2008-10-01October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on October
1, 2008, at 9:00 a.m., Lane Auditorium, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. (arrived at 9:19 a.m.), Ms. Ann H.
Mallek, Mr. Dennis S. Rooker, Mr. David Slutzky and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W . Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W .
Davis, Director of Community Development, Mark Graham, County Planner, V. W ayne Cilimberg, Clerk,
Ella W . Jordan, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Meagan Hoy.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Boyd.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Recognitions:
a. VACo Annual Achievement Award.
Mr. Boyd said the Albemarle County Public Participation Planning Program and Intranet Site have
been awarded a 2008 Achievement Award by the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo), which
recognizes exemplary local government programs. Albemarle was one of only 12 counties in Virginia to be
recognized in this competitive annual awards program that selects local government programs based on
criteria that include innovation, collaboration and model practices.
Albemarle received an Achievement Award for its comprehensive public participation planning
guidelines, which lay out expectations and processes for ensuring transparent, meaningful and productive
citizen involvement. W ith several County communities actively engaged in master planning, and many
more citizen engagement processes underway for major policy issues and capital improvement projects,
county managers recognized the critical need for a consistent, structured approach to involving citizens in
the decisions that affect them in a way that is clear and transparent to citizens, County staff and elected
officials. In these challenging economic times it is important to note that the program does not require
additional staff or funding to implement.
Mr. Boyd said the County appreciates this recognition from VACO for its efforts in public
participation, and find that County guidelines have really helped improved community involvement in a
number of critical issues facing the County. In acknowledging this award, the Board of Supervisors would
like to offer its appreciation for the support and constructive feedback that County departments and
citizens working with the new public participation plans have provided to help develop a dynamic program
that will continue to build strong and effective relationships with our communities.
Mr. Boyd then introduced Mr. Ted McCormack, Director of VACo Community Affairs, to present
the Achievement Award.
Mr. Boyd also expressed thanks to the Community Relations Office, particularly Ms. Britton Miller,
for outstanding work on the County’s public participation and outreach programs.
Mr. McCormack said that this year 34 entries were received, and 12 counties were awarded; the
Communications category was one of the most contested, and Albemarle’s entry was judged on
innovation, cooperative approaches, transferability, etc. He stated that there would be a recognition event
at the annual VaCo conference on November 11th. He then presented a certificate to the Board.
__________
b. Energy Star Award.
Mr. Boyd said on behalf of the Board of Supervisors he was pleased to announce that the
Albemarle County Office Building has earned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s)
prestigious ENERGY STAR, the national symbol for protecting the environment through superior energy
performance. The Albemarle County Office Building joins approximately 3,200 buildings nationwide that
have earned the ENERGY STAR.
By earning the ENERGY STAR, the County Office Building is using about 35 percent less energy
than average buildings, while still providing quality service and comfort to occupants. The County Office
Building lowered energy usage by 458,470 kilowatt hours and saved $58,900 in energy bills by making
cost-effective improvements. In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, this reduction is equivalent to
removing 38 vehicles from the roads for a whole year, and to planting 58 acres of trees. This effort
supports the County’s goal of reducing energy consumption in county office buildings by 30% by 2012,
and the longer-term goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050.
To earn the ENERGY STAR label, the County Office Building took the following actions:
• Conducted energy audits to identify saving opportunities
• Implemented lighting retrofits for higher efficiency lighting
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
• Installed occupancy sensors to reduce unnecessary lighting
• Implemented HVAC setbacks for nights, holidays and weekends
• Provided Countywide training to promote behavioral changes
• Provided compact fluorescent bulbs to employees with office lamps
• Implemented an Energy Management Policy
• Formed an Energy Management Team
• Set an aggressive goal for energy use reduction
Mr. Boyd said the County is very pleased to accept EPA’s ENERGY STAR label for the County
Office Building in recognition of its energy efficiency efforts. Through this achievement, County
employees have demonstrated their commitment to environmental stewardship while also lowering our
energy costs and we thank them for their efforts. He recognized Ms. Sarah Temple and Mr. George
Shadman in particular for their leadership and dedication to achieving these very impressive energy
saving totals.
__________
Mr. Boyd then recognized Dennis Rooker for his ten years of service to the County. He presented
him with a certificate and pin.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Mallek reported that the Community Food Project is widening its scope of invitation and
inclusiveness, and a Food Policy Council is being encouraged by the state. She indicated that the local
food organizations cannot accomplish goals by themselves, and the council concept would help them
unify. She asked the Board to think about the kind of involvement they would like the County to do; not
just necessarily funding. Ms. Mallek also said that the initiative will include an analysis of our “foodshed”
along economic development lines and paralleling the biodiversity study – location of prime soils and
farms – and mapping them to establish best locations for plants, community kitchens, etc.
