2007-04-11April 11, 2007 (Adjourned and Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
An adjourned and night meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was
held on April 11, 2007, at 3:00 p.m., County Office Building on McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
This meeting was adjourned from April 4, 2007.
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, Acting Clerk, Diane B. Mullins, and Director of Planning, V. W ayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 3:02 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Boyd.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2a. Adopt FY 2007/08 Capital and Operating Budgets.
Mr. Tucker briefly reviewed the order for the day’s discussion through a brief slide presentation.
Staff will review a couple of scenarios showing the impact on schools and the impact on General
Government based on tax rates the Board may adopt. The next item on the agenda will be setting the
2007 tax rate, and then adoption of the 2007/08 operating and capital budgets.
He presented information on how much would be required to provide FY08 compensation and
benefits for school employees – about $7.5 million, and explained the recommended budget would have
provided approximately $1.3 million for new initiatives, mandates, or other cost increases. He further
explained that the 70-cent level the Board took to public hearing last week provided approximately $1
million over and above the salary need for mandates, new initiatives, etc; that a 69-cent rate would provide
about $100,000 above the needed funding for salaries and compensation; and that a 68-cent rate would
not provide enough to cover the compensation and would create an $800,000 deficit. According to the
School Board, Mr. Tucker said, it will be receiving about $1 million in additional federal and state funds
over the current FY07 fiscal year.
Mr. Rooker asked if the slide presented was for the existing employee base without any additions.
Mr. Tucker confirmed that it was.
Mr. Tucker presented information on items that could be eliminated or removed if a lower tax rate
is selected; in each scenario down to 68-cents, there would be reserves left. He confirmed that much of
the East Rivanna and police personnel expenses are one-time costs.
Mr. Tucker reported that the County is anticipating a five percent reassessment (four percent for
new construction) increase each year, and other assumptions are funding of the revenue-sharing
agreement with the City, a two-cent transfer to the CIP, funding of mandates, operations funding at two
percent, four additional officer positions, and a 60/40 split. He explained that in the next fiscal year, there
would be about $260,000 under the 70-cent rate; under the 69-cent rate it would be under $300,000; and
under the 68-cent rate about $100,000. Mr. Tucker noted that in FY09, there would be about a $1.8
million reserve.
He mentioned that the impact of a rate reduction in the current year would be $3.3 million, and the
impact on the current year at 70 cents would be $3.9 million that would have to be made up; at the 69-cent
rate it would be $4.7 million; and at 68 cents the County would need $5.5 million in the current year. Mr.
Tucker said that the $1 million Board reserve could be used, as could anticipated revenue surplus of
about $2 million, $1/2 million in expenditure savings, use of about $4 million of the FY06 surplus to capital
(at the 70-cent rate). He noted that the County would cover the school’s share so they wouldn’t have to
deal with it this year, and he has shared that with the School Board; however, they have put a hold-back
on their expenditures for the remainder of the year but would like some commitment from the Board that it
concurs with that.
Mr. Tucker said that the schools’ share at 70 cents would be $2.3 million of the $3.9 million; at the
69-cent rate, their share is $2.8 out of $4.9 million; at 68 cents, the total would be $3.3 out of $5.5 million.
Ms. Thomas noted that picking up the schools’ share does not increase the bottom line.
Mr. Rooker commented that he supports having the County pick that up, as it would be very
difficult for the schools to make up that shortfall.
Mr. Boyd agreed, adding that he has told the School Board chair that he supports that.
Ms. Thomas agreed also, but said it might need to be re-thought depending on the tax rate
adopted.
Mr. Tucker said that it would have to come out of the FY06 surplus.
Mr. Breeden noted that it would have an impact on the capital budget, adding that the surplus is
about $9.2 million from FY06 that typically would have been transferred to CIP.
April 11, 2007 (Adjourned and Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Mr. Tucker mentioned that a rate must be set by April 15th, but the budget does not have to be
adopted by that date. He added that the rate would obviously impact how much the Board has in its
budget, and referenced budgets he presented at 70 cents, 69 cents, and 68 cents.
Ms. Thomas commented that they have been focusing on the tax rate, instead of addressing the
need.
Mr. Boyd replied that the time to do that was earlier in discussions, not at this point.
Ms. Thomas said that the Board has made a mistake by not laying it out more clearly, and can
see why the public is concerned.
Mr. Boyd responded that he would like for the County to reevaluate the budget process.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that there is in-depth information presented to the Board every year, and
he feels that the board has had a picture of what the budget would look like at various rates, what the
proposed initiatives are and what they cost, and that the Board did spend time going through the separate
department budgets. He also noted that some expenses are due to mandates that the County has no
control over – such as the jail and juvenile detention facility. Mr. Rooker said that a 58-cent budget
wouldn’t even come close to funding the mandates.
Mr. Boyd said that there is a fallacy in looking at it that way, because it does not provide
consideration for items that might not currently need to be in the budget.
Mr. Rooker stated that he has mentioned doing efficiency studies on each department, but he
feels it is reckless to presume there is waste. He said that comparing Albemarle to other like
organizations is a good measure of efficiency, and the County has a very low tax rate in the context of
similar localities. Mr. Rooker commented that he supports looking at benchmarks or hiring a consultant to
do an efficiency study in one or more departments.
Mr. Slutzky added that you can always cut a budget, but there are consequences to becoming a
more urbanized locality, including additional capital needs. He said that focusing the discussion on how to
tighten up the budget this year might cause the Board to lose sight of the fact that money might need to be
spent now in anticipation of future needs. Mr. Slutzky said that the tax rate and budget should be very
different discussions.
Mr. Rooker said that it’s only through large decisions that you’re going to “wring large dollars” out
of the budget if that is your goal.
Mr. Tucker noted that a penny is valued at $1.6 million, and a lot of nitpicking must be done, or the
strategic plan (and overall direction to staff) would need to be changed. He said that individual
departments will go in and review their budgets to see if there are extraneous items. Mr. Tucker
commented that it would be helpful if the Board could come to relative consensus on items to be
reviewed, so staff is not spending a lot of time on analyzing individual items. He believes that large
savings are found in big dollar items, such as in two percent of our operations, or eliminating a percentage
off of the salary increases.
Mr. Dorrier commented on the $9 million surplus in 2006 and a 30 percent assessment increase
over two years. He believes that what the Board has seen in the year 2007 goes down as a watershed
year because the Board came face to face with a tax revolt. He said that the Board needs to listen to this,
noting that the Board does not deal with the budget in the strategic plan. Mr. Dorrier also added that the
assessment process needs to be dealt with on the state level so that it reflects the reality of what’s
happening in the economy. He said that he would like to set up a “blue ribbon committee” to look at the
budgeting process, including CEOs, etc.
Mr. Boyd said that he’s been advocating for eight years to have the budget processed overhauled.
Mr. W yant commented that he’s been concerned that the accounting models might not be on, and
perhaps that needs to be looked at.
Mr. Rooker said that the assessment process is done as a matter of state law, and whatever
changes happen there need to be responded to. He noted that the County adopted a policy of paying
employees based on objective standards, and he supported that. However, Mr. Rooker said, schools’
salaries and benefits are not going to be fully funded if a 68-cent tax rate is adopted. He believes that
looking at rates that don’t cover the objective standards that the Board has established is a waste of time.
Mr. Boyd stated that he agrees philosophically, but those standards were changed three or four
years ago and many of those employees (teachers) were put in the top quartile.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that Mr. Boyd had voted in favor of that, and it was reaffirmed again in
October of 2006.
Ms. Thomas noted that this is the third year the Board has done it, and it is starting to have an
effect in retention rates, etc., and the Board has agreed to this.
Mr. Slutzky asked Mr. Boyd if he supports employees being in the top quartile or not.
April 11, 2007 (Adjourned and Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
Mr. Boyd replied that he believes administrative cuts could offset this and pay teachers more.
Mr. Slutzky responded that there is a national standard to spend 65 cents of the school dollar on
instructional costs, and Albemarle is at 74 cents. He does not feel that is an issue of us being too fat in
administration.
Ms. Thomas added that there are no more employees in the central office now then there were
five years ago.
Mr. Boyd said that the County could stay in the quartile with more fiscal responsibility in the school
budgets, noting that Albemarle cannot do that and keep the lowest student-teacher ratio in the state.
Mr. Slutzky emphasized that voters want the Board to create a world class education system, and
he is not certain what Mr. Boyd is saying here.
Mr. Boyd responded that world class does not necessarily mean most expensive.
Mr. Slutzky replied that the target is the upper quartile.
Mr. Rooker noted that on a per capita basis, schools spent $1,371 per student based on total
population.
Mr. Boyd said that you must go by per pupil spending.
Mr. Rooker said that the state average is $1,456 per capita, and Albemarle is $1,371.
Mr. Boyd responded that that isn’t a valid comparison.
Mr. Rooker stated that he is open to reviewing other data, but none has been presented. He
added that Albemarle performs much better than other school systems around the state, and is not
funding at an inordinately high rate to get those results.
Mr. Dorrier commented that the Board is spending the money wisely.
Mr. Boyd said that he looked at a comparison not long ago that showed Albemarle at 9th in the
state for spending, but expressed concern about continuing to fund that on the backs of the taxpayers.
Mr. Slutzky said that Albemarle is paying less per capita, and he is not sure what Mr. Boyd is
advocating here.
Mr. Boyd explained that the original compensation committee did not necessarily endorse paying
everyone in the upper quartile, and that group looked at localities that compete specifically with Albemarle
for teachers. He said that he is not sure that the school budget should continue to climb just because the
revenues do. Mr. Boyd added that the only way to cut a budget is to be told that you won’t be given the
money, noting that UVA was able to economize under the W ilder cuts.
Mr. Slutzky stated that there is more to a budget than just cutting, and the County has committed
to a strategic vision that has been endorsed by citizens and expressed through the survey.
Mr. W yant added that there are also a lot of people that can not afford to pay their taxes, and the
budget must be balanced to accommodate both.
Mr. Rooker asked for a comparable county in the state that is operating on less than 60 cents. He
expressed that no locality is even close.
Mr. Slutzky noted that Roanoke is at $1.11.
Mr. Boyd said that if home prices are less, then a higher tax rate is not going to generate more
revenue.
Mr. Rooker stated that the per capita rate is what should be looked at, and Albemarle’s is very
efficient.
Mr. Slutzky said that the County is doing a phenomenal job, especially when the low
unemployment rate is considered.
Mr. W yant asked about median income in other localities.
Mr. Dorrier commented that the County should go to the City and get the revenue-sharing
agreement changed.
Mr. Rooker replied that he has spoken with people in the City about this, and they are interested in
getting more money, not less.
Mr. Boyd tried to clarify his position on whether he supported pay in the top quartile. He said that
he supports keeping teachers’ pay up, but said that Albemarle has more teachers per student than other
school systems, and that is hindering the ability to keep up with that top sector.
April 11, 2007 (Adjourned and Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
Mr. Rooker said that this budget has been worked on for six months, and the school budget could
have been obtained fairly easily.
Mr. Boyd commented that it’s the School Board’s job to determine how many teachers they need
relative to pay.
Mr. Slutzky asked him if he felt the County could afford to maintain the 25th quartile. He
emphasized that the Board needs to decide the rate today, and asked if Mr. Boyd feels they can maintain
that benchmark.
Mr. Boyd said that it’s up to the School Board how it’s spent.
Ms. Thomas noted that people are feeling “hit in the stomach” when they get their assessments,
and her constituents have talked about things that they now cannot afford. She said that the County
provides some of the same services that people are saying they cannot afford – such as Medicare, meals
on wheels, etc. – and that needs to be put out on the table so that people understand. Ms. Thomas
suggested laying out an explanation of services and the agencies that provide them, along with the
marginal (three percent) increases they are getting.
