. Thomas seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Closed Session. Mr. Boyd asked for a motion to go into closed session.
At 12:55 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Slutzky that the Board adjourn into closed session
pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to
boards, committees and commissions; under Subsection (1) to discuss the appointment of an
administrative position; under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding a matter of
probable litigation relating to a law enforcement incident; and, under Subsection (7) to consult with legal
counsel and staff regarding specific matters requiring legal advice relating to an inter-jurisdictional
agreement.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Certify Closed Session. At 2:09 p.m., the Board reconvened into open
session.
Motion was 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. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Appointments.
Motion was offered by Mr. W yant to:
Appoint Mr. Jay Fennell to the Public Recreational Facilities Authority, with said term to expire
December 13, 2009.
Reappoint Mr. Mitchell Neuman to the Industrial Development Authority with said term to expire
January 19, 2011.
Appoint Ms. Julia Monteith to the Planning Commission as the U.Va. nonvoting member, with said
term to expire December 13, 2008.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Public Hearing: FY 2007 Budget Amendment. (Notice of this public
hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on January 28, 2006.)
Mr. Breeden said the proposed increase of this FY ‘2007 Budget Amendment totals $570,718.74.
It is comprised of six separate appropriations, one of which was approved by the Board on January 10,
February 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
2007. That was Appropriation No. 2007-051 totaling $300,000.00 for the refund of the North Pointe
Albemarle Housing proffer to the Charlottesville Area Community Foundation after the cash proffer was
paid by a different funding source.
The five new appropriations are: Appropriation No. 2007-050 provides $2,325.24 in funds for
various Education programs; Appropriation No. 2007-052 provides $245,343.50 in funding for the County’s
share of the Eastern Connector Study and recognizes $245,353.50 in revenue from the City for their share
of the project; Appropriation No. 2007-053 transfers appropriated funds from the Bright Stars program to
the General Fund; Appropriation No. 2007-054 formally appropriates $50,450.00 to JABA for Mountainside
Senior Living; and Appropriation No. 2007-055 totals $23,050.00 for consultant fees for the Emergency
Communications Center. A detailed description of these requests is provided on Attachment A.
Staff recommends approval of the FY 2007 Budget Amendment in the amount of $570,718.74
after the public hearing, and then approval of Appropriations No. 2007-050, No. 2007-052, No. 2007-053,
No. 2007-054 and No. 2007-055 to provide funds for various Local Government, School, Capital and ECC
projects and programs.
Appropriation No. 2007-050, $2,325.24. Revenue Source: Donations $2,325.24. At its meeting
on December 14, 2006, the School Board approved the following appropriation request: Broadus W ood
Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $2,325.24 from the Broadus W ood PTO. This
donation was made to facilitate a part-time Spanish teacher for Kindergarten and 1st grades at Broadus
W ood Elementary.
Appropriation No. 2007-052, $245,343.50. Revenue Source: City of Charlottesville $245,343.50.
At its meeting on October 5, 2005, the Board of Supervisors authorized staff to proceed with procuring a
study for an Eastern Connector using a 50-50 cost sharing agreement with the City and requiring that the
County’s share of the study use no more than $250,000.00 from the CIP. Staff has successfully procured
this service at a contract cost of $490,687.00. The County’s share of the project will be funded with a
$245,343.50 transfer from existing transportation improvement funds appropriated in the Capital
Improvements Program. Since the County will be issuing the contract for the full contract cost, this
appropriation will also be recognized as revenue into the CIP due to the City’s $245,343.50 share of this
project.
Appropriation No. 2007-053, $-0-. During the FY ‘06/07 budget process, an additional Bright Stars
Coordinator position was approved as a strategic initiative for the Department of Social Services. The
funds for this position were budgeted 100 percent to the Bright Stars Fund; however, costs for the Bright
Stars Program coordinator positions are shared on a 60/40 basis with Family Support. This appropriation
will allocate 60 percent of the new coordinator position costs from the Bright Stars Fund to Family Support.
No additional funding is required.
Appropriation No. 2007-054, $-0-. Revenue Source: Board Contingency $50,450.00. During the
FY ‘06/07 budget development process, the Jefferson Area Board for Aging (JABA) requested $50,450.00
from the County to support operations at Mountainside Senior Living. This funding was approved
contingent on receipt of a business plan. JABA subsequently provided the County with a business plan
that includes sustained county funding for Mountainside. This appropriation uses $50,450.00 of the
Board’s Contingency to provide funding to Mountainside. Further details, including the history of funding
for Mountainside, are included in a separate executive summary on the consent agenda.
