2007-03-07March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March
7, 2007, at 9:00 a.m., Lane Auditorium of 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, Deputy Clerk, Meagan Hoy, and Director of Planning, V. W ayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 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. Recognitions. This item had been moved to the agenda for the night portion
of this meeting.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters not listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Rooker wanted to make sure the Board members had received a copy of the letter from Del.
Steve Landes, along with a funding summary for the proposed State Transportation Bill.
__________
Ms. Thomas said an air quality monitor will be installed by DEQ close to Albemarle High School
and Jack Jouett Middle School. Apparently they could not find a site further out in the County.
__________
Ms. Thomas said that at a recent Planning District Commission meeting, the members received a
green build design series master plan. There will be a number of meetings and educational programs
scheduled to help the public learn how to work with LEED design and how to perform their own residential
energy audit. Meetings will be for both builders and homeowners. It is a series that will take much of the
next year. It is being funded by a grant provided to the Habitat for Humanity Building Supply Store.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she sent e-mails to people about two bills in the General Assembly concerning
billboards. Mr. Andy Bowen sent her a draft letter which she thinks might be good for this Board to send
to Governor Kaine requesting that he veto the bill which was passed by the General Assembly. It would
allow billboards to be placed almost anywhere overriding any zoning that may exist in a community, or any
sign ordinance. She asked if there is a consensus to do so.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks staff heard from most Board members on this question. He asked if there
is a consensus. Mr. Tucker said staff took the replies as a consensus and the letter is ready for the Chair
to sign.
__________
Mr. Slutzky said this is the first time he had heard about the DEQ choice of location for the air
quality monitor, which at first glance strikes him as ludicrous because the winds come over the mountains,
pass over Albemarle High School and then get to Route 29 where there is a tremendous traffic volume.
He asked that Ms. Thomas send him the correspondence so he can probe this further. He does not want
DEQ to take measurements that create the impression in the public’s mind that there is not an air quality
problem, if there is one. He would rather not have an air quality station there versus putting one upwind
from the major source of pollution.
Ms. Thomas said DEQ worked for a couple of years and could not find another site.
Mr. Slutzky said property owned by the County in the northeast corner is in the geographic domain
of potentially acceptable measurement locations. He finds it odd that they would choose a place in the
other direction.
Mr. Rooker suggested someone speak with the person at DEQ who made that decision. He
understands from reading the letter that they found a site that met all of the criteria.
__________
Mr. Boyd said he would like to change the agenda tonight for the budget hearing. He thinks there
will be a lot of people present and by the time the Board members get an opportunity to speak and make
observations and comments it will be very late, and a lot of the people will have left. If everybody agrees,
at the beginning of the hearing immediately after Mr. Tucker presents his budget, he would like to give
each Board member three minutes to give their thoughts about that budget.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks it would make more sense to hear from some of the public first.
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Mr. Boyd said he expects that after the public hearing the Board will take the opportunity to speak
about the budget.
Mr. Slutzky asked if, under those circumstances, the other Board members would speak; he
probably would choose not to speak. He wants to hear what the public says before taking a position.
Mr. Dorrier said three minutes is too long.
Mr. Boyd said he will have to explain how the three-minute timer in the Auditorium works, so he
thought this could be used as way of explanation.
Mr. Rooker said in the past the Board has not commented on the budget either before or after the
public hearing, usually just adjourning to its first work session. He is amendable to commenting, but it will
just add another 15 or more minutes to the beginning of the meeting.
Ms. Thomas said she likes new ideas, but thinks she would only let the public know the Board
members do listen. She suggested the Chairman speak for three minutes just for a lighthearted
demonstration of the timer.
Mr. Boyd asked if any Board member has an interest in doing this.
Mr. W yant said he thinks it is a good idea, but like Mr. Slutzky he probably would not speak. He
will be listening to what the public has to say, and make his final decision later.
Mr. Rooker said he does not have a strong opinion, but if people were going to speak, he would
certainly say something. He does not know how wise it is to take a position on the budget before hearing
from the public.
Mr. Boyd said he does not think the Board should take a position on any particular line item, but
he has some philosophical issues with how the Board approaches the budget process.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board spends a long time going through the work sessions and analyzing
every item in the budget, and then it will make its decision after it has all the facts before it. If the Board
members make a decision before it gets the facts, what is the use of the work sessions?
Mr. Boyd said he was talking about framing the work sessions. He said Mr. Tucker will present a
budget which has been prepared by staff. Maybe there is more framing about how those work sessions
should work. In years past when he talked about this, he was told it was too late. He has some definite
thoughts about how the work sessions should be framed this year, and that might be different than what
has occurred in the past. He asked when that should be interjected into the conversation.
Mr. Rooker said it could be done at anytime, but he thinks the most meaningful time would have
been in the fall when the budget process started.
Mr. Boyd said he appreciates those comments, but in the fall the potential increase in appraised
value is not known. The Board does not know what the budget will look like, or what the needs will be. It
is difficult to philosophically make changes at that point.
Mr. Rooker said he thought Mr. Boyd was talking about the way work sessions are structured; he
thought Mr. Boyd was talking about more procedural things.
Ms. Thomas suggested that Mr. Boyd bring this up again at the end of today’s meeting.
Mr. Boyd agreed.
__________
Mr. Boyd said the Resident’s Association in Forest Lakes is concerned with what is happening to
the lakes in their area, particularly Arbor Lake and Hollymead Lake. They believe the lakes are being filled
in as a result of what is going on at Hollymead Towncenter. The homeowners have asked if this Board
might support looking at some methodology to help them with the filling of their lake. At a Places29
meeting the other night, it was said a notice had been sent to the Homeowners’ suggesting they accrue a
certain amount of money to deal with this situation. He knows that after Route 29 broke up and a lot of it
washed into Arbor Lake, VDOT was doing remediation and cleanup there. The Residents’ are asking for
help because they feel these lakes are regional drainage areas. It would be somewhat of a precedent for
the Board to do this, but the County has taken over other lakes in similar situations; maybe they were not
as big as these. He said it involves money, so he wondered if the Board is interested in having staff draft
a report on this request. He said Mr. Mark Graham has done some preliminary work on this situation.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks it is a regional issue and it would be good to get a staff report on what
needs to be done and the cost. It would be helpful to get a better understanding of the situation.
Mr. Davis said there is a process set out in the W ater Protection Ordinance where owners of a
stormwater facility can petition the Board to accept it as a public facility. There is an existing process.
However, nothing official has been received from the Homeowners’ petitioning the County to take over
ownership of that facility, which is a prerequisite for the County spending public funds on that type of
facility.
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
Mr. Boyd said Mr. Graham has been involved in several Homeowners’ meeting with him and that
was discussed. There is a real problem with the necessary easements. A lot of the property along that
lake is privately owned which impacts mortgages, so there are a lot of ramifications of going through that
process.
Mr. Graham said staff went through the process and laid out a number of alternatives for the
Homeowners’. He said the process in the ordinance requires them to provide easements so this could be
a public facility in order to have public ownership of the facility. W hat staff has heard so far is that there is
either an unwillingness or inability to grant the County those easements.
Mr. W yant said he is bothered by this request. He does not want to see this happen again, so
how did it happen this time, why would the County feel it is responsible when back in the 1970s the
Attorney General declared that silt is a pollutant. W hen he worked for VDOT they were fined, and one
person lost his job because of it. Now there is this situation, and damage has been done to someone.
W hy would the County think it did the damage?
Mr. Graham said it has not been suggested the County is responsible for any of the damage they
feel occurred to their facility. There is construction on property above them, but it is in compliance with
ordinance requirements. The State has checked a number of times to verify that things are being done in
compliance with State law. He said no erosion and control measure is ever perfect; some amount of
sediment will go from an upstream property to a downstream property no matter how efficient the controls.
Before work on Hollymead Towncenter even started, staff noted this as a potential issue for the
downstream property owners. Staff worked with them and strongly advised them to do some initial
surveys before the construction started so they could have some estimate if they felt the upstream
property owner harmed them. Those surveys were not done. That makes it difficult for them to say that
“x” amount of material came from that site.
Mr. W yant said just in the natural process they would get some of that material. Every time there
is work done upstream in the future they will get more material.
Mr. Graham said it was not just Hollymead Towncenter that was being constructed at that time.
There was also work being done on Airport Road, work at the Airport and at Deerwood, a considerable
amount of development activity was occurring in the entire watershed that drains to their lake. He believes
a significant amount of sediment came from the Hollymead Towncenter site and went into their lake.
Mr. Boyd said this has been a difficult situation. He and Mr. Graham have met on several
occasions with the Homeowners’ over the past three years. From the residents’ standpoint, they are
saying it is a regional basin and they need some help from the County.
Ms. Thomas asked how this situation is distinguished from that at Bellair where their lakes are
being ruined, and at their own dollar, the residents are undertaking the dredging of those lakes. Their silt
comes from construction on Old Ivy Road. Bellair is taking this as their responsibility.
Mr. Graham said this is not a unique situation. The primary difference is an order of scale. The
significance of the impact to the Bellair residents is probably no different than it is to the residents in
Forest Lakes. They both feel they have been harmed by activities above them in the watershed.
Mr. Rooker said all ponds silt in over time.
Mr. Graham said that is correct. Lake Hollymead was actually used as a sediment basin during
construction of the Hollymead and North Forest Lakes subdivisions. It was deliberately used to
accumulate sediment during construction of those developments.
Mr. Boyd said the Board may need to have a bigger discussion about what responsibility the
County should or should not take in this area. He asked if the Board would be willing to have staff bring
back a report and have it scheduled as a regular agenda item.
Mr. Rooker said he agrees, but would want it looked at in a broader view. He said when there is a
rezoning and there is an existing lake in the area, the County might extract some proffers to cover the
situation.
Mr. Boyd said it seems there is agreement for staff to bring back a report on the broader issue of
what the County might do in terms of taking over some of these lakes.
Mr. Slutzky said he would not want staff to focus on that aspect. He is more interested in having
staff take a global look at the strategies the Board can employ to insure that new projects do no harm. He
said North Pointe had these same issues and he pushed to be sure the commercial property owners were
part of the same homeowners association that would retain long-term responsibility for maintaining those
sedimentation beds because of this issue. He is interested, personally, in having staff bring back
something showing that the ongoing responsibility lies on the owners who created the sedimentation
basins that will later be impacted by the upstream disturbances of the soils.
Mr. Boyd said he agrees, but the Forest Lakes community needs some closure on this question.
It is not a new problem; it has been going on for years. They will have to accrue some money to deal with
it or look to the County for assistance.
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
Mr. Rooker said he is willing to look at both sides. He does not want to treat one area differently
from the other. There is a procedure set out in the ordinance whereby the Homeowners’ could petition to
have the lake taken into the County system; that has been done before. In this case he needs to know
why they won’t go that route.
Mr. W yant said back in the 70s he studied every project in the State. The biggest issue with
erosion control was maintenance of whatever measure was used. He said 95 percent of silt is taken out
by a silt fence. Sediment basins do the same. If it has not been maintained, the County needs to take a
broader look at making this a regional basin. There are a lot of issues involved with this one problem.
Mr. Boyd said the Board needs to give staff a clear picture of what it wants them to do. He knows
that petitioning to have the lake taken over by the County is not acceptable to them.
Ms. Thomas said other neighborhoods have weighed that and if it is not acceptable they have
come up with the money. It is shafting others who went about that process and made their decision to get
the money.
Mr. Slutzky said it sounds like staff advised them there is something they should do on the front
end so they could document the problem.
Mr. Boyd said the vast majority of the people living in Forest Lakes are perfectly willing to give
away easements on someone else’s property, but the people who own the property are the ones that do
not want to do it. It gets into a technical issue. If someone has a mortgage they must get approval from
that mortgage company in order to do that. That can be difficult to do. He does not know that the County
would or could use condemnation.
Mr. W yant said cleaning is one thing. The other is whether the County would want to take it over
as a regional facility.
Mr. Boyd said cleaning of the lake might be a compromise the County could work on. In the
future, the County might do a better job in not letting it get filled, and have the community recognize that
future work would have to be done by them. He asked the County Attorney for an opinion.
Mr. Davis said the general principle is that the County cannot spend public funds on a private
facility unless the County admitted some fault for it being damaged. He understands staff has said the
County has no liability in this area. If the County wants to take it on as a public facility and take
responsibility for drainage, the County has enabling authority to own and maintain regional stormwater
facilities. In this case it might not be appropriate for the County to expend public funds on the facility
unless it is either a public facility or the County was responsible for the damage.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the Homeowners’ will either have to petition to have it taken in as a
County facility, or they will have to go the private route and fund it themselves. He does not see that there
is another option.
Mr. Tucker said staff has heard everything said and will bring back a report.
__________
Mr. Tucker said a couple of days ago staff learned that the National Trust for Historic Preservation
will be presenting an award to the City and the County because they were chosen to be put on the list of a
dozen distinctive destinations. The date for the ceremony could not be changed so is at 12:30 p.m. today
at Court Square. It would be nice if one Board member could attend with Lee Catlin.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. From the Public: Matters not listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Mr. Jim Grace, from Forest Lakes, said he appreciates the discussion the Board just had about
their lake. He said the homeowners feel the lakes are regional in nature and serve a common good. The
commercial development in their area serves all of the people of the County. Presently, they are accruing
money to dredge these lakes, but they had thought it would not need to be done this soon. The lakes
were pristine until Hollymead Towncenter started. He said it serves the public good, and yet a limited
number of homeowners in Hollymead and Forest Lakes will have to pay for the dredging. They are asking
that the County work with them to dedicate the lakes to the County on a limited easement, where they
would grant an easement on the public areas, which they are willing to do, and work with the private
homeowners on the Forest Lakes side. This involves about 15 homeowners. He does not think any
Board member would want to grant an easement on his own personal property because it involves an
intent that makes it hard to sell the property. They think they can work out some notification where people
are aware they are in the floodplain. He thinks they were notified by the County, and the floodplain has
changed from when some people originally bought their property. They just want some positive indication
that they can work with the County to identify major issues for this dedication, and go forward, recognizing
the value of their lakes to the entire County.
__________
Mr. Jeff W erner, with the Piedmont Environmental Council, spoke next. He said Mr. Dan Holmes
at PEC and Dr. Dudley Rochester were the individuals who initiated getting the air quality monitor installed
in Albemarle. He came to speak about the Pleasant Grove Baptist Church in Earlysville. He said an issue
came up last week in a discussion he had with a member of the Airport Authority when he shared some
information about efforts to revisit the historic nature of that church. He was told that because “we”
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
preservationists had meddled in this issue, the nine years of good-faith negotiations to acquire the
property have been placed in jeopardy. The congregation is at-risk of getting less than had initially been
agreed upon. He was informed that this finding came from the Airport Authority’s legal counsel. Among
the things the Authority was led to believe by their counsel were, if the church is designated as an historic
structure the FAA might opt to nix the entire project and thus force the congregation to preserve and
maintain the church. He said there is no Federal action that can force the church to do anything. They
were also told that if the congregation is located to a new site with an historic church, they would not be
allowed to take with them any of the historic material of the church. This is not true. The Section 106
process has not occurred, so there has been no finding of how demolition, etc. would be mitigated. Also,
the Authority said that if they acquired the property, they would be required to fund and preserve the
structure. This is false. He said Section 106 is clear. It states that “Section 106 review encourages, but
does not mandate, preservation.” In letters from VDHR to the FAA, the FAA consultant never told VDHR
why they were asking about the church. If they had said it was due to a Federal action that could result in
demolition of that church, their response would have been different. He has been told repeatedly that the
siding had been replaced on the church, but he has photos which show that the wood siding is still there
underneath the vinyl siding. He was also told the church has been extensively renovated, but looking at
the interior of the church, it is much as it was 107 years ago. W hat VDHR told the FAA is that reliance on
this survey is not enough. If the FAA wants to hide behind their failure to follow Federal guidelines and
essentially take away the opportunity for the congregation, preservationists should not be held
responsible, but the FAA should be held responsible. He hopes the community, on behalf of the
congregation, would hold the FAA accountable for their failure, and not because “we” asked them to follow
Federal law.
Mr. Slutzky asked if it would be appropriate and of value to other members of the Board if the
Board asked its legal counsel to look into some of these assertions. He is concerned by what he has
heard, and if there is truth to it, the church is part of the community and the Board would not want to be
unwittingly supportive of an injustice. If, by approving the rezoning a couple of months ago, the Board put
these people in a weaker position, he thinks the Board might want to understand what it has done. He is
disturbed by what Mr. W erner said, so he would be interested in learning more about the situation.
Ms. Thomas and Mr. Rooker also said they would like to know more. Mr. Rooker said he never
understood why the church decided not to move the building. It would cost less to move the building than
to build a new one.
Mr. Boyd said the congregation said the building would not suit their needs in the future.
Mr. Rooker said the congregation is very small and it would appear that the facility is more than
adequate for the number of people they currently have. He just has never understood the hesitancy to
preserve the building to which they have such a strong emotional attachment.
Mr. Boyd suggested legal staff look into it and give the Board a written interpretation of what is
going on. Mr. Davis said he will do that, but does not know what role the County can play in this matter.
Mr. Tucker said he thinks the Airport Authority got an opinion from its legal counsel, and he
thought Mr. Slutzky was asking the County Attorney to look over their shoulder.
Mr. Slutzky said he was not suggesting that there be second-guessing, only that this Board be
informed of the process requirements and whether they have been followed. If this thing is not playing out
as it should, this Board should know that and get involved.
Mr. Tucker said it was his understanding that VDHR had requested the Airport and the FAA to
update their information on this matter. That is what the Airport Authority’s consultants are doing now; this
work has not yet been completed.
Mr. Slutzky said he does not think any Board member is objecting to having Mr. Davis look into
the process aspects, and give the Board a report.
Mr. Tucker said legal counsel to the Airport Authority is provided by the City Attorney’s Office.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks there is a perception that there is some competitive interest involved.
The Airport Authority has an interest in accomplishing its goals, and there is the historic aspect of the
facility, and the interest of the congregation. Perhaps, the Board can serve some role in looking at the
information coming in on those three sides, so it knows exactly what the facts are.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Consent Agenda. Mr. Rooker offered motion to approve Items 7.1 (as
noted) through 7.6, and to accept the remaining items on the Consent Agenda for information.
The motion was seconded by Mr. W yant. 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.
__________
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
Item 7.1. Approval of Minutes: June 7 and July 12, 2006.
Mr. Dorrier had read the minutes of June 7, 2006, pages 1-40, and found them to be in order as
presented.
Mr. Boyd had read the minutes of June 7, 2006, pages 41 to the end and found them to be in
order as presented.
By the recorded vote set out above, the minutes of June 7, 2006, were approved as
presented. The minutes which had not been read will go forward to another meeting.
__________
Item 7.2. Resolution and letter in support – Crozet Meadows Revitalization and Expansion.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that The Meadows, located in Crozet and owned by
Jordan Development Corp., currently consists of 28 housing units designated for seniors. The existing
financing for the property through Rural Development (formerly the Farmer’s Home Administration)
provides rental subsidies to 27 of the 28 units. The owner proposes to transfer the ownership from Jordan
Development to Crozet Meadows, LP, for the purpose of applying for federal Low-Income Housing Tax
Credits (LIHTC) in order to rehabilitate the existing units and to construct 38 new units on the site. Jordan
Development will be the general partner in the LP. The Virginia Housing Development Authority (VHDA),
as the administrator of LIHTC, is required by the Internal Revenue Service to provide localities an
opportunity to comment on developments under consideration for LIHTC. Favorable comments supporting
the application receive the highest number of points in that category. In addition, applicants for LIHTC
may receive additional points for their project if there is local financial support.
The property currently known as The Meadows was rezoned in 2004 to permit the expansion of
the project. The rezoning allows for an additional 38 by-right units. A preliminary site development plan,
submitted in January, 2007 has been reviewed by Community Development. No major issues were
identified and no review or approval by the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors is anticipated.
The owners have received approval from Rural Development to expand the project with Rural
Development continuing to provide rental assistance to 27 of the existing units. The owner requested that
Albemarle County commit up to eight project-based vouchers for rental assistance, with seven designated
to support newly-created units. All of the vouchers will be restricted to those households with incomes
below 40 percent of the area median income. The value of these vouchers over a ten-year period is
estimated to be approximately $480,000, which is recognized as a local financial commitment.
VHDA has provided a form letter that allows jurisdictions to support the applicant’s application for
LIHTC. The County’s housing policy includes a number of recommended strategies that are relative to
this project including: supporting projects seeking LIHTC; and, preserving existing affordable housing.
This project will improve 28 existing units of affordable rental housing and create 38 new units
with rents controlled for a minimum of 15 years by the IRS. There will be no impact on local funding. The
commitment of project-based vouchers is conditioned upon continued annual funding from HUD for the
Housing Choice Voucher Program.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt a resolution that will allow for the commitment of up to
eight project-based vouchers once the development is completed. In addition, staff recommends that the
Board authorize the County Executive to sign the Local CEO Support Letter indicating that the
development will help meet the housing needs and priorities of the County and, therefore, the County
supports the applicant’s application for tax credits.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution and
authorized the County Executive to sign the Local CEO Support Letter indicating that the
development will help meet the housing needs and priorities of the County and, therefore, the
County supports the applicant’s application for tax credits.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is committed to ensuring that safe, decent,
affordable, and accessible housing is available for all residents; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is committed to improving the livability of all
neighborhoods and access to support services by residents; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is committed to preserving existing and promoting
the development of new affordable housing stock; and
WHEREAS, the Jordan Development Corporation is applying for Low-Income Housing
Tax Credits to renovate 28 existing and construct 38 new low-income elderly rental units at The
Meadows in Crozet; and
WHEREAS, all proposed units in the development will be restricted to households with
incomes at or below 60 percent of the area median income; and
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Office of Housing proposes the use of Housing Choice
Vouchers to provide project-based assistance for up to eight units with household incomes below
40% of the area median income.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
supports the commitment of eight project-based vouchers to provide rental assistance for
households with income below 40 percent of the area median income.
__________
Item 7.3. Bowen Property – Request to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority
Jurisdictional Area Boundary to provide water and sewer service to Tax Map 55, Parcels 51 and 51A,
located in the Crozet Development Area.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that the applicant is requesting Albemarle County Service
Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional Area designation for water and sewer service to two parcels totaling
approximately 2.048 acres located on the north side of Railroad Avenue (Route 788) at its intersection
with Buck Road (Route 789) along the northernmost boundary of the Crozet Development Area in the
W hite Hall District. The parcels are currently designated “water only to existing structures.” Given the
location of the parcels within the Crozet Development Area, and because of a failing drainfield, the
applicant has requested connection to public water and sewer. The requested connections would be
consistent with County utility policies. The properties adjacent and to the north of the subject parcels are
located in the Rural Areas and are not currently served by public water and sewer.
The properties across Railroad Avenue from the subject parcels are located in the Crozet
Development Area and are designated for public water and sewer service. Nearby parcels 46B and 49
are also located within the Development Area, but are currently designated “water only to existing
structures”. The Crozet Development Area drains into Lickinghole Creek which is located entirely within
the South Fork Rivanna River water supply watershed. W ater supply in Crozet is provided by the Beaver
Creek Reservoir; wastewater service is currently being provided through the Crozet Interceptor and
Moores Creek Treatment Plant.
The Comprehensive Plan recommends serving the Development Areas with public water and
sewer service. These parcels are located within the Crozet Development Area so designating them as
part of the ACSA Jurisdictional Area for public water and sewer service would align with County policy.
Staff notes that while most of this part of the Crozet Development Area is designated for water and sewer
service, there are some parcels in the area with restricted designations or which are not included in the
Jurisdictional Area. In the future the Board may want to consider amending the Jurisdictional Area to
designate all properties within the designated Development Area for water and sewer service. The
property owner will bear the costs for water and sewer hook-up.
As a general policy, staff has advised that public utility capacity should be reserved to support
development of designated Development Areas. Since this property is located within a designated
Development Area, the provision of both water and sewer service to the property would be consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan public utility policy. Therefore, staff recommends that the Board set a public
hearing for April 4, 2007, for this request for public water and sewer service to Tax Map 55, Parcels 51
and 51A. Furthermore, staff recommends that the Board direct staff to do the necessary research and set
a separate public hearing to designate all properties within the designated Development Area for water
and sewer service.
(Discussion: Mr. W yant said there are two recommendations in the Executive Summary. He
said staff has suggested that all properties within the Development Area be designated for both public
water and public sewer service. Mr. Tucker said even if the Board concurs with that suggestion, this
request for service to the Bowen property must still go to a public hearing to amend the ACSA
jurisdictional area. Mr. David Benish said work on inclusion of all properties in the Development Area is
on staff’s work program, but at this time it has been moved further down the list. Staff wants to get a new
boundary for Crozet and then have one mass jurisdictional area change. This was an individual request
and the applicant needs to move forward.
Ms. Thomas asked if there is sufficient capacity in the Crozet system to take in this property. Mr.
Benish said this is domestic service, so there is sufficient capacity now.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board set a public hearing for April 4, 2007, for this
request for public water and sewer service to Tax Map 55, Parcels 51 and 51A, and also directed
staff to do the necessary research and set a separate public hearing to designate all properties
within the designated Development Area for water and sewer service.
__________
Item 7.4. Requested FY 2007.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that the Code of Virginia § 15.2-2507 stipulates that any
locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year as
shown in the currently adopted budget. However, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the
total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget or the sum of $500,000, whichever is lesser,
must be accomplished by first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before
amending the budget. The total of this requested FY ‘2007 appropriation is $201,946.23. It is anticipated
that a budget amendment public hearing will be proposed in April, 2007 and these appropriations would be
incorporated into it. This request involves the approval of seven new FY ‘2007 appropriations as follows:
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
Two appropriations (No. 2007-027 and No. 2007-059) totaling $15,487.05 for grants received by
the Commission on Children and Families; two appropriations (No. 2007-056 and No. 2007-058) totaling
$170,809.52 for various Education programs and grants; one appropriation (No. 2007-057) provides
$50,000.00 for funding of the Regional Transit Authority Plan from the Board’s contingency; one
appropriation (No. 2007-060) in the amount of $18,105.00 for a Police Department grant; and one
appropriation (No. 2007-061) to refund $2,080.66 insurance proceeds to Stony Point Volunteer Fire
Company, all as outlined below:
Appropriation No. 2007-027, $3,810.05. Revenue Source: State Revenue, $3,810.05. The
Commission on Children and Families, as fiscal agent for the Foothills Child Advocacy Center,
has received a grant in the amount of $3,810.05 to purchase the NCA Trak case tracking system.
This system will assist in compiling an efficient and accurate case tracking system to ensure
service implementation and accurate record keeping. There is no local match.
Appropriation No. 2007-056, $18,900.00. Revenue Source: Local Revenues (Donations/Grants),
$18,900.00. At its meeting on January 25, 2007, the School Board approved the following
appropriation requests:
Brownsville Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $12,800.00 from the
Brownsville PTO. It has been requested that this donation go toward the purchase of any
instructional supplies needed at Brownsville Elementary School.
Albemarle High School received a donation in the amount of $150.00 from Mr. and Mrs.
Scott Goodman. This donation was made to defray the costs of a new teleprompter for
the Broadcasting Department at Albemarle High School.
The Albemarle County Public Schools received a grant award from the Knights of Virginia
Assistance for the Retarded (KOVAR) in the amount of $5,950.00 for FY 2006-07. This
grant will facilitate a training program for students with mental retardation to increase the
knowledge capacity of these students to use public transportation in order to access
employment opportunities in the community.
Appropriation No. 2007-057, $50,000.00. Revenue Source: Board Contingency, $50,000.00. At
its meeting on February 14, 2007, the Board of Supervisors approved the County’s participating in
funding for a Regional Transit Authority Plan. The request is a one-time cost of $50,000.00 for
the County with $5,000.00 used as a local match for a grant and an additional $45,000.00 to
complete the identified scope of work. Funding will be appropriated from the Board of
Supervisors’ contingency.
Appropriation No. 2007-058. $151,909.52. Revenue Source: Local Revenues (Grants/
Donations) $102,489.00; State Revenues $8,866.00; Federal Revenues $23,755.05; and, School
Special Revenue Fund Balance $16,799.47.
The Teaching American History Grant is based on a partnership of five public school
systems in central Virginia (Charlottesville City, Albemarle, Madison, Orange and Greene
counties). The City of Charlottesville is the fiscal agent and Albemarle County Schools
will seek reimbursement for salary and compensation expenses incurred in the amount of
$89,689.00. The purpose of this grant is to create a sustainable, long-term project that
will become a model to share both teaching strategies and content-based activities as
well as inform future historical projects.