Mr. Slutzky commented that one opportunity for the County to explore is to have schools
participate in the local food movement. He encouraged Ms. Mallek to bring that to the School Board
meeting later today.
__________
Mr. Rooker said that the RTA group met with the Funding Options group last Friday, and it was a
very productive meeting. He indicated that most at the meeting spoke positively of how to accomplish
additional transportation funding and the need for them to go back to their constituents and emphasize the
need for alternative funding and transit improvements. Mr. Rooker said that another meeting would take
place within the next few weeks. He indicated that all members of the Funding Options group have been
invited to meetings.
Mr. Boyd asked if the group was evolving into transportation as well as transit, and asked if the
group was considering setting up a transportation district.
Mr. Rooker responded that the idea is to create a Regional Transit Authority, but the joint meeting
with city Council revealed that a funding source would need to be sought for general transportation
projects, with a portion of that allocated for transit. He added that they have talked about a one-cent sales
tax possibility for a transportation fund that would benefit the entire region, and at the meeting the
comments were positive. He added that the struggle is it may be difficult for participants to go back and
pitch this to their constituents in a small amount of time.
__________
Mr. Rooker mentioned an article in the Loudon Times about illegal signs in the right-of-way.
Loudon County is seeking authority from VDoT to enable the County to remove signs from the rights-of-
way.
Mr. Tucker indicated that Ms. McCulley and Zoning are planning to meet with VDOT in the near
future about this issue.
Mr. Davis added that the agreement is in the Attorney General’s office waiting for its approval.
Ms. Thomas asked for an explanation on the Attorney General’s recent opinion that political signs
are exempt from County ordinances.
Mr. Davis explained that in an opinion for Fairfax County, the Attorney General opined that for
purposes of the VDoT removal program, which allows for civil penalties, a political sign is not included
within the definition of a sign because the definition only applies to advertisements – which political signs
are not. He said that a previous General Assembly removed “political signs” from the definition, and VDoT
will not be removing political signs from the right-of-way, unless they create a traffic hazard. It is unlikely
that VDoT will take an aggressive position and remove the signs.
Mr. Rooker said that the issues of late have related more to removal costs and funding than
policy.
__________
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
Ms. Thomas thanked Charlottesville Tomorrow for broadcasting Mr. Boyd’s recent interview on
W INA.
__________
Ms. Thomas stated that she and Ms. Mallek have been working on the Crozet Library Committee.
Sketches of the Library are available if anyone would like to see them.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the Historic Preservation Committee continues to urge adoption of an ordinance
which will come before the Board soon.
__________
Ms. Thomas noted that a month ago or so she mentioned that Albemarle and Charlottesville was
not listed in the magazine for historic preservation. The Automobile Association Magazine wrote back and
explained how they arrived at those choices. The choices seem to be logical and thought through.
__________
Ms. Thomas said that it was her understanding that a staff poverty workgroup was going to be
formed after the Board went through the Poverty Report. She asked staff when that might happen.
Mr. Tucker said he does not have an update, but that he will talk to the Director of Social Services
to determine the status. There have been meetings with department heads, etc., but he does not know if
further action has been taken.
__________
Ms. Thomas said that she and Ms. Mallek sit on the Planning District Commission. There have
been over 50 applications for Harrison Rue’s position at TJPDC. She has offered to review them; the
applicants are from all over the U.S. and many have indicated they applied because of the area’s
reputation.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she will be attending the Chesapeake Bay W atershed forum this weekend, and
the concept of “zero runoff” from construction sites will be discussed.
__________
Mr. Boyd updated the Board on a community conversation he recently had regarding softball
lighting at Darden Towe Park. He reported that the softball community felt very left out of the McIntire
Park design study and the YMCA also said there were preferred designs that would have saved the fields
at McIntire Park. He also had a conversation with Dave Norris, Mayor of the City, and they agree that the
Board of Supervisors and City Council should have been more engaged in the process. The net effect of
this will be losing two fields. Mr. Boyd also commented on the need for locations for women’s fast pitch
softball.
Mr. Slutzky said that the City’s decision caused them to lose two fields, and the County’s decision
to light the joint fields would expand the opportunities. He added that the County is not the responsible
party for the decision the City made.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that the decision about lights would be a joint one, but the City would
ultimately decide on the use of McIntire Park. He also noted that fast-pitch women’s softball has become
a significant NCAA sport and now provides scholarship opportunities.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
There were none.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr.