Appropriation No. 2007-055, $23,050.00. Revenue Source: ECC Fund Balance $23,050.00. At
its January 16, 2007 meeting, the ECC Management Board approved the transfer of funds in the amount
of $23,050.00 from the ECC Fund Balance Account to fund consultant studies for the Emergency
Communications Center.
Since its opening in 2001, the ECC has experienced periodic problems with its UPS Battery
System with numerous batteries being replaced over the past years. The electrical engineering firm of
Simmons, Rockecharlie & Prince, who are quite experienced in data center backup power requirements
and battery design, are being recommended to conduct this study for ECC at a cost of $9,150.00.
RCC Consultants will review and recommend alternatives to ECC’s present paging systems for
Fire and Rescue. These paging systems have been in existence for over 20 years. The fire service uses
low band technology and EMS uses high band technology. W e are in the process of combining both
agencies together which will require an updated system that they both can use. This upgrade will also
allow integration with the new 800 MHz Trunking Radio System and allow some redundancy to be built
into the system. The cost for this consulting service will be $13,900.00.
Ms. Thomas said she wants to make sure the County does not get into the position it got into with
the Community Foundation in paying for a proffer. She asked whether or not the proper controls are in
place to ensure that would not happen again. It was supposed to be a charitable contribution, of which a
proffer is not a charitable contribution. If the IRS questions the actions, it would not exactly be the
County’s problem; instead it would be the responsibility of the donor. Mr. Davis responded that the County
had proceeded correctly in this matter. It took every possible step to make sure everyone was certain
about why the money was presented and for what purpose. He does not think there was any confusion
about the money. The County did everything properly.
Ms. Thomas clarified that if you are making a gift and want to get credit on your income tax, you
cannot receive anything in return for it. W hen you make a proffer for a rezoning, you are in fact getting
something in return for that proffer and so that is not a gift.
February 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
Mr. Davis said that the County determined the proffer would be satisfied, because it said the
developer would cause that money to be provided to the County. Staff accepted it and made sure it was
documented that it was being used for a proffer. The tax issues need to be dealt with by the contributors.
Mr. Tucker said the applicant did what he proffered to do.
Mr. Rooker noted that there has been a request that the County participate in a joint affordable
housing fund with the City and managed by the Charlottesville-Albemarle Community Foundation. He was
concerned that if they joined the fund, this would be viewed as a distribution as part of the County’s share
as to what they might get out of the fund for citizens.
Mr. Boyd stated that it was a donor-directed fund and thus not allocated directly by the foundation.
Ms. Thomas commented that the scope of study for the City of Charlottesville part of the Eastern
Connector does not included transit alternatives and that distresses her. She emphasized that if the
bridge over the Rivanna could include bus and bike lanes and not an auto road, it should be considered.
Mr. Boyd said that he was part of the first meeting, and they did discuss transit only options.
Mr. Slutzky added that at the MPO meetings, this road location has been viewed as a transit
corridor as well as a road location. So now intent needs to be reflected in that contractual document with
the contractors.
Mr. Boyd stated that he would follow up to ensure that that happens.
Mr. Tucker agreed to mention it to Mr. Graham.
Mr. Boyd commented that he had a chance to review the businesses plan, and while a team
reviewed it and accepted it, they did not necessarily approve it. He added that the thing that bothers him
is it has perpetual support from the County built into it, as he hopes the County could be phased out. He
sees the $50,000 contribution as approval for this year.
Mr. Rooker stated that he does not view it as support beyond this contribution, and the merits
would need to be debated on an ongoing basis year by year. He does not believe that it is a long-term
commitment, and also has concerns about the County being in the long-term care business.
Mr. Slutzky said that he would be inclined to support Mountainside on an ongoing basis.
Mr. Dorrier commented that he supports it, and the County needs to pay more attention to the
issues related to aging.
Mr. W yant noted that he met with some JABA Board members at Mountainside, and the facility
has been greatly improved. He added that he did not get the impression they were seeking ongoing
support.
