2007-05-09May 9, 2007 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 1)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May
9, 2007, at 1:30 p.m., Auditorium, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. This
meeting was adjourned from May 2, 2007.
PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth 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., Assistant County Executive,
Thomas Foley, Mr. Bryan Elliott, Assistant County Executive, County Attorney, Larry W . Davis, and Senior
Deputy Clerk, Meagan Hoy.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Boyd.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Proclamation recognizing May 19, 2007 as Blue Star Salute Day.
Mr. Boyd said he would be presenting the proclamation at an event to be held on May 19, 2007.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve the proclamation. Roll
was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant, Mr. Slutzky, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
BLUE STAR SALUTE DAY
WHEREAS, throughout the history of the United States of America the sacrifices necessary to
maintain our liberty and freedom have consistently been borne by citizen soldiers; and
WHEREAS, countless men and women of our great county have proudly worn the uniform of the
United States Armed Forces; and
WHEREAS, many of our fellow citizens are serving today in the war on terror as members of the
active military, National Guard or Reserves; and
WHEREAS, on Armed Forces Day 2007, it is appropriate as individuals and families to reflect upon
the sacrifices of our fellow citizens and to celebrate their dedication; and
WHEREAS, the citizens of the County of Albemarle desire to honor and acknowledge those who
serve in uniform for their sacrifice and preservation of our American way of life;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that, I, Kenneth C. Boyd, Chairman, on behalf of the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors do hereby recognize
Saturday, May 19, 2007
as
BLUE STAR SALUTE DAY
in the County of Albemarle and urge all citizens of this community to honor our citizens
who are serving in the United States Armed Forces by joining in the festivities of this
day.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 3. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Ms.
Thomas, to approve Items 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3. (Discussions on individual items are included with that item.)
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant, Mr. Slutzky, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Item 3.1. Approval of Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Ranking Order for FY 2006-
07 Applicant Class.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that pursuant to sections A.1-110(G) and A.1-110(H) of
the ACE ordinance, the Board of Supervisors reviews the list of ranked parcels submitted by the ACE
Committee and identifies on which parcels it desires conservation easements. Each conservation
easement identified by the Board of Supervisors to be purchased is appraised by an independent
appraiser chosen by the County.
The Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Program received nine (9) applications for the
October 31, 2006, Round 7 deadline (FY 2006-07). Three of these applications (Rives, Rushia, and
Jensen/Barnett) were for re-enrolled properties from last year’s application cycle. Due to budget
constraints, the ACE Program was unable to acquire easements on these properties last year. Since the
May 9, 2007 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 2)
recent application deadline, staff has evaluated each of the Round 7 properties according to the ranking
evaluation criteria identified in the ACE ordinance. These objective criteria include: open space
resources; threat of conversion to developed use; natural, scenic and cultural resources; and County fund
leveraging from outside sources. Based on the results of the evaluation, staff has determined eligibility
and a “final” ranking order for applicants from Round 7 of the ACE Program (Attachment A-on file in
Clerk’s office). These results were presented to the ACE Committee at its April 17, 2007 meeting. A
general description of these properties is provided in Attachment B (on file in Clerk’s office).
The evaluation of the nine applications from Round 7 indicates that all nine (9) properties scored
high enough to be eligible for ACE funding. Although only $1,387,543 of funding has been appropriated
for this class plus a projected carryover of $29,066 from the previous budget cycle, a new source of
matching funds has become available from the Office of Farmland Preservation. Depending on the
number of local programs that apply for the $4,250,000 of new funding, the ACE Program could receive
up to $1,200,000. To receive funding, a locality must provide: 1) certification of the local program
elements based on the model elements in “A Model Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) Program for
Virginia”; and 2) certification of the amount of matching funds that the locality will provide for that fiscal
year. Albemarle County can satisfy these certification requirements.
The ACE Committee believes potential funding may exist to acquire at least 5 or 6 of the 9 eligible
properties. Based on the final ranking order and eligibility status of the Round 7 applicants, the ACE
Committee recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve appraisals for the seven (7) highest
ranked properties: Clayton, Anderson, Strawberry Hill Farm, McDaniel, Sacre, Barksdale, and Rives.
Although the total potential ACE budget for FY 2006-07 is insufficient for purchasing easements on all
seven properties, the ACE Committee believes it is prudent to obtain appraisals on more properties than
funding will allow, in the event that additional funding becomes available or some higher ranking
applicants withdraw their application from the Program.
There is no additional request for funding related to this action. The future funding for the
purchase of these potential conservation easements would come from both the CIP-Planning-
Conservation budget (line-item #9010-81010-580409) and the CIP-Tourism-Conservation budget (line-
item #9010-72030-580416), a budget previously approved by the Board to fund ACE properties with
“tourism value”. Funding provided by the County would be supplemented by grants from the Office of
Farmland Preservation. Additional sources of outside funding that may be available to the ACE Program
include the Office of Farmland Preservation and the Preservation Trust Fund.
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors, as recommended by the ACE Committee:
1) Identify the Clayton, Anderson, Strawberry Hill Farm, McDaniel, Sacre, Barksdale and Rives
properties as those on which it desires conservation easements;
2) Approve the final ranking order for Round 7 (FY 2006-07) as proposed in Attachment A; and
3) Authorize appraisals for the Clayton, Anderson, Strawberry Hill Farm, McDaniel, Sacre, Barksdale
and Rives properties
(Mr. Tucker confirmed for Mr. Boyd that there may be some grant dollars coming in for ACE. Ms.
Thomas explained that the state has put some money into a pot, with applications due in July, and said
that Albemarle is in a good position to get a significant amount of money from the state.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the following recommendations
by the Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Committee:
• identified the Clayton, Anderson, Strawberry Hill Farm, McDaniel, Sacre, Barksdale and
Rives properties as those on which it desires conservation easements;
• the proposed final ranking order for Route 7 (FY 2006-07) as proposed in Attachment A;
and
• authorized appraisals for the Clayton, Anderson, Strawberry Hill Farm, McDaniel, Sacre,
Barksdale and Rives properties.
_______________
Item 3.2. Approve Child Care Subsidy Advocacy.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that in FY 2007, the Virginia Department of Social
Services reduced funding to localities for child care subsidies for low income working families.
Specifically, an 85 percent reduction was experienced in the level of federal funding for this region’s long-
term collaborative child care program operated jointly by the Thomas Jefferson-United W ay, the City of
Charlottesville and Albemarle County. In FY 2008, it is expected that federal support for this child care
subsidy program will be eliminated all-together. This action is being taken to redirect funding to the
expanded population in the VIEW (Virginia Initiative for Employment Not W elfare) program mandated in
the federal Deficit Reduction Act of 2006. W hile other funding is available to support child care subsidies
for low income working families, the lack of federal funding for this vital program has resulted in the need
for the Department to establish a waiting list for this service for the first time in seven years.
During a retreat in December, the Advisory Board identified several issues that are important to it
and recently decided to focus on “increasing the number of children and families helped with child care
subsidies” as a priority focus for this year. This includes working to raise awareness of the need, creating
scholarships, educating businesses about the benefits of on-site child care and promoting high quality
child care services.
May 9, 2007 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 3)
The Advisory Board is established under Sections 63.2-302 and 63.2-305 of the Virginia Code and
has as its duties:
• To interest itself in all matters pertaining to the social welfare of the people of the County;
• To monitor the formulation and implementation of social welfare programs in the County;
• To meet with the Director of the Department at least four times a year to make recommendations
on policy matters; and
• To make an annual report to the governing body concurrent with the Department’s budget
presentation, concerning the administration of the public welfare program.
To accomplish these duties, the Advisory Board developed more specific roles aligned with the
Code:
• To be an advocate for community issues pertaining to the social welfare of people in the County;
• To be a liaison with the Board of Supervisors and the community on issues related to the social
welfare of people in the County;
• To be knowledge seekers to learn about department services and needs of the community; and
• To identify issues that the department should focus on when there is opportunity
The Advisory Board proposes implementing a plan to accomplish their goal of increasing the
number of children and families assisted with child care subsidies that includes 1) creating a fact sheet
about the need for child care assistance, 2) establishing partnerships with the United W ay, the Chamber
of Commerce and the Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development for a coordinated
approach to advocacy, and 3) meeting with area business leaders, local legislators and the Governor to
advocate for increased state funds to help low income working families with child care expenses. In
concert with this specific plan, the Department has recently learned that a statewide organization is
building a coalition to support an increase in child care subsidies to localities. The Advisory Board may
desire to join this coalition and work to support their efforts with the Board’s approval.
Child Care subsidy programs have traditionally required a local match ranging from 0 – 10 percent
for federal/state funds allocated for this purpose. Should the General Assembly allocate additional funds
for this program, it will likely require local matching funds of at least 10 percent. Since this is not a
mandated program, local governments are not required to provide matching funds; instead they may opt
to return unmatched state funds.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the Advisory Board to advocate for legislation or
budget language that supports increased state funding for child care subsidies for low income working
families.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board authorized the Advisory Board to advocate
for legislation or budget language that supports increased state funding for child care subsidies
for low income working families.
_______________
Item 3.3. Requested FY 2007 Appropriations: Additional Funding for Sallyport Project.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that the Code of Virginia § 15.2-2507 stipulates that any
locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year as
shown in the currently adopted budget. However, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the
total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget or the sum of $500,000, whichever is lesser,
must be accomplished by first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before
amending the budget. The Code section applies to all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds,
E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
The total of this requested FY 2007 appropriation is $113,000.00. It is anticipated that a budget
amendment public hearing will be proposed at a subsequent Board meeting and this appropriation would
be incorporated into it.