The Virginia Commission for the Arts made grant awards to several Albemarle County
Schools. Teacher Incentive Grants were made to Hollymead Elementary in the amount of
$1,786.00, Murray Elementary in the amount of $300.00, Stony Point Elementary in the
amount of $4,500.00, W oodbrook Elementary in the amount of $530.00, Monticello High
School in the amount of $300.00, and W estern Albemarle High School in the amount of
$300.00. These programs will involve interactive activities to include hands-on learning
experience for students with performing, visual and musical arts.
The Virginia Commission for the Arts awarded a Touring Grant to Hollymead Elementary
School in the amount of $1,150.00. This grant will assist with funding a Theatre IV
performance.
The Henley Middle School Cultural Enrichment Program, formally the Frederick S. Upton
Foundation Grant, received a grant donation from J.P. Morgan Company in the amount of
$5,800.00. This donation will support Henley’s Cultural Enrichment Program in funding
artists-in-residence programs: Sculpture, W riter, and Dramatic Interpretation. The
projects will involve interactive activities to include hand-on learning experiences for
students with performing, visual and musical arts.
Albemarle County Schools received additional funds from the Department of Education
for Emergency Impact Aid for students enrolled in the School Division who were displaced
by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita for FY ‘06/07 in the amount of $23,755.05. The funds will
be used to pay compensation of personnel, acquiring curricular material and classroom
supplies, providing basic instructional services and supporting services for displaced
students. There is also a local fund balance from FY ‘05/06 in the amount of $16,799.47
which may be reappropriated for FY ‘06/07.
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
The Freas Foundation awarded Jack Jouett Middle School a grant in the amount of
$7,000.00. These grant funds will be used to purchase devices such as: laptops,
SMART boards, digital cameras, still cameras, document cameras and portable voting
systems for classroom use. These devices will allow the school to engage student
learning through technology and assist with accomplishing specific goals.
Appropriation No. 2007-059, $11,667.00. Revenue Source: Local Revenues (Community
Attention) $1,667.00; State Revenues $5,000.00; Federal Revenues $5,000.00. The Department
of Criminal Justice awarded the Commission on Children and Families a grant in the amount of
$5,000.00 in Federal funds and $5,000.00 in State funds, with a local match of $1,667.00 for a
total award of $11,667.00. This grant will be used to provide 200 service-learning sessions for 48
weeks for youth who are at-risk of gang involvement. The local match will be funded by the
Community Attention agency.
Appropriation No. 2007-060, $18,105.00. Revenue Source: Local Revenues (Transfer from
Police) $4,526.00; Federal Revenues $13,579.00. The Department of Criminal Justice Services
awarded the Albemarle County Police Department a grant in the amount of $13,579.00 with a
local match of $4,526.00 for a total award of $18,105.00. This grant will be used to increase the
recruiting and hiring of qualified police officers to be accomplished through the selection and
training of a police recruiter, development materials, and participation in up to ten job fairs and
recruiting events in Virginia. The object is to increase the number of female, minority and bilingual
police officers. The local match will be provided through funds appropriated in the existing Police
Department budget and will require no additional local funding.
Appropriation No. 2007-061, $2,080.66. Revenue Source: General Fund Balance $2,080.66.
In May 2006, the County received an insurance reimbursement check in the amount of $3,561.66
for damage to equipment at Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company as a result of a power surge. Of
this amount, $1,821.00 was for equipment used primarily by ACFR career staff and the remaining
$2,080.66 was for equipment owned by Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company. Since the
reimbursement check was received in the previous fiscal year, an appropriation is required from
the Fund Balance to reimburse this amount to Stony Point.
Staff recommends approval of the FY 2007 Appropriation No. 2007-027, No. 2007-056, No. 2007-
057, No. 2007-058, No. 2007-059, No. 2007-060, and No. 2007-061.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolutions of
Appropriation:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2007-027
DATE: 03/07/07
EXPLANATION: NCA Track Grant
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1571 24000 240428 Revenue - State J2 3,810.05
1 1571 53157 550100 Travel/Training/Education J1 3,810.05
1571 0501 Est. Revenue 3,810.05
1571 0701 Appropriation 3,810.05
TOTAL 7,620.10 3,810.05 3,810.05
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2007-056
DATE: 03/07/07
EXPLANATION: Education Donation and Grants
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation J2 12,950.00
2 3159 18120 189913 KOVAR Grant J2 5,950.00
1 2202 61101 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies J1 12,800.00
1 2301 61101 800100 Mach/Equip-New J1 150.00
1 3159 61102 138100 P/T W ages-W ork Study J1 1,108.20
1 3159 61102 210000 FICA J1 91.80
1 3159 61102 420100 Transportation J1 4,000.00
1 3159 61102 601700 Printing J1 750.00
2000 0501 Est. Revenue 12,950.00
0701 Appropriation 12,950.00
3159 0501 Est. Revenue 5,950.00
0701 Appropriation . 5,950.00
TOTAL 37,800.00 18,900.00 18,900.00
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2007-057
DATE: 03/07/07
EXPLANATION: Funding for Regional Transit Authority Plan
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 89000 562501 TJPDC-Transit Authority Plan J1 50,000.00
1 1000 95000 999999 Board Contingency J1 (50,000.00)
TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00
__________
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2007-058
DATE: 03/07/07
EXPLANATION: Education Donations, Grants and Programs, School Board Meeting, February 8, 2007
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 3104 60205 312500 Prof Service - Instr J1 1,150.00
1 3104 60205 601300 Education & Recreation Supp. J1 1,786.00
1 3104 60211 601300 Education & Recreation Supp. J1 4,500.00
1 3104 60212 601300 Education & Recreation Supp. J1 530.00
1 3104 60216 601300 Education & Recreation Supp. J1 300.00
1 3104 60252 312500 Prof Service - Instr J1 5,800.00
1 3104 60253 800700 ADP-Equipment J1 7,000.00
1 3104 60302 601300 Education & Recreation Supp. J1 300.00
1 3104 60304 601300 Education & Recreation Supp. J1 300.00
1 3158 61101 112100 Salaries-Teacher J1 55,000.00
1 3158 61101 160100 Stipends-Career Incentive J1 14,000.00
1 3158 61101 210000 FiCA J1 5,531.00
1 3158 61101 221000 VRS J1 8,118.00
1 3158 61101 231000 Health Insurance J1 6,153.00
1 3158 61101 232000 Dental Insurance J1 216.00
1 3158 61101 241000 VRS Group Life J1 671.00
1 3315 61101 111400 Salaries - Other Management J1 9,775.43
1 3315 61101 132100 PT/Wages-Teacher J1 14,115.34
1 3315 61101 210000 FICA J1 1,774.63
1 3315 61101 221000 VRS J1 1,436.02
1 3315 61101 231000 Health Insurance J1 399.95
1 3315 61101 232000 Dental Insurance J1 14.04
1 3315 61101 241000 VRS Group Life Insurance J1 110.46
1 3315 61101 601300 Education & Recreation Supp. J1 12,928.65
2 3104 18000 181221 Henley MS-Cultural Enrich J2 5,800.00
2 3104 18000 189900 Miscellaneous Revenues J2 7,000.00
2 3104 24000 240281 Revenue - Stony Point J2 4,500.00
2 3104 24000 240328 Revenue - Murray J2 300.00
2 3104 24000 240330 Revenue - Hollymead J2 1,786.00
2 3104 24000 240336 Revenue - Hollymead J2 1,150.00
2 3104 24000 240344 Revenue - W oodbrook J2 530.00
2 3104 24000 240418 Revenue - W AHS/MHS J2 600.00
2 3158 18000 181273 Teaching American History Gr J2 89,689.00
2 3315 51000 510100 Appropriation Fund Balance J2 16,799.47
2 3315 33000 330001 Emergency Aid Impact Grant J2 23,755.05
3104 0501 21,666.00
0701 21,666.00
3158 0501 89,689.00
0701 89,689.00
3315 0501 40,554.52
0701 40,554.42
Total 303,819.04 151,909.52 151,909.42
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2007-059
DATE: 03/07/07
EXPLANATION: CCF - DCJS Grant
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1573 33000 330001 Revenue - Federal (DCJS) J2 5,000.00
2 1573 24000 240000 Revenue - State (DCJS) J2 5,000.00
2 1573 18110 181318 Revenue - Local (Comm Attn) J2 1,667.00
1 1573 53160 312105 Consulting Services J1 11,667.00
1573 0501 Est. Revenue 11,667.00
0701 Appropriation 11,677.00
TOTAL 23,334.00 11,667.00 11,677.00
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2007-060
DATE: 03/07/07
EXPLANATION: Police Department - DCJS Recruiting and Hiring Grant
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1512 33000 330001 Revenue - Federal (DCJS) J2 13,579.00
2 1512 51000 512004 Transfer from General Fund J2 4,526.00
1 1512 31013 120000 Overtime J1 1,584.00
1 1512 31013 210000 FICA J1 121.00
1 1512 31013 350000 Printing & Binding J1 1,000.00
1 1512 31013 390000 Purchased Services J1 12,800.00
1 1512 31013 550100 Travel/Training J1 2,600.00
1512 0501 Est. Revenue 18,105.00
0701 Appropriation 18,105.00
1 1000 31013 120000 Police - Overtime J1 (426.00)
1 1000 31013 390000 Police - Purchased Services J1 (3,450.00)
1 1000 31013 550100 Police - Travel/Substi J1 (650.00)
1 1000 31013 930210 Transfer to Grant Projects J1 4,526.00
TOTAL 36,210.00 18,105.00 18,105.00
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2007-061
DATE: 03/07/-07
EXPLANATION: Reimbursement of insurance proceeds - Stony Point Fire Company
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1000 51000 510100 Appropriation - G/F Balance J2 2,080.66
1 1000 32029 580315 Stony Point VFD J1 2,080.66
1000 0501 Est. Revenue 2,080.66
0701 Appropriation 2,080.66
TOTAL 4,161.32 2,080.66 2,080.66
__________
Item 7.5. Resolution to accept the realignment of Route 606 (Old Dickerson Road) into the State
Secondary Road System.
(Discussion: Mr. W yant asked if tying in Old Mill Road caused the realignment of Old Dickerson
Road. Mr. Tucker said “yes.”)
As requested by the Virginia Department of Transportation, 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, Old Dickerson Road (Route 606) as described on the attached Additions
Form AM-4.3 dated March 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 add Old Dickerson Road (Route
606), due to the developer’s relocation of the roadway, as described on the attached Additions
Form AM-4.3 dated March 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.
__________
Item 7.6. Appeal: SDP-2006-0071. Gillispie Preliminary Site Plan - Critical Slopes waiver/curb
and gutter request.
The applicant has requested withdrawal of this appeal.
(Discussion: Mr. W yant said he understands they want to bring back a different plan.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the applicant’s request.
_________
Item 7.7. Copy of letter dated February 21, 2007, from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning
Administration, to W illiam Rieley, Rieley & Associates, re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCELS
AND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS -- Tax Map 71, Parcels 14, 15A & 20-W hite Hall District (Property of L. B.
Disharoon LLC) Section 10.3.1, was received as information.
(Discussion: Mr. W yant asked that north/south arrows be sketched on the maps with this kind of
information.)
__________
Item 7.8. Copy of letter dated February 9, 2007, from J. Paul Loether, Chief, National Register of
Historic Places and National Historic Landmarks Program, to Kenneth C. Boyd, Chairman, re: Skyline
Drive in Shenandoah National Park, Virginia, designation as a National Historic Landmark, was received
as information.
(Discussion: Mr. W yant asked if the National Register notifies the property owners of this
designation. Mr. Tucker said the County does not do it. Mr. W yant said some of these issues have been
very contentious in Greene and Madison counties.)
__________
Item 7.9. Board-to-Board, Communications report of activities from the Albemarle County School
Board, dated March 7, 2007, received as information (summarized below).
Comprehensive High School Program of Studies Recommendations: The High School Program
of Studies is reviewed on an annual basis to ensure the Division is meeting the needs of all students,
reflects changes in Virginia standards for public schools, and positions County school programs among
other top performing programs in the educational marketplace. The School Board received and approved
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
revisions to course offerings for the 2007-08 school year in December, 2006. However, it was determined
that additional time was needed to further review recommendations related to grade point average, class
rank, weighted grades, grading scale, course levels, and exams and exam options. Dr. Moran presented
her recommendations on these issues at the February regular board meeting. The Board is expected to
take action on the recommendations at its March 8 meeting.
Redistricting: On November 29, 2006, the School Board revised the timeline of four CIP projects
and indicated that it would be necessary to redistrict students in order to alleviate overcrowding at Crozet.
At the December 14, 2006, School Board meeting, the following projects that have an impact on this
redistricting were approved:
Brownsville Addition: This project was moved forward to begin design in 2007-08. The Board
decided to authorize a change in boundaries for Crozet students to use existing capacity at
Brownsville and Meriwether Lewis in order to reduce the overcrowding at Crozet next year; and,
Crozet Addition: The project was replaced by Brownsville and moved to the out years of 2012-
14 except for $440,000 in needed site work to separate car and bus traffic as well as provide new
and replacement parking, which is scheduled to begin design in 2008-10. After the meeting in
December, staff began work to develop a proposal for moving students from Crozet Elementary
School to other elementary schools in the western feeder pattern.
School Division Calendar: At its February 22 meeting, the School Board approved a School
Division Calendar for 2007-08. Based on the approved calendar school will begin in Albemarle County on
August 22.
2007-2008 School Division Funding Request: At its February 15 special meeting, the School
Board approved submitting a funding request for the 2007-08 fiscal year totaling $166,714,753. This
request includes $151,360,557 in the School Fund Budget and $15,354,196 in the Self-Sustaining Budget.
It assumes the County real property tax rate will not change and it is balanced to projected revenues. This
funding request is based on statutory responsibility to advocate for funding that meets the educational
needs of the County, a responsibility based on student achievement and community satisfaction data.
National Board Certified Teachers: Tim Howeth, of B.F. Yancey Elementary School, Jane Shawn,
of Agnor-Hurt Elementary School, Dolores Reinhold, of Mary C. Greer Elementary School, and Janina
Buechner, currently teaching in Cambodia, have been named National Board Certified Teachers.
Math W ork Session: At its February 22 meeting, the School Board held a work session focused
on the achievement gap and student engagement as it relates to mathematics. Board members were
provided a brief that contained information regarding mathematics teaching and learning in four areas:
evidence of student learning, student engagement, curriculum and instruction. Following the work
session, Board members provided summaries of what they learned in the focus groups, and requested
that further information be provided at the March 8th meeting.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Board-to-Board, Monthly Communications Report, School Board Chairman.
(Moved to consent agenda).
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9a. Transportation Matters - VDOT Monthly Report.
Mr. Allan Sumptner, Residency Administrator, said the Board had his written report, so he was
present to answer questions. Questions will appear under Agenda Item No. 9b.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9b. Transportation Matters not listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Rooker said a tree fell across Roslyn Ridge Road over the weekend and broke the guardrail.
The neighbors cut up the tree, but he would like for VDOT to check the guardrail for repairs, and have the
extra debris moved.
__________
Mr. Slutzky said at the intersection of Hillsdale and Greenbrier, the guardrail was hit by a car
recently. He asked that VDOT address the problem.
__________
Mr. W yant asked if a location had been decided on for the Advanced Mills bridge replacement.
Mr. Sumptner said VDOT is working to decide on a location. They have a meeting set on April 24;
currently there are five to six possible alignments to consider. They already have some draft
environmental comments.
__________
Mr. W yant asked about an advertisement date for the preliminary engineering work on the
Jarman’s Gap Road project. Mr. Sumptner said in a month or so he will let him know that ad date.
__________
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
Ms. Thomas said she spoke to representatives of Appalachian Power Company regarding debris
from trimming in their rights-of-way. She was informed that their policy is that they only clear debris when
the right-of-way appears to be tended, otherwise, the brush piles will be left.
_________
Ms. Thomas thanked VDOT for putting up the guardrail around the Ivy Interchange area that had
turned into a “Park and Ride, etc.” area.
__________
Mr. Sumpter noted that the emergency bridge repair on Old Ivy Road should be completed this
week. They are grooving the deck and that will hopefully bring that project to a complete and total closure.
__________
Ms. Thomas said when the Board undertook the Rural Rustic Roads Program it clearly said it
would do several different projects and then test to see how the program had worked. She would like to
have a report back on the progress of the program. Mr. Sumptner said VDOT has had preliminary
discussions with County staff about a study. A great advantage to the program for VDOT is that their
maintenance work drops off significantly. As projects are completed, they are sending out surveys to the
residents and asking them to evaluate the project.
Mr. David Benish said staff will work with VDOT to assess the projects, and give that assessment
to the Board at next month’s day meeting.
Mr. Boyd said one project was done in his district, and he has received nothing but thanks from
the residents.
Mr. W yant said one project was also done in his district, and he has had the same experience.
__________
Ms. Thomas asked if VDOT is using the Jones & Jones Study for design of the Meadow Creek
Parkway. She said the road was designed as a true parkway, so it would be ashamed to have any of that
design lost. Mr. Jack Kelsey, County Engineer, said the basic plans being used for right-of-way
acquisition are the same plans and the same alignment the Board endorsed after the design public
hearing was held approximately two years ago. Right-of-way acquisition is going on now.
Mr. Rooker said the VDOT staff person, Greg Cristiack, is sensitive to the desires regarding this
project. He does a good job of working on contact sensitive designs and has a strong interest in making
certain this road is constructed the right way.
Mr. Sumptner said that VDOT has to acquire right-of-way from 31 different parcels. As of last
Friday, six more appraisals had been completed and were in the process of being verified in preparation
for contact with the landowners.
__________
Mr. Dorrier inquired if VDOT had seen a transportation study for the Biscuit Run Development.
Mr. Joel DeNunzio advised that VDOT had reviewed the traffic impact study and has been working with
the County to address the proffer statement submitted. He said VDOT had worked up some preliminary
dollar numbers for recommendation to the County. They have forwarded that information to Mr.
Juandiego W ade so he now has their recommendation for the total dollars that should be invested in
transportation improvements for the impacts of the development.
Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. DeNunzio had that number. Mr. DeNunzio said it included an amount for
Route 20 improvements, widening and bike lanes, spot improvements on Avon Street and Old Lynchburg
Road, curve realignments, turn lanes, bike lanes, and similar things. VDOT did a total estimate for the
projects. They looked at the impact of the development compared to what the numbers would be in the
build year. On a percentage basis, their estimate came to about $11.0 million on the widening of Route
20.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this developer has proffered money. Mr. DeNunzio said none of this is
included in the proffers at this point. This is what VDOT recommends should be considered in the proffers.
It is part of ongoing negotiations.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this information has been presented to the Planning Commission. Mr.
DeNunzio said it will be incorporated into the County’s Staff Report that Mr. W ade is preparing.
Mr. Dorrier asked for a copy of that report when it goes to the Commission. Mr. DeNunzio said
that will be the County’s report. Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission will have a public hearing on March
27. It was originally scheduled for February 27, but the Commission held a work session instead. There
have been ongoing discussions with the applicant about transportation needs. The City provided
comments; VDOT provided comments. Everything has been conveyed to the applicant, and the
Commission has been informed of what staff has received. Staff has compared what the proffers offer in
relation to impacts identified up to the last work session. This week staff received updated comments
from VDOT. There are issues beyond what VDOT has identified and beyond what the City identified. All
of this will be in the report going to the Commission for their March 27 public hearing. A report on the
items the applicant identified as impacts is not complete at this time. The Commission will need to base
its decisions on what it has before it on March 27.
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
Mr. Dorrier said this is the biggest project in the County’s history and there are problems with the
roads in that area. He thinks the Board needs the staff report as soon as possible.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the staff report will be extensive, so it would give the Board a longer
time to study the request before it holds a work session. Mr. Cilimberg said the only thing that might
change would be a deferral by the Commission.
__________
Mr. Rooker said there have been issues brought up about the Sunset Road Connector and how it
might handle some of the traffic from the Biscuit Run site. He said if it has not been done yet, he thinks it
would be helpful to know what impact completion of the Sunset Road Connector would have on traffic flow
from that site. Mr. DeNunzio said the Sunset Road Connector is part of that study, but he does not know
that relief of traffic impacts was a part of the study. He said the proffers do put money toward the Sunset
Road Connector construction project.
Mr. Rooker said he heard recently that the developer is offering $1.5 million toward construction of
that connector which is estimated to cost about $13.0 million in today’s dollars. Before money is taken
from other projects and put on the Sunset Connector, it would be helpful to have traffic modeling done to
show how it would impact traffic flow on the road network generally. Mr. DeNunzio said the traffic impact
study could be reopened to find out if that connector road was addressed in the study.
Mr. Rooker said he is concerned because there are two other projects in the area; the Granger
project and the Fontaine Research Park expansion. He said if those projects are approved (they have not
yet been heard) he thinks the part of the Sunset Connector on those parcels would be built as a part of
those proffers. He is hesitant to take money from Biscuit Run (money that might be used for other things)
and put it on the Sunset Connector. That might only alleviate a future developer’s proffer, or it might set
there indefinitely if the parcels are not developed. He would like to understand what the connector would
do for traffic flow in the area.
Mr. Boyd said the Board is getting a lot of questions about Biscuit Run which is only natural, but
he thinks it has to go through the process first.
Mr. Rooker said he wants to make sure the process includes that traffic modeling.
Mr. W ade said when staff and VDOT started scoping the Biscuit Run traffic study in 2005, it knew
that Granger, Biscuit Run and Avon/Fifth Street were on the horizon, and they wanted to get one traffic
study to look at all three developments. The applicant for Biscuit Run did not want to do that, and staff
could not require that he do so. The Biscuit Run traffic study does not incorporate the Sunset Connector
as a completed road. It has been discussed during the various work sessions. During discussion about
the last proffer, the developer agreed to proffer money for construction of that. The Southern Area “B”
Study factors in that project, and part of Southern Area “B”. But, when that study was done, only some of
this development of Biscuit Run was factored in. It did not factor in the Sunset Connector, but they have
proffered some funding for the construction of that road.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks a model should be run showing what it would do for the traffic flow in
the area, because the County may be accepting proffers to improve Old Lynchburg Road in spots, etc.
There are now cash proffers to save until the Sunset Connector is constructed. Before the Board makes
a reasonable allocation of where proffer money should be spent, he thinks it needs to know what that
project does with respect to alleviating strains on other parts of the system. He encouraged VDOT’s staff
to help the County look at that component of the model so it understands what it does to other pieces of
the network.
Mr. W yant said he thinks the Board needs to take a broader approach to looking at the traffic
impacts.
Ms. Thomas said the Board needs to know how a transit-using community would be different from
what has been modeled so far. That project could be designed in a way to encourage usage by the
number of passengers the transit system needs, as well as reduce the number of trips by automobiles. It
could make a major impact on every other road and intersection that is being impacted.
Mr. Slutzky said staff has told him that the modeling for Places29 was not able to take into
account the implications of transit, the models were not available. They will have to that as an after the
fact calculation. He was surprised to hear that. Mr. Cilimberg said he understands Places29 has an initial
modeling that gives the number of trips produced. There is a second modeling that gives the number of
trips produced that might be diverted for transit.
Mr. Slutzky said he guesses it is a different scenario for Places29, and also from Biscuit Run. For
Places29, land use allocations are being designed absent input about where it would make most sense to
have transit orientation. He said Biscuit Run appears to be a more focused place, so the model
deficiencies should not be a problem in Biscuit Run. Mr. Cilimberg said he will defer to VDOT because
there is only a certain level they will normally divert to transit in any project.
Mr. W ade said when this started in 2005, transit was on the mind of the Commission. They asked
for the worst case scenario for this development because typically they only take one or two percent of
traffic. The traffic study in hand does not factor in transit, but it will be a transit-oriented type of
development. Staff is getting some numbers now from CTS that if transit were available to this site, what
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
that would cost. As a result of this discussion today, staff will have to regroup and see how it can get
some of this information together for future work sessions.
__________
Mr. Slutzky said as sidewalks are being put in the urban area, he would like to know who will be
responsible for their ongoing maintenance and upkeep.
__________
Mr. W yant asked if all Primary roads in the County and all Secondary roads that meet the criteria
have edge striping. Mr. Sumptner said he believes all primaries are stripped, and only some secondary’s
are.
__________
Mr. W yant asked if the pipe being replaced on Jarman’s Gap Road is within the scope of the
project. Mr. Sumptner said he will find out and get back to him.
__________
Mr. Boyd said he appreciates Mr. Sumptner’s report to the Board; it is very helpful and clear. He
is anxious to see the Rural Rustic Road report and hopes it will be soon. Mr. Sumptner said VDOT hopes
to map out a plan containing goals and targets like any construction project would. He hopes that will be
in next month’s report.
__________
Mr. Rooker said he referred earlier to the letter the Board had received from Delegate Steve
Landess which included a summary of the transportation funding bill approved by both houses and sent to
the Governor. If the bill is signed into law, it would be helpful if VDOT would advise the Board what it
means to Albemarle. Mr. Sumpter said from what he has received so far, at his level everything is
premature, and he cannot comment at this time.
Mr. Rooker said it would be helpful, whatever bill is signed into law, if someone at VDOT would
get something out quickly to show what VDOT sees as the additional available transportation funding and
how it is expected to be allocated. The bills are complex, and contain a lot of provisions.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Sun Ridge Road Improvement Project.
Mr. Jack Kelsey, County Engineer, said at the Board’s meeting on January 3, 2007, staff
presented the Board with two primary alternatives for providing a public road extension for Phase II of Sun
Ridge Road. One option extended the road about 450 feet to an existing “T” intersection in the platted
right-of-way. A second option was a shorter extension of the public road of about 200 feet to serve the
last undeveloped lot (Lot No. 8). At the Board’s direction, staff further explored the feasibility of providing
access to Lot 7 and Lot 14 from the current Sun Ridge Road cul-de-sac. Access to Lot 8 would be
through private driveways with or without vacating the existing public right-of-way. He has discussed this
last option with Mr. Foley and Mr. Davis and it would necessitate County issuance of a “license” to allow a
private driveway within the public right-of-way. Such a “license” would specify the terms for private use of
the public right-of-way and release the County of any responsibility and liability for the driveway.
Mr. Kelsey said since one option assumes Lots 7 and 14 would have direct access to the existing
cul-de-sac, staff evaluated the existing topography and potential development of the lots to assure this
assumption was feasible. Conceptual grading and access sketches were prepared for the three lots. The
evaluation revealed that Lot 7 may directly access the cul-de-sac. However, Lot 14 on the east side of
Sun Ridge Road slopes downward from the cul-de-sac at a slope of approximately 20 percent. For this lot
to be developed and directly access the cul-de-sac, the driveway grade would exceed 20 percent and
exceed the County’s standard for “safe and convenient access”, so a “license” would need to be granted
to that lot as well. A driveway (100 feet in length) within the public right-of-way would be necessary to
reach a point where safe and convenient access to the building site could be provided. To avoid the
creation of a private street (serving two lots), a separate and parallel driveway within the public right-of-
way, would be necessary to access Lot 8.
Mr. Kelsey said it is a reasonable solution, but not the ideal solution of being able to extend a
public road to serve those lots. Since the staff report was mailed to the Board, he discussed with VDOT
the option which shows a 200 foot road extension with a cul-de-sac bulb. VDOT said they would allow a
“T” turnaround, rather than a cul-de-sac bulb. Cost wise it is not a significant savings, but the “T”
turnaround would require only a small easement for the third leg of the “T”. It would have less impact on
the properties.
Mr. Slutzky said he spoke with some of the homeowners involved since he got the staff’s report.
He said these homeowners have owned their lots since the 1970s. Since that time they have paid
property taxes based on an assessed valuation as if they were usable lots, but they are not usable lots at
this time. He said the road was to be dedicated and built out by the developer, but the County did not hold
a performance bond and the developer did not build the road, but he did sell lots to people who had the
expectation that the lots would be usable. A few years ago, the Board agreed to build a longer version of
this road, but when the bids came in high, it was decided to build only a section of the road. There is
approximately $20,000 left in that fund. Of the three options, the most expensive one is not necessary.
The homeowners would not be further benefited by building the full length of the road that was the original
Phase II proposal. He thinks the Board can disregard Option No. 1, which is the most expensive and it
does not provide any additional benefit to anyone.
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
Mr. Slutzky said he would prefer Option No. 2. He said Option No. 3 is a workable solution but the
disadvantage of using No. 3 is that it still imposes an additional cost burden on the homeowners to build
driveways to reach the portion of the road already built. They would have to do that because they bought
a lot expecting there to be a road in front of it, but the County never made that road happen even though
they have been taxed as if that road would have been built. There is a fairness issue which argues in
favor of promoting Option 2 over Option 3. Also, the estimate in the staff report of $109,700 for Option 2
is probably a little higher than it needs to be because of the alternative of building the “T” turnaround
instead of building the bulb.