Mr. Rooker said that a $300,000 house in the County at a 70-cent tax rate pays about $2,100
annually in real estate taxes; one child in the school system costs $12,000. He noted that he pays
property taxes like everyone else, even though he does not have kids in the schools now. Services aren’t
free. W e do have to pay for them. W hat the Board is talking about today is how to raise the revenue in a
reasonable way to pay for the services people expect to receive. He added that striking a reasonable
balance is not going to be funding a budget with no salary increases.
Mr. Dorrier responded that that does not consider the people who cannot afford to pay their taxes,
such as Doris Davis – wife of a 30-year County policeman – who says that she cannot afford to pay taxes
or give the property to her children.
Mr. Rooker commented that there are also people who cannot afford to put gas in their vehicles,
and the County unfortunately cannot base their budget on people’s ability to pay. He said that perhaps
that person could qualify for the elderly and disabled tax relief.
Mr. Slutzky said that the hardship cases are very compelling, but so are the arguments that the
school budget should be fully funded.
Mr. Slutzky asked if it would be possible to enact a program where additional tax relief could be
provided.
Mr. Tucker replied that the County would have to go through the General Assembly for that
enabling legislation.
Ms. Thomas said that the County has land use tax assessment, and that option is available for
people with land; she also said that reverse mortgages could be helpful.
Mr. Rooker stated that the tax from land use is about five-cents per $100 of fair market value, and
the state dictates that; he added that 70% of the land in the County is paying less than what is paid to the
City in revenue-sharing on that land, so that essentially is a fiscal loss.
Mr. Boyd emphasized that the bottom line is the County is taking in millions and millions more with
increased assessments, and this year he would like to give a break to the taxpayers.
Mr. Slutzky also noted that more money has to go out, through the revenue-sharing agreement,
unfunded mandates, fuel costs, etc.
Mr. Boyd responded that there is nothing that indicates there will be less money to spend this year
than last year.
Ms. Thomas said that the Board discussed paying staff a legitimate salary increase, as the cost of
living goes up as well.
Mr. Rooker stated that it is unrealistic to have a substantial cut in the budget without affecting
what people are paid. He added that if there were not increases in salaries, teachers and other
professionals would likely look for work in other localities, and it does not seem that what the County is
paying is out of line with the University and the City.
Mr. Slutzky said that what the County pays is still below that.
Mr. Dorrier stated that he does not think the Board has asked hard enough questions of each
department when they request additional staff.
Mr. Slutzky replied that they certainly have asked a lot of those questions, especially of law
enforcement and public safety.
Ms. Thomas commented that the County is 22 employees short of what state and federal
guidelines say they should have in the Social Services Department.
April 11, 2007 (Adjourned and Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
Mr. W yant noted the $9 million surplus and $3.5 million on the windfall, and made a motion to
approve a 65-cent tax rate.
Motion was offered by Mr. W yant, and seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to approve a 65-cent tax rate.
Roll was called, and the motion failed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, and Mr. W yant.
NAYS: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Rooker, and Mr. Slutzky.
Mr. Rooker noted that the surplus year also saw a 35 to 40 percent increase in the cost of capital
projects already in the budget, and the question is whether you want to take the increase of that cost and
in effect subsidize the budget one time, because next year you would not have those funds. He does not
think that is a fiscally responsible budget, but a politically expedient budget, one that is not fiscally
sustainable.
Mr. Rooker said that he would like to get into a situation where the Board does not have to rely so
heavily on the real estate tax. There are not many tools to use, but there is an opportunity through
increasing decal fees.
Mr. W yant said there is still a burden through this increase.
Mr. Rooker said the burden should be funded in different ways. This is a way to pull off burden
from the real estate tax. He feels the increase might make it more palatable for some members of the
Board to support a rate that is lower than they might accept.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr. Slutzky, for approval of the $10 added to
the decal fee. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Rooker, and Mr. Slutzky
NAYS: Mr. W yant.
Mr. W yant commented that the burden is just essentially being shifted with that approach.
Mr. Rooker said that there must be a way found to raise the revenues to fund County government
in a way that is efficient and effectively delivers services.
Ms. Thomas stated that through legislation, the General Assembly has given localities the option
of doing this, and the County should take advantage of it as a way of relieving the real estate tax as being
the sole support for the budget.
Mr. Tucker said that the decal fee would bring in an additional $1 million.
Mr. Slutzky noted that a penny on the rate is $1.6 million, so that wouldn’t be a full penny.
Mr. Tucker confirmed that the new legislation would allow the County to go to $38.50.
Ms. Thomas said that last year, that $1 million amount was determined by the County to go into
transportation since that funding from the state has been flat.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Ms. Thomas, for approval of a 69-cent real
estate tax rate. Roll was called, and the motion failed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: Mr. Slutzky, Mr. W yant, Mr. Boyd, and Mr. Dorrier.
Motion was offered by Mr. W yant, seconded by Mr. Rooker, for approval of a 68-cent tax rate.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
______________
Agenda Item No. 2b. Adopt Calendar Year 2007 Tax Levy Resolution.
Mr. Tucker said, based on the Board’s previous action, it needed to adopt the Calendar Year 2007
Tax Levy Resolution as follows:
“Be it resolved that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby set a
County levy for calendar year 2007 for general accounting purposes at 68 cents on every $100 of
assessed value of real estate, at 68 cents on every $100 of assessed value of manufactured homes, at 68
cents for every $100 of assessed value of public service assessments, and $4.28 on every $100 of
assessed value of personal property; and $4.28 of every $100 of assessed value of machinery and tools.
Further order that the Director of Finance of Albemarle County assess and collect all taxes on all taxable
real estate and all taxable personal property.”
April 11, 2007 (Adjourned and Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
Motion was offered by Mr. W yant, seconded by Mr. Rooker, to adopt the resolution to set the
2007 Calendar Year tax rates as set out above. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Tucker then suggested deferring adoption of the FY 2007/08 capital and operating budgets
until May 9th so that the language can be revised to reflect the new tax rates.
______________
The Board recessed at 5:15 p.m.
______________
Agenda Item No. 3. The meeting was called back to order at 6:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr.
Boyd.
______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 5. Moment of Silence
______________
Agenda Item No. 6. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Rooker reported that he had received a summary of House Bill 3202, and suggested that staff
contact VDOT as soon as possible to see how this impacts road funds for priority projects. He also said
that the governor’s bill included some provisions for impact fees, and everyone who spoke on the budget
seemed to support having developers share the cost to the extent permitted. Mr. Rooker commented that
he would like to know what the County is enabled to do as soon as possible, given that there are several
developments pending right now that could be affected.
Ms. Thomas said that if the County does not enact these measures, the General Assembly could
say that they have granted something that has not being used.
Mr. Davis added that the impact fee legislation only allows impact fees for roads and not for
general impacts of development and his staff is already looking at it.
__________
Mr. W yant commented that the Board needs to be clear on what its meeting procedures are.
Mr. Davis said that that’s decided every year when the Board adopts Rules and Procedures, and if
they are to be amended then that needs to be done according to those rules. He said that under Robert’s
Rules, the Chairman cannot make a motion or second it unless it has been an established practice or
custom of the Board.
Mr. W yant suggested adding a discussion of the Board’s Rules of Procedures at a future meeting.
__________
Ms. Thomas noted that VACo is holding a meeting in Fluvanna on April 19th on its legislative
program. Mr. Dorrier said that he was interested in attending.
Mr. Tucker said that Board members should get information from staff prior to the meeting, as this
is early in the year for this type of meeting.
__________
Ms. Thomas said that on May 10th from 5:30 to 7:00 at Sage Moon, there would be an event for
elected officials held by the AIDS service group.
__________
Mr. Boyd commented that he understands that the strategy regarding staff salaries was agreed
upon jointly by both Boards, not just recommended by staff.
Mr. Tucker said that he wants to make sure that the Board is comfortable with staff figuring out
how to cover the impact of the tax reduction for the current year’s budget.
Board members concurred that it was there understanding that staff would cover the FY 2007
reduction in revenue for the School Division and local government from reserve funds.
______________
Agenda Item No. 7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
There were none.
______________
April 11, 2007 (Adjourned and Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
Agenda Item No. 8. Consent Agenda.
Mr. Rooker moved that Items 8.1 through 8.3 on the Consent Agenda be approved and that Items
8.4 and 8.5 be accepted as information. Mr. W yant seconded the motion, which passed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. W yant
NAYS: None.
__________
Item 8.1. Resolution of the Industrial Development Authority authorizing the issuance of revenue
bonds, pursuant to the Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act, in an amount not to exceed
$60,000,000 for Martha Jefferson Hospital.
The following letter dated April 10, 2007, was received from Scott Goodman, Secretary, Industrial
Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia:
“Martha Jefferson Hospital and MJH Foundation, both nonprofit Virginia non-stock corporations
(collectively, "Martha Jefferson Health Services") have requested that the Industrial Development
Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia ("Authority") assist in (a) refinancing all or a portion of the
Authority's $50,000,000 Hospital Revenue Bonds, Series 2002 issued on October 31, 2002 to
finance or refinance (1) the acquisition, construction and equipping of a three-story healthcare and
medical office facility, including without limitation a diagnostic imagine center, an urgent care
center, an outpatient surgery center, a women's health center and a prenatal diagnostic center,
located at Peter Jefferson Place business office park in Albemarle County, Virginia, (2) the
acquisition of approximately 84 acres of land located at Peter Jefferson Place business office
park, and (3) the acquisition, renovation, construction or equipping of capital expenditures at
Martha Jefferson Health Services' healthcare facilities in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia and
Albemarle County, Virginia, including without limitation the costs of routine capital expenditures, a
MRI scanner, accounting systems, angiography equipment and renovation, and a linear
accelerator, (b) financing additional capital improvements, and (c) financing a debt service reserve
fund and costs of issuance for the bonds by the issuance of its revenue bonds in the amount not
to exceed $60,000,000 ("Bonds").
As set forth in the resolution of the Authority attached hereto ("Resolution"), the Authority has
agreed to issue its Bonds as requested. The Authority has conducted a public hearing on the
proposed financing of the Project and has recommended that you approve the issuance of the
Bonds as required by Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and
Section 15.2-4906 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended.
Attached hereto is (1) a certificate evidencing the conduct of the public hearing and the action
taken by the Authority, (2) the Fiscal Impact Statement required pursuant to Virginia Code Section
l5.2-4907, and (3) the form of resolution suggested by counsel to evidence your approval.”
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
W HEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia ("Authority"),
has considered the application of Martha Jefferson Hospital and MJH Foundation, both nonprofit
Virginia non-stock corporations (collectively, "Martha Jefferson Health Services") requesting the
issuance of the Authority's revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $60,000,000 ("Bonds") to
assist Martha Jefferson Health Services in (a) refinancing all or a portion of the Authority's
$50,000,000 Hospital Revenue Bonds, Series 2002 issued on October 31, 2002 to finance or
refinance (1) the acquisition, construction and equipping of a three-story healthcare and medical office
facility, including without limitation a diagnostic imagine center, an urgent care center, an outpatient
surgery center, a women's health center and a prenatal diagnostic center, located at Peter Jefferson
Place business office park, (2) the acquisition of approximately 84 acres of land located at Peter
Jefferson Place business office park in Albemarle County, Virginia, and (3) the acquisition, renovation,
construction or equipping of capital expenditures at Martha Jefferson Health Services' healthcare
facilities in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia and Albemarle County, Virginia, including without
limitation the costs of routine capital expenditures, a MRI scanner, accounting systems, angiography
equipment and renovation, and a linear accelerator, (b) financing additional capital improvements,
and (c) financing a debt service reserve fund and costs of issuance for the bonds (collectively, the
"Project"), and has held a public hearing on April 10, 2007;
W HEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"),
provides that the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the issuer of private activity bonds and
over the area in which any facility financed with the proceeds of private activity bonds is located must
approve the issuance of the bonds;
W HEREAS, the Authority issues its bonds on behalf of Albemarle County, Virginia ("County");
a portion of the Project located in the County and the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia ("Board") constitutes the highest elected governmental unit of the County;
April 11, 2007 (Adjourned and Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
W HEREAS, the Authority has recommended that the Board approve the issuance of the
Bonds; and
W HEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds, subject
to the terms to be agreed upon, a certificate of the public hearing and a Fiscal Impact Statement have
been filed with the Board.