Slutzky, to approve Items 7.1 (as read) through 7.10, with the exception of pulling Items 7.3 and 7.4,
making a separate motion on Item 7.5, and to accept the remaining items as information on the Consent
Agenda. (Discussions on items are included with the individual agenda item.) Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item No. 7.1. Approval of Minutes: December 12, 2007; February 11, March 5, March 12, March
19, July 9, July 23, August 5, September 3 and September 10, 2008.
Mr. Rooker had read the minutes of December 12, 2007 and found them to be in order with the
exception of some typographical errors, and had read the minutes of August 5, 2008 and found them to be
in order.
Mr. Dorrier had read the minutes of February 11, July 9 and September 10, 2008 and found them
all to be in order.
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
Ms. Mallek had read the minutes of July 23, 2008 and found them to be in order.
Mr. Boyd had read the minutes of September 3, 2008 and found them to be in order with the
exception of a typographical error.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the minutes as read.
__________
Item No. 7.2. Resolution to Fix Compensation for Albemarle County Service Authority Board
Members.
The following letter of request was received:
“September 9, 2008
County of Albemarle
Board of Supervisors
c/o Mr. Robert Tucker, County Executive
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Re: Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors’ Compensation
Dear Supervisors:
The Virginia W ater & W aste Authorities Act, Virginia Code Section 15.2-5113 (C) states that “Board
members shall receive such compensation as fixed by resolution of the governing body or bodies which are
members of the authority, and shall be reimbursed for any actual expenses necessarily incurred in the
performance of their duties.” The Albemarle County Service Authority’s (ACSA) By-Laws, Section 2-4
provides for “….a reasonable compensation for members of the Authority who are not County employees.”
Since July 1, 1997, ACSA Board members have been compensated $100.00 per regular meeting
attended, and $50.00 for each additional meeting attended per month. In addition, Board members have been
reimbursed for mileage to and from their homes to attend the meetings. The ACSA interprets the Virginia
W ater & W aste Authorities Act to require that the County of Albemarle Board of Supervisors must authorize
increases in compensation to ACSA Board Members. The ACSA Board of Directors is recommending the
following for your consideration:
1. The increase in Board Member compensation, effective July 1, 1997, was not authorized by the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. It is requested that the Supervisors authorize the
increase in compensation to $100.00 per regular meeting attended and $50.00 for each
additional meeting attended per month, retroactive to July 1997.
2. The compensation per meeting be increased to $150.00, effective upon the authorization of the
Board of Supervisors.
3. The compensation per meeting be adjusted annually, based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
This adjustment, if authorized, would occur annually on April 1st.
4. The compensation for the ACSA Board of Directors will be reviewed every five years.
W e appreciate your consideration of these recommendations. If you have any questions, please do
not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Gary W . Fern, P.E.
Executive Director”
(Discussion: Ms. Mallek asked if there was any interest by Board members to consider the
compensation for the other County boards and commissions.
Ms. Thomas said it might be a good idea to get a report back to the Board.
Mr. Tucker said it has been a while since the Board has looked at the compensation for the
boards and commissions.
Mr. Davis agreed with Mr. Tucker and said the compensation is set out in the County Code. He
thinks the last adjustment was made about eight years ago.
Mr. Boyd said he also thinks it is a good idea to revisit the issue.
Mr. Rooker suggested including a cost of living adjustment and then the issue doesn’t come up
after ten years or so.
Mr. Tucker suggested staff looked at the compensation issue and establish a method so that it
does not have to come back annually to the Board.
Mr. Rooker suggested including a cost of living factor for increases in the ordinance.)
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION TO FIX COMPENSATION
FOR ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE
AUTHORITY BOARD MEMBERS
WHEREAS, Section 15.2-5113(C) of the Virginia W ater and Sewer Authorities Act provides that
Service Authority Board members shall receive such compensation as fixed by resolution of the governing
body or bodies which are members of the authority; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Board has requested that the
compensation of Board members be increased to $150.00 per meeting attended in recognition of the
increasing complexity of the management, environmental and other issues facing the Authority, and in keeping
with present-day compensation for board members among other W estern Virginia water authorities; and
WHEREAS, compensation of ACSA Board members has not increased since 1997; and
WHEREAS, the ACSA Board compensation increase in 1997 was not fixed by a resolution of the
Board of Supervisors.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
affirms and ratifies the compensation of Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Board members for the
period beginning July 1, 1997 through September 30, 2008 at $100.00 per regular meeting attended and
$50.00 for each additional meeting attended per month; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby fixes the
compensation of Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Board members at $150.00 per meeting
effective October 1, 2008. Such compensation shall be adjusted annually on April 1st by the percentage
increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Such compensation shall be further reviewed every five years.