Mr. Slutzky said there is also a drainage issue involved. In Option 3 staff has recommended
allocation of $34,470 to address the drainage issue which must be addressed anyway. He does not know
how much the drainage will cost if Option 2 is chosen. The staff report does not address that issue. He
requests that the Board support Option No. 2. If the Board chooses Option No. 3 instead, the only issue
with this option is that staff indicated the homeowners would be building driveways to be able to use their
lots. They will build the driveways and the County will deal with drainage issues. He does not think it
would be fair to the homeowners to carry the long-term responsibility for addressing the drainage issues if
the County does not get it right now. If the Board opted for Option 3 and shifted some of the burden on
the property owners, he hopes it would also indemnify the homeowners from future drainage responsibility
associated with the construction of their driveways. He asked if the Board would be agreeable to building
out the shorter road, which is Option 2. If not, it should focus on the conditions of Option 3.
Mr. Rooker said Mr. Slutzky said he was not sure Option 2 included the drainage improvements.
He asked Mr. Kelsey to clarify that. Mr. Kelsey said both Option 1 and Option 2 include the cost of the
drainage work.
Mr. W yant said Option 1 is the longer road with drainage; Option 2 is the shorter road with
drainage; and Option 3 is drainage.
Mr. Slutzky asked how much Option 2 would save in cost by using the “T” turnaround instead of
the bulb. Mr. Kelsey estimated it would be between $5,000 and $6,000.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the total cost of Option 2 is a little over $60,000. Mr. Kelsey said the cost of
the drainage project alone is approximately $30,000.
Mr. Rooker asked the assessed value of the lots.
Mr. Slutzky said above Lots 7 and 8 on Northfields Road there are two lots, and one has a home
on it. The assessed value and approximate square footage of the lot above Lot 7 is about the same as
the assessment on each of these lots. He said the lots on Northfields Road are clearly buildable lots,
whereas Lots 7 and 8 are not. The owners bought the lots with the expectation that they could be used,
so have been assessed the same as those lots on Northfields Road. They are now stuck with extending
their driveways and possibly take on long-term drainage liability because the County years ago was not in
a position to do what it should have done.
Mr. Rooker said these lots today have separate assessments. It has been said the owners have
paid taxes as if the road was there. He would like to know what the assessments are. The Board is
talking about paying over $100,000 of taxpayer’s money.
Mr. Slutzky said the drainage problem needs to be addressed, and that is about $30,000 of the
estimate.
Mr. Rooker asked if anybody knows the assessed values of these lots. Mr. Davis said he looked
at it one time, and he believes it is close to the value of other lots along that road. He does not think they
were significantly discounted because they are not on an improved road. They are not precluded from
developing those lots. The expectation would be that the owner would improve the road when they
developed the lot. Nothing stops them from making the improvements to the road to allow them to get a
building permit to build a house. For other unimproved roads in the County that is the expectation.
Mr. Slutzky asked if those lots are assessed the same as if they were on a road where there is not
that extra cost burden associated with development. He thinks they are discounted if a road must be built
by the builder to get the use of the lot. Mr. Davis said he thinks the lots are looked at on a case-by-case
basis. He thinks they are discounted based on circumstances.
Mr. Rooker asked if anybody knows the assessed value of these lots.
Mr. Slutzky said it is about $90,000.
Mr. Rooker asked if $90,000 is what is being talked about. Mr. Davis said he does not know.
These lots are comparable to the underlying land values of the other lots along this road. He does not
think they were significantly assessed below the value of the land prices for the developed lots.
Mr. Rooker asked if anybody knows the values of those other lots. Mr. Tucker said he can get that
number, but it will take a couple of minutes.
Mr. W yant asked how they would get to Lot 14 if the Board chose Option 3. Mr. Kelsey said the
driveway would have to be extended by the property owner.
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
Mr. W yant asked if the right-of-way is available. Mr. Kelsey said the right-of-way is there, has
been rough graded, and is overgrown. Essentially, some of the soil would have to be scraped, and new
stone put on.
Mr. W yant said there is no restriction on their ability to get to the lot from an easement that had to
be acquired through someone else. Mr. Kelsey said that no easement is required; they would only need
permission from the County to put a private improvement within a public right-of-way.
Mr. Boyd said he favors Option No. 2. He knows the Board tried to solve this problem a few years
ago, and allocated some money for that. It just did not get done, and he is not willing to go back on the
Board’s commitment to these property owners.
Mr. Rooker asked if this situation appears in many other places in the County. He is concerned
that there is an expectation that people can build a road out and develop their property. If this situation is
unique, he would be inclined to support Option No. 2. If the County has encountered a similar situation in
the past and not taken this step, he thinks the Board needs to think about the scope of the overall
obligation.
Mr. Boyd said he thought the Board came to that conclusion when it thought this problem was
solved a few years ago.
Mr. Rooker said the Board voted before to spend about $75,000 and ended up increasing that
amount to even get the shorter road. The Board did not undertake to allocate whatever it would cost to
build the whole project. The previous project included all the houses in existence at that time.
Mr. Slutzky said he reviewed all the documents, and the years of discussion over this problem.
He said the Board voted to build out the entire road in two phases, based on staff’s estimate at that time.
An amount was allocated. W hen it was found that the amount allocated would not cover the cost of the
project, staff said to build out the first and second portions, they would need an increase in money, and
then that was not enough, so there is the extra $20,000 just sitting there, and Phase II has not been
addressed. He said the Board previously made a commitment to these homeowners based on extensive
earlier discussions that they would make those lots usable.
Mr. W yant said having a driveway in Option 3 will make the lots usable. He agrees with what Mr.
Davis said. The owners have an easement to get to their property, so they should go to the expense of
doing it.
Mr. Slutzky said these lots are inside of the urban area. W hen this entire subdivision was
originally accepted, there was a road shown in front of those three lots that those lots expected to tie into.
That road was supposed to have been built. The County did not make the developer build the road.
These people have owned these lots since then, and now the Board is saying they will have to expend the
money to build extra long driveways because the job was not done years ago. He said when Mr.
Bowerman represented the Rio District, he brought this same issue before the Board, saying the County
had a responsibility to build the road, and the Board agreed. Staff estimated a cost, but it was not enough
to cover construction costs. Now, because it was not done originally, and subsequently it was not done
several years ago, the Board is now confronted with either Option 2 or Option 3. Option 2 solves the
problem, and Option 3 solves the problem by sharing the expense burden with the homeowners who he
thinks have been taxed as if this road was going to be built. That is the ethical concern he has. This land
is in the growth area. If this land was in the rural area, the roads would be built for them. He would rather
see that happen than the lots not be usable. He said the $60,000+ extra it would cost the County to put in
the portion of the road that should have been there all along, is an appropriate thing for the Board to do.
Mr. Boyd asked Ms. Thomas and Mr. Dorrier for their comments.
Ms. Thomas said Lot 7 would have to build a driveway as shown in Option 3 no matter what the
Board did. Lots 8 and 14 would build only a portion of what is shown, but not the total. On the same day
that she believes some members of the Board will be promising they will drastically cut the tax rate, she
finds it hard to put the County’s tax dollars on this project. She said anyone arguing for Option 2 should
keep that in mind. She suspects there are other situations like this throughout the rural areas, and the
County should also think about what it requires developers to do and how well it “keeps their toes to the
fire.” She said it is a toss up for her.
Mr. Rooker said this land does lie in the growth area, so it can be distinguished from a rural area
plan with a similar circumstance. He asked if staff had any idea how many such circumstances might
exist in the growth areas. Mr. Kelsey said in his 15 years with the County this is the only one of this nature
that has ever come up.
Ms. Thomas said that makes no difference to her.
Mr. Dorrier said it makes a difference to him. He asked if the money would be taken from the
Stormwater Fund. Mr. Kelsey said for the drainage improvement portion money could be taken from that
fund.
Ms. Thomas said if the Board approves this request, it is the same money being considered for
use for the lakes in Forest Lakes.
Mr. Dorrier said he favors Option No. 3. There should be some participation by the landowners.
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
Mr. W yant asked why in Option 3 the County is looking at the drainage that far down the hill
versus onsite. Mr. Kelsey said there is runoff being carried by the drainage ditches along existing Sun
Ridge Road. It continues along the right-of-way and discharges down through a pipe and channel that
crosses and heads toward Huntington Road. There is also other drainage coming through the public right-
of-way farther down the hill which is causing erosion problems.
Mr. W yant asked who would look after this in the future. Mr. Kelsey said these would all be public
drainage improvements. They would be constructed within the existing public right-of-way. Mr. Davis said
what would be in the right-of-way would be given to VDOT for maintenance. W hat is outside of the right-
of-way would be in a separate County easement and would be the County’s responsibility for
maintenance. He said the main road improvements proposed in Option 1 or 2 and to some extent Option
3, are in existing County-owned right-of-way. In Options 1 and 2, the extensions would be built to VDOT
standards and would be given to VDOT to maintain, so the roadway under Option 1 and Option 2, along
with any drainage facilities within the VDOT right-of-way would be given to VDOT to maintain. In Option 3,
it would depend on what is done with the license agreement. It remains County-owned right-of-way and
there would need to be a decision made as to whether or not the property owners, if they built driveways
within the County-owned right-of-way, would be responsible for the drainage maintenance. That has not
been discussed yet.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks Option 3 is a mess. He thinks going forward with it would be a real
problem deciding who is responsible for what. Since this seems to be somewhat of a unique situation, he
will support Option No. 2. He said Mr. Bowerman did not bring this forward a second time because he
was alarmed at the cost run-up. If this comes back and it is going to cost an additional $40,000, he will
not support it at that time. This will be the third or fourth time the Board has “gotten its foot in the door”
only to find the cost is much greater than originally thought.
Mr. Boyd asked if any member wished to make a motion.
Mr. Slutzky said he would move that the Board direct staff to implement Option 2 (Partial Road
Extension with Drainage Improvements), and allocate an amount to cover the project (exact amount to be
determined at a later date), and use a “T” turnaround not a cul-de-sac, and use some money from the
Drainage Improvement Fund.
Mr. Rooker gave second to the motion.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this is the only situation like this in the County. Mr. Tucker said staff finds
these situations occasionally, but he thinks the majority of these kinds of issues are behind us. He cannot
guarantee that there may not be other situations where land was platted in the 1960s or 1970s where the
County held a bond that has now expired. He said there are few, if any, left.
Mr. Dorrier said the Stormwater Fund is supposed to be dealing with those issues. Mr. Tucker
said the drainage issues can be dealt with; the road improvements are of more concern.
Mr. W yant said when staff brings back the amount for the project, be sure everyone is clear about
who will be responsible for maintenance.
Mr. Slutzky asked if under Option 2 it will be VDOT.
Mr. Rooker said part of it will be the County’s responsibility, and part will be VDOT’s. Mr. Davis
said VDOT has a tendency now not to accept any drainage easements to maintain outside of their right-of-
way, except under limited circumstances.
At this point, 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.
__________
(Note: At 11:00 a.m., the Board took a recess, and reconvened at 11:10 a.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Crozet Library Parameters.
Mr. Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive, said the Crozet Master Plan identified a new and
expanded public library in downtown Crozet as a critical anchor to provide a focal point for downtown
development, and implementation of the master plan as a whole. In addition to it being a focal point for
the community, it is also something that will work with other infrastructure development in the downtown
area. After an extensive process with the community, it was decided to put the library downtown in the
same proximity as development of Main Street. It is adjacent to redevelopment of Crozet Avenue through
the streetscape project. In addition to library parking there would be other parking made available for the
community.
Mr. Foley said before moving ahead through the necessary rezoning and preliminary design
stages, staff needs the Board’s guidance on several critical decision points. The issues he will discuss
with the Board today are: Mixed-use design of the library; the total square footage of the library, potential
phasing of library construction; and, the budget.
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
Mr. Foley said the first discussion concerns the potential of a permanent mixed use/commercial
component to the project. Staff did an extensive review of alternatives. They discussed things like senior
living/senior housing on top of the library, an extensive commercial presence on the site, and a temporary
museum location in the library. The idea of a permanent mixed-use addition to this library project is
something staff felt was so complex that it probably would extend consideration of the library a long time,
and also add to the budget. Staff felt that providing community parking, establishing Main Street, and
supporting redevelopment of Crozet Avenue, is the same concept that might be considered in some
mixed-use type of development.
Mr. Foley said with the complexity of doing those four projects, particularly since the site has
already been bought, it should stick with the priority of getting the library done and add some temporary
mixed-use alternatives. Staff feels there is a possibility a temporary complementary use could be
accommodated in the building, including functions like community meeting space, arts and crafts displays,
historical displays, Crozet visitor’s center, etc., but the permanent mixed-use concept would make the
project too complex to deliver and meet the Board’s expectations.
Mr. Foley said considering whether or not temporary uses are done makes it important to consider
the total square footage of the library. There have been several estimates of size and a lot of discussion
by the public about this issue. Staff relied on State Standards to help make the decision. The first factor
to consider in determining square footage is the service area for the library. The library standard uses a
six-mile radius. He referred the Board to a map in their agenda packet and said that more than six miles
is shown because staff used census block data to help them determine the service area. After the
population to be served was determined using census block data they projected that for 20 years to
determine the size of the library needed to serve that population.
Mr. Rooker asked if in looking at the service area, the location of other libraries was considered.
Mr. Foley said it was. It is important to note that there are also libraries in the City of Charlottesville and
around the area which overlap with some other areas. Staff took the worse case scenario including all the
population in all the census blocks that touched the six-mile radius of Crozet. In doing so, some
population could have been counted twice. He pointed out the Ivy census block on the map and said it
has the highest density population per square mile in all of the County’s rural area, but only a small portion
of that block is included in the six miles. In its analysis, staff included that census block, but also did a
scenario where it took out that census block to see if it would change the square footage of the library.
W hat that did was extend the time under which the County would expect to get to 20,000 square feet. In
2027, there would be the need for 20,000 square feet. If that census block is deleted, the 20,000 square
feet is not needed until 2030. In the end, this analysis justified the 20,000 square foot library. It is just a
matter of timing.
Mr. Foley said staff had to project the population both in the development area of Crozet, and in
the rural areas outside of Crozet, in the service district. Staff used the Master Plan as the basis for
projecting population. In the Comprehensive Plan, it says there will be a population of 12,000 in Crozet in
20 years. That equates to about a five percent population growth per year. For the rural areas, staff took
the entire County population growth and since two-thirds of population growth is occurring in the
Development Areas, they used one-third as the projection for growth in the rural areas to combine and
came up with a population estimate. The service area which was defined and the estimated population
growth combined together say whether a 20,000 square foot library will be needed in 2027 or 2030.
Mr. Foley said another factor considered when determining the size of the library is the standard
used by the Regional Library of .7 square feet per person. W ith the service area defined, and the
population projected, staff determined that a 20,000 square foot building would be needed for this area.
The only question concerns the timing of that size facility. The next question has to do with phasing.
Should the building start as a 15,000 square foot library, or a 20,000 square foot library? Staff analysis
concluded that with budget constraints, starting with 15,000 square feet is the way the process should
begin. If the building started out at 20,000 square feet, could community uses go in the building in the
interim? Staff concluded that temporary uses could go into the extra 5,000 square feet and serve the
community; however, that would require more money to build the facility.
Mr. Foley said the final issue concerns budget impacts. The amount of money in the CIP at this
time is based on a 15,000 square foot library. Staff would need to either ask the Board for more money or
just build 15,000 square feet and in 2027 or when necessary, begin the process of adding the extra 5,000
square feet. Staff met with people from the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library and gave them their
conclusions and said that 15,000 square feet was all it could justify. It is the desire of the Regional Library
to build 20,000 square feet in the beginning. Because of budget constraints, the Library has stepped
forward and offered to pick up some of the components to make up for building that additional amount of
square feet.
Mr. Foley said the budget forwarded to the Board shows that the original plan for this project was
about $8.5 million. That included the cost of the land purchase as well as building construction. It also
included the cost of books and furnishings. In discussions with members of the Library Board and the
Library Director, it was agreed that the library in partnership would fund $1.6 million upfront for the 20,000
square foot library. This commitment shows that the project is only $130,000 short of the original budget.
Staff felt that was a reasonable proposal to bring to the Board. It would require an additional $130,000 for
this project, but would be in partnership with the Library and have some other benefits. First, there would
be excess space to use for community meetings, and there are some agencies who would like to use
some space in Crozet. There has been a discussion about having a museum display of Crozet’s history in
the new facility.
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
Mr. Foley said one other thing to consider is that the cost of constructing the extra 5,000 square
feet 15 years from now would be much more expensive. Building that square footage now with the other
benefits that would come with it is something staff felt was a reasonable approach, and recommends that
the County move forward with a 20,000 square foot library using the extra space for temporary compatible
community use until it is needed for the library. As mentioned, the majority of that additional cost, with the
exception of the $130,000, is something the Library has agreed to do through an aggressive fundraising
campaign.
Mr. Boyd asked where the $1.6 million would come from. Is that just redirecting moneys the
County gives to the Library? Mr. Foley said the Library will do its own independent fundraising in the
community. He said there are representatives of the Library present who can talk about that. It will not
redirect any County moneys.
Mr. Dorrier asked the two areas where the Library will get money. Mr. Foley said the Library would
raise all of the money to pay for books and half of the furnishings. Staff will have to work with them on
basic wiring and computers to be sure they are in the County’s budget. They would raise money for
tables, chairs and bookshelves, etc.
Mr. Boyd asked what would happen if the County went forward and the Library fell short on its
fundraising. He asked if the County would have to pick up the difference in funds. Mr. Foley said he does
not have a clear answer to that question.
Mr. Dorrier said the fundraising period could be extended. Mr. Foley said there is a three-year
period before the County will get the land, so there is time for an extensive fundraising effort.
Mr. Rooker asked if it would be possible to build 5,000 square feet of space that could be leased
out with the idea that the lease would end when the space was needed. Mr. Foley said that is possible. It
would create issues with how the project is financed. At this time, it is expected the project will be done
with cash. He does not think there is anything that would prohibit the County from leasing space in order
to generate money.
Mr. Boyd said using cash as opposed to financing the project could change based on what this
Board decides to do on long-term financing of capital projects.
Ms. Thomas said the Board has been making certain decisions all along. Mr. Foley said the
information shared with the Board is that it would pay a high premium to finance a non-essential public
facility like a library versus shifting the financing to a fire station which is considered essential. In the plan
before the Board, staff made the shift in order to get the optimum interest rate.
Mr. Rooker said the County could get approximately $60,000 a year assuming it could find a
tenant to occupy the 5,000 square feet. Mr. Davis said that is possible, but there are complications
involved. If the County used financing, it would have to be structured to meet tax exempt status for bonds.
He said there are compatible use issues which would need to be worked out with the library. There are
potential parking issues. There are building code issues involved with the type of use in the building that
would have to be preplanned in order to design the building. There are issues with having a tenant who
would be competing against private interests in Crozet, and there is the question of how it would be
marketed. It would probably need to be done through the IDA rather than from the County directly; the
County does not have the enabling authority to be in the commercial market. It is possible to do, but it is
complicated.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the Board should have an open mind if the opportunity presents itself.
If the Board decides to build the larger space, and it is used for community space, there should be a sign
in that space saying it is for future library space. He said people would get comfortable having the space
for community meetings, and if it is then taken over for library space there might be an adverse reaction.
Ms. Lee Catlin said the Library envisions that when they get to the 20,000 square foot need, they
would still have a significant amount of space dedicated to community use, and meeting rooms. That use
would not necessarily go away, but only look different in the way it was managed.
Mr. Boyd asked if someone from the Library would like to address the two issues mentioned so
far, community use and fundraising.
Mr. John Halliday, Director of the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library, was present along with
County-appointed Trustees, Mr. Tim Tolson and Ms. Jacquelyn Rice; also present was Mr. Bill Schrader, a
citizen from Crozet who plans on being actively involved in the fundraising. He said they enjoyed working
with County staff on this project and talked about all of the issues Mr. Foley addressed. As far as raising
the money, the Library would provide money for the books – most of the funding would come from State
funding for library books.
Mr. Tolson said the current Crozet Library has books which will be moved to the new facility. They
want to stage in the collection. Purchasing $1.6 million in books when the Library opened would make
those books old in three or more years and they would have no way to replace them. There was
fundraising for the new library in Greene County, almost $500,000. He said modern libraries have
meeting rooms, so he thinks that as the Library expanded and the rooms were reconfigured, there would
not be a disappearance of meeting rooms in the library. They are aware that this is one of several
projects the County will be starting for library usage. This is only the second library the County has ever
built, but they hope for a 20,000 square foot library.
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
Ms. Rice said she has a particular interest in seeing that the northern sector of the County receive
a library. She reminded the Board that the Library is in a difficult situation because it is paying tremendous
rent every month for the Northside Library space. That situation was created as a stopgap and has
nothing has happened since. Crozet is ready to go. All factions support it and are in agreement. They
look forward to seeing the Crozet Library built so they can begin talking about a library facility in the
northern corridor.
Mr. Bill Schrader said he represented the community for the site selection and architect work for
the Crozet Branch Library. He is now involved in the funding of the work. There have been two meetings
with a nine member group discussing how to raise the money. This amount of money does not scare
them. This new library is something the community is very excited about. They looked at what other
communities have done and they know what the Perry Foundation did back when the Crozet Library was
put into the train station, they know who they can go back to, and they have identified other foundations
they can approach plus local people. Because Charlottesville is the home of the Festival of the Book, they
think the right size library should be built. The people on the fundraising committee are dedicated to doing
that.
Mr. Boyd asked if the Board members had any questions.
Mr. Slutzky said he is struggling with the library project. He is supportive of the concept of building
an appropriate learning environment for the community. However, he is completely mystified by the scale,
the scope and the proposed location of this library. He understands that years of planning have been
involved and a 20,000 square foot library discussed in the process. He is convinced a library should be
built on this site and is critical to anchoring the revitalization process for downtown Crozet. Obviously the
existing library facility is inadequate to accommodate the anticipated growth. However, he cannot
comprehend how the County got from a 1,900 square foot library to one ten times that size. He said there
is presently a change in the way people use libraries. It is starting to be seen in statistics. That usage is
influenced by the Internet and other research tools have made library usage subject to some uncertainty in
the future. It may be that in ten years libraries as traditionally viewed will have become a different
environment. He is concerned with the Board putting this much of the County’s capital resources into a
project of this scale based on uncertain variables. He looked at staff’s analysis which shows use by
15,000 people, but there is clearly an overlap in service area with other libraries. The Board would be
funding an amenity to serve not just the growth areas, but also the rural areas when the geographic
domain is broadened out of the designated growth area of Crozet. In a sense, this would fund a
community amenity for the rural area, and he has mixed feelings about that. There is a construction
estimate of $254.00 a square foot, with $500,000 for the design phase of the library. He thinks the scale
of this proposal is out of sync with what should be done and a lot of the assumptions need to be revisited.
He would not want staff to do a lot of work unless he senses that other Board members have similar
apprehensions.
Mr. Dorrier said he lives in the rural area, and he knows that the Scottsville Library is the hub of
the community. In a small town, a library takes on special significance because it becomes a focal point
for meetings. There are 3,500 square feet in that library and it is always crowded and busy. He thinks the
$130,000 difference between the CIP estimate and the Library proposal for 20,000 square feet could be
added to the Library’s fundraising campaign. He asked if that is possible. From the County’s standpoint,
to provide a cultural base and a major center for that activity in the Crozet area is extremely important. He
thinks the whole Crozet Master Plan might depend on this library.
Mr. Slutzky said he favors the library, but questions the scale.
Mr. Rooker agreed with Mr. Dorrier. He said the Board has envisioned the library as being one of
the most important pieces of infrastructure in Crozet. The Board spent a lot of time on site selection, and
he thinks this is the right site. Staff spent a lot of time working with the Library Board analyzing the size of
the facility needed. Assuming there will be a 15,000 square foot facility when considering the offer made,
it makes sense to him to do the additional 5,000 square feet because it would be paid for with private
fundraising. The cost in the future of building that additional footage would probably be equal to the cost
of building the 15,000 square feet today. It appears to be wise if the Board agrees with the original
assumption that 15,000 square feet is needed. He asked if the assumptions have been checked against
what other communities are doing. Mr. Foley said he will let Mr. Halliday answer those questions. He said
the County’s standards in the Community Facilities Plan were used by staff to study this issue.
Mr. Halliday said all of these issues were discussed with staff which did a good job of raising hard
questions like those posed by Mr. Slutzky. He said that in 2001 Albemarle County went out for an RFP
and hired a library consultant and library architect to look at library facility needs in the County. From that
report, the .7 square feet per person was settled on, and it is what is being used now nationally. He said
Chesterfield County is actually aiming for .82. In North Carolina, their State standard is 1.0 foot per capita.
He said .7 is a conservative figure. He and the consultants hired a few years ago felt it was adequate. As
to library usage, it has been increasing. From 1994 to 2004 library visits increased 51 percent. A lot of
that is probably connected to people coming in to use the library’s computers. Outside of the
Charlottesville area, the number of people having high speed internet service at home drops. The use of
children’s books has increased. In the last 10 years book use has gone up 20 percent. Another use
which has increased relates to electronic uses, such as books on tapes, CDs and DVDs; that use has
increased over 400 percent. Traditional use of books is going up more slowly, but use of the library for
computers and public meetings has increased. They expect those uses to increase, so he thinks the .7
square footage multiplier recommended in the County-funded study in 2001 is still a good standard.
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
Mr. Slutzky asked if the group that looked at this explored alternative distribution strategies. Did
they examine the possibility of building a smaller scale capital project and creating a “Netflix” style book
access distribution system? He knows this has been tried in other places.
Mr. Halliday said they did not talk about phasing this project. He said there is a use for
downloading electronic books, etc. No electronic substitute has been found for children’s books. A large
part of their service is with people who check out picture books to read to their children at home.
Mr. Slutzky said he was talking about an electronic distribution system where hard copy books are
distributed by mail. Mr. Halliday said that would be an operating cost, and they did not discuss that in any
detail.
Mr. Slutzky asked if users of the library in Crozet and the library at Northside have been surveyed
to determine why they use that particular branch library. In other words, would improving the Northside
Library situation in the near future allow the scope of the Crozet Library to be scaled back? Mr. Halliday
said the Crozet Library is the fourth busiest library in the system even though it has the smallest building.
He knows people sometimes do not use the Crozet Library because it has a smaller collection and parking
can be a problem. The Library keeps statistics on who uses which library; a lot of people come to Crozet
from the Northside area. If the building is built at 20,000 square feet in Crozet, there will be people
coming from other areas of the County to use it.
Ms. Thomas said when Mr. Slutzky mentioned that the County is providing an amenity for the rural
area, one of the things the Crozet Master Plan is based on is the assumption that people can be enticed
into downtown Crozet instead of coming into Charlottesville for everything. He said those rural people are
going somewhere to a library and having it in Crozet will be important to the success of having a viable
town. If the .7 recommendation is wrong, the library will be designed with the extra 5,000 square feet
separate enough that the library would never have to expand into that space, and the space would still be
valuable. The Board would not be committing today to a super-sized library, and would be committing to
something the library could expand into.
Mr. W yant asked if the $254.00 a square foot is for the footprint or for each floor space. Mr. Foley
said that is the cost per square foot of construction.
Mr. W yant asked if that is for both the first and the second floors even though a roof is over each
floor. Mr. Foley said “yes.” Mr. W yant said when there is a first floor there is a roof, so when adding a
second floor there is already a roof serving the same purpose. He said the cost should be going down per
floor if it is being done per square foot. Mr. Foley said the architect was familiar with the site, and the type
of facility, and that it would have two floors, and that is the estimate provided based on the project. This
architect specializes in library construction, and gave a lot of information to staff about the cost of libraries
in other places. Staff relied on him for those estimates.