NOW , THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of
of Martha Jefferson Health Services, as required by Section 147(f) of the Code and Section l5.2-
4906 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended ("Virginia Code").
2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds does not constitute an endorsement to
a prospective purchaser of the Bonds of the creditworthiness of the Project or of Martha Jefferson
Health Services.
3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
______________
Item 8.2. Resolution of Support for Application to the Virginia Department of Transportation for
Multimodal Corridor Plan for the US 29 and US 33 Development Areas in Greene County.
It was noted in a memorandum date March 27, 2007 from Harrison Rue, Executive Director,
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission that the purpose is to provide background information
and a Resolution of Support in support of the “Multimodal Corridor Plan for the US 29 and US 33
Development Areas in Greene County” application by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
to the Virginia Department of Transportation Multimodal Office, under the Local and Regional Corridor
Planning Grant Program. TJPDC is requesting $150,000, with a 10% in-kind match to be provided by
Greene County staff.
Greene County faces significant development pressures from housing, retail and service growth.
This study will analyze future growth patterns, help Greene County update their Comprehensive Plan, and
develop multimodal transportation solutions for the US 29 and 33 corridors to accommodate that growth. It
will include strategies for improvements to 29 and 33, a better-connected network of local roads to protect
through-capacity, pedestrian and bicycle improvements in the developing areas, improved business
access, and coordination between Greene County Transit and regional transit service.
Deliverables include a multimodal plan and action agenda to ease congestion, improve access
management, increase multimodal travel options and tie land use and transportation investments
together. Implementation will be through the Greene County Comprehensive Plan, VDOT project
programming, and coordination of developer and business investments.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT
APPLICATION TO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FOR
“MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR PLAN FOR THE US 29 AND
US 33 DEVELOPMENT AREAS IN GREENE COUNTY”
Whereas, this study will enhance the MPO’s US 29 North Corridor Study and will approach the study
recognizing the unique needs and factors in Greene County; and
Whereas, the project is consistent with the goals of the VDOT Local and Regional Corridor Planning
Grant Program, the Greene County Comprehensive Plan, and the United Jefferson Area
Mobility Plan (UnJAM 2025); and
Whereas, this project will coordinate transportation land and use planning for the US 29 and US 33
corridors in Greene County; and
Whereas, this study will provide a multimodal plan and action agenda to ease congestion, improve
access management, increase multimodal travel options and tie land use and transportation
investments together.
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors does support
application to the VDOT Local and Regional Planning Grant Program by the Thomas
Jefferson Planning District Commission for the “Multimodal Corridor Plan for the US 29
and US 33 Development Areas in Greene County”
______________
April 11, 2007 (Adjourned and Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
Item 8.3. Resolution of the Industrial Development Authority authorizing the issuance of revenue
bonds, pursuant to the Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act, in an amount not to exceed
$30,000,000 for Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc.
The following letter dated April 10, 2007, was received from Scott Goodman, Secretary, Industrial
Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia:
“Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc. ("Borrower") has requested that the Industrial Development
Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia ("Authority"), assist the Borrower in financing the
construction and equipping of a Visitor and Education Center for Thomas Jefferson's Monticello
("Project") in Albemarle County, Virginia, by the issuance of its revenue bonds in an amount not to
exceed $30,000,000 ("Bonds").
As set forth in the resolution of the Authority attached hereto ("Resolution"), the Authority has
agreed to issue its Bonds as requested. The Authority has conducted a public hearing on the
proposed financing of the Project and has recommended that you approve the issuance of the
Bonds as required by Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and
Section 15.2-4906 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended.
Attached hereto is (1) a certificate evidencing the conduct of the public hearing and the action
taken by the Authority, (2) the Fiscal Impact Statement required pursuant to Virginia Code Section
l5.2-4907, and (3) the form of resolution suggested by counsel to evidence your approval.”
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
W HEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia ("Authority"),
has considered the application of Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc. ("Borrower") requesting the
issuance of the Authority's revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $30,000,000 ("Bonds") to
assist in the financing of the Borrower's constructing and equipping of a Visitor and Education Center
consisting of approximately 42,000 square feet ("Project") to be located at 931 Thomas Jefferson
Parkway, in Albemarle County, Virginia, and has held a public hearing on April 10, 2007;
W HEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"),
provides that the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the issuer of private activity bonds and
over the area in which any facility financed with the proceeds of private activity bonds is located must
approve the issuance of the bonds;
W HEREAS, the Authority issues its bonds on behalf of Albemarle County, Virginia ("County");
the Project to be located in the County and the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia
("Board") constitutes the highest elected governmental unit of the County;
W HEREAS, the Authority has recommended that the Board approve the issuance of the
Bonds; and
W HEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds, subject
to the terms to be agreed upon, a certificate of the public hearing and a Fiscal Impact Statement have
been filed with the Board.
NOW , THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of
the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc. as required by Section 147(f) of the Code and Section
l5.2-4906 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended ("Virginia Code") to permit the Authority to
assist in the financing of the Project.
2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds does not constitute an endorsement to
a prospective purchaser of the Bonds of the creditworthiness of the Project or Thomas Jefferson
Foundation, Inc.
3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
______________
Item 8.4. Copy of letter dated March 30, 2007, from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning
Administration, to James C. McDaniel, Jr. and Nancy S. McDaniel, re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF
PARCELS AND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS -- Tax Map 135, Parcels 15A, 18, 19, 22 & 22E-Scottsville
District (Property of James C. McDaniel, Jr. & Nancy S. McDaniel) Section 10.3.1, was received as
information.
______________
April 11, 2007 (Adjourned and Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
Item 8.5. Board to Board, Communications report of activities from the Albemarle County School
Board, dated April 4, 2007, was received as information.
______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing: Housing Choice Voucher Annual Plan. (Notice of this public
hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on March 28 and April 3, 2007.)
Mr. Ron W hite, Director of Housing, addressed the Board, stating that this is the former Section 8
Housing Program. An Annual Plan must be submitted to HUD each year. He said that part of the
requirement is a 45-day public notice period, which began by advertising of the plan availability on March
7th; the plan will be submitted on April 20th. Mr. W hite explained that they convened a resident advisory
board, asking 12 program participants to provide feedback and there were no recommendations for
changes. He said that they are asking for approval of the submission from the Board and a signature
from Mr. Tucker for certifications and assurances that go along with the Plan.
Ms. Thomas said that the Board has been criticized for not doing anything for the lowest income
citizens, and asked Mr. W hite to comment on that.
Mr. W hite replied that a lot of what the Housing Office is allowed to do is dictated by HUD, so they
do not have a lot of choice. The County does provide about $200,000 in operating support of this activity.
He added that as of April 1st, they are assisting about 403 families; the majority of them have incomes
below 30 percent of the area median income. Mr. W hite said that the expenditures in April averaged
about $500 in assistance for each family, primarily low income households that are under the 30 percent
median income. He noted that they are at 94 percent of utilization of authorized vouchers – 429 total; and
at 96 percent of budget, so they will not be able to get up to 429.
Mr. Rooker commented that the average income level at Park’s Edge is around $10,000.
Mr. W hite confirmed this, adding that the Housing Office provides direct assistance to 24 of the 96
units, but a number of the others also have the vouchers. He explained that each family has to pay 30
percent of their income towards rent, and the program picks up the rest – it could range from $100 to $900
per family. Mr. W hite said that the rents range from $700+ for a two-bedroom dwelling.
Public comment was invited. None was offered, and the matter was placed before the Board.
Mr. Rooker moved for approval to submit the proposed Annual Plan, and authorized the County
Executive to execute the PHA Certifications of Compliance. Ms. Thomas seconded the motion, which
passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. W yant.
NAYS: None.
______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing: SP-2006-008. SOCA South Fork Expansion (Sign #66).
PROPOSAL: Soccer club/office with outdoor field and training courts, one indoor arena. ZONING
CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA - Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential
density (0.5 unit/acre); FH Flood Hazard Overlay to provide safety and protection from flooding. SECTION:
10.2.2.2 (Clubs, lodges, civic, patriotic, fraternal); 5.1.02 (Clubs, Lodges). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural,
historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/acre). LOCATION: 1717 Polo Grounds Road (Rt. 643), 1.2
miles east of the intersection with US 29 North. TAX MAP/PARCEL: TM 46 Parcels 22 and 22C. Rivanna
District. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on March 26 and April 2,
2007.)
Mr. Cilimberg reported that the property is off of Polo Grounds Road, on the north side of the
South Fork Rivanna River, immediately to the east of the existing soccer fields. He pointed out the area
designated rural area in the Comp Plan between the urban area and the Hollymead development area,
and noted that the field would be for all seasons, and would be lighted in the future. Mr. Cilimberg said
that the building would be in excess of 30,000 square feet and there would be additional offices and
support space, along with the lighted field; the existing complex is to the west.
He reported that the Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial, primarily because
the request does not conform with the land use plan policy – which stipulates that this area in a critical
section of the rural area remain in an open state as a buffer between the urban area and the community of
Hollymead. Mr. Cilimberg also said that the Commission felt the soils on site could not support septic
fields, and the proposed use could only be supported by an extension of public sewer to the site. He
added that they were also concerned that the proposed use includes a very large structure for the rural
areas not in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan intent to maintain this particular area as a buffer, and
future dwellings might be impacted by noise. Mr.Cilimberg said that the Commission cited numerous
public safety impacts and increasing traffic through the one-lane railroad underpass on Polo Grounds
Road would be a problem.
Following that hearing, he said, the applicant submitted a revised request for the Board’s
consideration and included some changes in the plan – such as reduced building heights to minimize
visibility, vegetative screening from the west, and a berm to the east that would be planted to shield the
property from adjacent residents. Mr. Cilimberg said that they have proposed a walking trail connection
on the adjacent SOCA property from Polo Grounds Road to the Rivanna River to tie into the greenway
April 11, 2007 (Adjourned and Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
system of the County. He added that the applicant does not intend to install lighting for four to five years
and not until County ordinances have been revised to exempt light poles from the 35-foot structure height
limit in the RA zoning district. Mr. Cilimberg noted that the applicant has retracted a request for four non-
SOCA events per year and extended operating hours for times a year. He said that reduced operating
hours for the indoor and outdoor fields is also proposed and seasonal limitations on the use of outdoor
lighting are proposed. Mr. Cilimberg said that the vehicle trips, according to the applicant, would be
reduced from 667 trips to 644 trips per day, and there have been concerns regarding the underpass –
VDOT has estimated that only four percent of traffic generated by the use would take that route.