Ms. Thomas stated that she got the impression that they were, adding that Mountainside was
marketing to attract paid residents, although they tend to come there at the end of their lives. The average
stay of those people is only 18 months.
Mr. Boyd commented that staff did not approve this last year, and he wants to make sure the
wrong message is not sent to staff.
Mr. Dorrier emphasized the importance of maintaining a good relationship with JABA.
Mr. Boyd noted that he does not understand why those beds ca not be full when there are other
facilities with waiting lists.
Ms. Thomas responded that they are filling them but emptying them out just as fast.
Mr. Rooker moved for approval of the 2007 Budget Amendment in the amount of $570,718.74 as
advertised, and to approve Appropriations No. 2007-050, No. 2007-052, No. 2007-053, No. 2007-054 and
No. 2007-055. Mr. Slutzky seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2007-050
DATE: 02/07/07
EXPLANATION: Education Donations
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation J2 2,325.24
1 2201 61101 132100 PT-Teacher J1 2,147.36
1 2201 61101 210000 FICA J1 177.88
2000 0501 Est. Revenue 2,325.24
0701 Appropriation 2,325.24
TOTAL 4,650.48 2,325.24 2,325.24
__________
February 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2007-052
DATE: 02/07/07
EXPLANATION: Eastern Connector Study
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 9010 19000 190315 City Share - Eastern Connec J2 245,343.50
1 9010 41020 950136 Transportation Planning J1 (245,343.50)
1 9010 41020 950204 Eastern Connector Study J1 490,687.00
9010 0501 Est. Revenue 245,343.50
0701 Appropriation 245,343.50
TOTAL 490,687.00 245,343.50 245,343.50
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2007-053
DATE: 02/07/07
EXPLANATION: Transfer of Appropriation from Bright Stars to General Fund
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1553 61122 110000 Salaries J1 (27,166.00)
1 1553 61122 210000 FICA J1 (2,078.00)
1 1553 61122 221000 VRS J1 (3,521.00)
1 1553 61122 231000 Health J1 (2,461.00)
1 1553 61122 232000 Dental J1 (86.00)
1 1553 61122 241000 Life Insurance J1 (307.00)
1 1553 61122 270000 W orker's Comp J1 (114.00)
2 1553 51000 512004 Transfer from G/F J2 (35,733.00)
1 1000 53150 110000 Salaries J1 27,166.00
1 1000 53150 210000 FICA J1 2,078.00
1 1000 53150 221000 VRS J1 3,521.00
1 1000 53150 231000 Health Insurance J1 2,461.00
1 1000 53150 232000 Dental Insurance J1 86.00
1 1000 53150 241000 Life Insurance J1 307.00
1 1000 53150 270000 Worker's Comp J1 114.00
1 1000 53013 930208 Tnsfr to Bright Stars J1 (35,733.00)
1553 0701 Est. Revenue 35,733.00
0501 Appropriation 35,733.00
TOTAL (71,466.00) 35,733.00 35,733.00
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2007-054
DATE: 02/07/07
EXPLANATION: Formally appropriate funding for Mountainside Senior Living
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 59000 563210 JABA-Mountainside J1 50,450.00
1 1000 95000 999990 Board Contingency J1 (50,450.00)
TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2007-055
DATE: 02/07/07
EXPLANATION: Consultant Services for ECC
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 4100 31041 312700 Prof. Services-Consultant J1 23,050.00
2 4100 51000 510100 Appropriation - F/B J2 23,050.00
4100 0501 Est. Revenue 23,050.00
0701 Appropriation 23,050.00
TOTAL 46,100.00 23,050.00 23,050.00
______________
Agenda Item No. 19. Business Plan (CIP), W ork Session.
Mr. Foley addressed the Board, saying the focus of this discussion would be on cash versus other
financing options as well as the FY ‘08-12 CIP. He said staff would go into the projects to see if the Board
has particular questions or a need for more information. They are focusing on five years, not ten, and
have added items to address infrastructure and transportation needs, but have not gone as far as what’s
going to come out of new Master Plans.
Mr. Foley said that in previous meetings they have planned for future capital needs, and the Board
endorsed adhering to current financial policies. They are striving for a debt to equity ratio of 75 percent to
25 percent cash or equity. They are utilizing cash to fund maintenance or replacement, technology
projects, and contributions to agencies that are doing capital projects. They are also establishing a
minimum $2 million capital reserve balance in the CIP fund. Mr. Foley stated that there were several
questions left: to what extent should the County utilize lease-revenue bonds to finance its capital needs,
under what conditions should the County consider use of general obligation bonds, and should the County
continue to finance school projects through the Virginia Public School Authority.