Mr. W yant said he is upset about a lot of things. He has been waiting for the consultant to discuss
this project with him; he has not been interviewed. He talked with a lot of the citizens in Crozet. He said
this Board made a commitment to the people of Crozet for parking. He has been making comments on all
site plans and rezonings presented for approval in the downtown area to be sure the downtown area is
maintained. The business people are concerned about that. He thinks parking in addition to parking for
the library is critical. He voted for the downtown plan for that reason and also it was claimed to have a
great view. People requested a community room, not a room to be turned into a library in the future. The
commitment made by the library people of $1.6 million is equivalent to about 6,300 square feet at the
$254.00 a square foot. He believes parking can be increased which would help the churches and the
downtown area; it was an example shown in the FROSTBERG of parking on the lower level with a walk-in
because there is a grade difference of 17 to 20 feet. Parking and the utility of the building could be
increased; he is not supportive of a mixed-use because it complicates things. He does not think the Board
should change the scope; the Board said it would give the town parking and a library. He is not supportive
of a mixed-use. He believes the 20,000 square feet can be built, and maybe at a lesser cost than that
shown. He believes the extra space could be on the second level along with a community room the
community has talked to him about. He has been waiting for the consultant to contact him so he could
share all of this information. He thinks there could be a community room on the top floor with a great view
at night, and the additional space for the library, a first floor walk-in for the library, and additional parking
on the lower level. He thinks this library could enhance the downtown. Mr. Foley said that is good input
and staff will need to involve Mr. W yant in the design process, but the process has not even begun. W hat
staff is trying to do at this time is have initial decisions made about total square footage. It is trying to
establish the broadest parameters so the budget is adequate, and the process can be started. He said
the architect will talk with whoever on the Board wants to talk to him. They do not want to come before
decisions are made about square footage and mixed-uses.
Mr. W yant said the decision this Board needs to make is whether to phase in an extra 5,000
square feet. W ith the kind of structure being discussed, he thinks it will be difficult to do. W ith the offer
from the Library he thinks the 20,000 square feet could be constructed. He has sketched out the size of a
building he thinks would accommodate that square footage.
Ms. Thomas said she is lost. She asked Mr. W yant if he wants the County to build a 20,000
square foot library this year.
Mr. W yant said you cannot call a community room a library. The .7 figure being used is for library
space alone. A community room would be additional so taking one and one-half times that for library
space makes two floors of a building about 115 feet x 115 feet. There is a two-acre tract of land, and the
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
building would use only a small amount of square footage from that 80,000 square feet. The 20,000
square feet are for a library, and the rest is additional. Mr. Foley said the library will include community
rooms that can be used for meeting spaces. He said a lot of these issues will come up in the design
process that will have to be worked through.
Mr. W yant asked if the library group considers the community room part of their .7 of the library.
Mr. Foley said “yes.”
Mr. W yant said the total library can then be downsized, but the folks have asked for a community
room. They have been using the firehouse for meeting space. He voted for the library to be built in the
downtown area because of the requests from the community.
Ms. Thomas said all the libraries have meeting rooms which are a crucial part of a library. She
asked if someone from the Library could speak to what the .7 means. Mr. Halliday said .7 includes
meeting room space. In the 1970s there was a great demand for meeting spaces. Then in the 1980s and
later libraries started adding larger meeting rooms. The libraries being built now include large meeting
room spaces. There is no building plan at this time, but it is expected that the upstairs space would
include 1,000+ square feet for meetings.
Mr. W yant said it is difficult in Crozet today to find a space to meet. He thinks the Board made a
commitment to the people in Crozet for meeting space, and he does not want that to be an expansion of
the library. Mr. Halliday said if there is 15,000 square feet on the main floor, there will be over 1,000
square feet of that used as meeting rooms. Mr. Tucker said that will be seen when the design is known.
Ms. Catlin said that meeting space would not go away when the library expanded. The
configuration might change, but it would be an integral part of the building forever.
Mr. W yant said that was not clear in the staff report.
Mr. Boyd asked the impact on operation costs for the building if the size of the facility is increased
by 5,000 square feet. W ho will pay for that? For long-range planning in Crozet generally, what will the
County do with the Old Crozet School?
Mr. W yant said citizens in Crozet have already started looking at that use in order to help the
Board. He thinks the Board should be planning for its use before the W aldorf School lease expires. He
has talked with the Crozet Community Association and they want people to give the Board ideas about its
use. Mr. Foley said there is money set aside for a study of that building space, and staff is presently
developing an RFP. The community will be involved in giving ideas. He said the Board has talked about it
being a school, breaking up elementary schools into two sections. It has not been discussed with the
School Board yet. There has been a proposal for senior housing, and many other ideas. There will need
to be a community process to get to options. That will start in the next few months; staff does not have an
answer to that now. In answer to Mr. Boyd’s question, he said the operating costs for the library would
only go up at the time they need more than 15,000 square feet. If the County used some of the space for
meetings, costs for that usage have not been determined.
Mr. W yant said the County is looking for a “green” building in Crozet, and if that is done, he would
not expect operating costs to go up. He thought that was the commitment of this Board for its public
buildings.
Mr. Boyd said he was talking about the difference in maintaining a 15,000 square foot building and
maintaining a 20,000 square foot building. He thinks there is a difference in costs.
Mr. W yant said it could be zero.
Mr. Boyd asked what the Board is going to do with this library. He asked if staff needs a decision
today. Mr. Foley said staff is looking for approval to begin the planning process for a 20,000 square foot
library. He said there is a $130,000 difference in what is currently set aside in the CIP.
Mr. Dorrier asked if Mr. Schrader was still present. He asked if it would be possible to raise
$130,000 more dollars.
Mr. Schrader said the number discussed by the library group was not seen as an issue. He does
not see an issue for an additional $130,000 but he cannot represent both the committee and the
community.
Mr. W yant said he would like to see that done, and he thinks the commitment is there to do it. He
was going to ask the same thing because he is really committed to this library because he thinks it is the
key piece for downtown Crozet.
Mr. Schrader said he believes the one way to keep Crozet as it is today, and yet put in a new
building, is through building community use of the building along with the library.
Mr. Boyd said it makes it an easier decision for him if there is no additional money needed from
the County.
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
Mr. Rooker said he is satisfied. He guesses it is a “gentleman’s understanding” that if the Board
approves this, it will make an effort to do it. W ith that, he is satisfied on the .7 standard. He said a lot of
time has been spent getting to this point in the process.
Mr. Boyd asked if there was a motion.
Mr. W yant moved that the Board approve planning for a 20,000 square foot library within the
current budget estimate. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: Mr. Slutzky.
__________
Mr. Slutzky said he would like for people to understand that he voted against committing at this
time to a 20,000 square foot building because he is not convinced a case was made for that size facility.
He thinks a library facility in this location should be built at this time that has significant community facilities
beyond just the use of books. It is the size of the library that he is uncomfortable with.
Mr. W yant asked for a clarification. He asked if Mr. Slutzky is uncomfortable because of
population projections, or the .7.
Mr. Slutzky said the Board has voted, so further data is moot now. He is skeptical that the size of
the library is appropriate given the totality of the County’s circumstances. There is data showing roads are
needed in Crozet and the Board is not committing to spending that money. He thinks the library has been
given disproportionate satisfaction while other unfunded infrastructure mandates have not been funded.
He said the CIP budget has about $26.0 million for libraries, and about $10.0 million for transportation. He
thinks the Board should pause and prioritize differently.
Mr. Boyd said he was influenced by the fact that the budget was not being increased.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Proposed Sallyport Design at County Court House, Sheriff Robb and Jim
Camblos.
Mr. Tucker said Sheriff Robb had another commitment today, and Mr. Camblos is ill. He said
Sheriff Robb sent a statement basically supporting the option of a tunnel which would require an additional
$113,000 above the original estimate for the sallyport. He suggested this item be deferred until it can be
rescheduled on a later agenda.
Motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Ms. Thomas to defer this item until it can be
rescheduled on a future agenda. 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. 13. RW SA Capital Improvement Program Presentation, Tom Frederick.
Mr. Tom Frederick, Executive Director, Rivanna W ater and Sewer Authority, was present to
discuss the RW SA’s new five-year CIP. He said the needs of the RW SA at this time are significant,
probably as significant as they have been since the authority was created. RW SA is using operating
infrastructure purchased when the authority was formed in 1973, and there have been no significant
upgrades. Infrastructure is aging and there are a significant number of State and Federal mandates,
some relating to environmental protection, but they do cost money. W hen forming this plan, RW SA tried
to be sure it was complying with the regulatory requirements already imposed. There is also the issue of
how the County’s urban areas will be developed.
Mr. Frederick said the plan contains three major areas. The total five-year plan is $118.0 million.
Of that amount, $37.0 million is associated with the Ragged Mountain Dam (which is the water supply for
the fifty-year need of the community). Another $34.6 million project is the upgrade to the Moores Creek
W astewater Treatment Plant in order to treat nitrogen and phosphorus. This project is involved with
studies of the Chesapeake Bay and the James River, and the water quality objectives of the Common-
wealth. Then there is the issue of a sewer interceptor system. The RW SA operates major trunk lines to
carry wastewater from the Albemarle County Service Authority’s (ACSA) and the City of Charlottesville’s
systems collectively to where they are combined into the treatment facility; the two entities have significant
collection systems. This plan focuses on those major interceptors; the number one project in this five-year
plan is the Meadow Creek Interceptor. Connected with the interceptor issue is the Comprehensive
Sanitary Sewer Study which was conceived in 2004 and put into their first five-year plan. There was a
significant amount of engineering study done to answer such questions as: the capacity of the systems,
the current usage, projected use in the future, and how the system can be made first rate.
Mr. Frederick said their consultant has completed six-plus months of data collection about the
sewer system. They are in the final stages of quality control, checking data and converting it into a model
for use in making future projections. There should be information on existing capacity by the end of this
month. That information will be used by the ACSA, County Planning, and others, in their planning. From
this stage of the study, they will go to projections of future flows; information needed to generate future
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
needs. Master planning is where the size of future facilities needed by the RW SA will be determined,
along with the flows necessary to serve the comprehensive plan interests of the City and the County, and
to what extent the City and ACSA can reduce their flows, particularly wet weather flows, to make an
overall cost-effective plan.
Mr. Frederick said next fall, their consultant will furnish a significant number of conclusions based
on what they think is the most cost-effective approach. The RW SA, the City and the ACSA will then need
to sit down and negotiate a contract. As difficult as negotiations can be, it is the only way to get a “handle”
on this issue. Those contracts will allocate wastewater flow to each of the RW SA’s two customers,
provide for permanent measurement of flows and provide for consequences if targets are not met. That is
not a vision the RW SA Board of Directors has yet voted on, but he discussed it with Mr. Fern and Ms.
Mueller. He then offered to answer questions.
Mr. Rooker said construction of the pipeline from Ragged Mountain to the South Fork Rivanna
Reservoir is not on the list of projects. Mr. Frederick said right-of-way acquisition is included in the plan.
They felt it was important to finalize the route and acquire the rights-of-way to be reserved for the future.
They labored over how to put all issues and projects in this plan and have it be a responsible document.
The first emphasis for the community water supply has to be the Ragged Mountain Dam because there
are some safety issues with the existing dam. Present planning will depend on what type of future water
rates the community is willing to accept. Modeling has been done based on constructing the dam first.
Near 2015 there will be a need for additional capacity for water treatment. They targeted the Observatory
W ater Treatment Plant because it is the oldest plant and in the greatest need for rehabilitation. Focusing
expansion needs and rehabilitation needs in one project, they can be done more cost-effectively. They
think the next project after that one should be the pipeline. If this community can accept increases in the
wholesale rate for the community water supply element, about five percent per year, they believe that all
three of the projects just mentioned can be built in a 15-year timeframe.
Mr. W yant said he was talking to someone from VDOT recently and that person was surprised
that water was going to be backed up near the right-of-way. He thought someone talked to VDOT about
the increase in height for Ragged Mountain and the flooding of the slopes of the Interstate. Mr. Frederick
said there have been extensive discussions with representatives of VDOT and the Federal Highway
Administration about that issue.
Ms. Thomas said she is glad to know that VDOT and RW SA will be working together on the
design stage of Reservoir Road. She said someone has to pick up that cost, and she wonders when that
will be discussed. W ill that be the obligation of the City for the portion that goes beyond where the road is
closed to the public? Mr. Frederick said the parties have not discussed financing. The consultant to be
selected in the next few months will work with VDOT and make projections as to the minimum amount of
work needed to make the road passable for construction vehicles. The next question is what the County
and the property owners in that area are looking for. If they are interested in something beyond what it
costs to build the project, it might introduce the idea of cost-sharing. Broader benefits based on citizen
input would be an appropriate way to identify another source of funding.
Mr. Boyd said there is $13.4 million in the plan for the Meadow Creek Interceptor. He knows it is
being studied now. Mr. Frederick said the consulting firm will be finished this year, but he thinks
negotiations for a three-party contract will probably run into the next year.
Mr. Boyd said the County is working on a number of master plans for development areas. He
knows they were taken into consideration when working on the fifty-year water supply problem, but he
wonders if they were considered for sewer. There are a number of projects currently under construction,
but there may be a snag with Albemarle Place. W hat can be done to prevent that from happening in other
areas? There needs to be good input on how to accommodate sewage facilities in the future. Mr.
Frederick said the project which is underway now is to solve the problem Mr. Boyd just mentioned; when
the study is complete it will be a living, breathing document furnishing answers to such questions.
Projections for future flow being worked on now will be completed later this year. The data that goes into
the projections for future wastewater flow come from the County’s and City’s adopted Comprehensive
Plans. RW SA staff has talked with the County’s Community Development staff about the Places29 plan.
RW SA is working with the County so the data it puts into its plan is in sync and consistent with decisions
the Board is currently making.
Mr. Boyd said Biscuit Run is a huge project. How can the County know whether it needs to ask
for proffers for improvements to the Moores Creek interceptor? How will the Board know the County is
getting what is needed from the developer? Mr. Frederick said when the ACSA tells the RW SA there is a
specific plan on the table, based on the housing units and square footage of building space, there are
plenty of standards in the industry that can be used to convert that into projected flows. If the ACSA asks
the RW SA if they have the capacity to handle those additional flows, they can answer the question “yes” or
“no.” If the answer is “no”, that can become the basis for future discussions of proffers. He and Mr. Fern
have discussed this to make sure they are coordinating their efforts in terms of the negotiation process for
proffers. The organizational agreements in place now make it clear that as the retailer the ACSA takes
the lead in negotiations, but the RW SA provides the data to support where consideration of facilities needs
to take place.
Mr. Boyd asked if that is based on total build-out. He said the number for Biscuit Run is now
3,100 homes. Does the Board ask what capacity is needed to accommodate those homes even though it
might be a 20-year build-out? Mr. Frederick said the specific answer to that question needs to come from
the ACSA. W hatever commitment a developer needs in the way of a decision to build “x” number of units,
they have to be able to provide funding to support that level of infrastructure.
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
Ms. Thomas said there have been no proffers for sewer interceptors in the past. She thinks
Albemarle Place was approved without asking that question, but she did ask the question when the Board
was discussing North Pointe. Mr. Tucker said staff asked that question for Albemarle Place when it was
first brought in five years ago, but there was no answer at that time.
Mr. Boyd said he thought connection fees were supposed to cover the cost of infrastructure.
Ms. Thomas said she had always thought connection fees covered those cost but discovered a
year or more ago that they do not.
Mr. Gary Fern, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, said those fees do
not cover the cost for a project of that size. In the past there was plenty of capacity, and the age of the
sewers was less. The system has now reached the point where the infrastructure is at the end of its
useful life. Large developments with greater densities were not anticipated when these facilities were
designed and constructed. Now, with the larger-scale projects it is time to get proffers from the
developers for the cost of the infrastructure. If that is not done, all users of the ACSA and the City’s
facilities will be paying for those large projects.
Mr. W yant said a good example would be the Crozet community. The Crozet Interceptor flows all
the way to Charlottesville, but the treatment plants are not adequate to receive that flow even though the
pipes are adequate. Mr. Fern said even in Crozet the ACSA has an agreement with the Old Trail
developers that they can only built to a certain point, and then they will need to upgrade one of the RW SA
interceptors before they can go further. The same issues will be involved with the Biscuit Run
development.
Mr. Rooker asked if the ACSA can negotiate with the developer regardless of whether there is a
proffer. Mr. Fern said in the past the ACSA has negotiated those types of agreements, but has not asked
for money upfront.
Mr. Rooker asked if the ACSA can ask for money upfront. Mr. Fern said he is not sure they can.
Mr. Rooker said the question is whether the ACSA, before accepting a large hookup, can
determine the impact on the system and the upgrades necessary for that hookup and get the payment for
that from the developer. Mr. Davis said he cannot speak on behalf of the ACSA, but in the past when the
ACSA determined it was out of capacity, they did not have to allow any additional connections until there
was an adequate plan financed to provide those connections. That is the scenario they will go through
now. W hen a large proposed development exceeds capacity, there must be an agreement in place before
the number of units which exceeds the capacity can be approved. Housing in Albemarle County requires
an approved sewage connection before a building permit can be issued. The County relies on the ACSA
to tell it whether that capacity exists.
Mr. Boyd said the Fiscal Impact Committee is struggling with the issue of proffers for schools. If a
development adds 100 children to a school and that exceeds the capacity of that school so a new
elementary school is needed, does that new development have to pay for that school? It seems the same
principle would apply in this case. Just because a development pushes it over the limit, it would not be
contributing 100 percent of the cost of the sewer line. Mr. Davis said that is part of the agreement the
ACSA looks at. There are some developments which may require that 100 percent of the cost be
attributed to that development whereas for a sewage treatment plant there may be a cost share and the
Authorities would contemplate that as being part of an appropriate agreement.
Mr. Slutzky said he assumes the infrastructure burden will not be addressed by impact fees in the
near future, sadly. He apologizes to members of the General Assembly for referring to them as idiots in
this morning’s paper; that did not apply to all of them, just those opposed to impact fees. He said the
dilemma is that on the one hand the rate payers can pay for it, or on the other hand you can kid yourself
into thinking that by asking for proffers it is filling in the void. He thinks the proffers are a zero sum game.
If the developer proffers a deal with the sewer infrastructure, the County will not be able to get enough
money on other proffers and that cost will end up on the backs of the property owners in the form of
property taxes. If the Board talks about asking for proffers to address the sewer infrastructure needs
knowing revenues can be obtained through the rate payers, and the Board says that is not acceptable,
then it will just go on the backs of the real estate tax payers. He thinks the Board should recognize that is
all it is doing.
Ms. Thomas said that assumes the County can never get enough proffers from a developer to
handle the impact of that development.
Mr. Slutzky said given the relief valve of by-right development, he is convinced the County will
rarely, if ever, get true impact fee equivalents out of proffers. That is his cynicism, but he has looked at a
series of projects developed over the years and has not seen a lot of evidence that the County is getting
the true impact covered in the proffers.
Ms. Thomas said the ACSA has suggested its rates will have to go up a certain percentage every
year; there has even been talk of a 15 percent increase. She feels there is some ignorance concerning
this subject that should be cut through; the Board needs to know more about the impacts of various things
even if the ACSA rate payers end up paying the costs. She said if Mr. Fern knows how much the rates
would have to go up in order to pay the ACSA’s portion of RW SA’s obligations she had hoped that could
be shared with the Board today, or soon. Mr. Fern said the ACSA is still working on next year’s budget
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
and trying to take into account the costs the RW SA is passing to the ACSA. That cost is passed to its
customers, but in addition, the ACSA has its own CIP.
Mr. Rooker said Mr. Frederick had said the RW SA would need to charge about five percent more
per year in order to implement the plan he handed out today. Mr. Frederick said the impact of the
community water supply plan by itself on the wholesale water rate would be on the order of an additional
five percent per year for the next 15 years. Under that scenario, RW SA’s projections suggest the three
projects he mentioned earlier can be implemented in a 15-year timeframe.
Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas asked if that is just for water. Mr. Frederick said that is just for the
community water supply plan. If sewer interceptors, sewage treatment and other issues are added in, that
is a different issue. One issue of significant concern is the inflation in costs of the construction industry.
He thinks everyone involved with passing new regulations and laws has the best interest of the
Commonwealth in their mind; however, he has never seen so many large initiatives pushing through at the
same time. People who monitor the construction industry see a significant demand versus supply
problem brewing. Inflation is hitting the construction industry and the RW SA is doing its cost estimates
based on trends and projections, but they can be wrong.
Mr. Boyd asked if because of new Federal and State regulations, a lot of localities will be dealing
with these situations, and there are only a finite number of people who can do that type of construction.
Mr. Frederick said that is correct. The Board and members of the community have asked what a
developer’s contribution to infrastructure should be. He wants to be sure there are no allusions that if a
developer were paying 100 percent of his needs, that there would be no need for water and sewer rate
increases. The Moores Creek Nutrient Treatment is an excellent example; that project goes to the first
drop of wastewater treated. It will have to be done in a more expensive way in the future. From a legal
perspective, what he has seen allows communities to charge developers in fees or proffers, etc., a
reasonable contribution, but there may be legal questions with charging new development for everything
including enhancing existing infrastructure. He said there are parts of the sewer system over 50 years of
age that will have to be replaced even if no more customers are added. Those are issues which will bring
pressure to bear on sewer rates.
Mr. Boyd said when the Biscuit Run development comes before the Board he hopes it has the
information needed to consider the impact. In fairness to the developer, he does not want them to end up
where Albemarle Place is today without adequate capacity to move forward with their plans. The Board
needs that type of capacity information in order to make a good decision. Mr. Frederick said he is pushing
the consultants to get that information. He wants the information they provide to be accurate, and that is
why he wants to wait until the report is finished.
Mr. Rooker said in the past the ACSA has operated on a first-come, first-served basis. Mr. Fern
said it will continue to do so.
Mr. Rooker said if there is no capacity left to serve a development, in effect that puts a moratorium
on development until the capacity issue is settled. Mr. Fern said one key piece of information needed
from developers is how they will phase their project. He has been told that the market will determine how
it is phased, but the ACSA needs to see the developer’s best guess as to how it might be developed.
They can provide that information to the RW SA who will then keep them apprised of available capacity.
By not getting that kind of guess, it delays everybody who is trying to make the best possible decision.
Ms. Thomas said years ago when the ACSA was formed the Board isolated itself from these
issues. As a group of elected officials, the Board has not had to deal with these issues, but the Board
makes land use decisions. The ACSA and the RW SA are also being affected by decisions made at the
Federal level. The upgrading of the wastewater treatment plant is something everybody will pay more for
every time a new person comes to the community. W hat is being required of the ACSA is a set amount of
nutrients going down stream, and not a percentage of the flow, but poundage. That is a cost of growth all
will be facing. Then, some of the interceptors are old and that impacts the treatment plants because old
interceptors leak both in and out, so when Moores Creek covers the interceptor, there is more water to be
treated at the water treatment plants. The condition of the interceptors is interrelated to the cost of
treatment. Then there is the capacity of the interceptors. It has been discovered that the Meadow Creek
interceptor had a major break, so is probably not sufficient to handle effluent from some developments.
She was fascinated to learn that the interceptor physically goes underneath a grocery store, so it will need
a different route if it is going to be enlarged and repaired. Then there is the dam that must be built for the
future. She said people at Moormans River do not want placement of the pipe between the two reservoirs
delayed too long because they do not want to see the Moormans drained dry to fill the new reservoir.
There is a whole “lot of stuff” going on, and a whole lot of questions have been raised today.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to go back to Mr. Fern’s point about getting expectations from
developers about the phasing of their developments. He thinks that question needs to be asked, and he
agrees with Mr. Rooker that if they go beyond that capacity, they would have to wait. He said market
conditions may not dictate it; he would have a problem if developers had to specify exactly how many units
they would build each year and that were made a specific part of their proffer statement. He thinks
estimates are a good planning tool. He does not want to see that made part of their Code of Develop-
ment. Mr. Fern said he has worked with developers for a long time and you do not put those kinds of
limitations on them. It is not fair for the market. An ideal way of managing the interceptor system would
be to have a continuing calculation of available capacity, and how much was being used. The RW SA
cannot wait until capacity is gone before doing something even if it would be ahead of proposed
development projects. W hen building additional infrastructure, you take a long-term view such as 50
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
years. Although all of that system may not be used immediately, when developers are ready to use it they
still buy into the system.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Frederick is pushing the consultants now, and maybe next month he will have
a clearer understanding of the situation. He said that next month Mr. Frederick and Mr. Fern will give an
update on the capacity issue.
Mr. W yant said one of the issues the Board faces with land use is that nobody wants to live next
to a treatment plant. He suggested that when planning, the RW SA think about buffering these facilities.
Mr. Rooker said he noticed that there is an amount in the plan presented today for odor control at
the Moores Creek Treatment Plant. Mr. Frederick said the best protection for those facilities is buffering
and he wishes they had it now.
Ms. Thomas said one project not listed in the plan is the line from the Ivy Landfill. She asked if
that project is going forward and if VDOT will participate. Mr. Frederick said there has been no decision
made about that project yet. They have done additional work with the two cells at Ivy to get the best
estimate as to the flow rates. It is refined to a point where he questions the economics of the pipeline
versus continuing to truck the material away. The only way they will get to the final answer is to install the
collection system, turn the valves on, have a plan in place for capturing and treating that volume, measure
it for a 60-day period of time, and then make a final determination. He is holding back on the decision to
commit to that pipeline. If he is convinced it is necessary from an economic standpoint, he may propose
to the RW SA Board that the line not be built. He said the decision about the permits needed to build the
leachate collection system is in the hands of DEQ at this time. They have projected that it may be late
May or early June before they complete their review. There are no problems with the review, but they
have to go through a public process.
Mr. Boyd thanked Mr. Frederick and Mr. Fern for the report.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she would like to make a statement for the public. A week from this Thursday,
March 15, DEQ will hold a meeting on the total maximum daily loadings of Albemarle’s impaired streams.
This is DEQ’s public hearing; it will be held at COB-Fifth Street. They have not done a good job of letting
the public know about the meeting. She was supposed to make this announcement at the beginning of
today’s meeting, but forgot. The Rivanna River, North and South Fork, Preddy Creek, Meadow Creek,
Mechums River, Beaver Creek, are all impaired waters. She said the County will be participating in
deciding what the limit of pollution and nutrients can be. It is an important public hearing where the public
has not been properly informed of its being held.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the County’s Natural Heritage Committee could be sent an e-mail specifically
advising them of this meeting.
Mr. Rooker said this meeting has nothing to do with treatment; it has to do with the condition of
the streams. He wonders how DEQ intends to cause the reduction they are interested in. From
discussions he has had with DEQ in the past, they have never had a good plan for non-point source
reduction of pollution.
Ms. Thomas said is has been said that if the goal is not met for the Chesapeake Bay, restrictions
will be imposed whether or not there is a good idea of how to reduce daily load requirements.
Mr. Rooker said imposing large buffers is one way.
Mr. Slutzky suggested that organic farming is another way.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Closed Session. Mr. Boyd asked for a motion to go into closed session.
At 1:01 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 construction contract; 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 2:45 p.m., the Board reconvened into open
session.
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
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
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 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. 16. Appointments. Motion was offered by Mr. W yant to:
Appoint Dr. Seki Balogun to the Jefferson Area Board for Aging with said term to expire on March
31, 2009, to replace Hovey Dabney.
Appoint Ms. Shirley Copeland to the Jefferson Area Board for Aging with said term to expire
March 31, 2009, to replace Joe Jones.
Appoint Mr. W allace McKeel to the Jefferson Area Board for Aging with said term to expire
October 20, 2008, to replace Mark Reisler.
Reappoint Dr. Richard Lindsay to the Jefferson Area Board for Aging with said term to expire
March 31, 2009.
Appoint Mr. Leif Riddervold to the Natural Heritage Committee with said term to expire September
30, 2007, to replace E. N. Garnett.
Appoint Mr. Phil Stokes to the Natural Heritage Committee with said term to expire September 30,
2007, to replace John Scrivani.
Appoint Mr. Bryan Elliott as an Assistant County Executive for Community Services effective April
16, 2007. Mr. Elliott takes the place of Ms. Roxanne W hite who is retiring from County service.
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. Recess. At 2:48 p.m., the Board recessed.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Reconvene. The Board reconvened in the Lane Auditorium at 6:05 p.m.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by 6:05 p.m., by the
Chairman. He noted for people who were standing in the Auditorium that there was additional seating in
the balcony.
All Board members were present, along with staff members: County Executive, Robert W .
Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W . Davis, Clerk, Ella W . Carey, and Deputy Clerk, Meagan Hoy.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 21. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 22a. Recognition: Proclamation - Virginia Festival of the Book.
Mr. Boyd announced that starting on W ednesday March 21 through March 25 there will be the
13th Annual Festival of the Book. He read the following proclamation into the record and then presented
same to Ms. Nancy Damon.
VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK
WHEREAS, Albemarle County is committed to promoting reading, writing, and storytelling within
and outside its borders; and
WHEREAS, our devotion to literacy and our support of literature has attracted over 1,000 writers
and tens of thousands of readers to our VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK; and
WHEREAS, the VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK celebrates the power of books and
publishing; and
WHEREAS, businesses, cultural and civic organizations, and individuals have contributed to the
ongoing success of the VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK; and
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
WHEREAS, the citizens of the County of Albemarle and Virginia, and the world, have made the
VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK the best book festival in the country;
NOW , THEREFORE, I, Kenneth C. Boyd, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County
Supervisors, do hereby proclaim W ednesday, March 21, 2007 through Sunday,
March 25, 2007 as the Thirteenth Annual
VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK
and encourage community members to participate fully in the wide range of
available events and activities.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 22b. Resolution Honoring Returning Service Men.