__________
(Discussion: Mr. Boyd said that he believes a public hearing should be held on Items #7.3 and
7.4 because the Route 20 and sections of Route 250 are in the growth areas. In the future there could be
commercial sites on these routes and they may want to put up public signs. This designation could take
that decision out of local control.
Mr. Davis responded that the sign restriction applies to offsite advertising – such as billboards –
which is already restricted by the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Boyd said that he would like the public to weigh in on this.
Mr. Rooker said the Board could hold a public hearing on this next week, October 8th.
Mr. Davis said there is no required advertisement for this item.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that the Virginia Byway staff report indicates that the designation does not
impose any restrictions on private property, but may prohibit the installation of new signs advertising offsite
uses and activities (billboards) along those roads – which are already regulated. He emphasized that he
does not see a reason to run this item down to the last date that The Journey Through Hallowed Ground
needs the decision.
Ms. Thomas said that a public hearing would help inform the community. Her first priority would
be to get the process moving along.
Mr. Benish commented that the second or third week of November “becomes a critical point” for
Hallowed Ground.
Mr. Tucker noted that there are already scenic highways in the County with commercial
operations, so it should not be that big of an issue.
Mr. Rooker noted that there are some road segments they wanted included in the All American
road designation that are not included in the resolution before the Board today. He suggested that the
resolution be amended to include those roads.
Mr. Davis pointed out that there are two resolutions – the All-American Road resolution and the
Scenic Byway designations. If the County is going to hold a public hearing on the Byway designation, it
has 30 days from the date Mr. Tucker received the notification (September 3) to notify VDoT of that action
so that they could delay action by the Commonwealth Transportation Board. Mr. Davis said that the
Scenic Byway designation is a prerequisite for the All-American Road designation.
Mr. Rooker noted that a lot of the candidate roads are in Mr. Boyd’s district.
Mr. Boyd suggested that this conversation be postponed until this afternoon after VDOT is here.
Mr. Davis reiterated that the CTB designation schedule might be affected if a public hearing is
requested by the Board.
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
Mr. Rooker said that the Journey people were fairly frantic about having this item addressed
today.
Mr. Boyd said that he does not want to jeopardize their timeframe.)
__________
Item No. 7.3. Resolution Supporting National Byway All-American Road Designation for Route
20, Route 22 and Route 231.
The Executive Summary states that the Journey Through Hallowed Ground (JTHG) Partnership is
requesting all localities along the JTHG corridor, from the Gettysburg battlefield in Pennsylvania to
Monticello, adopt resolutions supporting the designation of Routes 15, 20, 22 and 231 as National Scenic
Byways Program, All-American Roads. The National Scenic Byways Program is part of the U.S.
Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration and is a grassroots collaborative effort
established to help recognize, preserve and enhance selected roads throughout the United States. There
are currently 126 National Scenic Byways in the country. There are four designated in Virginia: Colonial
Parkway (W illiamsburg/Jamestown/Yorktown), Skyline Drive, Blue Ridge Parkway, and the George
W ashington Memorial Parkway (outside of W ashington, D.C.).
One of the JTHG Partnership’s main goals is to coordinate efforts with localities along the corridor
and with the transportation officials in Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania to seek this designation in
2008. The support of each locality is needed for the 175-mile corridor to be designated as a National
Scenic Byway, All-American Road. A locality may hold a public hearing on the proposed designation, but
a public hearing by the locality is not required.
The roads proposed for designation as All-American Roads are:
• Route 20 North (Stony Point Road), from its intersection with Route 250 East to the
Orange County line
• Route 22, from Route 250 E to its junction with Route 231
• Route 231, from Route 22 to the Louisa County line
To be designated a National Scenic Byway, a road must possess at least one of the following
“intrinsic qualities” on a regional level: archaeological, cultural, historic, natural, recreational, or scenic. To
meet the higher level All-American Road designation, a road must possess at least two of the intrinsic
qualities on a national level. Applying U.S. Department of Transportation standards, the JTHG
Partnership determined that the Route 15/20/22/231 corridors meet the criteria for the All-American Road
designation.
An All-American Road designation does not impose any restrictions on private property with the
exception of prohibiting the installation of new signs advertising off-site uses and activities (billboards)
along these roads. Such signage is already restricted by County regulation and the existing Virginia
Byway designation along these routes. All other regulatory authority remains with local and state
jurisdictions.