He emphasized that the most important aspect of lease-revenue bond financing depends on
whether a project is considered essential or desirable, and provided examples of each.
February 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
Mr. Davis added that lease purchase financing is subject to a non-appropriations clause, and if the
County chose to non-appropriate, you do not have to pay the bonds. He said that things in the difficult to
finance list are things that you could do without, and the others are essential to government operations.
Mr. Rooker asked about the rate differential.
Mr. Foley said that there are parks and libraries totaling $50 million, and if school financing were
removed there would also be $50 million left in general government. He emphasized that voter approval
is not necessary for lease-revenue, but is for general obligation bonds. Mr. Foley indicated that on
essential projects, an AA+ rating would mean $500,000 and $1 million interest over 20 years of financing
$50 million. He added that that goes up significantly from the AA+, and preparation and staff time would
be different for general obligation. It costs more for lease-revenue.
Mr. Davis added that the lease-revenue issuance costs would be the same, assuming you had the
same number of issuances.
Mr. Rooker noted that the reason people do lease-revenue bonds is they can respond fairly
quickly to an opportunity to demand, and a general obligation bond is a year and a half process.
Mr. Davis cited the 5th Street County Office Building as an example of the lease-revenue bond.
Mr. Foley said that there is a $150,000 net cost impact over 20 years on $50 million to continue
with the VPSA approach and not have to go through a bond election. He added that you could save
money with a AAA bond, but issuance costs could offset that. The VPSA is a good strategy for financing
school debt, a very slight difference in cost.
Mr. Davis stated that other localities that have regular general obligation bond referendums
typically include schools and there is a savings if you’re doing general obligation bonds for other projects.
In response to Mr. Rooker’s question about being locked into doing projects, Mr. Davis said that
you could have a general or specific description, but the project has to be on that list before you can use
the money for it.
Mr. Rooker said that you could almost get into a competitive situation if there are similar projects
on a list.
Mr. Foley stated that you could group the items for schools with a total dollar amount. You really
have a lot of flexibility in how you package it, and you have flexibility in the timing of which you use it. He
added that eight years is an absolute, but you could get 10 with routine court approval.
Mr. Foley said that staff has made some decisions for clarification, and if the Board feels
differently they can now make adjustments. He reported that they have taken projects that could have
been financed by cash to get a better lease-revenue rate. Mr. Foley said that the worst rate would be a
desirable project funded through lease revenue. He noted that the Northern Fire Station has been moved
from cash to lease-revenue bond financing, which will have AA+ rating. The Crozet Library has been
moved onto the cash list.
Mr. Foley said that with the beginning balance currently held by the County, plus the new revenue
transferred into the CIP, the $72 million could be handled in cash. The remainder of the total would have
to be financed through some kind of debt.
Mr. Boyd commented that he has some philosophical problems with the CIP, noting the $27
million for libraries over the next five years, $9 million for ACE, and only $10 million for transportation. He
believes they need to think as a Board about how they want to rank these things and how they’re shifting a
lot of capital expenditures towards libraries.
Mr. Rooker noted that the $23 million for libraries is all for the Northern Library.
Mr. Foley responded that there’s another $15-20 million in years 6-10, but the five years include
the Northern Library. He noted that the oversight committee assessed the need for two libraries, and that
decision was not made, so staff combined the cost of both of them together. Mr. Foley added that they
are meeting with the library in a week to further discuss the need. He said that property costs are not
reflected because there are proffered sites for libraries: one in North Pointe and one in South Forest
Lakes.
Mr. Tucker mentioned that the need for such sites is often part of the discussion with applicants
when rezoning requests first come to the County.
Mr. Rooker stated that he does not recall discussion of the Forest Lakes site when the North
Pointe site was discussed, and perhaps that proffer could have been better used for something else.
Mr. Foley noted that the CIP that was previously adopted says that the County intends to put two
libraries north of the City of Charlottesville, and only one piece of property was proffered. This year,
discussions indicated that they might not both be needed. That’s all being re-evaluated now because of
questions that have come up about whether or not that is appropriate.