Mr. Boyd said he would come down to the floor of the Auditorium for this item. He said it is a
great privilege in honoring some County employees who have also served in the military. He then read
the following resolution into the record:
RESOLUTION
“Honoring the heroic service of
Raleigh L. Anderson
Jason Beech
George Hartwell
Caleb Martin
George Noteman
Wayne Rollins
Steve Reeves
Montie Shields
David Wallace
for his participation, dedication, courage and sacrifice
upon his return from military service”
WHEREAS, “x” selflessly gave of himself and displayed dedication and devotion to his family and
friends, his country, state and surrounding community; and
WHEREAS, the dedication and sacrifices which “x” exercised in this ongoing military effort will
never be forgotten; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle wishes to convey its respect and recognition to all of those
courageous county employees who have faced the opposition in the name of freedom not
only for our country, but around the world; and
WHEREAS, all veterans deserve our gratitude and praise for their selfless sacrifices, service and
commitment to duty on behalf of their country and fellow citizens; and
WHEREAS, the significance of what the men and women of the armed forces have provided for
the citizens of this nation should never be understated; and
WHEREAS, we will never forget all of the valiant men and women who still are risking their lives,
foregoing their own freedom and happiness, in order to allow us to safely enjoy our liberty;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, hereby honors and extends its deepest gratitude for the heroic service of
“x” in recognition of his courageous military service.
__________
Mr. Boyd said he thinks it is important that the timing of this recognition came tonight when there
are so many people present. All are here to participate in a public town meeting. There may be a little
discourse tonight, but it is important to recognize that these gentlemen, as well as their colleagues in the
military service, keep this country free so that we can enjoy meetings like this and discuss issues.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 23. PUBLIC HEARING to receive comments on the County Executive’s FY
2007/2008 Recommended Budget. (Notice of this hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on
February March 4, 2007.)
Mr. Boyd said this meeting will continue by having the County Executive present a summary of his
proposed budget for FY 2007-08 before the public hearing is opened.
Mr. Tucker said this public hearing begins a process of dialogue and thoughtful deliberation and
decision-making about the County’s budget, which is the roadmap for how County resources will support
programs, services, construction, etc. He thanked everyone for being here this evening and for choosing
to be a constructive part of the process. There are critical decisions ahead in creating this budget
roadmap. He will begin this dialogue with a thorough and accurate presentation of what this budget
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
proposal contains – what it is built on and why – so that choices can be made based on the best possible
information and with a full understanding of potential impacts.
Mr. Tucker said he will start by outlining the County’s general budget goals, the top level
framework within which the budget is built.
1. Stay within adopted fiscal policies that maintain the County’s AAA bond rating. For example, not
exceeding the debt service limit recommended by the County’s financial advisors.
2. Follow guidelines and direction established by the Board. For example, committing extra dollars
to ACE that equate to one-cent of the tax rate.
3. Address education needs and public safety service gaps. For example, providing the School
Division with 60 percent of new local revenues, funding a full year of the Hollymead Fire/Rescue
Station, and, trying to achieve the Police staffing goal of 1.5 officers per 1000 residents.
4. Address Strategic Planning goals. For example, our focus on dealing with urbanization impacts
through efforts like master planning and protection of natural resources.
5. Invest in our future through the Capital Program. For example, committing two cents of the tax
rate and end-of-year savings and revenue to the Capital Program every year.
6. Maintain competitive compensation for employees. Four percent market adjustment as agreed
upon by Board of Supervisors and School Board last fall.
Mr. Tucker said he would review some of the key elements of the Fiscal Year 2007-08 budget
proposal.
• The proposed Operating Budget is $266.1 million, an increase of $16.7 million (6.7%) over FY
2006-07.
• $8.9 million of the budget increase is attributed to the School Division budget.
• $3.3 million of the budget increase funds Public Safety.
• The proposed Capital Budget is $32.6 million.
• The Revenue-Sharing Agreement with the City of Charlottesville totals $13.0 million, a 30 percent
increase from last year.
• The budget includes $3.5 million set aside for use at the Board’s discretion.
• The total budget is $315.4 million.
• The budget is built on $0.74 property tax rate; however, the County actually operates on a $0.64
rate after $.10 is given to Charlottesville via Revenue-Sharing.
Mr. Tucker said the largest portion of the revenues is generated by property taxes, which is made
up of two categories: Real estate taxes which accounts for 38 percent, and, other property taxes, which
accounts for seven percent. Other local revenues make up 20 percent of the total and include sources
like sales tax, meals tax, permits and fees. W hile the 38 percent of the revenue pie chart consisting of
real estate taxes increased significantly - 30 percent - due to reassessments, the remaining revenue
sources grew at a more moderate rate, close to flat in some cases, like State revenues which increased
only 1.5 percent from last year. Therefore, our overall revenues increased 5.6 percent and not 30
percent.
Mr. Tucker said before going further, he would like to focus on what he knows is a major concern
for many of those present this evening, and that is reassessments. By State law the County is required to
assess properties at 100 percent of their fair market value. W hile the reassessment is market driven, the
reassessment process is an objective analysis of the property’s actual worth in the marketplace, and does
not reflect any action or decision on the part of the County. Albemarle County has consistently ranked
among the top jurisdictions in the State in Statewide Assessment/Sales Ratio studies conducted by the
Virginia Department of Taxation, which means assessments should be near to the actual sales prices of
properties.
Mr. Tucker said the most recent reassessment averaged 14.90 percent annually (or 29.80% for
the two-year reassessment period). Several recent reassessment periods showed strong increases due
to strong demand in the housing market. Based on the current market and on feedback from the
community, a much more modest increase of five percent is being planned for next year. The County has
gone to an annual reassessment process - property owners will receive their next reassessment in
January, 2008. An annual process will allow reassessments to more closely and accurately parallel recent
activity in the local real estate market and will help moderate increases or decreases. W hat Albemarle is
experiencing with reassessments is similar to what is happening throughout communities in this region,
many of whom are experiencing even more dramatic increases in their reassessment values.
Mr. Tucker said the County recognizes its responsibility to fund educational needs, provide
infrastructure in the Master planned areas and to provide for other critical capital needs for the growing
County. The potential financial burden the recent tax reassessment places on County taxpayers has been
recognized. Therefore, this proposed budget includes a total set aside of $4.1 million, consisting of $3.5
mentioned earlier plus $600,000 put in reserve in the operating budget, to be used at the Board’s
discretion to fund critical capital or school needs, or to be returned to the taxpayers as a tax rate
adjustment.
Mr. Tucker said qualification for the County’s Tax Relief for the Elderly and Disabled program has
been expanded to include:
• The income limit, for instance, was increased from $30,000 in 2005 to $50,000 in 2007; the net
worth limit went from $90,000 in 2005 to $125,000 in 2007, and the exemption for the residence in
2007 is for the house and five acres as compared to the house and one acre in 2005.
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
• This program is funded at $679,000 – during the budget work sessions this month, the Board will
consider expanding the qualification standards even further
Mr. Tucker said he mentioned earlier that the total budget is $315.0 million. He then showed a
chart detailing the operating portion of the total budget, which is $266.0 million. He said the School
Division accounts for 65 percent of operating expenditures, and Public Safety and Human Development
account for another 20 percent as the major areas of funding. That leaves 15 percent of the budget to
fund the remainder of the other General Government operations and Debt Service.
Mr. Tucker then showed a chart detailing the Capital budget which totals about $32.5 million.
School projects account for 50 percent of the budget, with the next largest category being the Reserve
which keeps building in order to fund future needs. Other major categories are Community Development,
where Transportation and Infrastructure Projects are funded, and Public Safety where the major expense
is the new fire station. The remainder gives you a sense of the many varied areas of need addressed in
the Capital budget.
Mr. Tucker said it is certainly obvious that reassessments have resulted in increased revenues for
the County and it is natural for citizens to be wondering how that new revenue is being allocated in the
budget. Growth in expenditures outlined in the budget is attributable to two major factors: 1) Meeting
Obligations and Commitments; and, 2) responding to Community Priorities. Some budget items are not
really choices but are required by some level of mandate, obligation or policy direction already established
by the Board.
Mr. Tucker said mandates and obligations include things like Landfill Remediation or Stormwater
Management. Established policy direction includes things like funding ACE at $.01 of the tax rate, the
60/40 split of new revenues between Schools and Local Government or dedicating $.02 to the Capital
Program. He then outlined those major mandates and obligations that require a substantial investment of
new revenue beyond what was expended last year and which represents over 65 percent of the County’s
new revenues for FY ‘07-08:
• Public safety agency obligations
• School Division Funding Policy
• City Revenue-Sharing Agreement
• Revenue Transfer – Capital
• Public Safety Agency obligations include funds for the Regional Jail, the Juvenile Detention Center
and the Emergency Communications Center.
• Foster care/youth residential treatment (CSA)
• Ongoing Fire/Rescue Commitments
• Minimum police staffing standards
• Landfill Expenses.
Mr. Tucker said this proposed budget is designed to support the citizens’ priorities. The results
from our most recent Citizen Survey, conducted this summer, provided direction to the County’s strategic
planning efforts that guide County activities and resource choices. The survey is done every two years to
gauge public opinion on community priorities. A review of the budget demonstrates how citizen priorities
have shaped the Strategic Plan and provided the framework for important programming and budget
decisions. The budget invests tax dollars back into the community based on how the citizens define the
most critical public needs. He then mentioned some specific ways this budget addresses the citizens’
highest priorities:
Education: Albemarle citizens identify quality education as the top priority in the community, and
this budget reflects that by supporting the School Division by: Provides $100 million for school
operations; Provides $13.3 million for School Capital and Debt including renovations at Greer and
additions at Albemarle and Brownsville.
Public safety: It is another critical responsibility that citizens expect from County government.
Citizens ranked Fire Protection, Police Service and Emergency Rescue among the top five most
important goals in the survey. A particular focus of this budget is in closing service gaps that
result in emergency response levels and times that are less than established goals and not in line
with citizen expectations. This budget funds four police officers toward the goal of 1.5 officers per
1000 population, a standard that is well below most other agencies in the region. It funds six new
firefighters/ALS providers at East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Department. It provides for full year of
staffing for the new Hollymead Fire Rescue Station.
Infrastructure is clearly an area that citizens found very important. According to the survey they
feel the County could be doing more to address this item. W hile this goal was ranked ninth in
importance, it was ranked only twenty-first in level of satisfaction.
The County’s increasing urbanization along with a decrease in State transportation funding and
construction has required the Board to consider new roles and responsibilities in addressing
infrastructure needs. This proposed budget reflects a more aggressive approach to supporting
multi-modal transportation systems that complement the land uses which the community needs to
prosper, including pedestrian, bicycle and transit opportunities. This budget sets aside $1.0
million for Secondary roads for VDOT Revenue-Sharing. It provides $1.7 million to supplement
the construction of transportation projects like Jarmans Gap Road, Georgetown Road and the
Meadow Creek Parkway. It funds sidewalk construction on Hillsdale Drive. It funds roadway
landscaping and streetlamps. It supports the Places29 and Rivanna Master Plans.
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
The Citizen Survey reflects the citizens’ continued focus on the importance of natural, scenic and
historic resources. Citizens have also indicated a need for greater attention to this priority - efforts
to preserve open space and efforts to protect natural resources and the environment ranked in the
bottom half of the survey results. In this budget, Acquisition of Conservation Easements funding
increases to $1.6 million, which is equivalent to $.01 on the tax rate. It provides $725,000 for
stormwater control, a portion of which funds mandates. It funds Preddy Creek Trail Park, a new
park in the northern area of the County at $198,000.
Mr. Tucker said Albemarle County is focused on meeting the human service needs of the
community that contribute to a good quality of life for all residents. Individual and family self-sufficiency
and affordable housing issues are primary areas of emphasis. Efforts to support youth received the
highest importance ranking among all social issues in the survey. This budget funds two child welfare
workers for Child Protective Services and foster care/adoption. It supports recreation program expansion.
It continues providing $250,000 in Albemarle’s Housing Trust Fund.
Mr. Tucker said he would close by summarizing the highlights of this budget: It stays within
adopted fiscal policies; it responds to Board and community priorities, including creating the set aside
mentioned earlier; it meets mandates and commitments; it addresses education needs and public safety
service gaps; it addresses Strategic Planning goals; and it invests in the County’s future through the
Capital Program.
Before opening the public hearing, Mr. Boyd stated the ground rules for this hearing. He then
opened the hearing and read the names of the first five people who had signed to speak.
Mr. Sam Massey said he is a County resident and pastor of First Presbyterian Church in
Charlottesville, a 1500 member congregation that has parishioners in the City and in the County. He is
also co-President of IMPACT (Interfaith Movement Promotion Action by Congregations Together), and he
asked that members of that organization who were present stand. He said they had not come to talk
about taxes, but to express the concerns of IMPACT about budget priorities. This past summer, within
their respective 24 congregations, they engaged in almost 70 intensive house meeting conversations
about the region’s needs. They named two areas that cry out for a response. Their research showed
them that in Albemarle County those who make no more than $20,000 a year in household income are
challenged severely in the areas of public transportation and affordable housing. The members of
IMPACT are convinced that the Board members also share these concerns. He said they know the Board
welcomes them because government will not survive unless citizens get involved, support their better
instincts publicly, and hold respectfully all who are responsible and accountable for doing the right thing.
Because they are making a request for transportation, and it has a budget implication, Ms. Susan Pleiss is
present with him tonight to describe the actions they are asking the Board to take. (Note: See copy of full
speech on file in the Clerk’s Office with the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors.)
Mr. Al Highsmith said he understands the tax rate became 58 cents automatically under state law
when the 30 percent increase in assessments was announced. Even if the tax rate were set at 58 cents it
would still represent a real estate tax increase of one percent. If it was returned to 74 cents, property
owners would be faced with a 30 percent real estate tax increase. Two years ago his tax increase was 38
percent, so a 74-cent rate would inflict another real estate tax increase on him in just two years
compounded to 77 percent. He said public officials often talk about the need for affordable housing in the
area, and then turn around and raise real estate taxes again and again. Over the past seven years, the
County’s budget has risen an alarming 122 percent while growth in the County has been about 12 percent.
The biggest slice of the budget is for schools. He asked why the School portion of the budget has
increased at an alarming rate while enrollment in the schools has remained virtually level; between 1997
and 2002, the total increase was only one student. He asked that the cost-of-living in Albemarle be kept
level so people can actually live here and send their children to school. If the tax rate is set at 72 cents,
that would give the owner of a $200,000 property relief of $40. Increasing the tax for the owner of that
property 28 percent instead of 30 percent and calling it a tax cut is an insult to the taxpayers. He asked
that the Board do right for the people of Albemarle and raise the tax rate no higher than 66 cents. (Note:
See copy of full speech on file in the Clerk’s Office with the permanent records of the Board of
Supervisors.)
Ms. Susan Pleiss said she is a member of IMPACT’s Research Committee that studied the issue
of public transportation. Since October they have met with all members of City Council, five members of
the Board of Supervisors, and senior staff from CTS, UTS, JAUNT and TJPDC. The Committee reviewed
the August, 2006, Charlottesville Transit Development Plan and gathered information from County Social
Services staff, the International Rescue Committee director, many area employers, and a variety of low-
wage workers (for instance, residents of Southwood, service personnel at UVA, bus riders and some
refugee families). Their research has uncovered three service gaps in the existing public transit system.
Two of these routes are funded by the County. They feel it is more beneficial for low-wage workers and
others who depend on public transportation to establish service where it is missing or to extend hours of
services on existing routes than to improve headways. They ask that the Board address two service gaps.
The first is “no night service” on Bus Route 5 which serves Barracks Road, The Colonnades, Heritage
Nursing Home, a large number of apartment complexes located on Garth Road, Georgetown Road,
Commonwealth Drive, Four Seasons Drive and Rio Road, as well as Fashion Square Mall, Albemarle
Square, Rio Hill Shopping Center, W al-Mart, the Double Tree Hotel and Sam’s Club. She said this route
has no service after 7:00 p.m. The chief reason evening service is needed is to provide access to jobs at
UVA for employees living along Route 5 and working the evening shifts at UVA, the Medical Center, and
Air Mark Dining Services. On UVA Grounds, Air Mark employees 550 people and the Food Services
Manager estimated that between 50 and 60 percent of all these employees use public transportation when
it is available. In addition, the many retail centers along Route 29 North also have evening shift work as do
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
the two nursing homes and the hotel. The IRC settles about 150 refugees including children annually in
Charlottesville. Many live in the apartment complexes along Route 5 and work evening shifts in dining or
housekeeping at UVA, on the kitchen staff at the Omni or the Double Tree. These shifts end at 10:30
p.m. or 11:00 p.m. Reliable low-cost public transportation to and from work is needed for these entry level
wage earners. IMPACT asks that the Board add five hours of night service on Route 5 with buses every
45 minutes. The second gap they found is the lack of public transportation on Fifth Street Extended (time
expired). They ask that the Board establish daytime bus service to Southwood, Mountainwood, and the
Fifth Street Extended County Office Building. She said the Charlottesville Transit Plan estimates this
would cost $60,000 annually. She said IMPACT is having an important meeting on March 15 at 7:00 p.m.
at the M.L. King Center, and they expect over 1,000 people to attend. They feel it is important for the
Board to see how many people support these requests to spend taxpayer dollars to extend public transit to
those in the County who depend on it most.
Rev. Bruce Beard said he is the pastor of Transformation Ministries at First Baptist Church on
Main Street in Charlottesville. He is also present on behalf of the IMPACT organization which is a group of
24 or more congregations who are concerned about housing, transportation and other issues in the
Community. He encouraged the Board to consider their proposal relative to transportation particularly
since all know that the housing costs in the area are high and rising. There are persons who have to work
two or three jobs just to afford housing. Transportation is critical for them to get to those areas where
service workers are desperately needed. He said these people number in the hundreds. In his
congregation of about 800 there are people who are considering moving to some other area where they
can afford housing, and have a way to get to their jobs. These are people who want to be productive
citizens in the community, but government policies are causing them to think about leaving the area. He
asked that the Board consider this proposal, and he looks forward to seeing Board members on the 15th.
They know the Board has many things to consider, but these things are the basis of the community.
Ms. Mary Huffard Kegley Scott said she is a parent from Meriwether Lewis Elementary and a
member of the Executive Committee of the Albemarle County Schools Parent Council. She asked
members of the Council who were present tonight to stand, and also other parents who are present to
request full funding of education. She said there is no one more important than the classroom teacher.
The staff needed to provide a world class education to our children requires that teachers be
compensated at a competitive level. Students also need the most up-to-date technology available. The
School Board’s funding request reflects initiatives that address both of these issues. The School’s
Strategic Plan revolves around preparing all students to succeed as members of a global community.
Basics, such as literacy specialists, are necessary at every elementary school to help lay the groundwork
for a successful, enjoyable school career. Full-time Gifted Resource Teachers and CTIP technology staff
is crucial to the Schools’ ability to serve students on an ongoing basis. There is also a need for Math
specialists in elementary and middle schools. She said on the County’s 2006 Citizen Survey 99 percent of
respondents felt providing a quality education was very important. She asked that the Board fully fund the
School Board’s funding request in order for the Schools to maintain and build upon their educational
success.
Mr. Tom Strassburg said the Code of Virginia provides protection for homeowners from excessive
real estate tax increases. He noted Page 58 of the proposed budget showing the inflation rate for 2006 at
3.2 percent increase. He understands there is a proposed pay increase of about four percent for
employees; that is about 80 percent of the budget. However, the bottom line of the proposed budget is
increased by about 5.6 percent. He would suggest that the real estate tax increase of nearly 30 percent is
not fair. He complimented the person who put together the chart on Page 61 of the budget documents.
That chart shows that in FY ’01 real estate taxes provided slightly more than other revenues, but now is
projected to provide more than twice as much as other local sources of revenue. He said that does not
bode well for the future of the County’s Strategic Plan which is committed to affordable housing and a
strong sustainable economy. He said when real estate taxes go up that much, homeownership costs
increase and it becomes less affordable. The same thing applies for landlords who have to increase their
rents, making rental housing less affordable. Business people have to increase their prices for goods and
services. For businesses in Albemarle County that compete in the global economy, it suggests that they
may go elsewhere or not locate here in the first place. In support of affordable housing, the Strategic Plan
as set forth by the County, and a sustainable economy, he asks that the Board consider the spirit of
Section 58.1-3321 of the Virginia Code.
Ms. Sally Cushing said she is president of the Brownsville PTO with two children in the County
schools. She came tonight with others from the PTO to support Superintendent Moran’s budget plan and
initiatives that will benefit their children. They ask the County to invest in compensation, benefits and
other support efforts to recruit and retain the best people to teach the children. They support increased
compensation for teachers with 21 years of experience or more, improving the school’s position in the top
quartile of a very competitive labor market, to continue the novice teacher network which has proven to
provide support to new teachers and improved the County’s ability to retain their talents here. They ask
for funding for four Math Specialists to support teacher efforts to improve the quality of math instruction in
the middle and elementary schools. They ask that implementation of the Data W arehouse be completed
and that necessary staffing be provided. She said teachers and administrators need an efficient support
system in order to assess integrated student data and to survey student needs across the division to plan
and implement the best teaching strategies. She said that 92 percent of the County’s residents with
children in the schools report satisfaction with the quality of education their children are receiving. Last
year was the first time the Albemarle County School Division met every growth requirement for student
performance on statewide standardized tests in reading and math with pass rates of 69 and 67 percent,
respectively. She said the goals of the Federal “No Child Left behind Act” will continue to raise the pass
rate until all students, by 2014, prove to be proficient in reading and math. She said after analyzing the
proposed budget, it is clear Superintendent Moran and the School Board is responsive to the children’s
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
educational needs. Great value is received for our tax dollars and she is impressed that 75 percent of the
budget will be used for instruction-related costs; the National average for school districts is only 68
percent. W hile student enrollment continues to increase, Federal/State aid will not be sufficient. They
want the children to excel, so the community must remain responsible and commit to an investment in
public education. This is a highly educated community, and the schools reflect the community. Sight
must never be lost of the responsibility to provide the best education possible for the children. On their
behalf, she asked that the Board continue to support the Schools and accept Dr. Moran’s budget proposal
in full.
Ms. Mary Ann Robertson said she is a retired teacher, a long-time County resident, and a parent
representative for Murray High School where her son is a student. For the past several years Albemarle
County Schools have committed themselves to achieving important goals for the children in the
community including preparing all students to succeed in a global economy, eliminating the achievement
gap, recruiting and retaining the highest quality teaching staff and becoming a world-class educational
system. He said these goals will not be achieved overnight or through ordinary efforts. Extraordinary
efforts are needed and are the kind of efforts which have been seen in the School Division for a number of
years. These efforts have only been possible because of the commitment of the School Board and the
Board of Supervisors to providing adequate funding for the Schools, especially in the area of
compensation for teachers and staff. This progress cannot be stopped now. If we want the students to
own their future, we must invest in their present today. As a retiree she is concerned about rising
expenses on a fixed income, but for her to pay her share of taxes to support full funding for education is
not an expense, it is an investment. It is an investment in her son, in his school, in the School Division,
and in the community. It is an investment she thinks will yield rich returns. As a resident of Albemarle
County for the past 38 years, she has a responsibility to do what she can to protect that investment. She
asks that the Board join her in making this investment in the future of the community by fully funding the
School Board request.
Ms. Carole Hastings said she is a long-term resident of Albemarle County, a taxpayer, a mother of
children who went through the School System, a former County department head, and now the principal of
Hollymead Elementary School. She thanked the Supervisors for their support of the School’s budget over
the past several years. The Division has accomplished a great deal and appreciates the Supervisor’s
understanding that in order to achieve, resources are needed. W hen she considers the idea of a tax
reduction, she does so in light of the School Board’s goal to become a world-class school system. She
then mentioned several things that happen during her day as a principal. She tutors four different groups
of students, most of whom are economically disadvantaged, who are not achieving at grade level.
Because Hollymead School is considered affluent, they do not have personnel to assist these students in
the way they need to be served. Their parents cannot afford private tutoring. Is this world class?
Someone has to pay for it. She said the children at Hollymead delight in the use of interactive technology
in their classrooms and they are fortunate the PTO has been able to supply this valuable instructional
equipment. In a world class school system does the PTO have to pay for such extra technology? The
parents already pay taxes for the schools and she questions why all of the schools do not have this
equipment. Somebody has to pay for it. On Monday, she talked with two senior teachers who decided to
retire because the proposed salary for next year would not make much difference in pay for them. She
thinks of the experience and wisdom the children will lose and reflects on why Albemarle’s salaries are not
at the top. She said the scores on national tests demonstrate that more work is needed on math. Math
specialists are needed to help the teachers. She said when registering her children in Hollymead an
economically-disadvantaged mother asks about a program for four-year olds. Although, some schools
have these programs, Hollymead does not. Should not every child from this type of family be given that
advantage? Her stories are not unique, every school has similar situations. Looking at all the things that
would be lost with every penny, namely about $1.0 million to the school for each penny of tax reduction,
she questions whether reducing the tax rate is going to get them to where the School Board wants them to
be. She understands that moments are not growing by leaps and bounds, but in times when they are
stable is this not the time to make improvements and move ahead. She asked that the Supervisors
support the Superintendent’s request for funds. It is not a frivolous request and a goal cannot be reached
without the resources to achieve it.
Ms. Sue Friedman said she is Chair of the Albemarle County School Board. She urged full
support of their funding request for FY ’08. She said this request represents an approximate six-percent
increase over last year’s School Fund budget. This request represents the joint agreement of November
1, 2006, to provide a School Division funding request balance to projected April, 2007 revenues. This
funding request is based on their statutory responsibility to advocate for funding that meets the
educational needs of the County. Their outcomes, based on student achievement and community
satisfaction data, show they are meeting their responsibility. 1) All Albemarle County Schools are fully
accredited. 2) The School Division has met adequate yearly progress under the “No Child left Behind Act”
for the first time. 3) Their Standards of Learning pass rates are climbing. 4) Their SAT scores continue to
significantly outpace both Virginia and National averages. 5) The Albemarle County 2006 Citizen
Satisfaction Survey showed a rating of 88 percent satisfied with the quality of education in the County
schools and a satisfaction rating for quality of education in County schools was 92 percent for those with
children in public schools. Their funding request for the 2007-08 school year aligns current resources,
redirects resources and directs new funding toward achieving their five Strategic Plan goals. It reflects the
importance of investing in the framework for quality learning, their professional learning communities and
their highly qualified educators. It implements their vision that all learners will excel, embrace learning and
own their future. This funding request is based on competitive compensation for teachers, support staff
and administrators. As the School Board and Supervisors have jointly agreed, maintaining their position in
the top quartile of the competitive market for employee compensation requires $7.6 million in new
revenue. This request will strengthen their business and education partnerships and expand preschool
services to again reach their goals and priorities. This request will enhance teacher mentoring and
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
coaching, specialty center development, and information management systems in terms of data
warehousing and others that will help teachers to provide real time access to student learning data
assessments, and other teaching learning tools. (Time expired) They are encouraged by the Supervisors’
adoption of a new vision that commits local government to assist the School Division in achieving
recognition as a world class education system. The best way to assist the School Board to do this is by
fully funding the budget request.
Ms. Dawn Greco said she is the parent/council representative for the Broadus W ood Elementary
School. She is here tonight for the PTO to show support for the funding request for public schools. As a
parent and a taxpayer, she is concerned that financing a reduction in the tax rate with funds that could be
devoted to improving the schools is not in the best interests of the County. The School Board’s budget
request supports initiatives that are vital to the achievement of numerous strategic goals for the County’s
schools. It prioritizes keeping teacher salaries competitive with neighboring markets so Albemarle can
hire and retain the best teachers for the children. It seeks to improve the School System’s use of
technology both in the classroom and at an administrative level by funding additional staff and support
positions. It would add four math specialists to work in elementary and middle schools to help teachers
with curriculum and teaching techniques. W ithout full funding, achieving these initiatives and others
included in the School Board’s proposal will be jeopardized. W hile there are always tough choices to
make when deciding where to spend revenue and whether to grant tax relief, she hopes the Supervisors
will not sacrifice the money needed to continue to improve the public schools and better prepare the
children for the future. For these reasons, she requested that the Supervisors fully fund the School
Board’s funding request. She asked those from Broadus W ood who are in favor of her statement to
stand.