This request involves the approval of one (1) new FY 2007 appropriation as follows:
• One (1) appropriation totaling $113,000.00 in additional funds for the Sallyport project.
Staff recommends approval of the FY 2007 Appropriation #2007077.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved FY 2007 Appropriation #2007077
to provide for additional funding for the Sallyport project.
May 9, 2007 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 4)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP #2007077
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION:To provide additional funding for the vehicle sallyport construction project
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 9010 21000 950176 Sallyport J 1 113,000.00
2 9010 51000 510100 CIP Fund Balance J 2 113,000.00
9010 0501 Est. Revenue 113,000.00
0701 Appropriation 113,000.00
TOTAL 226,000.00 113,000.00 113,000.00 _______________
Agenda Item No. 4. FY 2008 Operating and Capital Budgets.
Mr. Tucker reported that they will be discussing both the operating and capital budget for FY 08,
and they have held five budget sessions with the Board thus far. He said that they have reviewed the
general government operations and initiatives, as well as the School Board requested budget, and
proposed reductions to meet tax rate changes, and capital budget projects for next year. Mr. Tucker
reminded the Board that they have set the 2007 tax rate at 68 cents, and the School Board has already
adopted their FY 08 budget. He said that the Board needs to make a final decision on the general
government operating budget and a final decision on the FY 08 capital budget. Mr. Tucker stated that
they would need to adopt this budget today because there are CIP contracts that need to be signed, as
well as agencies that are waiting to know their funding amount. Staff also needs to prepare the
appropriations ordinance for the June Board meeting.
Mr. Tucker said since the last Board meeting, they have found that there would be a savings of
about $250,000 in the county’s health insurance costs, and he is suggesting putting that savings into a
“rainy day” fund for future needs. He noted that they have moved funding for all initiates, with the
exception of public safety, into the Board’s contingency reserve. He noted that the General Assembly had
increased the County’s police 599 revenues by about $110,000, so that has been included in the
contingency reserve. Mr. Tucker said that the Board’s total contingency would be $430,198. He added
that the Board received information on the requested initiatives in a variety of ways. Today staff is
available to answer any unresolved questions about the initiatives, and vote each initiative for its inclusion
in the FY 08 budget.
Referring to the chart below, Mr. Tucker said that the 68-cent scenario funded the Board’s CTS
initiative, four police officers, and five of the six requested personnel for East Rivanna. He explained that
Zona Latina, shown through Comcast, has requested $3,000; City Council did not support that program
but did support two other Latino programs. Mr. Tucker stated that the City did fund the African-American
Festival, which the County did not fund; the County did not fund the Charlottesville Community Design
Center, but the City did.
FY 2007/08 Budget Adjustments Worksheet
Recurring Reserves
Beginning Board Reserves
1,600,338
Latest Adjustments
Health Insurance Reduction 249,785
Additional Police 599 Revenue 109,584
Subtotal -- Latest Adjustments 359,369
Net Reserves
1,959,707
May 9, 2007 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 5)
Requested Initiatives NET COST
yes Reserve from Health Insurance Reductions 249,785 249,785
yes CTS (Board Initiative) 250,000 250,000
4 Police Officers* 481,504 481,504
5 East Rivanna Personnel 654,264 545,220
no Child W elfare Division Supervisor* 61,846 -
no Child W elfare Division Office Associate* 32,399 -
no Police Office Associate 17,722 -
no Eligibility Program Supervisor* 34,865 -
no Eligibility Program Office Associate* 21,850 -
no Assistant County Attorney 66,191 -
no Internet Bandwidth 33,000 -
no Course Reimbursement 65,000 -
no Skill Certification Pay 75,000 -
no Engineering Inspector - CIP 77,894 -
no Recreation Program Expansion* 55,613 -
no Project Manager - CIP 73,336 -
no Rural Area Support Position 84,180 -
no Master Plan Implementation Planner 75,276 -
no Performance Analyst 119,259 -
Agency Programs
yes Zona Latina 3,000 3,000
no African American Festival (Chihamba) 3,000 -
no Charlottesville Community Design Center 30,000 -
Subtotal -- Initiatives and Agencies
2,564,984
1,529,509
Final
Reserves 430,198
*These initiatives have associated revenues. The cost shown is the net cost.
Mr. W yant asked the purpose of the asterisk beside some of the items. Ms. Laura Vinzant, of the
Office of Management and Budget, said those are programs have revenue associated with them; the
costs shown is the net cost, not the total costs.
Mr. Rooker provided Board members with a listing of where staff has been added to departments.
He said that the County has added 18 police officers, and 43 fire and rescue personnel, since FY 2001.
He stated that they have also added 20 people in Community Development/General Services as well. He
thinks it is helpful to know where we have been adding people over the years.
Mr. Boyd said that he would like to go around and get Board members’ comments on the budget
items.
Mr. Slutzky pointed out that the list brings attention to public safety, but there is a standard based
on population that the Board agreed to try to catch up to. Mr. Rooker said that that figure is 1.5 officers
per 1,000 population. Mr. Slutzky said the list stands out as very large lists of added bodies, but there are
good reasons why those bodies have been added. W ith regard to Community Development and General
Services, the Board has imposed objectives and these additional staff have been necessary to meet those
objectives.
Mr. Slutzky said he has taken a look at other places in the budget where the Board may be able to
scale back on funding to create the revenue sufficient to cover a number of the initiatives that he believes
are of critical value and importance. He said the Board puts aside $1.6 million into the capital budget to
fund the ACE Program per year. Mr. Tucker said that the general policy is to transfer one-cent to ACE.
Mr. Slutzky said he believes the Program provides significant value, but there are some specific initiatives
on the list that represent some of the same goals intended for that money. Mr. Rooker said taking money
out of ACE will not impact the numbers in front of the Board because it is a capital expenditure. Mr.
Slutzky said if the Board decided to scale back its commitment to the capital budget for this year for some
subset of that $1.6 million, then it could use that money to fund initiatives. Mr. Tucker said the Board could
do it, but it would be changing its policy. Mr. Slutzky said that would have a net effect of some additional
monies for general revenues. Mr. Tucker reiterated that the Board’s general policy is to transfer one cent
value to the capital budget for ACE. Mr. Slutzky proposed that the policy be revised for this year to
commit two-thirds of one cent, to free up about $600,000.
Mr. Rooker said that part of that amount would go to schools. Mr. Tucker said that the policy item
would be directly associated with ACE, so it might not necessarily go to schools. He added that the Board
could also choose a dollar amount. Mr. Slutzky suggested redirecting some of it for initiatives that are
May 9, 2007 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 6)
being brought up here today, and putting some in the reserve fund, scaling the $1.6 million back to $1
million. Mr. Tucker said that one way to approach this is to go down the list and see if there are four votes
for certain items. The Board also has the option of using a portion of the $250,000 in reserve from Health
Insurance reductions to fund initiatives.
Mr. Slutzky then suggested that the Board scale the $1.6 million back to $1.0 million for this year
only and use some of those funds to supplement the final reserve amount, and direct some of that money
towards specific initiatives that are compatible to the goals that the ACE money seeks to satisfy. Two
such goals are the Rural Areas Support position and the Master Plan Implementation Planner. He does
not want to vote on any of these items without there being enough money in the pot.
Mr. Rooker said that he would not support a policy change for ACE contributions, as they have
just adopted that last year; he also emphasized that the additional revenue is essentially needed to
acquire property that has increased in cost along with all other properties. It is not a “just this year only”; it
is an operating expense that is continuous.
Ms. Thomas said that she would be surprised if new initiatives were brought up at this time.
Mr. Dorrier asked about having an attorney devoted to ACE and conservation easements. Mr.
Tucker replied that the County Attorney’s office covers it usually, but occasionally there are conflicts. Ms.
Thomas suggested that those groups (i.e., BZA, ACE) provide information on how often those conflicts
occur. Mr. Rooker said that they retain separate counsel in those cases, after the item goes through the
County Attorney’s office for review. Mr. Davis said that it would be a substantial amount of money to
provide independent counsel for ACE, and conflict of interest has not been a major problem. It is much
more economical for his office to provide the services.
Mr. Rooker said that the funding for the ASAP initiative - $25,000 - did not get on the list. Mr.
Tucker said that it could be taken out of the CIP fund balance because it is one-time revenue.
Mr. Boyd suggested going through the items on the list one by one, and then vote to see if there is
enough support for the item. He asked about the term “reduction”. Mr. Tucker said staff had budgeted
about seven percent for health care. The revenues in reserve were so strong that the seven percent
increase in health care costs could be eliminated from the budget.
In going down the list of initiatives, there was no opposition to holding onto the reserve from health
insurance reductions.
Consensus to fund the CTS Board initiative.
Mr. Rooker stated that he would support two police officers, but not four. He said that 18 officers
have been added over the last five years, and the public surveys indicate that police response is one of
the highest rated areas. Mr. Rooker stated that the County should add people in areas where they are
perceived as not doing as good of a job. He thinks that it is necessary to add about two police officers per
year to meet the County’s goal.
Mr. Slutzky said he does not think that the public expressing satisfaction with the existing police
office should be interpreted to mean that the public feels the level of staffing is appropriate. Normally they
have sought out benchmarks to determine if the appropriate level of staffing. They are far behind in the
benchmark the Board chose to tie the number of police officers per population. The actual request from
the Police Department was more. Ms. Vinzant said the Police Department made a request for ten officers,
but they were not all to be full year positions. Mr. Slutzky asked how far below the standard the County is
without the addition of these positions. Mr. Elliott replied that the 1.5 per 1,000 came from Chief Miller and
is below what national standards are out there according to him. He said if the County hired all four
officers, it would still be below the 1.5 ratio by about 16 officers. Mr. Slutzky said he does not support
going below the four officers.