February 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
Mr. Boyd noted that the re-prioritization in the CIP has to do with the interjection of transportation
expenses that are falling on localities.
Mr. Foley agreed, noting that staff is spending more time on it, as is the oversight committee. He
said that they are trying to set some capital guidelines to force some decisions and right now they are in a
very strong financial position. He believes that most of the decisions are political in the best sense. He
added that the oversight committee can do the balancing with revenues on whether all of it can be
afforded, and the full school board request can get in on the process. Mr. Foley said that the schools’ total
request is $99 million.
Mr. Rooker noted that the Board does have that list from the schools.
Mr. Slutzky pointed out that there is a process to determine the funding for those, but the problem
is the transportation costs as there is no formal process for that funding.
Mr. Rooker commented that in the past there has been a $2.0 million placeholder which the Board
would allocate to projects on an as-decided basis to accelerate and build a project.
Mr. Foley added that there is also the $1.0 million in revenue-sharing set aside, but that obviously
does not go far with transportation, even when combined with the placeholder money. He noted that the
streetscape and critical connector projects are only funded at a small amount within what’s being allocated
now. Mr. Foley mentioned that the Master Plan items would also add to the lists, noting that there is
enough money to build Eastern Avenue in Crozet. He emphasized that there is lots of cash going here
and the County did not want to assume debt financing.
Mr. Slutzky said that transportation is only nominally represented, but it is the primary issue of
concern.
Mr. Rooker stated that the question to decide is which projects in the six-year secondary road plan
need to be accelerated.
Mr. Foley noted that there is enough money to fund Jarman’s Gap and Georgetown Road which
are not fully funded by the state.
He said that what was just reviewed does adhere to the County’s capital funding guidelines, falls
within the debt parameters set, and maintains a 75:25 debt to equity ratio. Mr. Foley said that it uses cash
for the maintenance replacement technology and contributions, and also maintains a $2 million minimum
every year for the five years. In response to Mr. Slutzky’s question about the 2 percent of assessed
value/10 percent of revenue benchmark, Mr. Foley answered that it is significantly below policy and slightly
below comparison with other AAA localities. He added that it funds most local government projects with
cash and assumes continued VPSA funding for schools.
Mr. Foley emphasized that the Board needs to provide direction on desirable projects, and staff
will show undetermined methods of financing in the CIP, because decisions on bond are not needed until
next April.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that while the library board recommendations are important, the County
should not base its decisions solely on their opinion and it is important to look at other localities as well.
Mr. Foley said that they are in the process of doing that right now. He added that the Crozet and
northern growth area parks are also in the pipeline for discussion and decision-making. Mr. Foley stated
that there is a standard in the Comprehensive Plan for parks based on population size, but there is no
money in the CIP for property, and the land would hopefully be proffered. He noted that most of these
projects can be done without a bond issuance in 2008, but the Board will ultimately have to decide how
they’ll pay for desirable projects of the future.
Mr. Davis explained that bond referendums must have a specific category or project and amount,
and it is a yes or no vote.
Mr. Slutzky asked if voters could be given a choice of several allocation amounts, or nothing at all.
Mr. Davis said that you could have different packages that could be voted up or down.
Mr. Foley said that the strategic planning session in the fall would be a good time to talk about
that.
Mr. Slutzky said that he is concerned about perpetuating a void, and he could not be supportive of
something that had missing transportation pieces and placeholders that should be put into this CIP
budget.
Mr. Rooker commented that there is a $2 million allocation per year, and Board members can
certainly recommend that it be increased.
Mr. Foley said that he believes they are policy decisions at this point. In response to Mr. Dorrier’s
question about state and federal monies, Mr. Foley said that most of the County’s capital program is not
funded that way.
Mr. Tucker added that there is no assumption of additional federal funding.
February 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
Ms. Thomas commented that it might be helpful to get information from Boulder, Colorado on their
public transit funding prior to the next CIP work session.
Mr. Foley agreed to follow up on this.
Mr. Rooker said that before large amounts of money are allocated for mass transit, he wants to
know how it would be used, noting the City’s discontinuation of transit service into Greenbrier.
Mr. Boyd said that at some point there needs to be discussion of how the money is allocated.
Mr. Rooker stated that the Board has the authority to change the list.
Mr. Foley noted that there have not been specific targets that the school needs to meet, as it’s
been based on enrollment growth up to now.