Mr. Peter W urzer handed in a copy of his presentation which is on file in the Clerk’s Office with the
permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He had prepared a chart which shows the tax
implications for a house assessed at $150,000 in 2000. That house is now assessed for $333,000. The
homeowners pay $2,464 in taxes now, which means the taxes on that house have increased 122 percent
in seven years. Their tax burden increased from $93 a month to $205 a month. The tax increase in 2007
was more than one-half of the entire tax during the year 2000. Few people’s income matched these kinds
of increases. As to who suffers from this increase, he thinks it is the retiree who is living on a fixed
income and long-time residents (even if these people qualify for a reduced tax rate). He said these taxes
are also passed to those who rent. Young families with children who have many demands on their
incomes are affected. At the beginning of this decade, the County had a budget of $176.1 million, while
the budget for FY ’08 is proposed at $315.4 million, an increase of 79 percent. The total County
population during this same time increased only nine percent. During this same period of time, School
spending increased by 54 percent, while School enrollment increased only two percent. He said this level
of budget growth is unsustainable. He thinks these numbers are frightening for a resident who would like
to stay in the County. If the proposed budget is the best the Board can do to control spending, what
confidence can any resident in the County have that the next seven years will be any different?
Ms. Betsy Haire said she is the mother of a CATEC student and a graduate of Albemarle High
School. She is on the CATEC Strategic Planning Committee and she urges the Supervisors to fully fund
the School Board’s request for funds. This funding request supports the needs of students at all levels.
There is a need to fund the compensations of teachers so as to attract the most competent to the School
Division because they provide a high level of service for students to learn 21st Century workforce skills.
Also, there is a need to increase security in the schools. Albemarle County Schools need to maintain their
reputation as the best in class. She said that she and her family moved to Albemarle from Florida based
solely on the Albemarle County Schools. They bought their house sight unseen from Florida so that their
children could go to Hollymead and Sutherland. They are grateful to their teachers and administrators for
the excellent education their children have received.
Ms. Martha Redinger said she is vice-president of the W estern Albemarle High School PTO. Her
youngest son is a senior and will graduate this June. That means her family will not have any children in
the public schools of Albemarle County after 2007. Their three boys have greatly benefited by public
education in the Samuel Miller District. Her family temporarily lived in Munich, Germany, where two of her
sons went to a private, international school. After two and a half years they knew it was time to return to
Albemarle schools where they knew that public education was far superior. Although her son benefited by
attaining his international baccalaureate degree, and even though her youngest son speaks German
fluently, they knew a high school diploma from W estern Albemarle High School was far superior,
represented more work, gave broader exposure to meaningful subjects, and overall represents a better
quality education and higher standards. As representatives of the County, the Supervisors are funding a
higher quality public school system and have every reason to have confidence in the staff and structure of
the schools. Two of the high schools ranked in the top half of the 2006 W ashington Newsweek challenge
index or top 1200 public high schools in the United States. There may be differences of opinion on how
every school program is run. For example, she is concerned about the prospect of specialty centers or
magnet school type of operations that exclude some children because they are not offered in all schools.
She asked that the Supervisors fund the budget that has been put forth. It supports increasing technology
needs, math specialists, world language education and salary increases which are the largest portion of
the budget. She said they are concerned that all three principal positions are fully funded at W estern and
Albemarle High schools as they are at Monticello High School. She thinks local taxpayers must recognize
that this community supports three comprehensive high schools, not one like in Charlottesville or
neighboring counties. As the area becomes more urban and populated, cost, support and care for
education and other aspects of the community become more expensive. Public education is a core
government function no matter how large the population grows, no matter how rural or urban, no matter
how many private schools there are in the area, no matter the politics. It is a Jeffersonian idea that
reflects the wisdom that an educated population is a requirement of a free and democratic society and that
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
it is and always will be our duty to support it. She has faith in the teachers and the direct role and
commitment they have to our children and the Supervisors should too. She asked those in the audience
in support of her statement to stand.
Mr. Trevor Przyuski said he is conflicted because he is a teacher and a homeowner. More
importantly, he is the father of a Greer Elementary second grader. He is a member of the Albemarle
County School Division and believes the work they do to support and sustain the young citizens of the
community has partly led to the County’s growth and the booming value of homes in the region. It has not
escaped the teachers that a by-product of their success is that they can now scarcely afford to live in the
same community they nurture and support. He understands the job of the Supervisors to supply all of the
County’s needs is difficult. He knows that many stand to benefit from a reduction in property taxes, but he
also knows the reduction in the revenue stream that funds the schools and pays teachers will have a
negative impact on every child in the County. He will not repeat the anecdotes about overburdened
teachers, crowded classrooms, underfed, under prepared children who are expected to learn not having
had their basic needs met at their impoverished homes. The Supervisors have heard all of that before.
He will not show pictures of the affluence and prosperity in this beautiful place. The juxtaposition of these
two images is what brought him to this meeting. It seems too obvious to say that reducing the property tax
and cutting any funding to education is a decision to further widen the gap between those who own their
home and those struggling to pay rent. It is the decision to maintain the status quo that makes it more
difficult to pretend to live in a community that values and supports every one of its member. Can the
County claim it cannot afford to offer a living wage to the workers who support the community, and then
agree there are sufficient resources available to justify a decrease in property taxes for the middle and
upper class residents who benefit from the work of those who cannot afford to buy a house? Can we
claim on one day that adequately funding the schools and offering competitive wages to teachers is the
highest priority and on the next day decrease by any increment the primary source of revenue for which
those properties are financed? He said that when he moved to Charlottesville five years ago, he learned
that in order to claim full citizenship here you have to be able to quote Thomas Jefferson in public. The
previous speaker beat him to the punch, but he will close by quoting Jefferson who spoke to this issue
some 230 years ago when he said: “The tax which will be paid for the purpose of education is not more
than a thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we
leave the people in ignorance.” He asked that the Supervisors vote to fully fund Dr. Moran’s school
budget.
Mr. Steve Gissendanner said he represents the Albemarle Education Association. He said it is
the Supervisors’ task to fund the needs of the County. The decisions made at the Federal level impact
that task, as do the decisions made at the State level, plus decisions made in the past. However, it is the
task of the Supervisors to fund the needs of the County, so the decisions made by the Supervisors this
year will impact their tasks next year. Over-reliance on real estate assessments has been a “free lunch”,
but it was not really free. He is pleased to see conservation easements covering substantial portions of
the County, but did the Supervisors plan on how to make up for the lost revenues. Development
continues, but did the Supervisors plan for how to pay for the increased needs for services. Real estate
values are predicted to level out. The No Child Left Behind Act performance standards increase yearly.
The Federal government does need to fully fund NCLB and the State needs to do its share, but it is the
Supervisors’ task to find the revenue. He attended School Board budget work sessions and watched
while they, with their staff, carefully weighed needs against allotted revenues. They sent the Supervisors a
“bare bones” budget. He thinks that at a minimum the Supervisors should fully fund this budget. The last
item added was a restoration of moneys for the top end of teacher salaries. If the Schools budget is cut,
that will likely be the first thing to go. He said the average teacher in Virginia works 50 hours per week.
Calculating 50 hours a week during the school year with no time off (compare that to a 40-hour per week
year-round employee with typical paid holidays) shows that teachers put in 15 more days per year than
that typical full-time employee. The County’s Compensation Goal of paying at the bottom of the top
quartile of a flawed market sample does not reflect the work of the teachers or the successes they have
achieved. He recently talked to a first year teacher in Albemarle who took a $30,000 a year pay cut to
enter the teaching profession. He wonders if her enthusiasm will last when it sinks in that after 30 years of
teaching she will be making less than she was at a previous job in retail automotive service in
Charlottesville.
Ms. Patty Marbury said standing with her is Ms. Ginger Burger. They have come tonight to speak
on behalf of Crozet Elementary School. She is the PTO president at Crozet and the mother of a third
grader at Crozet and a sixth grader at Henley Middle School. Ms. Burger is a teaching assistant at Crozet
and has worked in the County Schools for nine years; she is the mother of a child currently at W estern
Albemarle High School. They came as advocates for public education in the County and as opponents to
reducing the current tax rate by two cents which could result in eliminating or cutting anticipated funding
for many programs and initiatives proposed in the School Division’s recommended budget. They will
highlight a few they feel are critical to students, teachers and families. First, it is vital to fully fund
technology in the schools. The initiative to complete the establishment of a fund for computer
replacements and programs to increase CTIP staff at the middle and high school levels must not be cut.
Advancements in technology cannot be ignored if we want children to be competitive in the use of
technology and be prepared to work in the 21st Century. Second, children need to have first rate math
instruction through high school. Adding math specialists to work in elementary and middle schools to help
teachers with curriculum, lesson planning, and instructional techniques is critical to such success. Third,
literacy specialists are needed at all schools, particularly literacy intervention specialists in identified
middle schools. All should be ashamed if any child is allowed to go through school without learning to
read to their ability simply because there was not enough money in the budget to pay for instruction and
support that would come from such specialists. Fourth, teachers need to be assured of support in
professional development by participating in the Curriculum Assessment and Instruction Institute each
summer. Money for professional development for teachers should not have to come from PTO budgets,
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
or from a teacher’s own pocketbook. Professional development for teachers needs to continue to be
supported and funded by the County. Finally, there is a need to increase compensation for teachers,
particularly those with 21 years of experience and higher in order to retain the high quality educators that
are valued so much. The calculation of savings for a two-cent decrease in the tax rate is straight forward.
A homeowner of a $350,000 home would save about $70 per year. This equates to 19 cents per day.
They hope the Supervisors and most others would agree it is worth 19 cents a day to save these
programs since Albemarle is striving for a world class educational system. They know quality education
benefits the entire community and they are proud that their children go to some of the best schools in the
state of Virginia. It is one of the main reasons people give for moving here. She thinks it is owed to the
children to make education a top priority. These children are the leaders of the future. (Time expired)
Each and every citizen in the County has a responsibility to ensure that all children continue to receive a
first rate education. They hope the Supervisors will consider this in its decision about the tax rate and
remember its impact on education in Albemarle County.
Ms. W endy (Criss) Rushman said she represents the Meriwether Lewis Elementary School as the
co-president of its PTO. She came to encourage the Supervisors to not lower the tax rate and to support
the School budget as submitted. She said that budget includes critical elements needed to offer a world
class educational system. 1) The Meriwether Lewis community is committed to preparing students as
members of a global community. Each fall they organize a festival of international cultures and for many
years the PTO has organized after-school foreign language classes. They want to raise children who
understand the global community and they ask for the Supervisors’ support to begin the process of the IB
program at their school. 2) They believe the goal to have the highest quality teaching personnel, staff and
administrators will be at risk if we don’t improve to quartile competitiveness for the T-21 to T-30 teachers.
3) They believe the addition of math specialists and continued provision of computer replacements are
necessary to keep the schools strong. If the Supervisors cut the tax rate these initiatives might be at risk
for funding. Finally, last week she got an e-mail from a teacher in North Carolina wanting to relocate her
family to Albemarle County. She wants to move here because of the Schools’ high test scores posted on
the Albemarle County School website. To continue attracting new families to this area, schools must be
kept strong. Cutting the tax rate will take away needed funds to keep the schools competitive and on top.
She asked that the tax rate not be cut thus jeopardizing provision of a world class education to all
Albemarle County students.
Mr. Chris Schoenewald said he is vice-chairman of the Albemarle County Republicans. He said
to Mr. Slutzky that he will continue to advocate the things he has been advocating for the past few weeks.
It is not a distraction to inform the community how the laws of the Commonwealth try to protect them. He
referred to Virginia Code Section 58.1-3321 and said it requires counties to decrease the tax rate as
property assessments increase. This is meant to protect the citizenry from out-of-control property
valuation increases and out-of-control taxation. This law also provides an option so the Supervisors can
increase taxes if necessary. He commended Ms. Thomas for her honesty in a letter she sent to a
constituent pointing out that if the Supervisors do not hold the special hearing this law allows for, the
Supervisors are required to adopt that lowered rate. He said the law requires this hearing to be held
before April 15. The lowered rate must be advertised in a newspaper seven days before that hearing.
The Republicans have calculated that lowered rate to be 58 cents. He said the law requires that the ad
indicate the increased tax rate. The law uses a special term; it says the difference between those two
numbers is the effective tax rate increase. Seventy-six cents to 74 cents may sound like a decrease of
two cents, but in reality, two years ago Section 58.1-3321 required the basis of the discussion to be 61
cents, so there was a 13-cent increase. The Republicans believe the basis this year is 58 cents which
means the Supervisors are talking about anywhere from a 12-cent to 16-cent increase on the tax rate. He
is not advocating any particular rate, but is advocating for honesty in the discussion. W hen this ad is
published, he suggested the Supervisors send their words to the media and all others. If there is a need
to increase taxes, say that, but be honest about it, don’t call an increase a decrease. Show everybody the
respect they deserve, have an honest conversation with the citizens and do the right thing.
Ms. Rachel Henderson said she is a graduate of Red Hill Elementary School, and she is present
tonight on behalf of the Red Hill PTO. Red Hill is a smaller school with approximately 190 students.
Based on their small population size, they do not get much full-time help or funding needed. She asked
that the Supervisors consider funding the School Division’s 2007-08 budget as proposed. Several
initiatives to consider are: to provide the STAMP on-line testing program to assess proficiency of students
in speaking, reading and writing world languages; staff for non-European languages; maintaining existing
programs; add four math specialists to work in the elementary and middle schools to help teachers with
curriculum, lesson planning and instructional techniques; increase gifted resource teacher staffing to full-
time in all schools and add an additional position in schools with 600 students or more, since there are not
half time gifted kids. She said some of these items would enable a small school like Red Hill to reach its
full potential.
Ms. Cathy Jolly said she is the parent of two elementary school students at Stone Robinson
Elementary School and a member of its PTO. She is present to ask for full support of the Superintendent’s
proposed budget. There are multiple unfunded initiatives and she would like to speak about four of those.
The first is for four math specialists to help the teachers. Math education is recognized as a national
concern. Their literacy specialists have been successful in helping teachers so she would like for there to
be math specialists as well. Second is to increase funds for intervention programs for students who are
below grade level. Third is to increase compensation for the teachers. Albemarle has to. Other counties
in the state have done so and if Albemarle does not, it will continue to lose its best and brightest
educators. The fourth is for gifted resource staffing to provide full-time positions in all schools, and
additional resources where needed. These children are future policymakers, engineers, architects and
physicians. She asked that the Supervisors make all possible funds available to the schools.
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
Mr. John Baldino said he is now a retiree on a fixed income. He said that $55,660 is not the
average teacher’s salary, but in 1975 that was the assessment on his house and property. It has grown
over eight times since then. W hen he got his tax bill he had a real 30 percent increase over two years.
He calculated that increase would cost him another $810 in taxes, but he does not mind paying those
taxes because the benefits he gets from the County are worth it. His children went through the Albemarle
Public Schools. He has a son and a future daughter-in-law who work with the rescue squads and the
Crozet Fire Department. He knows the Supervisors have fire and public safety issues to deal with. There
is also the issue of conservation easements. He looked at what two cents would mean to him given the
value of his property; it is $90. If all he needs to pay is $90 more on a two-cent tax increase, if he can
afford that, most anybody else that will be getting a $90 reduction, can also afford that $90. The people
who are most impacted will be people at the lowest end but they also will have the least benefit from a
two-cent decrease. He urged the Supervisors to fund the budget for education at the full tax rate. He then
related a story about dropping a coin into a cylindrical device where the coin eventually spins very fast and
goes out of sight. He said the Supervisors could put themselves on that spiral or continue doing the things
they have done for this county and keep the services people say they want and appreciate. He urged that
the budget be fully funded with the 74-cent tax rate, not just for education, remembering that 10 cents
goes to the City.
Ms. Amo Gunsallus said she is an Albemarle County teacher and has been a teacher for 35
years, 32 of those in Albemarle. She came to share some personal information on behalf of many
teachers in the County. She said the teachers rise to every occasion to make the children first, and they
work as hard as possible. She thinks that shows in the kinds of scores being produced. One of the ways
they accomplished this was by putting in 12-hour days lots of the time. However, their families have
suffered because they are not at home as much as they would like to be. Also, the health of some
teachers is suffering. She looked at the original salary proposal and saw that for herself with two degrees
and 35 years of experience she would get only a $600 a year increase. W ith help with one of the payroll
clerks, she found that would translate into an increase in take home pay of about $31 per month for next
year. She will have to save more than that to pay her personal property and real estate taxes. She hopes
this shows what teachers at the top of the scale are facing. She encouraged the Supervisors to give their
heartfelt support to fully funding the budget.
Mr. Keith Drake said he is a County taxpayer. He said the County is proposing a massive tax
increase on its citizens. State law 58.1-3321 requires that when assessments go up, the tax rate must fall
proportionately. Before the recent assessment, the tax rate was 74 cents. Because of this law, the tax
rate is now 58 cents. This law does say the Supervisors may raise the rate if certain actions are taken. If
the Board does not act, and there is no requirement to act, then the rate on the next tax bill will be 58
cents. It is not a difference of viewpoint; it is an issue of honesty. He said that two years ago the tax rate
automatically dropped from 76 cents to 61 cents in compliance with this law. To raise the rate to 74 cents
the Board published the required announcement on March 8, 2005, in the Daily Progress. He said the
Board raised the rate, but told everyone it lowered the rate. W hile the County does follow the letter of the
law it consistently violates the law’s intent which is to provide an honest starting place for the budgeting
process. This year that starting place is 58 cents. That is the rate required to generate the same amount
of money from assessments that the County ran on last year and allow for growth as well. He thinks there
is confusion among the Supervisors about lowering the tax rate to perhaps 70 cents; that is not correct.
Seventy cents is an effective tax rate increase of nearly 21 percent. He said Mr. Rooker may be the most
confused of all because on February 13 he stated that whether it is called a tax increase or a tax
decrease, “we do not label it, we just say this is what we are proposing.” Two years ago when Mr. Rooker
was Chairman he called the 74-cent rate an effective tax rate increase, but when he campaigned in 2005
he said “we lowered the tax rate to 74 cents.” (Mr. Boyd interrupted and asked the speaker to address his
remarks to the entire Board.) Mr. Drake said it is not a matter of semantics; it is an issue of integrity.
W hen will the Supervisors recognize that the tax rate is now 58 cents and that any amount above that rate
is a tax rate increase on its citizens? This is an issue of respect for the taxpayer. It is time there was
more of a ladder in the budgeting process. He asked that all taxpayers who agreed with his point of view
stand.
Ms. Marjorie Shepherd said she is an Albemarle County teacher, parent and homeowner. Before
beginning, she would like to state that she resents the Board scheduling for the third year in a row the final
budget hearing during the School’s spring vacation so that members of PTOs and teachers most likely
cannot be present. She said some things in the County seem to take inflation into account and others do
not. The property tax rate more than accounts for inflation, but other sources of revenue in Albemarle, like
fees, have not reflected inflation for 20 years. Cutting revenues by neglecting inflation cuts into money
that should be available for schools and citizens. She made this same statement five years ago in this
same forum, but nothing has changed. She related the story of a friend who had moved their business to
the County and now pays a fee considerably lower than that paid in the City. She said teacher supply
allocations failed to change with inflation. Now the Supervisors are talking about reducing the tax rate and
cutting revenues for everything. The Supervisors have set up County initiatives, master plans, strategic
planning goals, and now will not be able to do those things which are essential to the County, and the
Schools will not be able to fund their initiatives either. She said her friend would call this “fear of success.”
She said the Schools have no such fear; in fact, they are running teachers “ragged” trying to keep up with
the programs, testings, meetings and initiatives in order to constantly improve. At least the Schools are
moving toward a vision of excellence. She thinks the Supervisors should fix the revenue problems first to
reflect inflation and then fund what they know is necessary, and not cut anything until they know they have
taken care of all they promised the people of Albemarle County.
Mr. Peter Reismers thanked the Supervisors for their time in helping the community. He is a
senior at Albemarle High School and is in Culinary Arts at CATEC. He asked that the Supervisors fully
fund the School Board’s funding request. He said CATEC provides a great education, especially for
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
children who do not plan on going to college. The CATEC programs get you straight into the workforce.
He is in a lot of classes with students who are struggling, and supporting them in their education will
decrease the chances that they would drop out of school.
Ms. Diane Guyer said she lives in W estern Albemarle County. They left Rhode Island 20 years
ago for the same reason she is here tonight, taxes and development. She said young people have left
Rhode Island because they can’t afford to live there. She said there used to be 65,000 acres of farmland
where they lived in Rhode Island, and there are only 2,000 acres left. She feels the Supervisors get an “F”
on their report card for not representing the people of Albemarle. It is the citizen’s money which is spent,
but the Supervisors do not listen to them. She heard some people say they don’t attend Board meetings
because they feel it is a waste of time. She said they work hard for their money and the Supervisors do
not spend it wisely. Development has been allowed while infrastructure has been “put on the back
burner.” Her home is protected by the W estern Albemarle Fire/Rescue department; she does not know
what help the County gives them. Few new people volunteer for this job; locals do the job with little
appreciation. W hat about power? W ill blackouts be the norm? Roads, sidewalks and traffic,
neighborhood safety, schools are all poorly managed. There should be a moratorium on all residential
development until 100 percent of the infrastructure that was “promised” and that is needed is taken care
of. She thinks the Supervisors need to do something now for the young, for the seniors and for the people
in Albemarle, especially those that are land rich and cash poor. She asked that the Supervisors consider:
capping taxes for low to moderate income families; capping property assessment increases on all primary
residences, or allow seniors to defer a portion of their taxes, like a homestead act; all new development
must pay for 100 percent of infrastructure costs to take the burden off of the taxpayer; tax increases
should be based on inflation. She said the small farm family is dying in Virginia. If they farm the land full-
time they should be exempt from taxes until the property is sold to a un-farmer. The $3.5 million is not a
windfall, it is tax dollars and she feels it should be given back to the taxpayers. The Supervisors are
responsible for managing the citizen’s money and they are expected to run the County as a business.
They should be putting the people first, not the developers. Stop development and take care of business.
Make it reasonable to live in Albemarle County. Keep the young people and the seniors here and keep
the tax rate low. The Supervisors can be replaced too.
Ms. Lisa Bowen said she is a special education teaching assistant at Murray Elementary School,
and is vice-president of its PTO. She said the teachers and staff she works with are talented, hardworking
and devoted to preparing children to compete in the global marketplace. She is grateful to the School
Board for requesting fair compensation for the teachers and for their funding proposal for the upcoming
school year. She then explained the different situations with many of the students in her first grade class.
It would be difficult for the teacher she works with to meet the needs of all of these students. That is
where the literacy specialist, English as a Second Language teacher, and the gifted resource teacher are
needed. They are critical to helping the classroom teacher make sure all students exceed. Additional
funding is needed for these positions so all the children can have their educational needs met. Funding
for emergency staff is also needed to keep class sizes small. Math specialists are needed to help
students in critical thinking and problem-solving skills. She thinks a reduction in property taxes is
appealing to a fiscal conservative like herself, but she hopes the Supervisors will keep the education
system as a priority by fully funding the School Board’s budget request. W hen determining where
revenues should be spent, and money saved, she hopes the Supervisors will consider a broad-based
approach to cost cutting. Funding for education should not be the first place to cut. Albemarle is one of
the best communities in which to live. The quality of the School System contributes to Albemarle’s appeal
as a place to live, work, start a business and raise a family.
Mr. Bernie Greer said he came to Albemarle in 1968 to go to the University. He thinks the County
has “gotten off on the wrong foot” by making the tax rate the focus of the discussion. The rate is nothing
more than a way of arriving at the revenue figure for the County. It is an intermediate step and by itself
means nothing because nothing is done with the budget using pennies of rate. He does know that a
penny of the tax rate at 74 cents now is about $4.5 million. He pointed out to the education proponents
that the School budget only represents about $135.0 million of the $315.0 million proposed. If things need
to be cut, there is room elsewhere in the budget to do so. In the last budget cycle there was a two-cent
rate reduction. That came at a time when his assessment jumped 47 percent. That two-cent reduction, a
three percent reduction in taxes, did not mean much to him. Mr. Greer showed a slide depicting a
$200,000 house, a family income of $50,000, an annual assessment increase of 20 percent, a tax rate of
74 cents per $100 of assessed value, and an annual increase in household income of four percent. He
said that in 26 years the taxes would be more than the value of the house. (Note: Copy of Mr. Greer’s
presentation with charts is on file in the Clerk’s Office with the permanent records of the Board of
Supervisors.)
Mr. Matt Haas said he is principal of Albemarle High School, a parent and a taxpayer. He is
present to speak about the School Board’s budget request on behalf of the School Building
Administrators. He asks that the Supervisors reconsider the changes they are contemplating regarding
the property tax rate. The School Board put forth a request for $150.0 million based on projected tax
revenues for the coming fiscal year. This request is based on the Albemarle County Schools Mission
Statement to establish a community of learners and learning through rigor, relevance and relationships
one student at a time. Rolling back the property tax rate will be like rolling back the clock in terms of
moving the School System’s funding from the 21st Century back to the 20th Century. Yet, 21st Century
success and beyond is still expected with the students. He said the No Child Left Behind Act clearly
mandates that 100 percent of the children be highly literate and highly skilled in mathematics by 2012.
Albemarle County Schools have embraced this challenge and the philosophy behind it. They are
succeeding, but the bar for success is raised annually. This challenge places a higher premium on
recruiting and retaining highly qualified staff. Albemarle County has positioned itself to compete with other
progressive school systems in terms of compensation. W ithout sufficient funding this competitive edge
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
will be lost. Achieving success for all students often takes extra expert concentrated staffing for
intervention during elementary and middle school years with mathematics and literacy instructional
programs. W ithout full funding, specialized math and literacy intervention will suffer. He asked that the
Supervisors consider keeping Albemarle County Public Schools in the 21st Century and reconsider cutting
personal property taxes to the extent that the School System will go back in time. Demonstrate to current
County residents, and to those who would consider moving here, that Albemarle will continue to be a
forward-thinking, and forward-moving community.
(At this time, Mr. Boyd said this meeting had been going on for over two hours, so he would call
for a recess of about ten minutes so everyone would have a chance to take a stretch break.)
Ms. Carmen Garcia said she is secretary of the Murray Elementary PTO. She asks that the
Supervisors fully fund the School Board’s proposed budget by maintaining the real estate tax rate. She
read and researched the subject to understand what is at stake. After reading the Strategic Plans for
2007 to 2010, she realized with relief the Supervisors already knew what was needed to achieve the goals
which had been set for the community. After all of that she did not know if she needed to persuade the
Supervisors to do anything, but she has a speech anyway. She assumes the Supervisors want to
accomplish the goals they set for the people they represent. Therefore, these decisions will truly reflect
that commitment and desire to collaborate with all members of the community. She knows the Schools
are doing their part to achieve these goals. Most teachers at Murray Elementary and Henley Middle
Schools where her children are currently enrolled are dedicated and caring docents who provide their
students with ample opportunities to expand their education beyond the requirements of the SOLs. They
have been recognized at the local level and nationwide for their contributions as they attempt to turn the
schools into professional communities of learning. However, there is always room to improve. She knows
parents do their fair share. She knows the School Division makes its contribution by setting higher goals
and funding the many initiatives that are required to bring the School System to a superior level. She
knows the Supervisors have said “the County’s educational system will be world class and the County’s
quality of life will be exceptional.” To not provide the means to achieve these goals would appear
contradictory and deceitful. On behalf of the youngest members of the community, she asks that the
Supervisors set an example by fully supporting the School Board’s recommended budget.
Ms. Becky Dameron said she is a taxpayer and parent and utilizes most all of the County’s
services. She urged the Supervisors to use the current revenue surplus to fund improvements in the
County’s infrastructure. Albemarle’s popularity as a wonderful place to live has driven growth without
corresponding improvements in supporting infrastructure. Relative to other locations, tax rates are not
excessive. How many people in this County have car payments which approach their County taxes?
W here are our priorities? She asked that the County’s essential needs be funded in order to improve the
community. Also, support the School Board’s funding request. Investment in the youth will benefit the
community as well as the nation as a whole for years to come.