Mr. Cilimberg reported that the revisions do not address some of the Commission’s main
concerns – the appropriateness of the use in a location that the Comp. Plan reserves for open space, the
necessity of extending sewer service for a rural areas use, the large scale of the structure (over 39,000
square feet) in the rural areas, and fairly minimal traffic reduction. He said that staff recommends denial,
but if the Board should desire further guidance on the applicant’s changes they can refer it back to the
Commission.
Mr. W yant said that he understood that the parcel did have septic, and asked for clarification. Mr.
Cilimberg replied that they cannot likely provide for the sewage treatment necessary through just a private
system, and connecting to the public system would mean a jurisdictional area change not currently
authorized.
Mr. Rooker asked about the Comprehensive Plan recommendation for open space. Mr. Cilimberg
responded that this space is designated for a rural area buffer between two development areas, and is
intended to have the rural area zoning allowances; obviously there are uses allowed for the rural area and
the open space allowance was being sensitive to uses such as the existing soccer fields.
Mr. Rooker asked if any other uses required a special use permit. Mr. Cilimberg said that the
soccer fields did, the church previously did, residential uses do not, and agricultural/forestal districts do
not.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there was a construction concern nearby. Mr. Cilimberg replied that there is a
contractor located nearby who does excavating work. Mr. Dorrier said that there were some large trucks
next door when he visited the site.
Mr. Boyd asked if they could put a light up to 35 feet there now. Mr. Cilimberg responded that
they could, and the Commission said they would want a condition to address that.
Mr. Rooker commented that there are no conditions before the Board right now, as the
Commission didn’t generate them as part of their process.
Mr. Davis said that the Board could have either staff or the Commission draft conditions for
recommendation.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that there are conditions from the original staff report presented to the
Commission, but they would not be totally applicable given what the applicant has changed in the
proposal.
Mr. Rooker noted that the hours of operation had been changed, and said that he read this as
meaning they wouldn’t operate during dark. Mr. Davis agreed, saying that after lights were installed they
would play at night.
Mr. Slutzky asked if there were other places in the designated growth areas of the County where
the County might be able to make acreage available to put up a similar structure. Mr. Cilimberg
responded that Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation, might be able to comment on that.
Mr. Mullaney replied that they could talk to Darden Towe Park, and high school shared property
might be a possibility or the property across from Monticello High School.
The Chairman opened the public hearing, and asked the applicant to come forward to make
comments.
Mr. Bill Mueller, Executive Director of SOCA, addressed the Board. He asked project supporters
to stand, and they did so. He explained that he would like for the project to be evaluated on its merits, and
SOCA is committed to having facilities that will enable them to meet needs in the community. Mr. Mueller
noted that SOCA provides programming to the community, and is celebrating its 25th anniversary this year;
over 6,300 families are recent or current participants, and 9,500 registrations are anticipated this year with
4,000 players in each primary season. He emphasized their community service and said their ability to
serve is limited by a lack of playing field resources. Mr. Mueller said that they are currently turning players
away from the program, and County government identified athletic fields as a serious need in the
recreational needs assessment study done in 2003.
Mr. Mueller said that the vision of this project is to help meet that identified need, and they want to
get the project right for all concerned. He explained that they are asking for two playing fields – one full-
sized outdoor lit field and one small covered field. Mr. Mueller said that as interest in soccer grows along
with population, the need for athletic facilities will only grow, and the use will be exactly as the South Fork
Soccer Park fields are – the outdoor and indoor fields used for practice and playing local recreational
soccer games. He stated that the games would be attended by players, coaches, referees, and family
April 11, 2007 (Adjourned and Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
members – no huge crowds or spectator events – with no stadium and no amplified sound or PA system,
scoreboard, or ticketed events.
Mr. Mueller said that this proposal is dramatically different from the one reviewed by the Planning
Commission, and SOCA has agreed to align hours of use with staff recommendations, they have also
eliminated all requests for extended hours or uses other than SOCA or other non-profit athletic users. He
stated that they have lowered the height of the building, added berms and additional landscaping to soften
any views, and have agreed to turn off lights for seven months of the year and would never be on past
9:30 p.m. Mr. Mueller stated that they have added walking trail access for neighborhood use, providing
access to the river, as well as neighborhood access to the outdoor training courts.
He noted that the concern seems to revolve around the building and lights, but the use will not
involve large-attendance events; they are asking for permission to light the outdoor field in the future using
the best available full-cutoff dark sky lighting, with 20 foot-candles, the lowest recommended safe level of
lighting for athletics. He said that Scott Stadium is lit at 150-foot candles, and St. Anne’s has 30-50 foot-
candles. Mr. Mueller emphasized that SOCA is committed to providing a model of best practices sports
lighting for the community. He said that the core issue for the Board is whether they can approve the SP
request for athletic fields in the rural area, adding that they are allowable with the SP – such as Cove
Creek and Simpson baseball parks. “W hat we are proposing is a club use of recreational facilities.”
Mr. Mueller said that the proposed site is the best site for this project, as the proposed property is
used by the current owner as a construction debris dumping ground, and the current special use permit is
for a church with parking and a sewer. The site in question is neither natural, rural, pastoral, nor protected
from a more intensive development than this proposal. He said that it would use the fill area for the
outdoor field, the pit for the indoor field, and will preserve the existing house and mature trees and shield
all parking from view from the road. Mr. Mueller said that the 2003 recreational needs assessment study
has identified a critical shortage of sports facilities, especially indoors, and said that the greatest challenge
to overcome this is funding; the report specifically identifies a strategy of targeted partnerships with
service providers such as SOCA. He said that SOCA is offering to provide the fields and the service at no
cost to taxpayers, and in order to do that they must find land in the rural area. Mr. Mueller said that there
is hardly a rural location in the County with less impact and greater ease of access for its users, and the
adjacency to their existing site is of critical importance.
He explained that the indoor fields would be used when the outdoor fields are not – such as during
the winter – so the uses would not be on top of each other. Mr. Mueller said that normal traffic would be
dramatically less than peak use, and peak use would mean one car every 90 seconds along Polo Grounds
Road – recently improved. He stated that only four percent would travel under the underpass, and SOCA
does not provide directions to the park using that route.
Mr. Dorrier asked about the truck business located next to the field. Mr. Mueller replied that it is
W .A. W ells Excavating.
Mr. Boyd reviewed the policy for speakers, noting that over 40 had signed up to speak.
Mr. Tom Twomey addressed the Board, stating that he lives a few properties away from the field.
He encouraged them to reject the request for the reasons the Planning Commission stipulated, noting
“discouraged uses contrary to the County’s growth management policies including, but not limited to, swim
and tennis clubs.” Mr. Twomey said that the arena is huge and clearly contrary to those policies, and also
said that SOCA has extensive use of school and park fields. He stated that it is a good and equitable
arrangement. He stated that if SOCA were to finance $2 million for 30 years at six percent, their cost
would be $12,000 per month; if they have 6,000 families participating that would be only $2 per month per
family. Mr. Toomey said that approval by the Board would set a precedent that would bring into question
the validity of the Comprehensive Plan altogether.
Mr. Steven Levine addressed the Board, stating that he appeared before the Planning
Commission as well on this item, but he still does not support this plan, as it is ostensibly the same as the
earlier one. He emphasized that it is a large complex that will result in increased traffic, disturbance of
residents with light and noise, and further compromise of the rural area. It does not belong in an RA
district. Mr. Levine said that the long-term consequences in the County would be significant, as the best
way to preserve the quality of life is to uphold the Comprehensive Plan, and special use permits will render
the ordinance useless. He emphasized that the population pressure in the County is already immense,
and the quiet neighborhoods are unlikely to remain as such in the long run unless the zoning ordinances
are upheld. Mr. Levine asked Board members to consider whether they would like this facility in their own
backyards.
Mr. Jim Masloff addressed the Board, stating that he appreciates SOCA and what they do and
that he has a young family. Mr. Masloff said that he is a former Division I scholarship athlete and he loves
sports, and added that he is the head of a non-profit that serves disabled people. He encouraged the
Board to uphold the Planning Commission’s decision as the location is simply inappropriate. Mr. Masloff
added that this is a tremendous increase in the footprint for the facility, and the request flies in the face of
all the guidelines in the County by which all citizens are requested to operate. He emphasized that SOCA
simply needs to find a better location.
Mr. F.A. and Ms. Lynn Iachetta addressed the Board, stating that there shouldn’t be any light
towers in this location, and noted that the condition on this road 17 years ago was far different than it is
today. He emphasized that running sewer out to the property will encourage further development in the
April 11, 2007 (Adjourned and Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
area. Mr. Iachetta said that Mr. W ells has had that business for 49 years, and built it up to what it is now –
including putting up two houses. He believes this is a different situation than the proposed SOCA facility.
Ms. Jimmie Lou Reid addressed the Board, stating that she has owned property here since 1952
and Mr. W ells business was grandfathered in. Ms. Reid said that the County is developing 600 acres for a
park that will lie in Albemarle and Orange, and surely there would be enough room for soccer fields there.
Mr. Nat Howe addressed the Board, stating that he is opposed to this project in its present
location. Mr. Howe said that he is not opposed to soccer or sports, and expressed concern about the
tenuousness of the entrances in and out of the County. He stated that the SOCA project is the wrong
project in an inappropriate place – a rural area. Mr. Howe also said that these conditions might not endure
that long, and that is not a great concession. He mentioned that he was part of the first discussion over
SOCA’s fields, when they said they only needed five, and suggested that they might have support from
outside the County represented here today. Mr. Howe emphasized that this is a small, diverse, and well-
established community that provides little impact to the community.
Mr. Phil Beard addressed the Board, stating that he lives nearby in a residential neighborhood that
will undoubtedly be negatively impacted by the added traffic congestion and noise from additional activity
at the current SOCA location. He encouraged the Board to uphold the Planning Commission’s decision
and deny the special use permit.
Mr. Arthur W atson of Proffit Road addressed the Board, stating that he is a former soccer coach
and supporter of the Polo Grounds development. Mr. W atson said that he is against this proposal
because it is really a commercial building and this is a rural area. He cited safety concerns about the
roads leading to this site, and he does not understand why that discussion hasn’t arisen yet.
Ms. Anne Mallek addressed the Board, stating that this application will affect all rural areas in the
County because this is a land use decision, not a popularity contest. She said that while she admires
SOCA, that is not the issue tonight. Ms. Mallek said that these structures are not incidental to agricultural
and forestal uses nor can they revert to those uses if the current plans go away. She noted that this could
easily evolve into a commercial use with future changes, and also expressed concern about the lights on
the site.
Ms. Ann Eddins addressed the Board, stating that she and her husband Jim have lived on Polo
Grounds Road for 16 years. She said that this is already a joint venture with ACAC, a commercial partner,
and the ideal location would include adequate roads and parking and would be within walking distance for
families with children. Ms. Eddins said that the only teams that played year round when she lived in
Northern Virginia were traveling teams, and they used school fields if necessary, or outdoor fields. She
emphasized that the winters are getting warmer, and there’s no reason to put an indoor field where it does
not belong.
Mr. Daniel Bluestone addressed the Board, stating that it’s very important that the Board support
the Planning Commission, especially given the unanimous decision from them. He suggested that SOCA
have decentralized facilities put in different parts of the County rather than concentrated in one site.
Mr. Martin Rosen addressed the Board, urging them to vote against the proposal for the SOCA
facility on Polo Grounds Road. He said that Albemarle is a very special place to live, in part because of
local government’s commitment to upholding the ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Abby Davidson addressed the Board, stating that she plays on one team for SOCA, and
presented a letter that she wrote in favor of the new facility.
Mr. David Madigan addressed the Board, stating that he lives in Forest Lakes North and has three
children are very active in SOCA. He commented that this facility enhances the property in the community
and provides an amenity for families. Mr. Madigan said that this athletic facility won’t bring down the value
of the surrounding properties and would likely enhance them.