Mr. Rooker commented that the County is way below state and federal levels for personnel for
social services, and those positions are directly related to actual caseloads. He thinks that it comes down
to making choices.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr. W yant, to fund two police officers this
year. Mr. Slutzky said if this motion fails, he is going to recommend that the Board fund four police
officers. Mr. Dorrier said he also supports four officers.
Mr. Tucker said that this is already funded, so essentially two are being taken out.
Ms. Thomas said these are tough choices they are making. She then suggested that the Board
take a “straw vote” to see if people are willing to consider the concept of reducing some of the funds
directed to the ACE program in order to augment the $400,000.
Mr. Boyd suggested using more of a “straw poll” approach instead of voting.
Mr. Rooker withdrew his motion and Mr. W yant withdrew his second.
Mr. W yant said that the reason he seconded the two police officers is that the crime rate is fairly
low, and looking at indicators of what the County is investing in shows that they are doing very well. It is
not just population they should be factoring when determining staff.
May 9, 2007 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 7)
Mr. Slutzky said that he would prefer to keep it at four.
Ms. Thomas agreed to accept two, but only because she wants to fund some other items.
Mr. Dorrier said that the County needs four, and Chief Miller has been fairly conservative, noting
that this will help keep the crime rate low. There are other areas where they can work on in freeing up
money.
Mr. Boyd said he supports the four officers. He is willing to look at the formula to see if it needs to
be adjusted based on the crime rate. Since the Board is tied on this item, they will have to come back and
revisit it.
Mr. Slutzky said that as the community becomes denser, there will be more of a need for
additional police.
The next item for discussion was staffing at East Rivanna. Mr. Tucker said this is for five people
rather than the six they requested. This would provide adequate funding to supplement the East Rivanna
station’s volunteer staff. The sixth person was being requested to get a tanker out.
Mr. Dorrier said he puts this on the same level as the police request. He supports the five.
Ms. Thomas said she needs some more information. If the Board goes with fewer than five
people, is that essentially saying “no”, and just the same as doing nothing.
Chief Dan Eggleston explained that five people are necessary in order to get three staff on duty
five days a week for 12 hours a day, and three persons is a minimum staffing level for safety.
Ms. Thomas asked what they are doing now that they do not have the five individuals. She asked
if there is any way to phase the people in. Chief Eggleston said they really do not have a level of
commitment to supplement the career staff. It is a rather “hit and miss” ordeal. The minimal is five in
order to have staffing during the day. Otherwise, they will have to revisit the minimal staffing.
Mr. W yant asked if the tanker can come from Monticello or one of the other stations. Chief
Eggleston said it is an option to run the taker from the next adjacent station, but they did, in working
through the Advisory Board, determine that East Rivanna is a key department in the County for water
supply. That is why they supported two tankers for that station. It is an option, but would be a delay in
getting water to the scene of the fire, depending on the call and if the tanker is available. They currently
have a tanker at Monticello but they do not have career staffing for that tanker; they rely on volunteers.
Ms. Thomas said she supports the five. Mr. W yant also expressed support as did Mr. Rooker, Mr.
Boyd and Mr. Slutzky.
Ms. Thomas said that the social services positions focus on the needs of children who fall through
the cracks, as well as adults in need of Medicaid, food stamps, etc. She has done some research. Our
social services workers are required by federal and state regulations to visit the children once a month and
see them in their home. In her research she found that we have children in foster in Culpeper, Leesburg,
Manassas, Newport News, Petersburg, Richmond, Pittsylvania, Staunton, Culpeper, Fairfax, Harrison-
burg, Portsmouth, Fredericksburg. W e have workers spending almost as much time on the road visiting
these children, some of them seriously damaged. For the adult workers, the eligibility program supervi-
sors, the County had 40 new adult protection cases added this year. A lot of what is tying us up is the new
regulations, as opposed to the additional people. For example, it is now necessary for everyone getting
Medicaid to show their birth certificate. She emphasized that these four positions are very important, and
the County is 22 staff people below where they need to be in terms of state and federal requirements.
She would prioritize the people the same way as they are on this list.
Mr. Rooker asked where the funds would come from to fund the positions. Ms. Thomas said she
would cut down the number of police officers.
Mr. Rooker asked how much is set outside for the Board’s reserve in this budget. Mr. Tucker said
the amount shown on this worksheet, along with the $250,000. Mr. Rooker said, in a $200.0+ million
budget, a reserve of $430,000 is not excess. He is not very supportive of taking the funds out of that
reserve.
Mr. Slutzky said he thought the Board had decided to not decide where the money would come
from. First the Board members would go through each initiative on their independent merit and consider
whether they support them, and if that left the Board with less than $430,000, it would then discuss where
it would go from then. W e need to go about this discussion one way or the other. He has a number of
things he would rather do without than some of these initiatives.
Mr. Tucker said the Board could decide what it thinks is an amount it wants to keep in reserve;
take that out, and then go through the straw vote. Another option is to see what is left after you decide on
your initiatives and then debate where you will get the additional funds for the reserve. In response to Ms.
Thomas, Mr. Tucker said this past year, the Board used very little of its reserve funds. There have been
years where the Board has had “0” reserve.
Ms. Thomas asked how the CSA items were funded during the shortfall year. Ms. Vinzant said
that the Board funds those out of the fund balance instead of the Board reserve.
May 9, 2007 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mr. Rooker said he does not think it is wise to go through a list of items and vote on them when
we do not have the money to fund them.
Mr. Dorrier said that 80 percent of the budget is personnel, and it is important to look at each
position and discuss it. He said that they just need to set some priorities as to who is going to be put on
and who is not going to be put on the list. Mr. Rooker commented that it must be done with the money
available.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr. W yant, to continue with the policy of
allocating one penny to the ACE Program.
Mr. Rooker said that there were reasons for doing that, and the Board spent a good deal of time in
the strategic planning sessions to come up with a goal to add 15,000 acres a year for parkland and
conservation land in the community.
Ms. Thomas said that the ACE Program needs promotion, and it is important to fully fund it.
Mr. Slutzky said he does not support continuing to fund $1.6 million in this year’s budget to ACE
because we have items on this list that are zeroed out in the budget because of the tax rate set by the
Board. He would prefer to see the Rural Area support position to promote agriculture and to reinforce the
efficacy of having a rural plan in place, and the Master Planning position is very important to maintain
public credibility with that process. He said they should be seriously looking at shrinking in the near term
the ACE budget to accomplish these other objectives.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: Mr. Slutzky.
Mr. Tucker suggested having Board members give a straw vote with a check or an “X” and have
staff tally them to see where things stand money-wise.
Mr. Boyd said that it would be good to have each Supervisor go down the list and make note of
what they support.
Mr. Rooker said the idea is to put what is it that they supported on the list that would also work
financially.
Mr. Slutzky said he would support the four police officers, the five Rivanna personnel, the four
child welfare and eligibility positions, and the assistant county attorney; he reluctantly withdraws support
for the police associate, internet bandwidth upgrade, the course reimbursement, the skills certification pay,
recreation program expansion, and performance analyst. He added that he would support the engineering
inspector position, the rural areas support position, project manager, and master plan implementation
planner.
Mr. Rooker said that he would support two police officers, the child welfare supervisor, the
assistant county attorney, and the Rural Areas support position.
Mr. W yant said that he would support two police officers, East Rivanna personnel, the child
welfare supervisor, and the assistant county attorney.
Mr. Rooker said he supports the assistant county attorney position because they are providing
services to areas they did not use to provide services, and we almost daily put more work on that office.
That department has not expanded much over the years, and given the workload, the position is
reasonable.
Ms. Thomas said that she would support two police officers, keeping the Rivanna fire personnel,
adding the child welfare supervisor and office associate, the assistant county attorney, the CIP project
manager or engineering inspector, the rural areas support position (but would rather have it come out of
the Economic Development Fund), and the master plan implementation planner.
Mr. Dorrier said that he would support four police officers, five East Rivanna personnel, the child
welfare supervisor and associate, eligibility program supervisor and associate, the assistant county
attorney, the internet bandwidth, the engineering inspector, the project manager/CIP, and the rural areas
support person.
Mr. Rooker commented that they would be running a deficit at that point.
Mr. Boyd said that he would support two police officers, five East Rivanna personnel, the child
division supervisor and assistant county attorney.
(At this time (2:54 p.m.) the Board took a brief recess to allow staff time to tally the Board
votes on the items. The Board reconvened at 2:57 p.m.)
Mr. Tucker commented that the Board tied on the child welfare division office associate position.
Mr. Rooker said that it was next on his list, and he would support that.
May 9, 2007 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 9)
Mr. Tucker said that would get them down to $426,000.
Before making a motion, Mr. Boyd said this would be the time to suggest where some other
money can come from.
Mr. Slutzky said he thinks we have a sparse reserve, and in deference to that, he offered motion
to reallocate the $250,000 from the Economic Development Opportunities Fund, and put that into the
Board reserve.
Mr. Boyd emphasized that that fund is one-time money.
Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, noted that as of June 30th,
that $250,000 would revert back to the Fund Balance, so unless you elect to reappropriate it into FY 08, it
will go back into the Board’s reserve. In response to Mr. Boyd, Mr. Breeden said the funds are currently in
the operating budget.