Ms. Charlotte Hogue, a lifelong resident of the County, spoke next. She feels there should be a
reduction in the tax rate. Their reassessment constantly causes their taxes to be way above inflation. She
does not believe the County needs to spend more and more each year. Many citizens cannot afford these
higher taxes. They do not get automatic raises in their salary or retirement, and some are on a fixed
income with no other chance to get an increase. She said people who move to the County for its rural
atmosphere should not demand city-type amenities. Also, the County does not need to provide so many
parks and recreational facilities unless user fees pay for them. School buses should be used only to
transport students to and from classes, not for extracurricular activities after school hours. Supervisors
need to curb budget requests from the different boards and authorities in the County. If higher personnel
costs create the need for more taxes, consider cutting instead of adding more employees. It has been
said that people demand services, so it is time for them to learn they can’t have everything they want. It is
time for the Supervisors to say “no.” It is the Supervisors job and responsibility to spend the taxpayer’s
money wisely. She thinks there should be a significant reduction on the tax rate now.
Mr. H. J. Medica who had signed to speak, was not present at this time.
Mr. Lynwood Bell said he is a taxpayer also. He has lived in Albemarle for five years but this
process amazes him. Each year the Supervisors seem to think the citizens are math-challenged. Some
are not, and understand the budget process, and feel things are not “according to Hoyle in Charlottesville.”
He said a 30 percent increase in assessment on 37 percent of a $315,000,000 budget brings in an
additional $35.0 million. Cap “X” down by 16.6 percent on 20 percent of the budget reduces spending by
$10.0 million. Growth also adds to the coffers. If those numbers are netted, we are $45.0 million to the
good. There is a surplus. Subtract from that a reasonable increase in the budget, not 5.6 percent but
something that is prudent, maybe four percent, and that leaves about $30.0 million that can be given back
to the taxpayers in a rate reduction. He said that each year the Supervisors profess good things, and last
year it was two cents, which was a joke. He asked that the taxpayers be given something that means
something. He thinks the numbers indicate the rate should be somewhere between 55 and 60 cents. He
said the Supervisors played games with the citizens and raise the rates. He has heard people tonight say
“world-class” and “fully fund the schools.” Those schools account for $145.0 million of a $315.0 million
budget. There is some waste there. It doesn’t need to be fully funded. They don’t need everything they
have to be world class. As a citizen, he will ask the Supervisors to support those who pay the taxes. If
they don’t, he will urge all the citizens who do pay taxes not to vote for those who raise taxes.
Mr. Claude Monger said he lives at the foot of Foxes Mountain in the W hite Hall District. He is not
affiliated with any group that wants anything tonight. He will not ask for any money. He came as a
concerned citizen and a taxpayer. His assessment before this last one went up 54 percent. This time he
was lucky, it only went up 33.4 percent. If you add the two together for the past four years, that is an 87
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
percent increase. Divided by four it is 20 percent a year. He has been working for a company for about
41 years and he asked his boss “how about giving me a 20 percent increase, I need to pay my taxes.” His
boss looked at him as if were getting old and senile. He said “don’t nobody ask for that kind of increase.”
He told his boss his assessment for the past four years has been better than 20 percent. He read in the
paper the other day that it is only going to cost Albemarle taxpayers another $600+ a year. That person
must have thought money grows on trees. He looked outside and did not see a single dollar bill hanging
on a tree. He read another article that said Albemarle County is one of the best places in the whole United
States to live. Since he has been living here all these years he must have helped that just a little. There
are some things he does not like, such as: giving tax benefits to special groups. The person next to him
has his property in land use and he can’t; when he goes to see the Assessor and is told his land is worth
$65K for both of his acres of land, but his neighbor has his in land use or conservation and does not have
to pay a fraction of that amount, don’t think it is fair and maybe he is subsidizing the people who are a little
more well off than he is. W hen people ask for money each year, does the County ever go back to the first
year and ask them to justify their expenses. W here he works, they are always looking at costs, but his
company is one that everybody looks up to. It is known as the best manufacturing company in the whole
world and the best run. He suggested that Albemarle County look at some of their practices, and then it
could be said that not only do we live in the best county in the whole United States but we also have the
best run county government in the United State. (Time expired) He has lived here all his life and is going
to retire shortly. The only problem is that he will have to take the first three months of his Social Security
tax just to pay his taxes to Albemarle County.
Ms. Martha Fox said she came to represent the Henley Middle School PTA. They ask that the
Supervisors fully support the proposed budget and stand behind the community, the schools, the children
and families.
Ms. Lee W aibel who had signed to speak was not present at this time.
Ms. Tina Hogue said she lives on Dick W oods Road in the County. Physicians have a creed:
“First, do no harm.” She suggested the Supervisors would do well to remember this philosophy as they
consider the proposed budget. She said her husband was raised on a farm in the County. He still lives on
a piece of it, but it cost him over $5,000 this year in property taxes. If this tax continues to rise, they will
have to move like so many of Albemarle’s farmers. W here in this region can they earn enough to stay in
Albemarle? If they are forced out, the County will get new residents who will require many more services.
She said that throwing money at a problem does not necessarily fix the problem and often creates a worse
problem. She quoted an excerpt from the Crozet Gazette concerning the retirement of a member of the
Crozet Volunteer Fire Department, who said “we buy a lot of expensive sophisticated equipment, and we
could get by with less of it.”
Ms. Martha Harris said she addressed the Supervisors two years ago about the budget. After
rereading her presentation she said she only needed to change the numbers because the tax is virtually
the same. Nothing has changed. The budget continues to grow disproportionately to actual growth or
economic growth. It is driven primarily by personnel costs. She thinks that 80 percent of the budget is for
personnel costs, wages and benefits. Annual wage increases of four percent to six percent, not including
generous benefits, will continue to propel budget increases unnecessarily high which in turn drives up tax
bills. She said no successful corporation would use a salary survey index selected by its employees to
adjust their salaries annually. Total compensation, wage and benefits, should be included in comparisons
to corporations, not just governments in Northern Virginia. She said the Supervisors only need to review
the County employee retention report to see that employee turnover is not a problem. However, rising tax
bills are a problem for the citizens.
Mr. David Tyree said when they moved to Keswick 11 years ago they were paying $500 a year in
property taxes. The new assessment they got this year included one small improvement they made, and
it was $77,400 more. This year alone their taxes will go up $575 more. That makes their real estate taxes
more than $2,500, not counting personal property taxes. The increase of $77,400 is equal to a 34.6
percent increase in value over the last assessment. He said he works for the State of Virginia, and they
gave their employees a little raise this year but the County will take all of that and more. He says he is
probably lucky because a lot of people present tonight live on fixed incomes. He looked to see what the
County does for him in his rural area of the County. He does not have county water or sewerage service.
He only sees a police officer in his neighborhood once a year. He and his wife have no children. He can’t
see where his money goes or what the County does with it. If the tax rate of 74 cents is kept, he will do
everything in his power to get the Supervisors voted out of office.
Mr. Lowell Thompson said he also lives in the Keswick area. A lot of what he wanted to say has
already been said tonight. He will repeat what the Republic force said earlier. Be honest in your numbers
because a lot of the citizens live on fixed incomes. There can be talk about “global this” and “global that”
but in reality, it takes money and the County is “gonna kill us.”
Mr. Dale Varga thanked the Supervisors for being public servants and serving the people of the
County. He spent 30 years in the Army, and was in the Finance Corps. He went through a lot of budget
processes just like this, and knows all of them are tough. He would like to point out that he was CFO for
U.S. Forces in Korea when they received a 15 percent budget reduction. Their commander asked if that
could possibly be done. They started benchmarking cost savings and smart processes throughout the
government and through private industry. They ended up saving $150.0 million and were able to
accomplish all of the main missions they were there to perform. He hopes that is being done in the
County. He said that now he is a professor of finance and investments. He teaches at W ex University
and Coca College, in the MBA and Bachelors Program, and if there is any assistance the County needs,
he would offer his services for free.
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
Mr. Bob Niehaus said he has lived in the County since 1982. He lives in the Rio District in
Earlysville on Panorama Road. In 1982, they had the four youngest of their 12 kids; one was a senior in
high school, one a freshman, one in the seventh grade and one in the fifth grade. They all graduated.
They did not have a world-class teaching system. They had good parents and worked hard. He was an
engineer and contractor for many years and they worked continually to get costs down. He is told that the
County is building a $5.0 million firehouse in the UVA Real Estate Park in northern Albemarle. He said the
Earlysville Fire Department added a huge addition to their firehouse and it cost them $800,000 which they
are funding themselves. One-half is already paid, and the other half is a loan on which they are paying.
He said if the County has $2.0 million it does not know what to do with, it should be used to cut the tax rate
for everybody. He thinks the Supervisors need to pare away at things just as he had to do when he was in
construction.
Mr. Robert Hogue said his tax assessment went up about 38 percent. He hopes everyone
present will think about the amount of real estate tax they are paying. If they are $5,000 this year, do they
want to be paying $10,000 five or six years from now? He said mortgage payments go up when real
estate taxes increase. He called the Crozet Library and found there is no charge for a library card, but
millions of tax dollars will be spent on new libraries. W hy not raise part of that revenue through fees from
people using the libraries? He goes hiking about once a year. There are parking fees at Crabtree Falls,
W hite Oak Canyon, and others. W hy doesn’t the County charge to park at its parks? He got a letter from
a real estate agent that said: “It’s nice having that extra lot until tax time. Relieve yourself of that tax
burden by selling your extra property.” If that property is developed, look at the cost of services. Just two
school children will cost over $250,000 to educate. How about some tax relief for small parcels of land?
Parents should be more responsive to the cost of educating their children. Please consider a fee for riding
school buses. Driver education should not be subsidized. Schools should consider other fees also. Allen
Greenspan thinks there could be a recession late this year. Also, if China were to call in our debt, there
could be a depression. Right now, our personal savings rate is almost like it was right before the Great
Depression. He said a lot of Albemarle citizens cannot afford everything this County wants to do. He
thinks there should be fees for using the rescue squad, higher fees if it is a water rescue, search and
rescue, or animal rescue. Cut back on how often the entrance corridors are mowed. Concerning mass
transit, many buses have few riders. He gets little in services from Albemarle. He asked the Supervisors
to cut the tax rate. Instead, go to user fees. Let the people who receive the services pay for them. That
would be fair.
Mr. John Springett said he and his wife have lived in the County for about ten years. They came
tonight to express their displeasure over the Supervisor’s lack of candor about recent tax increases. He
worked in D.C. where “spin is king” so he realizes the Supervisor’s words about taxes have been
confusing and disingenuous. He said State law automatically lowers and resets the tax rate when any
county’s reassessment results in increased tax revenue of more than one percent. The lowered tax rate
when applied against the new assessments yields the same level of revenue as the old rate, and then the
State’s formula adds an additional one percent for growth. The 58 cents per hundred represents an
increase of one percent over current County revenue. Any increase beyond the 58 cents per hundred is
simply a flat out increase and should be described as such. Using the old 74-cent tax rate as a base for
anything is irrelevant and intellectually dishonest. He said 58 cents per hundred is the new tax rate unless
the Supervisors vote to raise it. He thinks all County programs should be zero-based with the aim of
reducing unnecessary program costs. If the Supervisors cannot get three percent out of a $315.0 million
budget, they are not trying hard enough. He thinks the Supervisors should review and over time work to
adjust the current City/County Revenue-Sharing Agreement and any other regional entities where costs
can automatically escalate with little control. He thinks it will be tough, but if the County does not start,
nothing will ever improve. This would make the Supervisors more accountable to the people of
Albemarle, and there is no excuse for automatic escalation. He would ask that if the Supervisors are going
to vote for a tax increase, they be open and direct enough to identify it as such and be accountable for
their decisions.
Mr. David Oberg said he is the new Uniserv Director for the VEA for this area. He does not think
the tax rate should be cut. He thinks the Supervisors should fully fund Dr. Moran’s and the School Board’s
budget. He related a story where when his daughter was born the doctor wanted to save her cord blood
saying it might save her life at some point in the future. W hen he inquired about the cost for doing that, he
was told it would be $1,500. He and his wife discussed this since they did not have a lot of money; he was
unemployed at the time and that amount was a burden on them. However, he could not decide that
$1,500 was too much for his daughter’s life. W hat the Supervisors are deciding now is the future of the
County. They need to invest in the future to have a future. An earlier speaker referred to how
corporations decide on salaries. Looking at corporations worldwide, the first thing they do is research and
development, and investment in their employees. They know that what is successful today will not pay off
tomorrow. You need to invest in the future. The way to do that is to invest in the children and that can be
done by fully funding the School Board’s budget and letting them do their jobs.
Mr. W ilson McIvor had signed to speak, but was not present at this time.
Mr. Ben Marchi said he lives in the Proffit area. It is easy to spend money. Making tough
decisions about how to spend that money is responsibility. His ancestors came to Albemarle County
before Thomas Jefferson was born. Sadly, his mother and father have decided to move to Montana
where they can afford the taxes. They have done their part in this community from the American
Revolution to the current war in Iraq. They have never asked for help and although they do not have the
best well water in Proffit, they have not complained about not having public water. Just yards away, in
recently added developments, newcomers enjoy that luxury. Public water and public transportation and
other services provided by the County are not birthrights. He has to chuckle at some of the speakers who
preceded him this evening, particularly those who have moved here in recent years and speak as though
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
they own the right to tax us. Those who have actually contributed to the betterment of the County through
the generations and have made it the best place to live in the United States (working families), cannot
afford this tax increase. Penalizing families who need their income in deference to greedy employees who
feed at the government trough is not the answer. Taking from the needy to give to the greedy is never the
answer. He urged the Supervisors to send Mr. Tucker back to the drawing board and cut wasteful
spending and keep other families from being forced from the home of their ancestors.
Ms. Vivian Morris said she has lived in the County for 69 years. Her husband bought their first two
acres from his father when he came out of the service. Since then they bought other sections of the land,
and now have 16 acres left. Her property has been assessed so high that it is about to take all of her
income to pay the taxes, and that will leave no money for health reasons or food on the table if things keep
going like this for the next five years. For her property in 1981, right after her husband died, she paid
$693.53 in taxes. She has four sections, all bought at different times from her father-in-law, and neither
she nor her husband had any intention to sell anything or make a subdivision. They left it as a family
property and that is what they have enjoyed since 1945. She worked at Comdial and her salary when she
retired in 1998 was $10.45 an hour. Her income now is very low including Social Security and retirement.
In 1997 her six-acre property was assessed at $45,900, in 2006 it was $128,700, and this year it
increased to $254,200, an increase of $125,000. On her 4.78 acres, it started 10 years ago at $43,700, in
2006 it was $124,900 and in 2007 it was raised to $228,900, which is an increase of $104,000. On her
2.39 acres, it has increased from $81,800 to $223,700 on the land along, with the house at $66,000. She
was told that her land assessment was increased because of the subdivisions going in around her. She
bought her property when there were farms all along Dick W oods Road, and now she will have to sell or
do without something to eat, or take care of health concerns. (Time Expired) The last ten years she paid
Albemarle County $36,493.36 in taxes. She thinks she has done her share. For relief, she thinks the
County should judge a people’s income because a lot of the people have been in Albemarle County a long
time and have paid their taxes.
Mr. Bill Sterrett said he is the principal of W oodbrook Elementary School. He is a homeowner and
resident of Albemarle County. He will speak about the critical need to maintain the School Division’s
funding goals, specifically as they relate to the salary scales of the experienced teachers and the
proposed Math Specialist positions. He has a number of teachers who could retire this year. They are
talented professionals who have put in their time but the School benefits every day from their continued
service. He thinks the school would benefit from a full-time or shared math specialist. The School has a
diverse group of math students, and they desire that all are challenged, since they are the next generation
of doctors, engineers, accountants and teachers. The math specialists will enhance their ability to link
innovative strategies, best practices and the best of their collaborative approach as a division. As a
homeowner his assessment went up, but he sees this as an investment. His calculations show that for
every penny off of the tax rate, a good number of taxpayers would save about $50 a year. As a School
Division, its priorities of paying teachers who have served it the longest and emphasizing the best of good
math instruction means much more and can also have profound effects on the school community. The
needs of the schools are growing. Enrollment is growing and the school’s population is growing more
diverse. The Schools’ needs increase while at the same time State and Federal expectations are
increasing. Staffing has remained relatively constant, although math experts along with returning veteran
teachers would enable them to continue striving for excellence at W oodbrook School and throughout the
Division.
Ms. Mary Ann Doucette said two years ago she and her husband decided to retire and move to
Albemarle County. They thought the taxes here would be lower than what they paid in Connecticut. She
has been a taxpayer in Albemarle for 30 years so is not a total newcomer. A year ago they started building
a home which is not yet finished and they are already concerned they may have made a mistake and the
taxes here will be higher. They ask that the Board roll back the tax rate and then go to zero-based
budgeting. There should be only a minimal increase in the rate each year unless an urgent need can be
shown to increase taxes. Once people are living on fixed incomes, they cannot afford these rates of
increase. She asked that the cost of new growth not be passed onto existing taxpayers, but that the
Supervisors find new sources of revenue. She spoke to the Board about a month ago and has continued
to promote and educate people about the process and adoption of impact fees so new growth can pay for
itself. She asked that the Supervisors consider all sides that have been presented tonight. Keeping older
people in the community is important because in times of recession and depression people on fixed
incomes will be the best source of revenue.
Ms. Stacy W alker had signed to speak but was not present at this time.
Mr. W ayne Barnes said he represents his family and the people he comes in contact with at his
work. There is a lot of underlying anger among the people who probably did not come to this meeting.
They have had enough of large year-after-year increased taxes. He thinks they want to support the police
and the firefighters, and he sees the need for public education, but does not think more money means
excellence. He does not think any department is ever satisfied with what they have, always wanting more.
He said the two-cents the rate was reduced in the past was not anything compared to the increases in
assessment. Few of the people he works with live in Albemarle. He works in Charlottesville and most of
them commute from a different county. The people who do live in the County bought houses a long time
back before property costs rose so much; they were able to buy land or houses relatively cheap. The
assessment is now threatening their being able to stay in the County. He has heard a lot of things people
who answered the Citizens Survey said they would like to have, but he wondered if the County had
considered asking what people would really like to pay for and if they are happy with the rate of taxes they
are paying. He thinks that would get a lot of negative responses.
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
Mr. Ken Boldt, Executive Director of the Northwestern Virginia Health Systems Agency, spoke
next. He came to advocate for part of the service industry that this population is taxed in part to receive.
He said NVHSA is a 503(c) organization comprised of 93 volunteers and a staff of three serving the health
planning needs of the population of 24 counties and eight cities throughout the northwestern part of
Virginia. They contract with the Virginia Department of Health to provide certificate of public need reviews
for numerous applications for health care facilities and equipment. They review the rationale for efficient
and effective allocation of scare resources. Their analysis includes review of special needs and
circumstances as well as immediate and long-term financial feasibility. Last year they reviewed 23
projects totaling $543.0 million in capital costs, generating $345,000 to the State Health Department. One
of those projects was the University of Virginia’s HealthSouth Long-term Acute Care Facility. Yesterday
they reviewed two linear accelerator applications, one of which is for the University of Virginia Medical
Center, and the other for Augusta Medical Center. They were recommended for approval to the
Commissioner of Health. At a public hearing on March 15 to be conducted by the Jefferson Health
Council, they will be reviewing the Martha Jefferson Hospital application to relocate to Peter Jefferson
Place at Pantops. He said NVHSA has goals for strategic long-term master planning and investing in the
future of Albemarle County. Their services are on the macro-economic level of health care. In November
they requested funding at eight-cents per capita totaling $7,500 based on a projected population of 94,000
in the year 2008. They hope the Supervisors will consider that they merit reconsideration and would
appreciate a future opportunity to further detail their role in services.
Mr. Brian Scuby said he is a full-time farmer in the western part of the County. He came tonight
because his livelihood is at stake. The assessment on his land was raised by 85+ percent, and the land
use value by more than 33 percent. For him to pay the same tax this year that he paid last year (and that
amount was already a tremendous burden), the rate would need to be set at 54 cents. He suggests that
the Supervisors set the rate at no more than 58 cents, which would still be a 7.4 percent increase for him.
That would be painful but he probably could manage that and not have to sell his farm to the developers.
He would like to have the privilege of continuing to operate his farm. The citizens of Albemarle would
continue to benefit from the open space, scenic views, wildlife and endangered species habitat, and
watershed preservation that this farm presently provides in addition to the food that is raised on this land.
He said Albemarle’s real estate taxes are the number one threat to the survival of agriculture in the
County. He does not want to give up farming. He considers it his responsibility to do everything he
possibly can to turn over this land to the next generation to continue using it for the purpose of agriculture.
If taxes are raised another 20 or 30 percent on top of the burdensome taxes already being paid, it will be
impossible for him to continue. He asked that the tax rate be set at no more than 58 cents. W hen the real
estate tax is increased the Supervisors ask many citizens, especially senior citizens and those of lower
income, to take substantial cuts in their families’ budgets. Some Supervisors said they tried to persuade
the State government to reform taxation in Virginia so it is less dependent, or not dependent at all, on real
estate taxation. He applauds those efforts and hopes the Supervisors will intensify pressure on State
government to address this problem.
Mr. Phil Beard said there is no need for eminent domain in Albemarle; it has property tax
increases to accomplish that. He read comments in the Daily Progress by some Supervisors saying why
the tax rate cannot be reduced. One said the proposed budget is only increased by six percent, which is a
relatively modest increase. Two supervisors said real estate taxes only make up 37 percent of revenue.
That sounds reasonable, but say real estate taxes have to go up 30 percent to allow a six-percent budget
increase. Even if the citizens agreed that real estate taxes should be used to fund the entire budget
increase, it would still only be a 16 percent increase, not 30 percent. W hy should the full brunt of the
budget increase be carried solely by property owners? W hy are other taxes not increasing proportionately
to the budget increase; sales taxes, use taxes and impact taxes? He does not agree with the statement
that six percent is a modest increase; he does not know why that would be acceptable. Just because 80
percent of the budget is for personnel costs does not mean the County is making the most efficient use of
the taxpayer’s money. He thinks the high priority needs of the County can be funded (police, fire,
schools), while still controlling the level of expenses. Lower priority programs should be reduced or
eliminated to maintain a reasonable level of government expense. The County just cannot afford to fund
everything for everybody. Basically, it needs to change the way it approaches spending money and raising
revenues. That change needs to start with the Supervisors and the professional administrators hired to
administer the County government. If both groups keep insisting year after year that nothing can be done,
the taxpayers should consider the future of both groups.
Mr. Doug Coleman was present with his father Jerry. He said his father is 86 and is still farming; he is
standing with him because he is hard of hearing and is afraid he will miss something. His father would
want him to comment on the increase in the assessment of his property. His grandchildren and Doug’s
children went to W estern Albemarle schools and he salutes the Supervisors for those good schools and
the children’s good education. He personally salutes the Supervisors for their support of conservation
easements. His father has farmed for four generations. Jerry remembers driving cattle down W ater
Street in Charlottesville when it was dirt. The assessment on his property in Crozet was increased by
about 100 percent this year. About 20 percent of that land is unusable because of railroads and power
lines, yet the assessment doubled. Land use helps, but even with that, the appraisal values are real.
Doug said he did not know he was going to speak tonight so did not do any math. One thing referenced
by almost all who spoke tonight is what a great place this is to live. Perhaps the greatest reason
Albemarle County is such a great place to live is the agrarian lifestyle that has persisted over the years.
Many individuals who send their children to County schools also live here because of their viewshed and
the lifestyles that have been preserved by the farming community. Farming needs to be respected and
the County needs to be careful going forward less the very thing that has brought all together here is
destroyed.
M. Harold Rothstein had signed to speak, but was not present at this time.
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
Mr. Hufnagel spoke about the economy of China and said that makes it important that Chinese be
taught in the schools alongside Japanese. He said the United States will remain a prominent presence in
the Middle East in the years to come so knowledge of Arabic is and will continue to be of vital importance.
He said in the School Board’s funding request for 2008 it opted to maintain existing staffing for non-
European languages among its unfunded initiatives. He had a petition signed by 93 students at W estern
Albemarle High School who also think non-European languages should still be taught in high school. He
then asked those in the audience who agreed with his sentiments to stand in support for the continuing
survival of the teaching of Mandarin Chinese, Arabic and Japanese in County high schools.
Ms. Diane Taylor had signed to speak, but was not present at this time.
Ms. Audrey W elborn had signed to speak, but was not present at this time.
Mr. Robert Butler suggested that the Supervisors vote themselves a four-fold raise. First, they
need to say “no” and reduce the budget by about 30 percent. He has never been to a public hearing
before, but there are a lot of empty chairs representing people who came and said they wanted something
and they are not present now, so that is very strange. He brought “this” publication down because he is
offended by being referenced as a “customer.” He does not think Albemarle is a business and should not
be thought of as a business. He lives in northwest Albemarle, in the sticks, near Mr. W yant. He is not
thrilled to be here at this hour, but would like to push back the County that is trying to push people like him,
through their taxes, over Skyline Drive into Augusta County. It is great that the teachers can just get their
raises like clockwork on his back when he has to get his in the private sector hoping that his employer has
done well. He does mind the schools trying to get all they want, but he does not think it is up to single
people, retirees, older residents, and childless couples to have to pay for it. He does not mind putting
money toward schools but on Route 29 when a bus stops to let kids off there are three more buses
stopped behind it. W here is the efficiency? He goes into establishments and kids have a vacancy in their
eyes, a lack of focus, they can’t do math, so he feels like he is getting reamed and he thinks all should feel
like that. Everybody says it is great, but he does not see it.
Mr. Ron Mallory said two years ago his personal property went up 30 percent, and again this year
it increased 30 percent. He does not get any services from Albemarle County. He lives on a dirt road and
has no children in school. He has called the Police Department and they never responded. After the
snow melts, they come down his road and plow it. Route 20 is a terrible road to travel to and from work
on, period. Instead of the 58 cent tax rate some have mentioned, he suggests it be knocked down to 50
cents. He said the State Lottery system was supposed to pay for the schools; it was going to end all of
our problems. Then there is the meals tax; that was going to solve all the tax problems. There was a
Governor of Virginia who said he was going to cut the car tax out; the money that was supposed to
replace that never happened. He thinks Albemarle County should demand that the State government
change the law so Albemarle County can tax the wine industry here. Let the sin taxes stay in Albemarle
County; wine, cigarettes, beer, ABC stores. He thinks there are other ways to get taxes rather than on a
person’s house. His house is modular and his taxes keep going up and up. He is having a hard time
making ends meet, plus gas is now $2.50 a gallon. He understands everyone wants a big raise, but there
is probably enough waste in the School System to where they would not need a big increase. Has anyone
ever checked on the waste in County schools? He said the tax on the average working man is too bad in
Albemarle County and he is afraid he will not be able to retire in Albemarle.
Mr. Rodney Ball had signed to speak, but was not present at this time.
Mr. Bob Patterson noted that most of the media is gone, so they have missed some compelling
stories. He is the parent of a Crozet Elementary student and is on the PTO, and the Crozet School
Improvement Team. In 2000 a study found that only three out of every five tax dollars make it to the
classroom. He asked if the taxpayers have enough knowledge to know which items in the budget
proposal, or those items left out, support programs which actually make a difference for the child in the
classroom. He asked that there be a closer look at programs that sound good, but may not be reaching
the classroom. Recently, Crozet’s PTO representative implored the parents to show their support for the
School Board’s funding request. It was described as a mere $90+ per year. That assumes increased
School Division funding automatically equates to quality education. However, several studies found no
such relationship exists. Has there been any appreciable gains in academic achievement and quality
assurance as a result of spending? He has not seen any information saying the children will suffer
educationally without this funding. He sees that programs with “Great Society” sounding names will be
cut, but he does not see how the proposed cuts harm student learning. Making a $90+ investment should
be considered in the broader context; as tax rates increase so do the price of goods, services and other
governmental programs. In other words, the investment their PTO representatives asked the parents to
make is not occurring in a vacuum. Life in Albemarle gets more expensive and it is coming from the
citizen’s wages and pocketbooks. W ould it not make more sense for all parties to prioritize student
learning and make a compromise plan?
Mr. Charles Battig had signed to speak but was not present at this time.
Mr. Donald Campbell had signed to speak but was not present at this time.
Ms. Sherry Buttrick had signed to speak but was not present at this time. Ms. Thomas said she is
chairman of the ACE Committee and was going to thank the Supervisors for having the one-penny in the
budget for that program.