Mr. Jay Everett addressed the Board, stating that his team has been state cup finalists for the last
two years and is now playing top quality opponents. He said that an indoor facility would be very helpful
for practice and training.
Mr. David Deane addressed the Board. He said he was born in Charlottesville in 1960, and there
were four teams playing youth sports in the fall – football – there was no soccer. Mr. Deane said that
there are many, many sports and teams going on right now, and there’s nowhere to play or practice. He
stated that if the SOCA facility is built, it frees up space for other sports, and encouraged the Board to
approve it.
Mr. Andrew Halley addressed the Board, stating that he is one of 600 adults who also play in the
league. He said that he supports the SOCA special use permit, stating that 96 percent of the traffic would
be traveling along Route 29 and Polo Grounds Road.
Mr. Mike Ginsburg, a SOCA coach, addressed the Board in favor of the new facility, stating that
he has used every conceivable green location to run practices. He said that many practices could be
moved indoors and SOCA needs this expansion to adequately address growth. Mr. Ginsburg said that
SOCA has had to turn kids away because of lack of indoor space.
April 11, 2007 (Adjourned and Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
Mr. Geral Long addressed the Board, stating that he moved here from Northern Virginia because
of the growth there. He said that he enjoys the rural nature of Benivar, and he shares fellow neighbors
concerns about the facility’s placement, primarily the traffic it would generate. Mr. Long said that when he
bought his property in 1999, the road was insufficient and the only thing that has been added since then is
a guardrail.
Ms. Carol W enger of Carrsbrook addressed the Board, noting that her development is across the
river from the park. She said that from her backyard she can see the park, and Carrsbrook residents are
aware of this plan. Ms. W enger said that she is not concerned about the noise because the impact of
outdoor noise would be minimal, and the lights would not be on past 9:30 p.m. at night, only a few months
of the year, and the bulbs themselves would be covered. She stated that she supports the project and
feels the impact would be minimal on surrounding neighborhoods.
Mr. Patrick Grant of Still Meadows addressed the Board, stating that when he bought his house it
was before the South Fork development went in, and it is very rare that they hear a lot of noise from the
park. Mr. Grant said that his property could be affected by noise, lights, and property values, but he is
excited about having facilities close by to where they live. He stated that the County has inadequate
facilities for sporting events, and this could help curb health problems such as childhood obesity.
Mr. Brian Cook addressed the Board, stating that he is a former professional soccer player. He
said that he moved here three years ago and was excited to hear about SOCA in the community. But, he,
also, said that he was appalled at the lack of facilities available for youth playing the sport. Mr. Cook
stated that this facility is only one mile off of Route 29 and thus wouldn’t impact traffic significantly.
Mr. Reed Tolber addressed the Board, stating that he is impressed with arguments made on both
sides. Mr. Tolber said that SOCA’s application is supported by what they have done in that area since
2002, and they have not created unusual amounts of noise.
Mr. Clark Coleman addressed the Board, stating that he lives at Forest Lakes North. He said that
people must overcome misconceptions and fears, such as the perceived threat of additional traffic to this
site. Mr. Coleman said that indoor and outdoor facilities are not used at the same time for more than a
few days each year. He stated that people have reacted to the word expansion, and know that when
SOCA lets out from its park right now there is significant traffic backup on Polo Grounds Road. Mr.
Coleman said that he would be happy to have it in his backyard, and many of the statements that have
been made are hypothetical and based in fear.
Mr. Bob Hattie addressed the Board, stating that there is a significant lack of facilities such as this
in the County. He emphasized the importance of resurfacing the fields such as those at Darden Towe
Park.
Mr. Tim Hegemier addressed the Board, stating that he and his wife grew up in Albemarle County.
He said that he played soccer here and his children have the opportunity to do so as well. Mr. Hegemier
said that they live in Montgomery Ridge, which is adjacent to the South Fork Park, and many of the
residents there are families with children.
Mr. Jon Stokes addressed the Board, stating that it will be a struggle each budget season to
maintain and provide county services and facilities, especially desperately needed recreational facilities.
He said that the County will need to form partnerships to make this happen, and SOCA is offering this
opportunity.
Ms. Jeanne Densmore addressed the Board, stating that she has been a practicing physician in
the area for 11 years, and for health reasons sports need to be emphasized to youth in the community.
She said that kids need a safe place to play now as well, and organized programs accomplish that.
Mr. Zane Hill, the SOCA outreach coordinator, addressed the Board. He said that SOCA has
raised money privately to support scholarships for the soccer program, and referenced refugees here who
play in the league. Mr. Hill introduced one of the scholarship recipients.
Ms. Juliette Halamana addressed the Board, stating that she and her four siblings all play soccer
in the SOCA league and she would like to play indoors during the cold months.
Ms. Caitlin Natale addressed the Board, stating that she recently turned 18 and looks forward to
voting. She also said that she is president of the SCA at Albemarle High School, and soccer has kept her
healthy and away from bad influences. Ms. Natalie encouraged the Board to approve the project.
Mr. Nathan Fountain addressed the Board, stating that his family has lived here for 18 years. Mr.
Fountain said that the County is in desperate need of community-based family-oriented parks.
Mr. Lecky Stone addressed the Board, stating that he now coaches soccer and he has been on
every field in the county. Mr. Stone said that this permit is just for a covered soccer field, not a
commercial building. All SOCA wants is a soccer field that is covered. He acknowledged that there may
be other locations for fields, but this location makes sense for this park. That is SOCA’s choice as to
where it wants this built.
Ms. Mary Jean Craddock addressed the Board, stating that she is a member of the Board of
Directors of Still Meadows subdivision, located across the Rivanna River from the South Fork soccer field
on Polo Grounds Road. She said that Still Meadows supports the position of the Planning Commission
April 11, 2007 (Adjourned and Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
and Piedmont Environmental Council to reject the proposal for lights to be added to an all-weather soccer
field, as well as denial of the special use permit for the indoor arena. Ms. Craddock said that they are
deeply concerned about the impact of this facility on the community, as a key attraction in the
neighborhood in the meadow between the South Fork of the river and the subdivision. She stated the
proposed site is visible from their homes, and would have a severe impact on the area, adding that they
are concerned about noise and light pollution.
Mr. George Gelnovatch, U.Va.’s head men’s soccer coach, addressed the Board, and said that he
is a volunteer coach for SOCA. Mr. Gelnovatch said that sports provide opportunities for leadership,
ability to communicate, confidence, and teamwork. He stated that over the past 15 years there has been
“a real change” and many kids spend a lot of time with computers, X-boxes, TV, etc. Mr. Gelnovatch said
that kids involved in these clubs like SOCA develop better skills and abilities, adding that SOCA’s
resources would be stretched to have to place a new facility in a different location.
Mr. Steve Swanson, U.Va.’s women’s soccer coach, addressed the Board. Mr. Swanson said that
he’s lived here since 2000, was attracted to the community, and said that he was amazed by the number
of participants in soccer here. He encouraged the Board to consider that lights would be modern and of
minimal impact, and traffic might not be as significant as feared.
Mr. Tom Eckman addressed the Board, stating that he mentors refugee children who participate
in SOCA. He said that they should build an indoor facility, but not in this location. Mr. Eckman said that
the Iachettas have lived there 50 years and it is zoned rural area. That isn’t fair. He emphasized that
there is other land where this facillity could be built, and many participants don’t live anywhere near this
facility. The field should be built where people can walk to it. Nobody can walk to these facilities where
they’re being built, so the location just isn’t right. Mr. Eckman said that many people will come the back
way, and even if four percent come down the hill it’s still dangerous. Two fields aren’t going to make that
big of a difference.
Mr. Fred Gerke addressed the Board on behalf of the Proffit Community Association, stating that
SOCA is a wonderful program and an asset to the region. He emphasized that emotions and politics must
be set aside and the proposal must be reviewed on its merits, noting that the impact would be the
equivalent of a medium sized retail center. Mr. Gerke said that the rural area is being developed little by
little, and this project is inappropriate for this site. He noted that the situation on Polo Grounds is already
bad, especially in the evening, and the four percent figure is on the low side. Mr. Gerke emphasized that
this is not a park – it is a private, gated development.
Mr. John Robinson addressed the Board, stating that he is a strong believer in individual property
rights in the community, and the impact this will have is not just on the people who live in the immediate
area. Mr. Robinson emphasized the need for sports activities, noting that children become more
physically fit and engaged when involved. He said that he understands the frustrations of Polo Grounds
Road residents, but each of them agrees that SOCA is needed. Mr. Robinson said that no matter where a
facility is built, it will impact some residents.
Ms. Stephanie Polackwich addressed the Board, stating that she opposes the SOCA plan as she
can hear the soccer games loud and clear from her home in Still Meadows. Ms. Polackwich said that the
special use permit would mean she would hear this noise around the clock, and the lighting poles would
be higher than the current 35-feet, as SOCA can apply for a waiver under the County’s Dark Skies
ordinance. Ms. Polackwich said that the Board has been entrusted to protect the rural areas, and granting
a special use permit for a large arena and five outdoor fields in this location will change that neighborhood
forever.
Ms. Noelle Klein addressed the Board, stating that she attended a meeting in February where
SOCA presented information about the project. Ms. Klein said that SOCA made changes to the proposal
– lights out at 9:30 p.m., seven months of the year with no lights, all indoor activities ending by 10:00 p.m.,
no commercial activity onsite, decreasing height of the building on the side facing the road, including
additional barrier plantings on the boundary project site. She stated that the project already intended
preservation and refurbishing of the house on the site, planting of native species on land that has already
been radically cleared, dark-skies lighting, and synthetic turf that requires no chemicals or mowing. Ms.
Klein said that she lives near Fairview Swim Club and her property values have doubled over the last nine
years, and the SOCA facility could have the same positive impact.
Ms. Heidi W hite addressed the Board, stating that she is representing Bentavar, and many in the
neighborhood support the special use permit for this facility. She said that property values will only
increase with addition of such a well-maintained, youth-oriented recreational facility. Ms. W hite presented
a petition of over 260 names that support the special use permit.
Mr. Ralph Sachs of Northfields subdivision addressed the Board, stating that he believes the
Board should support the addition of two soccer fields – one that happens to be covered. Mr. Sachs said
that having families pay for a site in another location is unrealistic, as the facility to be built is going to be
$4.5 million.
Ms. LaDelle Holland addressed the Board, stating that three of her four children have played
soccer through SOCA, and this club is an extended family. She noted that SOCA wants to take an active
role with Parks & Recreation to put in a walking trail along the river, which would be a benefit to everyone.
She feels this is a great example of private money for public good, and I ask you to support it.
April 11, 2007 (Adjourned and Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
Mr. Jeff W erner of Piedmont Environmental Council addressed the Board, stating that PEC has
worked very hard for 30 years to keep the rural area rural. Mr. W erner said that he has been coaching
lacrosse for over 20 years and he understands the issues of field access and the involvement of youth in
sports, stating that his nine-year-old son plays soccer through SOCA. The matter before the Board tonight
has nothing to do with the benefit of sports, but is simply a land-use issue and the Comprehensive Plan’s
inherent regulations. Mr. W erner said that the revisions don’t address the appropriateness of the use in a
location that the Comprehensive Plan says should be reserved for open space uses; the necessity of
extended sewer service for a rural use that would be counter to Comprehensive Plan policy; and
construction of a 39,000+ square foot structure in the rural area. He said that he is concerned that the
rules would be changed for other similar facilities in the rural area.