Considering Mr. Breeden’s explanation, Mr. Slutzky then withdrew his motion.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the Chamber of Commerce and TJPED items would be in the FY 08 budget,
noting that he voted for it for one year only and did not want it in the budget for future years without voting
for it. Ms. Vinzant said they are included in the Board’s budget. Mr. Slutzky said he is not supportive of
the budget with those two items in it.
Mr. Rooker suggested voting on the initiatives and then take up other items that Board members
may want to address. Board members concurred.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr. W yant to vote on the initiatives
(Reserve from Health Insurance Reductions, CTS (Board Initiative), 2 Police Officers, 5 East Rivanna
Personnel, Child W elfare Division Supervisor, Child W elfare Division Office Associate, Assistant County
Attorney, Zona Latina, and a Rural Area Support Position).and deal with operating costs separately.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, and Mr. Slutzky.
NAYS: None.
__________
Mr. Slutzky said he would make a motion to approve the items discussed without commitment to
join TJPED in the coming year. He would like to have a discussion at a later date before funding
membership for FY 08.
Mr. Davis said that the funds for TJPED are part of a lump sum and it would be better for the
Board to leave that money in there since it is small, and simply direct staff not to make that payment until
the Board has further discussion.
Mr. Tucker clarified that the motion would be to bring this back before the Board to finalize a
decision on whether it would be spent again.
Mr. Rooker said that the time to do that would be when the appropriation is contemplated.
Mr. Davis noted that it is a fiscal year payment, so the decision needs to be made in July.
Mr. Rooker stated that TJPED membership needs to be evaluated on the basis of how it has
benefited Albemarle County.
Mr. Slutzky then withdrew his motion.
Mr. Boyd suggested reevaluating all memberships.
Mr. Slutzky and Mr. Rooker said they are only interested in looking at TJPED.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. FY 2008-2013 Capital Improvements Program (CIP).
Ms. Thomas said there has been increasing conversation about the automatic voting machines.
She asked if staff has an update on the information. Mr. Foley said he will follow up at the next Board
meeting.
Mr. Slutzky said it is a major concern with him. He is not comfortable with electronic voting
without verifiable data. Mr. Foley said he will specifically address the issue with the Registrar and get
some additional information.
Mr. Davis clarified that the law passed said that any replacement machines had to meet new
standards, but this fiscal year none are required to be replaced. This is a controversial law and may get
revisited in the next General Assembly as to the requirements. He does not believe the County is under
any mandate to replace any existing machines in the next fiscal year. Mr. Breeden commented that he
thinks the law only restricts the County from buying more of the current machines.
May 9, 2007 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 10)
Mr. Foley reported that there is an appropriation needed for three projects in the CIP; the other
projects are in out-years. He said that the staff would do a separate work session on the CIP after that,
and said that the three projects were specifically identified by the Board as needing more elaboration.
There are more projects in 2008, but these three are the ones staff will focus the discussion. Those
projects are: Pantops Fire Rescue Station Construction; Recycling Center and School Building Services
Office/W arehouse.
Chief Eggleston stated that the Board was not sold on the idea of the Pantops Fire & Rescue
Station, because it was felt that East Rivanna or Monticello could adequately cover the Pantops area once
the City/County fire services contract ended. He explained that staff reviewed the initiative and developed
a report that walks through the needs analysis and concludes with a recommendation. Chief Eggleston
said that the Comprehensive Plan focuses on service delivery that will support development in the
development areas, and citizens have reported that fire and rescue services are a significant factor when
considering relocating into a development area. He stated that the Pantops station supports and
conforms to the County’s land use policy, and the Pantops Master Plan summary supports the need for a
station centrally located in the Pantops area.
Chief Eggleston said that the final report of the city-county consolidation was completed, and
during that study there was an extensive station location analysis based on GIS and response data that
recommended a station placed in the center of Pantops to adequately cover the area. Chief Eggleston
emphasized that the station is not just about shaving a few minutes off response times, but is actually to
provide the basic level of service to the development area and reducing the County’s reliance on the City
for primary response. He said that their research shows there are a number of key indicators supporting
construction of this station: response times show that the City, East Rivanna, or Monticello cannot reach
Pantops in less than ten minutes due to their locations and traffic congestion/controlled intersections.
Chief Eggleston said that response times to Pantops are actually increasing, and the current ten to twelve
minutes is twice that of the County’s goal and not a basic level of fire and EMS service. He stated that
demand is increasing due to population growth, and the master plans that indicate the residential
population will double; current population is around 4,000 with the highest concentration of elderly people
in the County, who are at the greatest risk of injury from fire – more than twice the amount of younger
adults.
Chief Eggleston said that over 52,000 vehicles per day travel the Route 250 corridor through
Pantops, contributing to accidents and slow response. He added that an increase in commercial,
residential and institutional development – including hospital facilities and elder-care centers – has
resulted in increased demand for services. Based on this information, staff believes that Pantops is a high
risk area and a ten minute response time is not the basic level of service needed for a development area.
Mr. Rooker noted information in Appendix C that shows response times of Monticello arriving to
the east end of Pantops development in five and one-half minutes, and reaching the west end of
development in seven minutes. This information does not seem to be supportive of the previous
information just given.
Chief Eggleston responded that GIS analysis did not coincide with actual response times, and
Monticello is not on the initial back-up call for Pantops so there is not comparison data; this information
does not factor in turns, traffic signals or controlled intersections. He stated that this is only the estimate
of GIS that they have today. He added that the consultant also noted the discrepancy in this information.
Mr. Rooker commented that this information does not include an analysis of East Rivanna which
can get to Pantops quicker than Monticello.
In recommending the Pantops station, Chief Eggleston said that staff is recommending reducing
the station’s scope and size as an acknowledgement of the lack of participation by the City and the
contribution of East Rivanna and Monticello – from a three-bay station to a two-bay station, and
eliminating the ladder truck and providing that service out of Monticello. He stated that the change would
have a substantial impact to the CIP, and they are recommending delaying construction from FY 10 to FY
13 to give them time to seek proffered land and/or donations, work out a partnership with East Rivanna for
staffing, and work with Monticello to reduce the visibility impact of the station. In order to address the
service needs in the Pantops area, staff is recommending that we establish a temporary station while they
work through the development issues. The benefits of that station would be to provide services and
reduce that ten minute response time. It would reduce the operational impact from 18 people to 12
people. It meets the timing of the City contract and a temporary station will help to provide additional
backup service to East Rivanna and Monticello, both of which are seeing an increase in calls.
He also reported that there are opportunities to put a temporary trailer in the Pantops area, and
may be other opportunities to occupy existing buildings. Chief Eggleston said that the reduction would be
down to $623,000 from $3.6 million over the next five years; operational impact would be down about $4.5
million over five years.
Mr. Dorrier asked why this could not be a substation of East Rivanna.
Chief Eggleston said that he has spoken with Chief Hood about a partnership to supplement
staffing. They have not discussed the idea of a substation with East Rivanna. The proposed setup would
be the same as that in Hollymead.
Mr. Rooker asked how the temporary station would be staffed. Chief Eggleston said it would be
staffed with career people 24 hours per day. He also said that the temporary station would be set up by
May 9, 2007 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 11)
the end of next fiscal year, and that corresponds with the end of the city-county contract and puts the
service in place for FY08-09.
Mr. Foley said that they would need to order the engine in the next fiscal year, but the staffing
would not follow until the fiscal year after that.
Mr. Rooker said there is no reason to buy a fire engine if you are not going to put a station there.
The decision needs to be made about the Board’s plans with respect to facilities before including the
engine in the budget.
Mr. Boyd said that he would like to maintain a volunteer system, and this would just get further
away from that. He supports a substation or a full station, but with the caveat that it be staffed with a
majority of volunteers.
Chief Eggleston said that they will continue to try, but the volunteers are already stretched thin. In
his opinion, it may be unrealistic to expect volunteers to run another station. He will pursue that
opportunity. Mr. Boyd said he is interested in increasing recruitment efforts and incentives in order to get
more volunteers. Chief Eggleston said he would like an opportunity to come back to the Board to show
what they have done, the incentives they have put in place, and the results of those incentives. They are
doing their best to try to attract and maintain volunteers.
Mr. W yant shared Mr. Boyd’s concern about moving away from a volunteer-based system. The
system needs to be enhanced. He also thinks a substation should be considered; not a full service
station.
Ms. Thomas asked how EMS fit into this fire and rescue station if it is a small, temporary facility.
Chief Eggleston replied that that is why they are proposing cross-trained staff, and the main
objective is getting there quickly, even though it would be in a fire truck.
Mr. Rooker said that there is lots of lumping together of services, adding that the buildings going
up at Pantops have sprinkler systems. He added that he would be more in favor of looking into an
emergency services substation instead of a fire station, as the statistics show that the County would be
spending a gigantic amount of money to shorten response times only somewhat. He noted that this is
relatively close to East Rivanna, Stony Point and Monticello. The City is not a part of this equation
because all the statistics show that the County can get their quicker from Rivanna and Monticello than the
City can get there.
In response to Mr. Slutzky’s question about current response times, Chief Eggleston said that the
current level is 10 to 12 minutes and the response time in the rural area for Monticello station is about
eight minutes.
Mr. Slutzky commented that part of the discussion has to include protection of rural area
strategies, as the amenities are supposed to be focused in the development areas. He said that he was
very supportive of the strategy that Chief Eggleston had come up with because it seems to significantly
reduce the cost burden and yet provides the necessary response times.
Chief Eggleston said, similar to what other localities do, a fire engine would include staff that could
respond to EMS calls, advanced life support, fire, etc., whereas an emergency services station would only
be responding to medical calls.