Mr. Rooker said that the Board reviewed a CIP that was more than could be reasonably paid for,
and the schools moved some things into the six to ten year category, constraining them in effect.
Mr. Foley said that if there are particular things the Board wants, this is the time for them to figure
out how to approach the funding.
Mr. Tucker said that there is a lot more to be discussed, but staff has taken what the oversight
committee has detected in funding gaps.
Mr. Boyd thanked the staff for all of their work, and said that guidelines need to be set that are in
line with what the Board is thinking.
Mr. Slutzky suggested that the Board start with how much money should go into the CIP based on
the 75/25 ratio, and then decide how to allocate it.
Mr. Foley noted that Davenport has indicated the County could do an 80/20 split, and Albemarle is
being more conservative. He said that if the fund drops below $2 million, it affects whether there is
enough revenue from different sources.
Ms. Thomas stated that there must be a decision that the Board strongly supports to go to general
obligation bond, adding that it would be a strategic decision to go that route, rather than policy.
Mr. Foley said that there will be times when a general obligation bond would be necessary. He
noted that there is another CIP work session slated for March.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that just because something is in the CIP does not mean the county is
committed to it.
Mr. Foley noted that this is being driven by the Board’s Strategic Plan.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters not listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Rooker reported that he had received several reports that Comcast is advertising services that
are not provided once people sign up. Mr. Davis said that the County does not have any legal ability to
regulate those issues, and some of the problems are related to internet service, which is not regulated by
franchise authority. He noted that it would likely be something to get worked out in the market, and their
customer service system so far seems to be lacking.
Mr. Rooker stated that the County could send a letter describing the complaints.
Mr. Boyd suggested having them before the Board. Everyone agreed.
Mr. Davis noted that if demands are made to cable companies they would likely be passed on to
customers in rates. He said that the County cannot charge franchise fees.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she is the Board’s liaison to the ACE Committee. The Committee anticipates
closing in March on the FY 2005 and FY 2006 applications, and is ready to proceed with FY 2007
applications. They are currently looking at standards and trying to figure out a way to give more incentive
to the Mountain Area.
__________
Ms. Thomas requested a copy of the three page summary on the Biscuit Run traffic summary.
__________
Ms. Thomas commented on VDOTs use of parolees to pick up litter on roadsides. Mr. Davis
clarified that these persons are not on parole, but are persons who were convicted of misdemeanors and
given probation in lieu of jail time. He noted that there would need to be a designated county person in
charge of supervising the operations, ensuring things such as timeliness, correct clothing, and equipment.
Ms. Thomas noted that the “Adopt a Highway” program seems to be dying out.
February 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
Mr. Rooker said that there is a program where prisoners clean up around major intersections, and
it would be helpful to have something come back to determine the cost of the program mentioned by Ms.
Thomas as the county would stand to gain a lot from it. Ms. Thomas asked staff to get more information
on the possible community service opportunity for citizens on probation.
__________
Ms. Thomas suggested Board members review the salary survey results for other boards of
supervisors in Virginia provided by Liz Palmer.
Mr. Davis explained that the statute provides two methods for setting supervisor salary increases,
and the Board currently uses the benchmark set by population brackets. If they set it at the maximum
level, it can increase by no more than five percent each year. He said that the Board typically has set its
wage increase at the same percentage given to County employees. It is set in May and effective July 1st.
Mr. Davis said that the second method has no cap, but can only be used in years in which three Board
members would be up for election and can be effective on January 1st.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she enjoyed the County’s recent Strategic Planning event, and was happy to
see employees taking the opportunity to learn and participate.
Mr. Tucker agreed that it was very successful.
__________
Mr. Boyd reported that he attended the Chairman’s Institute put on by VACO, and found it very
valuable, especially networking with other Board members from around the state.
__________
Mr. W yant asked for the name of the staff contact from Zoning who is overseeing the
development of downtown Crozet and the Crozet Library. He also asked that any emails related to
downtown Crozet be forwarded to him so that he can stay in the loop.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. Adjourn to February 14, 2007, 3:00 p.m.
At 5:29 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, motion was offered by Mr.
Dorrier, seconded by Mr. Slutzky, to adjourn this meeting until 3:00 p.m. on February 14, 2007. Roll was
called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 08/01/2007
Initials: EWC