Mr. Bill Balke addressed the Board, stating that new lighting technology would greatly minimize
the impact of the field lights. He said that this isn’t a land use issue, this is a society issue. Mr. Balke said
that this is the right thing for this community, and is transformative.
Ms. Sally Smithwick addressed the Board, stating that she and her husband bought their property
a few years ago. She said that she fully supports opportunities for children to play in sports fields, but she
counted on the zoning to protect rural property rights. Ms. Smithwick said that the new facility would be a
violation of zoning, and the money it would take to build it could buy about 100 acres in the rural area
outside of town.
Ms. Donna DeYoung addressed the Board, stating that she moved here from Bucks County, PA
which also changed from a rural area to a more urban one. Ms. DeYoung said that SOCA is the best
youth sports organization that she’s been involved in, and Charlottesville is becoming known for it. SOCA
is trying to help children. She asked the Board to consider the children of the community when making
their decision.
Ms. Mary Jo Natale addressed the Board, stating that her backyard adjoins this facility, and she
cannot imagine why they wouldn’t support this proposal. She said that this is a gift towards providing
adequate recreational facilities in the county, noting that Albemarle is far behind other localities in what it
provides in this regard.
Mr. Bo Campbell addressed the Board, stating that he has grandchildren involved in SOCA. He
said that his house is probably the closest one to the soccer field and there is definitely noise when the
game is going on. Mr. Campbell commented that he will be able to see the lighted field from his home,
and his primary concern is that the expansion might eventually have SOCA coming back and asking for
additional hours, lighting times, etc. He stated that he encourages the Board to uphold the Commission’s
decision, and if not they should ban the lights.
Mr. Matt W ilson addressed the Board, stating that 295 people signed a petition outside the
meeting in support of this project. Mr. W ilson said that in 1990, Covenant Church received approval of a
special use permit for an 800-person sanctuary, parking lot, and sewer connection. He stated that the
SOCA site would keep noise and lights in, and the elements out. Mr. W ilson described the merits of
SOCA as an organization, noting that the new facility would be the same quality as other SOCA projects.
Ms. Lisa Mirvelli of Still Meadows addressed the Board, stating that there needs to be a two-third
majority vote in order for an item to be considered representative of the neighborhood. She said that the
neighborhood does not take the position that Ms. Craddock portrayed, and what SOCA is asking for is not
going to create any more noise.
Ms. Andrea Larson addressed the Board, stating that she has two children that have been
involved with SOCA. She reiterated the merits of the organization and its willingness to partner to try to
advance the soccer programs for young people in the community. Ms. Larson said that there will always
be people who oppose, but the Board’s challenge is to try to look at the common good provided here.
This is about a gift. SOCA is bringing a gift to our community, a huge financial gift. There will be no
additional taxes imposed on anyone for this facility. She added that this is about what kind of quality of life
will be provided for children and the community as it goes forward.
Mr. Dave W ilson addressed the Board, stating that he is a city resident and a former SOCA Board
member. He said that the County put restrictions on SOCA when they built the first field, but SOCA has
lived up to every one of them.
Ms. Christine Grimshaw addressed the Board, stating that SOCA has helped boost her
confidence, character, and personality, and has helped her make friends. Several of her friends and
fellow players spoke in support of the new fields.
An individual whose name was inaudible addressed the Board, stating that she does speak out
against more shopping centers, but does support this project as a soccer player and parent of two soccer
players. She stated that SOCA has helped her daughter in a positive, motivating way, and stated that she
plays in the adult league.
Mr. Joe Lombardo, a SOCA coach, addressed the Board and expressed support for this project.
He said that he didn’t hear any valid reasoning as to why it cannot go forward, especially in light of the
concessions the organization has made after the Planning Commission hearing.
The applicant summarized his previous position. Mr. Mueller emphasized that this project does
not really provide a precedent – it is a unique use as recreational athletics, it is a unique organization, and
April 11, 2007 (Adjourned and Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
it is a unique site. He said that the site is not easily reversible to agricultural or forestal use, and they hope
to turn it into a gem. Mr. Mueller said that SOCA would gladly comply with any restrictions, and this is not
a commercial operation. He noted that ACAC has been a good sponsor, but they are not in a joint venture
with SOCA. Mr. Mueller said the maximum numbers are not normal, but are peaks that will occur on
random days each year. He stated that the organization is not rich, and pumps its money right back into
the community, and said that their total payroll is $340,000 for 10 employees. Regarding traffic, Mr.
Mueller said that total volume is spread out over the course of the day and there are not massive surges
of peak traffic. He concluded by saying that he hopes the Board envisions a future with this facility in the
community.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter was placed
before the Board.
Mr. Boyd said that this is located in his district and this is a very difficult decision. He stated that
everyone realizes the contribution SOCA makes to the community, and there is an obvious need for more
sports facilities here. Mr. Boyd also said that he is sympathetic to neighbors who have expressed concern
about noise and light pollution. He commented that all members of this Board are committed to
preserving rural areas, but perhaps their ideas as to how to accomplish that are different. Mr. Boyd stated
that he is not going to support this proposal tonight, but he will do everything in his power to try to help
SOCA find another site in this community.
Mr. Slutzky commented that this is a very difficult decision for him also, and he heard a very
compelling argument that SOCA provides an extraordinary service; but what he did not hear was a
compelling argument as to why the Board should step over their commitment to preserving the rural areas
and grant the special use permit. He said that the County has an obligation to be proactive in providing
space for an indoor facility and a good number of additional athletic fields. Mr. Slutzky explained that he is
going to vote against this and uphold the Comprehensive Plan, but vowed to step up and work with staff to
help find an alternative location that is inside the designated growth area.
Mr. Rooker stated that both Mr. Boyd and Mr. Slutzky have framed the issues well, and the
speakers tonight have been exceptionally well-spoken. He said that there are arguments both ways, but
the overriding issue is that this is a 39,000 square foot building in the rural areas, and he has never
approved a use of that scale in the rural area. He lives across from Albemarle High School and has never
felt that the sounds from the fields detract from his property. He emphasized that everyone thinks that
SOCA is a fabulous organization that contributes to the community, but the key issue is whether everyone
plays by the rules. Mr. Rooker explained that the Board has tried to protect the rural area but not allowing
uses of this size and scale in it, and it would be a mistake to do that here. He agreed that the County
needs to work with SOCA to find an appropriate location for the facility, and he met with a group several
years ago who had already identified other locations.
Mr. W yant said that he has spent a lifetime involved with athletics as a player and a referee, and it
is difficult to schedule around field usage. He also stated that he supports protection of the rural areas,
and there is another proposed facility in the works for other indoor sports fields that would be located not
far from this site. Mr. W yant said that he is concerned about lights, but that can be addressed through
technology. He stated that he could not support this for protection of the rural area.
Mr. Dorrier commented that this is already in existence in the rural area, as games go on every
day there and have been since 2002. He said that he has problems with saying now that SOCA cannot
put two fields in. Mr. Dorrier stated that SOCA has worked very hard to deal with the problems that impact
the neighborhood, and he feels the Board should send it back to the Commission.
Ms. Thomas stated that she sees disappointment in the audience, and she does not think the
community could have spoken any better about the issues. She said that the reason the Board has been
talking about the rural area is that the site is a buffer area between two sections of the community that
have been designated as development areas, and the buffer area is a rather precious piece of the rural
area. Ms. Thomas stated that whatever the Board does in the rural area becomes a precedent, and the
courts look at that closely when they make a decision regarding other sites in the rural area. She said that
the lighting issue was adequately addressed, and she does not feel this is a “NIMBY” issue at all.
Mr. Rooker said that it’s the 39,000 square foot building that would be out of character with the
area, not the addition of extra fields. He said that when he was on the Planning Commission, SOCA had
said a few years ago that they wouldn’t need to expand their use, and this is a testament to how they have
grown.
Mr. Rooker moved for denial of SP-2006-0008. Mr. Slutzky seconded the motion, which passed
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. W yant.
NAYS: Mr. Dorrier.
Mr. Boyd reiterated the Board’s commitment to helping SOCA find another location for the facility.
Mr. Slutzky asked staff to work with SOCA and Mr. Mueller to find an alternate site.
Ms. Thomas commented that there is land across the street.
April 11, 2007 (Adjourned and Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
Mr. Rooker noted that PVCC might be amenable to collocation on their grounds with the YMCA
site.
______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Request to set public hearing to amend the Jurisdictional Area Boundary to
provide sewer service to Tax Map 46, Parcel 22 and 22C located adjacent to the SOCA sports facility on
Polo Grounds Road.
Mr. Rooker moved not to go to public hearing for the jurisdictional boundary adjustment
associated with SP-2006-0008. Mr. Slutzky seconded the motion, which passed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. W yant.
NAYS: None.
______________
(Note: The Board took a brief recess, and then reconvened.)
Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing: ZMA-2006-005, Avinity (Sign #75). PROPOSAL: Rezone
approximately 9.5 acres from R-1 Residential (1 unit/acre) to PRD Planned Residential Development (3-
34 units per acre with limited commercial use) for a maximum of 124 units at a density of 13.26 units/acre,
with proffers. PROFFERS: Yes. EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban
Density Residential (6.01-34 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools,
commercial, office and service uses in Neighborhood 4. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: Avon
Street Extended (Route 742) approx. 1/2 mile south of intersection with Mill Creek Drive. TAX
MAP/PARCEL: TMP 91-14, 90-35J, 90-35K, 90-35I. Scottsville District. (Notice of this public hearing was
advertised in the Daily Progress on March 26 and April 2, 2007.)
Mr. Cilimberg reported that this request would allow a rezoning to 124 units from an existing
potential of 13 dwelling units, and would involve using density bonuses. He said that the proposal went to
the Planning Commission on March 20th for public hearing, and staff recommended approval as did the
Commission. Mr. Cilimberg said that the site is south of Cale Elementary School, noting some pictures
which show the boundaries. He noted that the development would have private streets, 15 percent
affordable housing, and $3,200 per unit for CIP projects. Mr. Cilimberg said that staff recommended
approval with some changes to proffer language, and there were also some waivers involved that the
Commission acted on.
Since the recommendation for approval, he reported, the applicant has addressed the issues
raised by the Planning Commission - $16,500 per unit in lieu of affordable housing units; proffers
corrected; screen provided in the back of the site to help mitigate visual impact; and other notes clarifying
the plan. Mr. Cilimberg said that the affordable housing aspect was the most significant, and there
continues to be some question as to how the impacts are being addressed through cash proffers. He
stated that the housing director has said in general that providing affordable units is the goal of the policy,
and cash is the exception; the Commission agrees and is looking for some assurance that if the units are
not being occupied cash could be provided. Mr. Cilimberg said that Mr. W hite has indicated that this
proposal would set a precedent if cash is accepted outright.
Mr. Cilimberg said that there are two options: Option A is the fairly typical one and has been
reviewed and accepted by staff; Option B would try to address the Planning Commission’s
recommendation. He stated that staff recommends approval provided the Board can accept the Option A
proffer.
Mr. Ron W hite, Director of Housing, explained that he is recommending the standard language
that has been recommended in other proffers where once the affordable units are built there’s a period of
time when qualified purchasers are sought; if they are not found in that timeframe those units would still
count as affordable. He said that the Commission had concerns with that because they were afraid of
losing affordable units and not having access to cash. Mr. W hite said that their suggestion was getting
cash from the developer if there was not a qualified buyer 60 days after the 90-day notice period, but it’s
hard to imagine that any developer would build the housing because the housing would already be being
built during that 90-day period.