In response to Mr. W yant’s comments about insurance premiums, Chief Eggleston explained that
it would have a positive impact on ISO ratings, and most commercial development receives an
independent rating.
Ms. Vinzant confirmed that the cost in this year is $89,000 for the new engine.
Mr. Tucker said the issue of staffing – volunteer or career – can be brought back to the Board
during next year’s budget process. The adjustment to the FY 08 CIP to move forward would be $499,000.
Mr. Foley said that following this discussion there would be a resolution prepared to reflect the numbers
for items discussed today, then brought back to the Board. Mr. Boyd commented that establishing a
temporary station will cost more in the CIP for FY 08 than the original planned amount. Ms. Vinzant said it
will cost more in FY 08, but less in the five years.
In response to Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Foley said they are buying the fire engine earlier, but pushing
construction of the station out of the five years, so there is a considerable savings because there is no
ladder truck and the construction has been scaled back. This station will provide EMS and fire response;
the question is whether that service will be provided by volunteers. He stated that staff would work with
CARS and East Rivanna to encourage volunteer involvement in the fire stations, but the same thing
happened with Monticello and the County ended up having to add more staff later.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Slutzky, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to have staff go forward with
the recommendation to delay the construction of a permanent station at Pantops and to establish a
temporary station in FY 09. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant, Mr. Slutzky, Mr. Boyd, and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: Mr. Rooker.
May 9, 2007 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 12)
Mr. Rooker said that he thinks adequate service can be provided from existing stations and this
creates a large ongoing expense.
__________
Mr. Foley reported that the CIP includes $250,000 in each of the next three years for
establishment of recycling centers in different areas of the county; there are a number of questions about
the role of the Rivanna Solid W aste Authority (RSW A) in a separate recycling center. He said that RSW A
is charged with providing solid waste services to the County and City, and this would be a bit of a
departure for them. Mr. Foley stated that there are curbside services and other options that should also
be discussed. He suggested having the Board leave the $250,000 in the CIP for now and then discuss it
further this summer to see if they want to make a change.
Mr. Slutzky said he would like to see the recycling program expanded; he does not support a
lower number, and recommended that the $250,000 remain where it is.
Ms. Thomas said that RSW A is hiring a consultant to do an in-depth study of their operations, and
that is another reason to consider it later.
It was the consensus of the Board to maintain the $250,000 in the FY 08 budget for a recycling
center and to have a work session in the summer to study the policy issues relating to recycling centers.
__________
Ms. Diane Behrens, Executive Director, Support and Planning Services, said that the proposal for
the storage warehouse for the schools is not really just a warehouse, but is an office complex designed to
accommodate the technology department, which is currently located in a trailer adjacent to Building
Services. She explained that much of the Building Services space has been taken up by the County for
the County’s data center and they would like not to have to move the data center to find a new place for
Information Technology. Ms. Behrens said that IT would take over the current Building Services space,
and a new facility would be opened for Building Services personnel, staff, director, deputy director, etc.,
and fold into that office complex the Department of Child Nutrition – located in a trailer between Jack
Jouett and Greer. She stated that records for 26 schools would be housed there as well, and space would
be provided for SOL materials and operations. They are planning out for the long term rather than a short
term “quick fix”.
Mr. Slutzky asked if anyone had done an analysis to compare the capital costs to building a
building to house the hard copies vs. digitizing the materials and storing them in electronic media.
Ms. Behrens replied that that has not been done, and she does not know if those records could be
digitized, but assumed that they could be. She emphasized that the records piece of it is very small
compared to the office space usage. Mr. Slutzky said he would rather see if that is a viable, less
expensive option before making a commitment to this.
Mr. Boyd commented that perhaps the County needs to do a floor space cost-benefit analysis to
see that it is being adequately utilized.
Mr. Foley said that several years ago, the County did a master plan for the building and that is
what led to the decision to get more space. He stated that staff is currently evaluating space needs, but
the building cannot accommodate IT at this time. Mr. Boyd said he, also, would like to see that
information before moving forward with this project. He is interested in knowing if we are utilizing County
buildings to their best capacity possible. Mr. Foley said there is some good basic information on current
space availability and projected needs that staff can share with the Board.
Mr. Slutzky said he would like to know the cost to digitize the records and how much square
footage that would save, and secondly, a county-wide space utilization study, which may mean expending
money to hire a consultant. He then asked what the square foot cost of this new building would be. Mr.
Rooker responded that it is about $225 per square foot, and the total size is 38,000 square feet for a total
cost of $7.49 million.
Mr. Slutzky again stated that he would like to know about the possibility of digitization, space
utilization county-wide, and a justification for a fairly high dollar-per-square-foot price. Board members
concurred with Mr. Slutzky’s request.
Ms. Behrens replied that they set the barometer with COB-5th and went through a study that
determined future office space. She said that from the school’s perspective, it would be difficult to justify
using a lesser space than what those numbers called for. Mr. Slutzky said they need to look at whether
they are optimizing the use of public resources; not making this decision based on the size of space used
previously. Everyone has to be aware that the Board cut the real estate rate this year and they have to
look closely at expenditures. Ms. Behrens said the School Division is contemplating doing a resource
utilization study next year for efficiencies.
Mr. Boyd concurred with Mr. Slutzky and said this Board has not seen the numbers used for COB-
5th and therefore do not know any of that information.
Mr. Rooker said this did go through the CIP process, but he also has some of the same
questions.
May 9, 2007 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 13)
Mr. Foley said that the changes being made over the last three to five years have been based on
space standards, and staff could provide further detail. He said that it would be difficult to get all of that
information in the next month, and the Board could either delay the project until the next fiscal year or
amend the CIP along the way and add the item in.
Mr. Slutzky said that he’s not at all against the project, but he just wants to make sure the County
is making the best possible utilization of space.
Mr. Breeden said that the technical and oversight committees have extensively reviewed this
project already. He agrees the dollars are high, but the background and details have been done on the
project. Board members said they would like to have that information shared with them.
Mr. Foley agreed to make that information the starting point for an evaluation.
Mr. Tucker commented that this has been in the CIP for several years, but since there is more
scrutiny this year perhaps the Board needs more information.
Mr. Slutzky stated that he wants to step back and take a broader view of the CIP.
Mr. Boyd said it may become necessary when the Board gets its CIP report from the oversight
committee, it will need more detailed information on what generated the decision.
Mr. Foley said there is more detailed information than has been provided to the Board in the past.
Providing this information s going to involve some work sessions with the Board that have not been done
before; this may also change the role of the oversight committee.
Ms. Thomas agreed, stating that perhaps the role of the oversight committee would need to be
expanded.
Mr. W yant said that he did not necessarily need every detail of this information.
Mr. Boyd said that perhaps a summary would be sufficient.
Mr. Rooker asked, for a building of this utilization, why a metal building would be considered. Ms.
Behrens said that this is a two-story metal building. Mr. Rooker said it is a lot more expensive than he
would think for a metal building.
Mr. Foley said the direction he is hearing from the Board is for staff to delay the project by one
year.
__________
Mr. Tucker said, before staff develops the final resolution on the capital budget and initiatives, he
needed to bring back the agency programs to see if the Board had any changes. Board members said
they concurred with staff’s recommendation.
Mr. Foley noted that the next presentation would be on proffers, and it would take about an hour to
go through the information.
Mr. Tucker mentioned that the CIP did not have to be adopted right away, but could be brought
back in June and adopted in July.
Ms. Thomas asked about the status of the request from ASAP. Mr. Tucker said the Board can
approve their request at any time from their reserves. Mr. Rooker said when he raised the issue earlier,
he was told to bring it up during the CIP discussion. Mr. Tucker said it can be done in June since it is one
time monies.
(At 4:10 p.m., the Board took a brief recess, then reconvened at 4:25 p.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Discussion: Proffer Policy (continued from May 2, 2007).
The following memorandum dated May 6, 2007, was received from Mark Graham, Director of
Community Development:
“In response what staff heard at the May 2nd Board meeting, we have attempted to list the
questions that would need to be addressed with a proffer policy. Please recognize this is an
attempt to very quickly compile a list of issues and we cannot claim this is an exhaustive list.
W ith more time and careful analysis, it is possible other issues important to this policy could be
discovered. W e have attached a list of those identified policy issues.
Next, we heard an interest in an accelerated process with the goal of completing this policy as
quickly as possible and an interest in assuring various interest groups are given the opportunity for
meaningful participation in the process. Recognizing those goals can conflict, we have attached
two drafts of possible schedules for consideration. Based on the advice of the County Attorney,
both schedules assume this policy should be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Neither
schedule should be considered a ‘take it or leave it’, but simply provide the Board some ideas as
to how the process could be arranged.
May 9, 2007 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 14)
• The first schedule simply looks at how quickly could the County incorporate a proffer
policy into the Comprehensive Plan without consideration for anything beyond the need
for the Board to advise staff on policy issues and the legal requirements with an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. This process would rely on staff to very quickly
complete an analysis and draft the language. This would require several key staff to put
aside current work on other initiatives and make this policy their primary focus for the next
several months. Additionally, public input would be limited to the public hearings, after the
policy has been drafted. This also anticipates both the Board and Planning Commission
would quickly resolve any issues without deferring a recommendation or decision. Staff
notes that public participation is minimal in this process, which combined with the quick
turnaround, increases the likelihood of issues being discovered after the fact.