Mr. Kevin Simontz said he is a student at the University of Virginia. He was present at a joint
meeting between the Supervisors and the School Board on February 14. That meeting dealt with the
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
issue of a living wage for Albemarle County employees. He feels there is a disconnect between talking
about a living wage there and the figure seen at the beginning of tonight’s meting where 99 percent of
respondents to the County’s survey put education as a priority. He asked what we are teaching our young
people when the people who cleans the schools and serves the food do not make enough money to afford
to live in the County. W hat sort of education is that? He said the budget includes increased funding for
Social Services which seems laudable, but paying more wages creates and perpetuates many of the
problems that Social Services is designed to address. A living wage is fundamentally important if
Albemarle is going to be a leader in any way. The ad hoc committee studying the issue of a living wage
found that the wages proposed wages for workers in the lowest pay bands is the real failure of the budget
proposed for the coming fiscal year. At that joint meeting, a member of the Supervisors said he believed
the County had a moral obligation to the people it represents and declared that a living wage is
irresponsible in terms of that obligation. He is struck by the vast number of definitions used for the word
“moral.” W hat is moral about paying poverty wages? He asked if some members of the Supervisors have
something other than a decent standard of living for all Albemarle County residents in mind for the coming
fiscal year. Poverty has a face in Albemarle County because the County pays less than a living wage.
Some of those faces will clean this room after the conclusion of this meeting. He said the Supervisors
must do better for everyone with the budget.
Mr. Boyd said that is the end of the list where people signed to speak. However, if there are
others present who wish to speak, they may come forward at this time.
Mr. Steve Koleszar said he lives in Sherwood Manor. There has been a lot of talk about
assessment increases like it is a bad thing. Over the last three or more years his house has gone up in
value $100,000. That means he will have to pay $740 more in taxes each year. Since his house went up
in value he has had a lot of people who want him to borrow money, to get a line of credit. He could pay 20
years of $740 a year, but it will cost him about $15,000. Adding interest on top of that could possibly
amount to $45,000 if interest rates go up. So he is $55,000 ahead 20 years out. W hat happens if you
don’t invest in the future? W hat happens if the Southern Parkway does not get built? W hat happens
when Biscuit Run comes on line and it takes him one-half an hour instead of ten minutes to get
downtown? He will lose that $100,000 because the quality of life has deteriorated. He said we need to
invest in the future so all can benefit from rising property values and people wanting to live in Albemarle
County. One of the roles of government is to take the long-term view to build for a better future. It is easy
to say we don’t want to spend that money now, but it will pay many dividends in the years to come.
Mr. W illiam James said he, his wife and three sons live in Sugar Hollow. His sons will make six
generations that have lived in Sugar Hollow since the end of the Civil W ar when the first James’ came
there. However, if the tax increases continue, they will have to leave. His three children were educated in
the County. He has one son at W estern Albemarle now, the other two have graduated. Their education
was great, but they can’t afford to live here. They have to leave. W hat is affordable housing? He has
attended many meetings and heard the discussions about affordable housing. He said there is no
affordable housing in Albemarle County. His kids can’t afford to live here and he probably will not be able
to live here much longer. He can probably afford to pay the taxes a few more years, but when he gets
ready to retire, he will not be able to do that. He was told the assessment was set according to the land
sold near him. He doesn’t care about that; he does not want to sell. It’s as if there is no bottom to the
well; everybody is just going to keep spending. He believes the rate needs to be lowered and not just a
measly two cents. That is less than $100 for him. The Supervisors need to devise a plan to protect long-
term residents.
Mr. Jeff W erner was present to speak for the Piedmont Environmental Council. He came to offer
support for continued funding of the ACE Program. There has been tremendous success with
conservation easements in the County, and part of that has come about through the ACE Program which
has kept working farms working. That is the key objective and it has been successful. From everything
he hears the candidate list for this year is outstanding. It is consistent with the Supervisors’ policy and it is
money well spent.
Mr. Lee Schultz said he moved to Albemarle in 1976, built a house on a two-acre lot, drilled a well,
put in a septic tank, and looked forward to a long life on that property. He is now retired and the “switch
and bait” of the shuffle with the figures is not appropriate to the citizens of the County. He appreciates the
time and efforts of the Supervisors, but they need to look at this budget and consider this tremendous
jump in the appraisal value compared to the tax rate. He has been living in an area which was urban and
all of a sudden it started to be developed. Now, because of the values of the other properties and the new
houses being built and sold, his assessment has gone up tremendously. He does not think it is fair and it
is not equal. If he were to consider selling his home and had to find another residence, he would have to
pay more than what his property is now valued at. Townhouses or apartments in the County are also
expensive. There is an inequality in real estate values and he knows the Supervisors cannot control that,
but they need to be aware of it and adjust the basic rates so people who have owned property for a long
period of time can afford to pay their taxes. He said everybody enjoys services and he knows it is a
problem to balance it all out. The Supervisors were elected and sworn in to serve the County, and he
charges them with that duty.
W ith no one else from the public coming forward to speak, Mr. Boyd closed the public hearing.
_______________
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
Agenda Item No. 24. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the
Agenda.
Mr. Dorrier said he learned something new tonight. Assessments went up at least 25 percent for
most people. He said the County Executive’s proposed budget carries an increase of 5.76 percent. In
order to do justice to people on fixed incomes, he thinks the Board needs to look at the possibility of
reducing the budget by some amount. He thinks that reducing it between three and five percent across-
the-board might be a way to do it. He thinks there are people who are suffering, and it will only get worse.
He asked the reaction of the other Board members.
Ms. Thomas said she appreciates everyone who is still in the audience because she knows the
Board members are tired at the end of this long day. She said the Board usually gets good ideas from
public hearings. This is a caring community, and even though it seemed like people were talking against
each other in some ways, there are a lot of communities that hold public hearings and nobody comes.
She appreciates people being brief and sticking to their allotted speaking time. She was taken by the
people who begged the Board to do something other than the real estate tax which is basically a lousy tax,
but it is being forced on the Board more and more because other sources of revenue are either being
taken away or the Board does not have the enabling power to do certain things. The Board has no
authority to tax cigarettes; a city can, but a county cannot. She said a lot of the anger vented today should
go to the state level where the state can say they are not raising taxes. They are putting on a squeeze play
and leaving counties with only the real estate tax for revenue and that is a bad place for so many
governmental services to rest. She wishes people would take those complaints to their state legislators.
Mr. W yant said there were many comments received tonight about the tax rate, and a few
comments about how the County goes about taxing. He does not like it when the Board says something
will not work. There have always been changes and the Board needs to consider everything. He grew up
in Albemarle County. His family has lived here and it is hitting them hard. W hen the time comes for
discussion of the tax rate, he will be looking for a reduction.
Mr. Rooker agreed with a number of comments, particularly those made by Ms. Thomas. He said
that several times tonight people mentioned that the cost of growth should be put on growth. He thinks
most Board members agree with that. He thinks 99 percent of the citizens also agree. Unfortunately, the
State Legislature does not agree. Year after year the Legislature fails to grant localities impact fee
enablement. He urged those present in the audience to hold their Legislators accountable. He said 47
out of 50 states enable localities to assess impact fees against new development to pay for the cost of
that development. Likewise, the State does not have “adequate public facilities” legislation which means
the locality cannot turn down a development simply because public facilities are not in place to handle the
impacts of that development. He thinks 47 out of 50 states have such legislation. He urges the citizens to
hold their Legislators accountable. Counties do need other sources of revenue rather than real property
taxes. The only significant revenue source localities have any control over is real estate taxes. An income
tax is a fairer tax because it falls on people in proportion to their ability to pay, but localities do not share in
income taxes. He urges the citizens to go to their Legislators and tell them there should be revenue
sources other than property taxes. He thinks what Albemarle does needs to be put in context with what
other counties around the state do. He thinks the rate should be lowered, and noted several counties
which have a much higher rate, namely: Roanoke County has a rate of $1.11, Chesterfield County has a
rate of $1.04, Fauquier County has a rate of 99 cents, Stafford County has a rate of 97 cents, Henrico
County has a rate of 90 cents, and Loudoun County has a rate of 89 cents. Most of the counties
surrounding Albemarle have tax rates which are as high or higher. In all of those counties, assessments
have increased by comparable amounts. The squeeze Ms. Thomas mentioned about the state pushing
down mandates on localities is being experienced by every locality around the state. Albemarle has
started putting transportation expenses into its budget. In the State of Virginia, localities were to pay for
schools and the state would pay for transportation. Albemarle is still paying for schools and the state has
been walking away from transportation. This year Albemarle put $2.0 million in its budget for
transportation expenses. In real dollar terms there is 30 percent less in State Secondary Road funds then
there was 10 years ago. He is sympathetic with the taxpayers, but he thinks this county is doing a good
job as a county when compared to other counties around the state. Right now, at the $0.74 tax rate, with
the Revenue-Sharing money to the City, the effective tax rate is about $0.64. He thinks the Board has a
lot of things to weigh and consider as it holds budget work sessions. He said the Board goes through
every department to determine whether or not the funds for that department are being spent wisely and
whether the proposals should be funded based on the needs of the County, and based upon reasonable
assessment of the revenues that should be available.
Mr. Slutzky said he was expecting the public hearing to go a little differently than it did. A common
theme not supported by everyone was to keep the budget as proposed in order to have good schools.
Some said they could not afford to pay their taxes. He did not hear a lot of people say they did not want to
pay their taxes; rather, it is hard for them to afford to pay their property taxes. Some said tax reform is
needed in Virginia. It is outrageous that the people in Richmond do not allow counties to have impact fees
on the newcomers to the county. The cost of newcomers is being paid by the general population on their
property taxes. It is a bad situation this Board does not control. He had hoped he would hear specific
proposals about what should be cut and what priorities are not supported. He does not think the public is
clamoring for a reduction in services. They recognize the reality that property taxes have gone up
because the value of their property has gone up. There is a critical mass issue; on the one hand new
people moving in and they demand services but the County cannot tax those newcomers. The County is
spiraling into a crisis mode where it will start losing more and more of the folks who make Albemarle
County what it is. A number of rural area farmers were articulate and eloquent speakers on behalf of a
fragile, but critical element of the cultural fabric of Albemarle County. He is concerned about and sensitive
to the need to protect the rural areas in the County and still be able to provide the infrastructure needed by
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
all the new people. A number of people asked why the Board does not raise other taxes and charge fees.
There is a limit on what the Board is allowed to do by State law. It has not maxed out every single tax and
fee it could be maxing out, and he thinks it might be worth looking at what is being “left on the table.” He
knows it is not much but would be interested in looking at every opportunity. Many spoke about the elderly
and people on fixed incomes. He understands the County has not maxed out the Tax Relief Program;
income levels could be raised and more than five acres of land could be protected. In light of this
dramatic increase in assessments, he thinks the Tax Relief Program should be maxed out. Beyond that,
he thinks the Board has to confront the challenge of deciding whether to cut the tax rate or raising it. He is
weighing the problem of inadequate infrastructure against the near-term pain of paying more in taxes. He
is worried about deferring the building of that infrastructure to a future board when the cost of construction
would be even higher. He will painfully encourage this Board to raise the tax rate to the 74 cents proposed
by Mr. Tucker, and perhaps above that to address that infrastructure deficiency. Then, he will plead with
Albemarle County residents to take this to Richmond so the Board can get real tax relief.
Mr. Boyd said this Board is composed of a sincere group of people. He has been a member of
the Board for almost four years and understands the County is not being dealt the best hand from
Richmond in terms of its options. For these years he has watched the property assessments continue to
go up, and he is concerned about the impact this last assessment will have on the population. He was
impressed by the gentlemen who said he had been a finance person in the military and had been
challenged with reducing his budget and actually met the needs of that environment and did reduce that
budget. If the Board members are going to be leaders, they have to take a similar approach. They have
to challenge staff and Mr. Tucker to cut this budget and provide some relief for the citizens. It is fine to
say the Board is going to wait on Richmond, but the Board has been waiting for years. It is noted in the
Board’s budget book that the inflation rate last year was about 3.2 percent. If you look at the W eldon
Cooper numbers, the growth rate was projected at about .7 percent, or less than one percent last year.
He said it has averaged 1.2 percent since 2000, so that would bring it up to a 4.4 percent increase. He
thinks more than that needs to be added so he multiplied that by 150 percent and that gave him a rate of
6.6 percent. He is even willing to go further than that because he thinks the Board needs to look at
reducing expenditures (in the proposed budget they go up about 25.0 million) by cutting them five percent.
That would be the equivalent of about $11.2 million or seven cents of the tax rate. He is not sure the
Board can do that because he believes, as many said, that vital services to the community should not be
cut. He is not willing to stand back at this point and say the Board cannot look at reducing the amount of
increase in the budget. As the Board goes through this budget process, the Board should challenge each
department to present a budget that is five percent less. Also, he does not want the Board to simply wipe
out all of the new initiatives. Doing so would be assuming all the old initiatives are still good and valid.
The Board can’t micro manage the staff and come up with those numbers, but it can challenge staff to find
five percent that can be cut, not necessarily in new initiatives. He recognizes that every department might
not be able to cut five percent; some could be cut a lesser amount. He has been talking about a plan like
this for years, and he thinks this is the year to do it.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks that can be done. W hen talking about new initiatives, he would like to
mention some of those things for the public. For example, it is more difficult for the County to get
volunteer firefighters to work day shifts. Included in the new initiatives is the hiring of four firefighters for
East Rivanna Fire Company because they can’t staff it during the day. There is a goal in the
Comprehensive Plan to have 1.5 police officers per 1,000 in population and the County is below that
number. A couple of years ago, the Board asked staff to determine if that goal was realistic. The study
came back to the Board showing that 1.5 is at the low end of what is seen around the country. If 2,000
people move to the County each year three police officers have to be hired just to keep up with that 2,000
people on the 1.5 ratio. There are things in the budget called initiatives which are goals adopted into the
Comprehensive Plan, and those goals are not being reached. He does not disagree with Mr. Boyd but
would like people to understand that one of the big items of increase in the budget is the amount paid to
the City under the Revenue Sharing Agreement (the increase this year was $3.0 million), the total this year
is $13.1 million. That Agreement was adopted by referendum in the City and County in 1983. The Board
has no control over that budget item.
Mr. Boyd said he appreciates what Mr. Rooker is saying, but there are other things in the budget
to consider. He said a favorite project of his is the ACE Program. The Board decided a couple of years
ago to tie that program to one cent on the tax rate which he thought would be a reasonable rate of growth,
but it has grown 60 percent in two years. He is not sure 60 percent on that program is better spent than
shifting that money to payment for police officers. He asked if this Board is willing to take on this challenge
and show leadership and work through the possibility of reducing the budget.
Mr. Rooker said he is a business person and thinks the County needs to strive for efficiency
wherever possible. W hen the Board goes through the department-by-department analysis he thinks it
should do that.
Mr. Boyd said the Board has to ask staff what they would do to reduce their budget by five
percent.
Mr. Slutzky said the Board can ask staff to do that, and it can also question certain expenditures
to see if the County is getting the best use of its funds. This challenge is a healthy and productive
exercise on behalf of the taxpayers. He said Mr. Boyd used the number of three percent for inflation, and
he did not know on what that number was based. He said fuel costs did not go up by just three percent
last year, and construction costs are “through the roof.”
Mr. Boyd said he got that figure from the Board’s budget book.
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50)
Mr. Slutzky said he is not sure the true rate of inflation for the items the County spends its money
on is necessarily only three percent. He is eager to tackle the budget because there are always things you
can afford to do without. At a time when County taxpayers are being put into a “tough spot” with the rate
of increase, the Board owes it to them to look at opportunities to gain efficiencies with the budget. He
cautions the Board to not forget that there are a lot of unfunded items and deferred obligations. One such
has to do with the infrastructure needs which have come about due to growth in the County. He is wary of
just cutting the budget and continuing to ignore those because they will have to be paid for eventually.
Mr. Boyd said he is not saying those things can be ignored. That is why he does not think growth
issues and response times and police ratios are the only things that need to be cut. There are things the
County has been doing for years that it might not need to continue doing. He thought he was being
conservative when he said five percent because even if it is cut five percent there is still a 7.6 increase in
spending.
Mr. Dorrier asked what percentage of the budget is used for personnel costs. Mr. Tucker said it is
about 80 percent.
Mr. Dorrier said there has been a lot of talk about the education budget. He does not think the
Board would want to do anything with that. Does that mean that 60 percent of the budget is off the table,
or what?
Mr. Boyd said he thinks the School System should look at the same belt-tightening things as the
County does. He thinks cuts should be made across-the-board.
Mr. Rooker said the Board needs to be mindful of capital improvements. W hen capital
improvements are made, they result in increased operating costs. He thinks the Board needs to look at
the projects in the CIP. If a new fire station is opened it must be staffed and equipped and that is then a
perpetual expense. Also, in Northern Virginia, real estate assessments are falling, so to him that is an
indication that real estate assessments will not continue to increase in Albemarle like they have for the
past four years. The County Executive’s budget contemplates that next year assessments will increase
about five percent. He thinks there will be a natural moderating effect in assessments in the next few
years.
Mr. W yant said it is not uncommon for government to ask that expenditures be cut; it was done
four times while he worked for the State. He said the CIP Oversight Committee questioned many things
and deducted $39.0 million from that program. He said the Board asking that staff study their budget
requests is something the County’s citizens have also requested.
Mr. Boyd asked if there were a consensus on this question.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks staff developed a budget based on the policy decisions made by this
Board. There is nothing in this budget that should take any of the Board members by surprise. More than
most years, the Board has been going through strategic planning sessions and realizing what the County’s
long-term financial situation will look like. If the Board wants to have fewer firemen then it will have to go
back on its policy on response times. For the public, although the Board talks about firemen, all of the
career firemen are also emergency medical trained personnel. As there is an aging population in the
community, the EMT side is actually where the growth is. She said the Board can change its policy about
what response time it would accept and cut a big piece out of the budget. That was done with the Police.
The Board decided that although there is a goal, it will go at it so slowly that the goal will not be met for
about 30 years. She does not want anybody to think there were surprises in this budget.
Mr. Boyd said there can be belt-tightening. That is the reason he mentioned the ACE Program;
that is the result of a policy decision by the Board. He is willing to take a look at those things, along with
everything else.
Mr. Rooker said he is willing to take a look at it also. He said the Board has a policy to increase
land in conservation easements by 50 percent over a four-year period which started last year. The reason
the Board dedicated a penny to the ACE Program was because the purchasing power of that money goes
down as the price of the property goes up. There was an erosion of 30+ percent in purchasing power of
what was initially allotted to ACE. A policy was adopted tying it to the value of real estate. He said the
Board needs to mindful of its goals. If changes are made in the Budget which in turn make changes in
goals, fine. But, the Board needs to acknowledge that it is doing that.
Mr. Boyd said if the Board is willing to do that, he would like to challenge staff to look for a five
percent cut in the spending side of their budgets.
Mr. Rooker said if the Board asks Mr. Tucker to reduce the budget by five percent, he does not
know that it would be done pro rata over departments.
Mr. Boyd said he had said earlier it could be two percent of one department and seven percent of
another. He was not suggesting that each department be cut five percent. The Board has to rely on the
County Executive and his excellent staff to come back with proposals.
Mr. Slutzky said Mr. Tucker has given the Board what he thinks is the appropriate budget, so
maybe the burden shifts to the Board to let him know where it wants him to cut.
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 51)
Mr. Dorrier said that last year the County ended with a surplus of about $9.0 million. Mr. Tucker
said there are expenditure savings as well. He said that is one-time money; not recurring money. If the
tax rate is reduced that will also affect the current fiscal year’s budget. Each penny reduced will affect the
current year’s budget by $750,000. The one-time money could be used to off-set that change. For next
year, staff will have to decide where expenditures can be reduced. He said this budget is based on
commitments and mandates. The Board set the policy and the direction. If the Board wants to changes
directions, he will bring back a budget that takes that into account. He said only 15 percent of
expenditures are made up of all the departments outside of the Schools, Public Safety and Human
Services. To get the kind of revenue the Board wants, he would have to go to bigger items in the budget.
Operating budgets for each department were only increased by two percent. The remainder is in salaries
and that is a four percent item. There are other areas he will probably recommend that are “large-ticket”
items. He asked if that is the consensus of the Board members. He does not want to spend a lot of time
cutting and then have a 3:3 vote. At the first work session next week it was his intent to bring to the Board
a list what could be done with each penny.
Mr. Rooker said he did not think what Mr. Tucker is saying is any different. If the Board had in
front of it what would be done if the rate were lowered by a penny, or two cents, or three cents, etc. it
would have the information it needs in order to make a reasonable decision.
Mr. Boyd said he used to live in the corporate world; he ran a very large division of a major bank.
He used to put forward budgets all the time, but was told that based on corporate objectives spending had
to be reduced. That is his commitment here. He is interested in reducing the budget. He knows Mr.
Tucker does an excellent job, and he can’t micro—manage his job, nickel and dime it, and say what
initiative to drop. He is just saying that he would like for him to cut the budget by five and one-half percent
and then when the Board goes through the process, it might not agree and have other ideas. He is
interested in cutting the amount of the increase in the budget. Mr. Tucker said he knows what Mr. Boyd is
asking.
Ms. Thomas said the million dollars included for transportation could be cut because it is a new
item. Transportation is actually a State responsibility. Although she argued against it, a million dollars
was included for that purpose. If the Board wants to show the citizens what is going on, that would be her
candidate to cut. She said the Board really needs to know what policies would be affected by certain cuts.
Mr. Dorrier said that maybe everything the Board wants to do can’t be done next year; maybe
some things would need to be delayed for a year.
Ms. Thomas said Mr. Dorrier sat through those Strategic Planning sessions and knows what the
Board has facing it in the next couple of years. It will be harder and harder to find the funds.
Mr. Slutzky said it will be more expensive to fulfill those obligations; that is the other problem with
delaying.
Mr. Rooker said the big increases in the budget in terms of individual items are: payment to the
City with a $3.0 million increase, but the Board can’t cut that.
Mr. Dorrier interrupted to say that maybe the Board should talk about that item.
Mr. Rooker said it was approved by a referendum of the voters in 1983 and it put an end to
annexation by the City, and the County agreed to enter into a Revenue-Sharing Agreement.
Mr. Dorrier asked if it were never to be looked at again. Mr. Tucker said he understands it would
take another voter referendum from both localities to cancel the agreement. He asked the County
Attorney to comment.
Mr. Dorrier said the City has gotten a lot stronger financially.
Mr. Rooker said the County’s payment to them this year amounts to about 26 cents on their real
estate tax rate.
Mr. Boyd said the Board needs to get through this so everybody can go home. He would like to
know if there is any interest in going forward with his proposal.
Ms. Thomas said she would prefer to wait until the first work session before making any decision.
She said staff is going to show what each penny cut would mean, so she will not make that decision
tonight before seeing that information. Mr. Tucker said he had already planned on presenting that
information at the first work session.
Mr. W yant suggested looking at the “big ticket” items first. He said there are big expenditures in
the budget other than revenue-sharing. Maybe the Board could change the way it goes about holding
work sessions rather than going department-by-department.
Mr. Rooker said when talking about the General Government side of the budget the big items are
new initiatives and Public Safety. The Board could decide not to hire firefighters at East Rivanna or not to
fully staff the new Hollymead Fire Station because it will have a big operational expense, or it could even
stop the building of that station.
Mr. Slutzky said the Board could also cut the new Crozet library it voted on early today.
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 52)
Mr. Rooker said an issue came up this morning about the Hollymead Lake. Last year the Board
decided to fund the Key W est Dam which was a $350,000+ item. W hen these issues come forward, the
Board needs the discipline to say they will not be done because they are not a part of the budget
regardless of whether a neighborhood thinks the Board should step in and do it.
Mr. Slutzky said about 80 percent of the budget is in salaries. The Board put in an across-the-
board increase of approximately four percent on that item for this budget. How much of a reduction could
result in the tax rate for each tenth of a cent reduction in that item? He said things like that are more
global and more profound in their impact. That item has implications in terms of retention, but maybe that
is a more dramatic way to look at it. Mr. Tucker said that is one of the things that will be presented to the
Board on Monday.
Mr. Rooker said one issue in compensation was the Board adopted a plan of determination for
salaries. There was a time when salary determinations were political and every year the auditorium was
filled with people saying teacher salaries should be increased. After a long period of time, it was agreed to
adopt an objective pay criteria and base that on a competitive market in which salaries and benefits would
be compared. Someone mentioned the subject of a living wage tonight and that would have cost about
$900,000 in this budget, and the best reason for not doing it was that the Board would have abandoned its
objective standards for determining compensation.
Mr. Boyd said that is where “you have to stop thinking inside that box” although he hates that
terminology. He said that assumes every function takes the same number of people and the only way to
reduce salaries is by cutting the amount of increase. He said the market strategy can be maintained, but
does the County need all the people it currently has.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the Board will have the information from Mr. Tucker on Monday. If the
Board says it wants to cut seven cents off of the tax rate, he will tell the Board what has to be cut to
achieve that seven cents.
Mr. W yant said some expenses are mandated. Those fixed items have to be funded first. Mr.
Tucker said the Revenue-Sharing with the City is a mandate and that is why those funds are taken off of
the top of the revenues before they are divided between the Schools and Local Government. There are
certain policies the Board has established, although they can be looked at again. One of those is the
amount of the transfer to the Capital Improvement Program, which is two cents of the tax rate. He
understands Mr. Boyd wants to look at whether all staff members are really needed; that will take a little
more analysis than can be done in a week. He said that although Mr. Boyd has mentioned seven cents,
he will show the Board what impact there would be from reducing the rate different increments.
Mr. Rooker said seven cents would be close to $7.0 million off of the Schools budget. He does
not think this can be done in isolation because 60 percent of that is Schools. This Board should not make
a decision in isolation from the schools because they would share 60 percent of that pain.
Mr. Boyd said he was not suggesting that the Board do that. He said this is a challenge. He
thinks it is an exercise the Board should go through as good stewards of tax dollars. They need to see if
there are ways the County can operate more efficiently in order to have less of an impact on the
taxpayers.
Mr. Slutzky asked if Mr. Boyd was suggesting that the seven cents of the tax rate be found in the
40 percent of the budget that is not for schools.
Mr. Boyd said it would have to be across-the-board.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks the Board is tossing the challenge back to Mr. Boyd by saying if the
budget is driven by policies, the Board will have to look at its policies.
Mr. Rooker said in the Vision Statement for the County one of the goals is to assist the School
Board in making certain there is a world-class education system in the County. He thinks that was Mr.
Dorrier’s suggested wording and this Board adopted that at its Strategic Planning session. It became part
of the Board’s primary vision for the County. The Board needs to be certain that what it is doing is true to
its goals.
Mr. Dorrier agreed. He said the School Board and Dr. Moran know more about the School
System and what it needs than he does. He thinks the Board needs to probe to see if there is any room
for movement. The Board and the School Board need to be honest with each other to see if there can be
changes without costing anything. He said he worked for the W ilder administration in the early 90s in the
criminal justice area. Every six months they would get a request to cut the budget by five or ten percent.
Every department in criminal justice and public safety cut their budgets. People said they could not find
ways to cut it, but they always did. He did that for four years.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks that can be done in any operation.
Mr. Slutzky said it might be comforting in the moment politically to appease people who have
legitimate concerns about their near term tax bills, but to do so is to further burden future taxpayers in
Albemarle County to pay for things in future years in inflated dollars. He does not think the Board wants to
rob from those folks for near-term political goals. He said there is always fat in a budget. It is an
appropriate exercise to look for opportunities to become more efficient, but there are plenty of things the
Board has already chosen not to fund this year that were deferred to next year.
March 7, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 53)
Mr. Rooker said whatever the Board decides to do it needs to keep in mind its Five-Year Business
Plan. He thinks it was a wise decision to adopt a business plan so the Board looks at decisions in that
context. Mr. Tucker said that will be part of what he will present.
Ms. Thomas said the Board has been sent on this exercise before and it has brought forth this
budget.
Mr. Rooker said there was mention tonight of there being a surplus of about $9.0 million.
However, due to increases in construction costs over recent years, projects in the Capital Plan are now
estimated at 25 to 30 percent below what it would actually cost to do them. It is good to have a surplus to
transfer to capital because that will cover some of those massive increases in the out-year capital
projects.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board does not want to drive people off of their property. If successful people
are thinking about leaving Albemarle County because it is too expensive for them, that is a problem.
Mr. Boyd said Mr. Rooker has said before that the Board cannot keep building the budget and
growth on the appraised values of property, and yet, that is what has been done for the last four years he
has been a Board member. There has to be some methodology other than every time appraisals go up to
spend that much more.
Mr. Rooker said he backed off from that this year because capital projects have increased so
much that surplus is needed for capital. In the long-term he thinks it would be good to have some formula
for how the budget moves that is not tied to real estate assessments.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks the Board has “beat this to death.” He asked if Mr. Tucker knew what the
Board was requesting. He then suggested that the Board adjourn since it had been here since nine
o’clock this morning.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 25. Adjourn to March 12, 2007, at 1:00 p.m.
At 10:34 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, motion was offered by Mr.
W yant, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to adjourn this meeting until March 12, 2007, at 1:00 p.m. 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.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 06/06/2007
Initials: EW C