Mr. W hite added that the second suggestion was doing something at the site plan stage, but he
cannot really support that because it puts his office in the position of forecasting out months or years until
those units hit the ground. He said that if there is a glut of affordable housing, then the policy should be
revisited, not having something in place that is difficult.
Mr. Rooker asked why it would be detrimental for them to have the option for a cash contribution
in lieu of housing. Mr. W hite responded it wouldn’t be detrimental to the policy, but it puts him in a position
of being second-guessed because there’s not the ability to forecast.
Mr. Rooker commented that if there is no one ready to go into a unit, then that unit is lost and so is
a contribution to the fund.
Mr. W hite said that the intent of the policy is to create affordable housing stock.
Mr. Boyd asked why this was coming up now, as it is not a new issue.
April 11, 2007 (Adjourned and Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
Mr. W hite replied that perhaps there is a perception by the Commission that there may be a
problem down the road in that the units will be built without occupants for them.
Mr. Rooker stated that he respectfully disagrees with Mr. W hite’s position, because it was
established before that contributions were needed for down payment assistance, as well as affordable
housing units. He does not see how the Board is hurt by having an option to accept cash.
Mr. Dorrier said that the area around Cale Elementary is a likely growth area, and anything that
can be done for affordable housing in the area is going to be helpful.
Mr. W hite reiterated that the idea is to build a supply of affordable housing stock.
Mr. Rooker agreed, but asked what happens if there is no buyer for a house.
Ms. Thomas asked under which circumstances there wouldn’t be buyers for affordable houses.
Mr. W hite said that the concern is more for affordable financing than someone who wants an
affordable house, and the market cannot be controlled as far as interest rates go.
Ms. Thomas asked what would happen if an affordable housing client does not take a house, but
a workforce housing person does, will that break the proffer?
Mr. W hite stated that he’s presenting something to the Housing Committee tomorrow, and they
would like a joint meeting with the Board. He said that his impression from members is that the priority is
getting the affordable unit built, and not worry too much about who buys it.
Mr. Slutzky said that prior to the Committee coming back with a recommendation, the Board is
facing proposals that contain proffers that have to be addressed now. He is not sure that it is fair to the
applicant to punish them for the fact that the Board has not given an answer that it is satisfied with to the
Boards own question of how to ensure affordable housing units. Mr. Slutzky asked if the down payment
assistance could be a good near-term solution until the housing policy is being ironed out for the long-
term. He would be comfortable moving forward with that proffer in this instance for that reason and not try
to tell the marketplace that that is the Boards policy going forward until we have a better policy.
Mr. Rooker agreed, saying that it would be unwise to lose the down payment assistance money if
a buyer for a unit is not found.
Ms. Thomas commented that it might not be possible to find a buyer that is in the 80% of median
income level.
Mr. Davis said that the proffer states there is no price control if an affordable buyer is not
provided, and the notice works by having the developer notify the Housing Office within 120 days of when
the unit will be finished, and the County has to provide a buyer within 90 days; with 30 days left they could
choose to upgrade the unit to increase the value and/or marketability.
At this time the Chairman opened the public hearing, and asked the applicant to come forward.
The applicant, Mr. Mark Keller, of Terra Concepts, addressed the Board. Mr. Keller said that the
developers don’t want the affordable aspect of this project to go away, and if there is not a family available
that meets all the criteria to qualify for a unit that indicates there is not a long line waiting for that kind of
non-market unit at this time. He stated that having the $16,500 could be made available for people who
aren’t as needy, but might need the down payment assistance. Maybe the credit is there, but maybe the
nest-egg is not. Mr. Keller said that it is wise to have a policy with a “fallback position.”
Ms. Thomas asked him about the lack of playground and other amenities.
Mr. Keller responded that the Cale Elementary School has a lot of large playfields nearby, and he
felt that the best approach would be to provide a pedestrian access to the property. He said that they are
proposing two quadrangles of buildings that include a clubhouse with a basement/fitness center and a
swimming pool behind that. Mr. Keller said that there are walking trails around the whole inside, and in the
back there is a large lawn panel for more free play. He noted that once you are inside the building
envelopes, it is a pure pedestrian environment.
There being no other comments, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Rooker commented that he’s not going to support this, because he feels the contribution to
infrastructure is inadequate. He noted that Biscuit Run is coming before the Board in the next few months
and the discussion there has been for proffers that are higher than this project is offering per unit. Mr.
Rooker asked if a precedent would be set by approving a development with proffers that are less per unit
without a lot of the amenities that the County is going to try to get from Biscuit Run. He needs to see
contributions of about $10,000 per unit towards infrastructure, and he’s not comfortable accepting such a
low amount from a development that is increasing the density by ten times. Mr. Rooker commented that
the development itself is well done.
Mr. Dorrier commented that the Planning Commission and staff have both recommended
approval, and the Board cannot take Biscuit Run into account in reviewing this development.
April 11, 2007 (Adjourned and Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
Mr. Rooker clarified that the proffer made related to affordable housing is fine, but his concern is
related to the proffers towards infrastructure in the County, and he has not been in favor of supporting
developments with such a low amount.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out the page that includes average proffer amounts from rezoning over the
last three years.
Mr. Rooker said that Hayden Place had provided proffers to address transportation impacts, in a
combination of cash and external improvements.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Dorrier to approve ZMA-2006-005, as proffered, with Option B.
Mr. Davis clarified that that option provides that the County at or before the site plan approval can
opt for cash rather than the affordable unit.
Ms. Thomas said that she was convinced by staff that Option A was better.
Mr. Rooker stated that he would support it except for the level of the cash proffer.
Mr. Slutzky commented that he would like to hear more from Board members about the proffer
amounts.
Ms. Thomas said that she has been all over the map with her votes lately, and people are wanting
more out of the cost of development, and certainly impact fees could reduce the pressure from the real
estate tax. She agreed that she would like for the development to pay for itself in terms of impacts, and
she would like to see higher proffers on this one.
Mr. W yant asked about Hayden Place’s amount of over $9,000 per unit.
Mr. Davis replied that that development factored in the cost of the offsite road improvements into
the total cash value then divided by the total number of units.
Mr. Rooker noted that the Board gave credit for improvements that were outside what was
immediately adjacent to the property – offsite improvements that weren’t associated directly with the
project itself.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that it included offsite improvements from Hayden Lane going north and
south.
Ms. Valerie Long then addressed the Board, noting that in this case there is already a road that is
adequate to serve the development, unlike Hayden Place. She said that in addition, they received credit in
the amount of $16,500 for each of the affordable units proffered. Ms. Long said that the Avinty project is
proffering $3,200 for all units – townhouses and condominiums – and is thus proffering more on a per-unit
basis; there are no single-family detached units. She added that Avinty has already built a community
waterline from Avon Street to the back-side of the property, about 1,300 feet long at a cost of $50,000.
Mr. Keller confirmed that part of the waterline would serve the community, but it’s upsized
significantly from what would have been put in.
Ms. Long also said that the Hayden Place project was not subject to ARB review, and this project
is and they have approved it along with required provisions that will be applied at the site plan phase, thus
increasing costs tremendously.
Mr. Rooker noted that in Prince W illiam County, they have computed their transportation impact
fees to be $20,000 per unit.
Mr. W yant said that he is still struggling with the proffer amount.
Mr. Slutzky commented that he’s never voted against a good development project in the growth
area because of his concern about protecting the rural area. He said that what’s different tonight is that
the Board chose to drop the tax rate, and providing infrastructure is going to be increasingly difficult. He
feels the Board must start giving some clear signals about what we’re going to do with proffers. Is the
Board going to expect more? Has the Board chosen as a Board by reducing the tax rate to shift more of
the burden to the proffer side of the equation, or is the Board planning on not charging the developers
more proffer money and then not maintain the tax rate and end up not fulfilling the Boards commitment to
the community to honor the Comprehensive Plan and the Neighborhood Model vision for the growth
areas.
Mr. Rooker said that the community during the budget hearings was very consistent in saying that
the County should have development pay for the cost that it imposes on infrastructure, that existing
taxpayers don’t want to pay for the cost that is incurred as a result of growth. That was a fairly consistent
message. He stated that the County has been asking the legislature year after year for impact fees, and if
the Board approves one project at a low impact fee rate, then that is held up as an example for the next
rezoning. Mr. Rooker said that Fairfax’s proffer is $79,000, Loudon’s is over $40,000, and the $3,200
number is simply to low.
April 11, 2007 (Adjourned and Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
He added the Board should not be approving development with $3,200 cash proffers to
infrastructure. Mr. Rooker said that providing a waterline that they’re going to use is not a significant
contribution to public infrastructure. He feels the Board should stop putting ourselves in a position where
we are approving things where they then become the example the next time something comes before us,
and everybody’s scratching their heads saying ‘W ell last time we did $3,200.’
Mr. Dorrier said that he could support an increase in the fee, perhaps a compromise at $5,000.
Mr. Davis stated that an analysis of this could probably define impacts that are greater than
$3,200, but there is no requirement that the Board receive a proffer to address the full impacts and the
Board in the past has not had a policy that required that. He said that there is no mandate for approval at
all, and if this proposal does not address the impacts they are not obligated to approve the proposal.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the impacts for cash proffers to recover are capital projects, and there is
a total that could be gleaned from the fiscal impact analysis.
Mr. Rooker said that that type of analysis is not always comparable to the impact analysis he has
seen for recovery of infrastructure in the form of the cash proffer policies.
In response to Mr. Slutzky’s question about total impact of development, Mr. Cilimberg indicated
that staff has been unable to do that effectively in the past.
Mr. Boyd said that the Fiscal Impact Committee is trying to factor in transportation costs in their
deliberations.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that $3,200 is not even close.
Ms. Long said that her client would be happy to take a deferral to re-examine the proffers and
make those comparisons, adding that the applicant has gone above and beyond the Neighborhood Model.
She stated that this project is equal or better in terms of proffers when compared to other recent
approvals. She feels it would be a disservice to this application to treat the developer differently in this
case and hold the change in the tax rate that occurred mere hours earlier when we’re at this point, when
there are no other issues that have been identified with this project.
Mr. Cilimberg said that staff is going to need some time to work on calculating value, so it can be
based on staff analysis.
Mr. Rooker commented that if they continue to make approvals with inadequate contributions to
infrastructure, then it never stops.
Ms. Thomas stated that the Board has just received a storm of protest against the real estate tax,
and part of that is that they don’t want the burden of this kind of new development and its inhabitants to fall
on existing taxpayers of the County.
Ms. Long said that delays just add to the challenge, and they would like to be on the agenda as
soon as possible. But she said that the applicant would agree to deferral.
Mr. Davis said that state law will require re-advertisement, and that might not be possible by May.
Mr. Cilimberg clarified the Board’s expectations as to what should be brought back.
Board members clarified that they want to pursue Option B for the affordable housing.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that Mr. Allshouse is running this as an average cost model, so every unit that
he’s calculating the impact of is a unit anywhere in the County. He added that these numbers represent
the type of units proposed in this project, and if they were provided anywhere else in a by-right
development it would be the same impact.
Mr. Rooker added that the property use is being increased by about 11 times its use.
Mr. Dorrier then withdrew his motion.
Mr. Rooker then moved to accept the applicant’s request for deferral. Mr. Slutzky seconded the
motion, which passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. W yant.
NAYS: None.
______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Public Hearing: ZMA-2006-011 W hittington PRD Amendment (Sign #70).