• The second schedule proposes a process where we take a little more time on the front
end for analysis, the public has an opportunity to participate before the policy language is
proposed, and both the Planning Commission and Board would have more time for
deliberations. W hile this process is not the “drop everything” described above, it does
assume this will be a priority effort and that will require some reprioritization of staff’s work
program. Those impacts are being evaluated with the presumption that work Board’s
Strategic Plan (e.g. master plans, Rural Areas implementation) should remain on
schedule, but all other items would be considered a lower priority than the proffer policy.
__________
Policy Issues to Consider
1. Is there an expectation that all new re-zonings will pay for the equivalent of their full
impact as determined by the cash proffer calculations?
Put another way, is it the Board’s policy to expect that all new development will pay its
own way to the extent possible under the law? (Also, see #3 and #4 below)
2. Is there a size of development below which the policy will not apply?
For example, would this policy be applied to an in-fill project which divides one lot into
two?
3. Does the policy apply to the total development proposed in the re-zonings or only the
additional development above what is by-right?
For example, Belvedere was over 800 units but had the same density possible without
rezoning the property. W hat if the rezoning only adds 10% to the by-right density? Not
providing a credit for the by-right could create a disincentive for rezoning to a better form,
but all of the units create a demand for infrastructure.
4. Are dwelling units that meet the County’s definition of “affordable” exempt from the policy
and the value of affordable housing provided exclusive of the cash proffer amount?
Each affordable unit creates a demand for infrastructure, but the cash proffer amount can
increase the difficulty of providing this affordable unit.
5. Should “credits” against the calculated cash amount be provided for:
• Affordable units in excess of the County’s policy (currently 15%)?
• Proffers for land/facilities on the development site that are called for in the Comp
Plan or identified in the CIP? (e.g. school site in the development)
• Proffers for land/facilities off of the development site that are called for in the
Comp Plan or identified in the CIP? (e.g. school site on another piece of
property)
• Proffers for services or other recommendations in the Comp Plan not otherwise
anticipated in the CIP (e.g. transit)?
• Comprehensive Plan consistency (e.g. consideration of projects in a designated
priority area)?
• Other design issues (e.g. LEED certified structures, public space in
developments)?
• Conservation Easements that capture Development Rights?
(For each of the above that are anticipated as quantifiable credits, staff will need
to prepare a methodology for the Board’s consideration.)
6. W hich of the following are considered non-credit conditions:
• Proffers for land/facilities that are not called for in the Comp Plan or identified in
the CIP? (e.g. parkland not in CIP)
• Impacts occasioned by the development and not included in the cash proffer
calculations? (e.g. road improvements beyond the CIP and Comp Plan which are
necessitated by this development)
7. How should inflation factors be addressed in the proffer policy? (e.g. indexed from
approval dates)?
__________
May 9, 2007 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 15)
Mr. Graham said he hopes everyone has had an opportunity to review the above information. He
said that staff has looked at a process for how to proceed with the proffer policy, and that they have
looked at other localities like Chesterfield as well as considering what is fairly unique to Albemarle. He
said that the big question is how much public input the County wants, as the most abbreviated process
would just include staff working up something to bring to the Planning Commission and Board for public
hearings. He also thought he heard some interest in getting public input before staff attempted to draft a
document for a Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Noting that Ms. Vinzant needed to leave at a specific time, the Board went back to the
budget discussions, with the intent to continue this discussion later.
__________
Ms. Vinzant distributed the formal budget resolution and the sheet of new initiatives (set out
below). She explained that the General Government capital portion adds $499,000 with changes for the
engine for Pantops fire station and the removal of $2.47 million from FY08 for a school capital project for
warehouse construction.
BUDGET RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia:
1) That the budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2007 is made up of the
County Executive’s Recommended Budget document and the amendments made by the
Board of Supervisors as detailed in Attachment B of this Executive Summary.
2) That the budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2007 is summarized as
follows:
3) That the budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2007 as described in
1) and 2) above be approved.
__________
Board of Supervisors' FY 07/08 Operating and Capital Budgets
Changes from Recommended Budget - 68 Cent Tax Rate
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
FY 07/08 Recommended
Budget
FY 07/08 Adopted
Budget
General Government Operations 79,419,180
Health Insurance Reduction -249,785
Subtotal, General Government Operations 79,169,395
General Government Initiatives 2,190,529
Initiatives -1,118,526
Expanded Bus Service 250,000
Subtotal, General Government 1,322,003
Refunds 146,590
Subtotal, Refunds 146,590
FY 07/08 Adopte d
Administration $10,459,959
Judicial 3,662,401
Public Safety 29,330,505
General Services 4,522,698
Human Development (inc luding PVCC)23,602,186
Parks , Rec reation, and Culture 6,246,526
Community Development 10,743,991
Refunds/Other 648,340
City/County Revenue Sharing 13,212,401
General Government Capital Projec ts 14,139,592
Stormwater Improvements 725,000
General Government Debt Service 2,253,761
Education - Capital Projects 14,128,000
Education - Debt Servic e 12,467,283
Education - School Operations 143,988,884
Education - Self-Sustaining Funds 14,954,196
Reserve - Health Insurance Reductions 249,785
Board Reserves 426,334
TOTAL $305,761,842
May 9, 2007 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 16)
City Revenue Sharing 13,212,401
Subtotal, Revenue Sharing 13,212,401
Capital Improvement & Debt Service Transfers 26,374,945
Adjustment based on revised revenue estimates -580,938
Subtotal, Capital & Debt Transfers 25,794,007
Transfer for School Operations 100,023,166
Adjustment based on revised revenue estimates -1,589,765
Subtotal, Transfer for School Operations 98,433,401
Contingency Reserves 4,511,283
Reassessment Reserve Adjustment -3,500,000
Health Insurance Reserve 249,785
Board Reserve Adjustment -201,649
Subtotal, Contingency Reserve 1,059,419
FY 07/08 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 225,878,094 219,137,216
GENERAL FUND - REVENUES & FUNDING SOURCES
FY 07/08 Recommended
Budget
FY 07/08 Adopted
Budget
COUNTY EXECUTIVE'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET 225,878,094
REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS
Reduce Tax Rate to $0.68 -9,830,547
Revenues Associated with Iniatives -119,915
Police 599 Revenue 109,584
Assess vehicles at trade in value 1,700,000
Increase Decal Fee 1,400,000
TOTAL, Revenue & Fund Balance Adjustments -6,740,878
FY 07/08 GENERAL FUND REVENUES 225,878,094 219,137,216
SCHOOL DIVISION EXPENDITURES
FY 07/08 Recommended
Budget
FY 07/08 Adopted
Budget
School Fund Operations 149,457,289
Decrease Transfer from General Fund -1,589,765
Other Revenue Adjustments 82,828
Subtotal, School Fund Operations 147,950,352
Self-Sustaining Fund Operations 15,354,196
Subtotal, School Self-Sustaining 15,354,196
FY 07/08 SCHOOL DIVISION BUDGET 164,811,485 163,304,548
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS BUDGET
FY 07/08 Recommended
Budget
FY 07/08 Adopted
Budget
General Government Projects 15,236,530
Reduce Contingency Reserve -1,096,938
Subtotal, General Government Projects 14,139,592
Storm Water Projects 725,000
Subtotal, Storm Water Projects 725,000
School Division Projects 16,598,000
Defer Funding for Building Services Office/W arehouse -2,470,000
Subtotal, School Division Projects 14,128,000
Debt Service 14,721,044
Subtotal, Debt Service 14,721,044
FY 07/08 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS BUDGET 47,280,574 43,713,636
SPECIAL REVENUE FUND OPERATIONS
FY 07/08 Recommended
Budget
FY 07/08 Adopted
Budget
Comprehensive Services Act 6,843,342
Subtotal, Comprehensive Services Act 6,843,342
E-911 Service Charge Fund 1,672,295
Eliminate Fund -1,672,295
Subtotal, E-911 Service Charge Fund 0
Other Special Revenue Funds 7,552,964
Subtotal, Other Special Revenue Funds 7,552,964
FY 07/08 SPECIAL REVENUE FUND OPERATIONS 16,068,601 14,396,306
May 9, 2007 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 17)
SUMMARY OF ALL FUNDS
FY 07/08 Recommended
Budget
FY 07/08 Adopted
Budget
General Fund 225,878,094 219,137,216
School Fund/School Self -Sustaining 164,811,485 164,811,485
Capital and Debt Service Funds 47,280,574 47,280,574
Special Revenue Funds 16,068,601 14,396,306
SUBTOTAL - ALL FUNDS 454,038,754 440,551,706
LESS INTERFUND TRANSFERS (138,632,862)(134,789,864)
TOTAL COUNTY BUDGET - ALL FUNDS 315,405,892 305,761,842 __________
FY 2007/08 Budget Adjustments Worksheet
Recurring Reserves
Beginning Board Reserves
1,600,338
Latest Adjustments
Health Insurance Reduction 249,785
Additional Police 599 Revenue 109,584
Subtotal -- Latest Adjustments 359,369
Net
Reserves
1,959,707
Requested Initiatives NET COST
yes Reserve from Health Insurance Reductions 249,785 249,785
yes CTS (Board Initiative) 250,000 250,000
2 Police Officers* 481,504 240,752
5 East Rivanna Personnel 654,264 545,220
yes Child W elfare Division Supervisor* 61,846 61,846
yes Child W elfare Division Office Associate* 32,399 32,399
no Police Office Associate 17,722 -
no Eligibility Program Supervisor* 34,865 -
no Eligibility Program Office Associate* 21,850 -
yes Assistant County Attorney 66,191 66,191
no Internet Bandwidth 33,000 -
no Course Reimbursement 65,000 -
no Skill Certification Pay 75,000 -
no Engineering Inspector - CIP 77,894 -
no Recreation Program Expansion* 55,613 -
no Project Manager - CIP 73,336 -
yes Rural Area Support Position 84,180 84,180
no Master Plan Implementation Planner 75,276 -
no Performance Analyst 119,259 -
Agency Programs
yes Zona Latina 3,000 3,000
no African American Festival (Chihamba) 3,000 -
no Charlottesville Community Design Center 30,000 -
Subtotal -- Initiatives and Agencies
2,564,984
1,533,373
Final
Reserves 426,334
*These initiatives have associated revenues. The cost shown is the net cost.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Rooker and seconded by Mr. W yant, to adopt the Budget
Resolution, as presented.