PROPOSAL: Rezone 182.58 acres from Planned Residential Development (PRD) to PRD with an
application plan (see Zoning Ordinance § 8.5.5.5). The PRD district allows residential uses at a density
range not to exceed 35 units per acre. The proposed application plan would allow 96 residential units and
a residential density of approximately 0.53 residential units per acre. PROFFERS: Yes. EXISTING
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre). ENTRANCE
CORRIDOR: No. LOCATION: Old Lynchburg Road [Route # 631] approximately 500 feet north of the
April 11, 2007 (Adjourned and Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
intersection with Forest Lodge Drive. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 89-95, 90-3, 90-45, 90-46, 90-47, 90-48.
Samuel Miller District. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on March 26
and April 2, 2007.)
Mr. Cilimberg reported that there are two rezonings referred to in the report, and it was the second
of those in 1980 that had a plan associated with it. He said that this proposal was made in response to a
zoning determination stating that the approval of any site development plan or subdivision plat for this
property is subject to the approval of an application plan that meets the provisions of section eight of the
zoning ordinance. Mr. Cilimberg said that the rezoning did not meet those standards, so the plan
presented does not meet those standards and the applicants have the choice of having their plat reviewed
under the former or current ordinance.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that two features of the plat will be reviewed under current standards –
public roads, which must meet current VDOT standards, and the storm water management features – and
they would be reviewed during the subdivision plat review. He added that this proposal is essentially
replacing the plan that it exists to meet the section eight requirements, and would replace the 104 lots in
the original plan with 96 lots instead. Mr. Cilimberg said that it runs down a ridge that faces eastward and
is on Old Lynchburg Road. He noted that the new plan will meet section eight requirements, and the
review focuses on whether this is an acceptable plan because the zoning exists.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the proposal has been made to meet current zoning requirements and
does not propose to increase development in the rural areas; it does reduce the lots in the rural areas. If
this were a new rezoning, it would undoubtedly be recommended for denial; but it is old planned
development zoning so staff recommends approval with associated proffers. He said that the Planning
Commission has indicated that this is acceptable.
Mr. Davis explained that in 1980, the Board approved a rezoning to PRD use, but it was subject to
having an approvable application plan to allow the development to happen. He said that the only thing this
developer lacks is the application plan, and what they have submitted meets all the ordinance
requirements. Mr. Davis said that if the Board denied it without reason, they would be denied a
reasonable use of their property and that would be a taking of their property. He added that staff would
recommend that it be approved as there were no deficiencies found.
Ms. Thomas noted that it could be returned back to rural areas and that would be a spot down
zoning. She said that this is an example of what happens when the Board prematurely zones a piece of
property, and when there’s development where there are no proffers. She said that VDOT has ensured
that the entrances off of Lynchburg Road would be improved, but there is no way to get proffers to deal
with offsite improvements.
Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that some of the initial acreage was returned to RA in another rezoning.
Public comment was invited.
The applicant, Chris Cooley with Stonehaus, addressed the Board. He clarified that the rezoned
property was done so in error, and that is why the number of units is less. Mr. Cooley said that the
property owners have been paying taxes on the property as rezoned, so Stonehaus has taken it to
develop it with a few additional amenities.
Ms. Thomas said that there would be nice trails, and wondered if the homeowners’ association
could encourage people to participate in maintenance in return for using the trails.
Mr. Cooley said that the residents of Mosby Mountain were promised trails that they never got, so
this is a nice thing for them.
Mr. Craig DuBose addressed the Board, stating that it is a shame to end the evening with this
application, and appealed to the developer to do what they intend to do. Mr. DuBose read a few bits from
the Stonehaus website, saying that this project will neither enhance nor preserve the rural character of this
portion of Old Lynchburg Road. He added that the staff report notes that this proposal is not consistent
with the rural areas policy. Mr. DuBose noted that the Planning Commission majority expressed serious
reservations about this project, and he is not greatly optimistic that the developer will live up to his words.
Mr. Seth Oldham, Mr. DuBose’s neighbor, addressed the Board, stating his disappointment about
this proposal. He said that he has lived there for nine years with his family and has enjoyed the woods
there, and asked the Board to protect the stream there as much as possible. He also added that he would
like to see bike lanes on Old Lynchburg Road.
Ms. Thomas commented that the Board can require everything that they would of a new
development, but encouraged Mr. Oldham to keep in touch with engineering so that his intermittent
stream continued to be protected.
Mr. Cilimberg said that there would be notification to him as an adjacent property owner.
Mr. Cooley announced that Belvedere and Cascadia were submitted to the LEED N.D. pilot
program, and 120 projects would be selected nationwide. He said that Hauser Homes and Churchill
Builders were transferring to Earthcraft Homes. Mr. Cooley also offered to walk the site with the
neighbors.
April 11, 2007 (Adjourned and Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
In response to Ms. Thomas’ question about Earthcraft standards, Mr. Cooley said that he could
not commit to an Earthcraft standard tonight.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Board.
Ms. Thomas moved for approval of ZMA 2006-011, W hittington PRD, with proffers as presented,
dated February 8, 2007. Mr. Slutzky seconded the motion, which passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. W yant.
NAYS: None.
(The proffers are set out in full below:)
Proffer Form
Date: February 8, 2007
ZMA: 2006-011
Tax Map and Parcel Numbers: 89-95, 90-3, 90-45, 46, 47, 48
214.5 Acres was rezoned from A-i to RPN/RS-1 on November16, 1977 as ZMA-77-18 and included 12
conditions of approval. On May 21, 1980, condition 8 of said conditions of approval was amended by way
of ZMA-80-07. On December 10. 1980, said property was rezoned from RPN-RS-1 to PRD (Planned
Residential Development) by way of a comprehensive rezoning of Albemarle County. 14.176 Acres, a
portion of Tax Map 89, Parcel 73A, was rezoned from PRD to RA per ZMA-2004-1 3. This Proffer Form
does hereby amend the 12 conditions as approved on November 16, 1977 and amended on May 21,
1980. This amendment is in accordance with the Application Plan titled W hittington, dated June 26, 2006:
revised 11/22/06 and prepared by Dominion Development Resources, LLC
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized
agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property. These
conditions are proffered as an amendment to the conditions, which were part of the approved rezoning,
and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gave rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such
conditions had a reasonable relation to the rezoning request.
1. Approval is for a maximum potential of 96 single-family residential lots. Open Space is intended to
be held in private ownership by dedication to a homeowners’ association. Responsibility for and
maintenance of Open Space shall be outlined in the Covenants and Restrictions of the
homeowners association. Prior to final plat approval, this document shall be reviewed and
approved by the Albemarle County Attorney’s office.
2. Each lot shall be at least 40,000 gross square feet in area.
3. All lots shall use internal roads as the sole means of ingress/egress. Direct access from lots to
Route 631 will not be permitted.
4. Disturbance of slopes of 25% or greater shall be administratively approved by Albemarle County
engineering staff under the following circumstances: Prior to or in conjunction with final plat
submittal, the applicant shall submit an overlot grading plan to Albemarle County for engineering
staff review. An overlot grading plan is defined as a drawing showing existing and proposed
topographic features to be considered in the development of the proposed subdivision, and
satisfying the following:
a. The plan shall show all proposed streets, building sites, surface drainage, driveways,
trails, and other features the agent determines are needed to verify that the plan conforms
to the Application Plan Amendment for W hittington, dated June 26, 2006, last revised
November 22, 2006 by Dominion Development Resources, LLC.
b. The plan shall be drawn to a scale not greater than one (1) inch equals fifty (50) feet.
c. All proposed grading shall be shown with contour intervals not greater than two (2) feet.
All concentrated surface drainage over lots shall be clearly shown with the proposed
grading. All proposed grading shall be shown to assure that surface drainage can provide
adequate relief from flooding of dwellings in the event a storm sewer fails.
d. Graded slopes on lots proposed to be planted with turf grasses (lawns) shall not exceed a
gradient of three (3) feet of horizontal distance for each one (1) foot of vertical rise or fall
(3:1). Steeper slopes shall be vegetated with low maintenance vegetation as determined
to be appropriate by the program authority in its approval of an erosion and sediment
control plan for the land disturbing activity. These steeper slopes shall not exceed a
gradient of two (2) feet of horizontal distance for each one (1) foot of vertical rise or fall
(2:1), unless the agent finds that the grading recommendations for steeper slopes have
adequately addressed the impacts.
e. Surface drainage shall not flow across more than three (3) lots before being collected in a
storm sewer or directed to a drainage way outside of the lots. No surface drainage across
a residential lot shall have more than one-half (1/2) acre of land draining to it.
f. All drainage from streets shall be carried across lots in a storm sewer to a point beyond
the rear of the building site.
g. The plan shall demonstrate that driveways to lots will not be steeper than twenty (20)
percent and shall include grading transitions at the street that the agent determines will
allow passenger vehicles to avoid scraping the vehicle body on the driveway or the street.
April 11, 2007 (Adjourned and Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
Additionally, the driveway grading shall provide an area in front of the proposed garage, or
an area proposed for vehicle parking where no garage is proposed, that is not less than
eighteen (18) feet in length that will be graded no steeper than eight (8) percent.
h. The plan shall demonstrate that an area at least ten (10) feet in width, measured outward
from the face of the structure, has grades no steeper than ten (10) percent adjacent to
possible entrances to dwellings. This graded area shall extend from entrances to
driveways or walkways connecting the dwelling to the street.
5. The minimum building setback from all interior public street right-of-way lines shall be thirty feet.
6. Prior to or in conjunction with the first final subdivision plat for the project, the Owner shall
dedicate as public right-of-way and convey in fee simple to Albemarle County strips of land no
less than fifty-five (55) feet in depth across the Property identified as 55 FT ROW DEDICATION
FROM CENTERLINE OF 631” in the locations shown on Sheet No. 2 of the Application Plan
Amendment for W hittington, dated June 26, 2006, last revised November 22, 2006, together with
the dedication and conveyance of all necessary drainage easements and the conveyance of
necessary construction easements for improvements to State Route 631. If the strips of land are
not dedicated as part of a subdivision plat, the Owner shall pay all costs of surveying and
preparing legal documents in a form acceptable to the County Attorney necessary to dedicate and
convey the right-of-way.
7. Development shall be in general accord with the attached Application Plan titled “Application Plan
Amendment for W hittington” dated June 26, 2006, revised 11/22/06, by Dominion Development
Resources, LLC.
8. The 25 feet screening and landscaping easement shown on the Application Plan shall be planted
and maintained to meet current regulations for screening as described in sections 18-32.7.9.8.a
and 18-32.7.9.8.c.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. Screening shall be established
and completed by the developer of W hittington prior to the issuance of the Certificate of
Occupancy for the 3rd dwelling unit. The developer shall also assume short-term responsibility for
the maintenance of the screening until a homeowners’ association (HOA) for the development has
been established. Once established the easement shall be deeded to the HOA. Long-term
responsibility for and maintenance of screening within the easement shall be outlined in the
Covenants and Restrictions of the HOA. Prior to final plat approval, this document shall be
reviewed and approved by the Albemarle County Attorney’s office. Additionally, a note alerting
affected owners to this easement restriction on their property shall be stated on the final plat for
those lots.
9. All trails shown on the Application Plan shall be constructed as a Class B “primitive” trail as
described in the Greenway Plan, Appendix A, of the current Albemarle County Comprehensive
Plan. The trails shall be completed prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the
48th dwelling unit.
10. Storm water quality and detention practices shall be as specified in Chapter 17, the W ater
Protection Ordinance of the Albemarle County Code.
___________________ ________________________ ___________
Signature of Owner Printed Name of Owner Date
______________
Agenda Item No. 21. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
There were none.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Adjourn.
At 11:51 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, Mr. Rooker moved for the
Board to adjourn to April 11, 2007 at 3:00 p.m. Mr. Slutzky seconded the motion, which passed by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. W yant.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 09/12/2007
Initials: EWJ