Mr. Slutzky said that he has some comments to make before he votes against this motion. He
said the Board needs to pay more careful attention to the need for implementation strategies to back up
the master planning process. He recommended not funding the planner position given that there is no
strategy in place to fund the infrastructure that the plans imply. He thinks they are doing the public a great
disservice by touting our master planning successes and yet being pretty soft on the reality of actually
implementing them. Mr. Slutzky said that reducing the tax rate and implementing certain policies have
been contrary to the master planning process.
May 9, 2007 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 18)
Mr. Rooker said that over 20 people have been added to General Services/Community
Development, and it is the one area that the County spends a lot more money per capita than other
localities because of things like master planning and rural area programs. He said that master planning
will continue to move forward, and just funding this position would not discount the planning efforts in the
community.
Mr. Boyd said that he does not subscribe to the philosophy that a master plan is something set in
stone. Master planning takes a tremendous public/private partnership. W e are funding those things that
are appropriate for us, as local government, to fund; we have to look to VDOT to fund those things they
should fund; and we have to look at developers and the private community to buy into the process and
fund their portion.
Mr. Slutzky said that the master plan is not set in stone, but it does communicate to the public a
certain vision for what is going to happen. For example, there is Jarmans Gap Road sitting on a map
meaninglessly knowing that Richmond is not funding it, and not having sufficient long-term provisions for
addressing that. He does not feel the Board have shown sufficient commitment to the outcome of the
master plans to be able to go forward and continue to do them. A component of those plans is funding the
infrastructure, staffing of the implementation plan and the decision the Board made last summer to phase
the growth areas. He said he does not want to support a budget that he thinks ultimately contains some
elements of misguided investments.
Mr. Rooker said that Mr. Slutzky had not disagreed with a single expenditure that he disagreed
with, but he wanted more money allocated for certain things.
Ms. Thomas said the entire Board had things it did not like in the budget, but if everyone voted
against it for that reason, they would be at a stalemate. She was very proud of the Board for reaching a
unanimous vote on a tax rate of 68 cents. Government is the art of compromise. She added that she
would like to see unanimous support for the budget because they all could tear apart some major portions
of it.
Mr. Slutzky agreed to support it as a demonstration of support for this very complex County
budget after making his views know.
Mr. Dorrier said master planning is not just a top down effort; we need to have more of a
partnership with County citizens in getting their involvement.
Mr. W yant said no planning is a mistake; master planning is essential. He agrees that
implementation is the key word; that position is critical. He is supportive of the budget because we have
been through that discussion. He appreciates the compromises that have been made and the wisdom
that has been spoken.
Roll was then called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant, Mr. Slutzky, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
__________
(At this time the Board went back to the proffer discussion.)
Mr. Rooker noted that even if the County debated the proffer policy for years, he is not sure they
could come up with anything better than what Chesterfield has. He suggested using that as a guideline
and trying to move forward with a definite policy.
Mr. Slutzky said he does not believe the $17,000 figure accurately reflects the actual costs. It is a
meaningful number. He would like a near-term strategy but also a long-term one that has involved more
analysis and contemplation. He is comfortable with picking a number today and moving forward with that.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that there does not need to be anything in the Comp Plan except a simple
statement that references proffers as an attempt to recover costs from the impact of development on
infrastructure in the County. He said that they do not have to put the whole policy into the Comp Plan.
Mr. Davis added that the Comp Plan currently has a policy adopted that does not emphasize
having large developments in the growth areas pay for infrastructure. He said that the basic policy issue is
to state that new growth in the development areas would pay for proportional, reasonable contribution to
infrastructure as established in a proffer policy. He said that that is probably an important element in
defending a cash proffer policy if it were ever challenged. Mr. Davis noted that Chesterfield does include
these general statements, and they then adopted their policy as a stand-alone document as an addendum
to follow the Comp Plan procedures. He added that there is an expectation under all policies, he has
seen, that the Board revisit that number periodically, and that number is going to adjust. The number the
Fiscal Impact Committee arrived at is solely dependent on the CIP and when the CIP changes, that
number is going to adjust. He said that enabling legislation available July 1 would allow for inclusion of all
reasonable costs of associated infrastructure related to development.
Mr. Slutzky said that he would like to come up with a number, but he does not see that that
number would fully reflect the impacts of development. He then asked about the under-funding of
infrastructure from past growth. Mr. Davis said that the impacts addressed by cash proffers are going to
have to be the reasonable impacts of the proposed rezoning.
May 9, 2007 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 19)
Mr. Slutzky said that there are still theoretically 50,000 development rights out there in the rural
area and he does not want development pushed out there. He added that he wants to make sure that the
Board also explores down-zoning, Transfer of development rights, or some other measure will help plug
the gap of by-right development in the rural areas.
Mr. Boyd asked if the Board thinks the proposed fast-track abbreviated process is out of line. In
his opinion, it is a good objective to move towards in terms of having a draft plan by mid August. He
thinks there has been enough discussion and he does not want to drag it out. He thinks it is one of the
most important decisions the Board needs to get resolved.
Mr. Slutzky said he would like to see a public hearing at the front end of the fast tracking process
so that stakeholders can have an opportunity to weigh in on the discussion. Just delaying the process one
month will make it a more “politically legitimate” exercise.
Mr. Boyd said the Board has the option of opening up some of its work sessions to allow public
comment.
In response to Mr. Slutzky’s comments about needing to better involve stakeholders, Mr. Rooker
said that the public has said for years that they would like for development to pay for its impact on
infrastructure. Mr. Rooker commented that the Board can make this process as complicated or as simple
as they want, but they adopted the Fiscal Impact Committee’s recommendation a week ago – along with
modified numbers.
Ms. Thomas said that Chesterfield does not have a development area or neighborhood model,
and they basically do not care what you build or even where you build it as long as it is shaded from the
road. She added that the public has been unsure about the Neighborhood Model because they have not
really seen it in action yet, but the County continues to promote that form of development. She thinks that
we are going to have to give developers a lot of credits for the things they do. She also happens to think
that $17,500 is too low of an accurate reflection of costs. Ms. Thomas said that it is going to take some
hard work to come up with an actual proffer policy. She does not think that the Board can just pick up
Chesterfield’s policy.
Mr. Dorrier said that Chesterfield divides their county into service districts which have different
taxing schemes. Mr. Davis said that they divide it into two districts for valuing cash proffers for certain
road impacts, and into three districts for purposes of schools. This is not a service district that is a taxing
service district. He said that it is a true service district as to where development has impacts related to
roads and schools based on its location.
Mr. Boyd said the Fiscal Impact Committee spent a lot of time talking about whether to develop
the cost of development by districts or keep as a county-wide approach. Mr. Rooker said that seems
more appropriate because when you get into transportation, it is difficult to determine which areas have an
impact on the Route 29 corridor or the Route 250 corridor since everyone in the community drives in those
areas.
Mr. Boyd said he does not know if we can make this schedule, but he would like to try. He likes
that it starts with Board work sessions.
Mr. Graham said there are questions that need to be answered. This is something staff has
pulled together very quickly and is not convinced that they have touched on all the issues; they have not
done a thorough analysis yet. He noted that it would take additional staff time on this that would pull them
away from other priorities.
Mr. Slutzky suggested reviewing the information prior to the work session, and they need to start
with that meeting and a series of questions.
Mr. Rooker said that Greene County put their plan in place, and it is simple. He said that this is
not something that cannot be changed annually. He thinks it is important that we not take forever to get
something in place, and would hope the Board would adopt a commitment to move forward on the first
recommended schedule that Mr. Graham laid out; and commit themselves to having as many work
sessions as required to make those decisions.
Referring to the proposed schedule, Mr. Tucker said, because of its schedule, the Board cannot
hold a work session on June 6.
Mr. Boyd said that he would be willing to set some extra days for meetings. He also said that he
would like to have the list of proffer policy options put online. That would be a great way to solicit input.
Ms. Lee Catlin, Community Relations, agreed that she could work with Mr. Graham to get this
information electronic, adding that forced choice questions provide better hard data.
Ms. Thomas suggested that there be some way to point out that the proffers will only be levied on
rezoning, these are not impact fees, and there may be policy reasons to encourage development in some
areas and not others.
Mr. Rooker said that he hopes the County takes whatever is possible from the enabling legislation
for transportation cost impact fees to level the playing field.
May 9, 2007 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 20)
Mr. Graham stated that he and Ms. Catlin would work on a way to get the information online. He
also said that there are a number of applications that are at the Board or close to being there, and some
guidance as to how staff should be treating those would be helpful.
Mr. Davis said that up to now staff has been analyzing development proposals on a case by case
basis. The Fiscal Impact Committee has established a maximum impact figure based on the current CIP
and methodology, which has been accepted by the Board. He added that there may be things that offset
the per-unit cash proffers, and the question is whether staff should formalize something as they review
applications.
Mr. Graham added that staff recognizes that there obviously is going to be some changes along
the way. Staff will have to make assumptions to move things forward and then those assumptions can be
discussed when the particular project is brought before the Board.
Mr. Rooker said that is how things are done now. He added that they do have the Fiscal Impact
Committee’s computation that the Board adopted as a guideline. He emphasized that it would help staff if
the Board had consensus on these things which would help staff in the interim.
At this time it was the consensus of the Board to start going through the policy issues and address
as many as possible as time would allow.
Is there an expectation that all new re-zonings will pay for the equivalent of their full
impact as determined by the cash proffer calculations?
Mr. Graham said when the Board discussed the fiscal impact policy it had different rates for single
family detached, single family attached, and multi-family. Chesterfield’s policy charges one price for a
dwelling unit regardless of the type. He asked if the Board would want to come up with a fixed price per
unit.
Mr. Rooker replied that the Board adopted a policy last week that extrapolated a different amount
for each unit type. The Board decided that it would not charge a fiscal impact fee on affordable units
within rezonings.
Mr. Boyd noted that he did not think mobile homes should be included. Mr. Rooker reminded him
that they were going to exclude mobile homes.
In response to Mr. Boyd, it was the consensus of the Board that no fiscal impact fee be charged
on affordable units.
Mr. Graham said where the type of units are not specified, staff will assume the highest. Board
members concurred. Mr. Graham said the Board’s response also answers question #4, which is:
Are dwelling units that meet the County’s definition of “affordable” exempt from the policy
and the value of affordable housing provided exclusive of the cash proffer amount?
The Board then moved to the next question:
Is there a size of development below which the policy will not apply?
Ms. Thomas said this brings into the issue of fostering infill. Using Places29 as an example, it will
only be the way that it is supposed to be if we have a lot of infill. That does not mean we do not charge
any impact fee, but there should be some kind of credit given for infill development.
Mr. Graham said the answer, he is hearing from the Board, to the size is “no”, but that could be
one element of Comprehensive Plan consistency.
Mr. Slutzky said he is more interested in giving some slack to the smaller size units because those
are more likely to be pushed into the rural areas. It is an issue that needs to be discussed further.
Mr. Boyd said the overall plan is to get people to develop in the growth areas and not push them
out into the rural areas.
Mr. Graham said staff will bring this question #2 back to the Board for further discussion.
Does the policy apply to the total development proposed in the re-zonings or only the
additional development above what is by-right?
Mr. Slutzky said this also needs to come back to the Board for further discussion.
Mr. Davis said Chesterfield specifically addresses this issue and they apply it to all development
allowed by the rezoning and not the net number.
Mr. Rooker asked if staff knew of any locality that does not apply their policy to the total number of
units. If the Board goes down that road, it will significantly limit the applicability of the proffer policy.
Ms. Thomas said that is when you give the developer a lot of credits for LEED and things like that
which might provide some incentive.
May 9, 2007 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 21)
Mr. Boyd said one of the most difficult issues for this Board is going to be how to blend the
Neighborhood Model, which is unique, into this proffer policy process.
How should inflation factors be addressed in the proffer policy? (e.g. indexed from
approval dates)?
Mr. Slutzky suggested this come back to the Board for further discussion using indexes to be
determined at the work sessions.
Mr. Davis commented that it is an expectation that proffers from this point forward would have an
inflation factor.
Which of the following are considered non-credit conditions:
• Proffers for land/facilities that are not called for in the Comp Plan or identified in
the CIP? (e.g. parkland not in CIP)
• Impacts occasioned by the development and not included in the cash proffer
calculations? (e.g. road improvements beyond the CIP and Comp Plan which are
necessitated by this development)
Mr. Davis mentioned that up to now proffered land such as parkland could not be dedicated until it
was approved in the CIP, but that such property could be accepted anytime under the authority given by
the new enabling legislation.
Ms. Thomas suggested that the Board proceed as if the new legislation had taken effect.
Mr. Rooker said if we are going to give credit for parkland, then it should be given, and the same
with road improvements that may not be in the CIP that we decide are important that are occasioned by
the development and should be given credit.
Mr. Boyd asked if it would be possible to include in the policy that those are discretionary proffers
and the Board determine on a case-by-case basis if it qualifies as a proffer.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks that is what actually happens.
Mr. Davis said that proffers would need to be accepted in total, not individually. The Board does
not have the ability to say it will accept proffers one through five, and not accept the remaining. Mr. Boyd
said we are only talking about how much is credited against the $17,500.
Ms. Thomas said that there are also “fake” proffers that provide credit just for developers to obey
ordinances.
Mr. Davis said that where this gets problematic is when improvements are proffered and staff
must determine what is beyond what is necessitated by the rezoning and should be given a credit. An
example is the North Pointe development where a number of road improvements were proffered. He
believes that a vast number of those road improvements are going to be required by VDOT. Do you give
credit for road improvements that are going to be required at the site plan stage? He believes the staff
position will be that you should not get credits for those improvements because they are necessitated by
the development. If they did an improvement such as adding another lane that was beyond VDOT
requirements, then the developer should be given credit.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the Board would not want the latitude to choose to give a value of credit for
one or some of those improvements.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks that the Board needs to first concentrate on the value of things, whether
we accept them or not is secondary, i.e., what is the value of wetlands, a school site, off premises
transportation improvements that are not required.
Mr. Davis noted that Chesterfield used the county-assessed value for land dedications, and the
value their staff would place on an improvement is what it would cost the county to do that improvement.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks we need to look at staff to provide us with the estimates of the worth of a proffer
and the cost to the County. Mr. Boyd said that is an initial guideline that we can use.
Mr. Graham mentioned that if someone is proffering something that is not in the CIP, or even in
the Comp Plan, perhaps a proffer may not be accepted. The question is whether we even give that credit.
Mr. Rooker responded that that would need to be evaluated on a case by case basis.
Mr. W yant noted that it is public value that they are looking for.
Mr. Davis asked about buffer areas that are not developable. The County having ownership is not
negative, but it does not add a great deal of value.
Should “credits” against the calculated cash amount be provided for:
• Affordable units in excess of the County’s policy (currently 15%)?
May 9, 2007 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 22)
• Proffers for land/facilities on the development site that are called for in the Comp
Plan or identified in the CIP? (e.g. school site in the development)
• Proffers for land/facilities off of the development site that are called for in the
Comp Plan or identified in the CIP? (e.g. school site on another piece of property)
• Proffers for services or other recommendations in the Comp Plan not otherwise
anticipated in the CIP (e.g. transit)?
• Comprehensive Plan consistency (e.g. consideration of projects in a designated
priority area)?
• Other design issues (e.g. LEED certified structures, public space in
developments)?
• Conservation Easements that capture Development Rights?
(For each of the above that are anticipated as quantifiable credits, staff will need to
prepare a methodology for the Board’s consideration.)
Mr. Slutzky said he thinks staff needs to bring this item back during the work session.
Mr. Rooker commented that he does feel that credit should be given to affordable housing above
what is requested by the County. He thinks that some of these items should be given credit.
Mr. Slutzky said he is not sure about the credit automatically given for a school site because that
school may have been necessitated because of that development.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the general policy should be that we give credit for those things that are
in the Comp Plan that creates capacity beyond that development.
Ms. Thomas said there are going to be times when we will want to give credit for things that are
off site, i.e., fire engine or bus. Mr. Slutzky commented that transit is a much more complicated issue.
W e want transportation operating contributions, but if they say “we will give you a bus”, he does not want
to give full credit on something that we only get ten percent of the full value.
Mr. Davis commented that proffers generally do not have an opportunity to address operating
costs. Ms. Thomas asked if operating costs is precluded. Mr. Davis said that starting July 1, the
developer can proffer reasonable cash proffers that are reasonably related to the rezoning.
Mr. Boyd said that he feels the Board will come together with a consensus at the work sessions.
Mr. Graham asked if the Planning Commission should be invited to the work session in June.
Board members agreed.
Mr. Rooker asked if we want to invite public comment during the first portion of the work session.
Board members also agreed.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Closed Session.
At 5:47 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Slutzky and seconded by Mr. W yant that the Board go
into closed session pursuant to Section 2.2-3.711 (A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection 1 to
consider appointments to boards, committees, and commissions, and appointment of staff position; and
under Subsection 7 to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific matters requiring legal advice
relating to an inter-jurisdictional agreement.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant, Mr. Slutzky, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Certify Closed Session.
At 6:31 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was offered by Mr. Slutzky,
seconded by Mr. Rooker, that the Board certify by recorded vote that to the best of each board member’s
knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the
Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the closed session were
heard, discussed, or considered in the closed session.
(Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Thomas left the meeting at 6:30 p.m.)
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. W yant, Mr. Slutzky, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Thomas.
May 9, 2007 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 23)
Motion was offered by Mr. W yant to make the following appointments/reappointments:
to reappoint M. W altine Eubanks to the Advisory Council on Aging with said term to expire May
31, 2009;
to reappoint Rod Gentry to the W orkforce Investment Board as an at-large member with said
term to expire June 30, 2010;
to appoint Emily Bardeen to the W orkforce Investment Board with said term to expire June 30,
2010; and
to appoint W illiam M. Letteri as Director of Facilities Development effective June 5, 2007.
Mr. Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. W yant, Mr. Slutzky, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Thomas.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Adjourn. At 6:32 p.m., there being no further business to come before the
Board, the meeting was adjourned.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
of County
Supervisors
Date: 08/08/2007
Initials: EW J