According to Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) staff, an All-American Road
designation would not limit VDOT’s ability to maintain, operate or improve transportation facilities along
designated byway corridors, nor would it increase the extent of Federal involvement. (See Attachment A)
These corridors are within a JTHG National Heritage Area. (See Attachment C) VDOT staff has noted
that “the NHA designation is designed to call attention to issues of historic and heritage conservation” and,
therefore, “it may increase public attention and scrutiny on the effects of VDOT actions within the NHA.”
An All-American Road designation would make affected localities and states eligible for grant
funding to support and enhance the National Scenic Byway through the National Scenic Byways
Discretionary Grants Program. According to the JTHG Partnership, the NHA and Routes 20, 22 and 231,
if they receive the All-American Road designation, will be included in future American Byways maps
published by the U.S. Department of Transportation and will be marketed to national and international
visitors with the hope of increasing heritage tourism in the area.
Since the designation would not establish any new restrictions on private property except
restrictions on billboards, which are already regulated in the County, staff does not believe a public hearing
is necessary. The intent of the designation is consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan goals to
protect natural, cultural and historic resources as follows:
Goal: Protect the County’s historic and cultural resources
Objective: Pursue additional protection measures and incentives to preserve Albemarle’s historic
and archaeological resources in order to foster pride in the County and maintain the County’s
character
Goal: Preserve the County’s scenic resources as being essential to the character, economic
vitality and quality of life.
Objective: Maintain the visual integrity of all Albemarle’s roadways.
A resolution supporting an All-American designation for Routes 20, 22 and 231 is attached.
Should the Board decide to hold a public hearing, the hearing should be held in November to allow
sufficient time to meet required submittal deadlines for federal action in 2008.
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
There is no direct budget impact of designating these routes as All-American Roads. The
designation would provide opportunities for grants related to enhancing and protecting the Scenic Byway
corridor.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution supporting an All-American Road
designation for Routes 20, 22 and 231 in Albemarle County. Again, since the designation would not
establish any new restrictions on private property except restrictions on billboards, which are already
regulated in the County, staff does not believe a public hearing is necessary.
__________
Item No. 7.4. Resolution Supporting Virginia Byway Designation for Route 53, Route 729 (Milton
Road) and portions of Route 20 and Route 250.
The Executive Summary states that the Journey Through Hallowed Ground (JTHG) Partnership,
in its continuing effort to get National Scenic Byway Designation from the Gettysburg battlefield in
Pennsylvania to Monticello, asked VDOT to determine the eligibility of roads in the Journey Through
Hallowed Ground Corridor to be included in the Virginia Byway System. It was determined that Route 729
(Milton Road), Route 53 (Thomas Jefferson Parkway) and portions of Route 20 and Route 250 have been
recognized as part of the JTHG Corridor in the County and the City, but are not designated as Virginia
Byways. Therefore, the JTHG Partnership has proposed Virginia Byway designation for the following (see
Attachment A):
• Route 729 (Milton Road), from its intersection with Route 250 to its intersection with
Route 53;
• Route 250 (east) from Route 22 to Route 729 (Milton Road);
• Route 53 (Thomas Jefferson Parkway), from the Fluvanna County line to its intersection
with Route 20;
• Route 20, from the intersection of Stony Point Road (Rt. 20 north) and Route 250 east of
Charlottesville through the City of Charlottesville to the Interstate 64 interchange south of
Charlottesville (a small portion of this segment, from Stony Point Road to Free Bridge, is
in the County and not currently designated. This segment of road is considered part of
both Route 250 and Route 20).
The following roads are currently designated as Virginia Scenic Byways in the County:
• Route 20 North (Stony Point Road)
• Route 20 South (Scottsville Road)
• Route 22 (Louisa Road)
• Route 231 (Gordonsville Road)
• Route 250 W est (Ivy Road/Rockfish Gap Turnpike)
• Routes 601/676/614 (Old Garth Road/Garth Road/W hite Hall Road)
A separate request will be presented to the Board at its October 1, 2008 meeting to adopt a
Resolution supporting the National Byway All-American Road designation for Routes 20, 22 and 231.
Roads must be designated as a Virginia Byway to be eligible for All-American Roads Designation.
The Virginia Byway Program identifies road corridors containing aesthetic or cultural value near
areas of historical, natural or recreational significance. Roads designated as Virginia Byways are
identified on a widely distributed Map of Scenic Roads in Virginia and promoted on the Virginia Scenic
Roads W eb site. The program encourages travel to interesting destinations on these roads, which are
generally away from high-traffic corridors. Byways typically stimulate local economies by attracting visitors
to lesser-known destinations.
A Virginia Byway designation does not impose any restrictions on private property, except that it
may prohibit the installation of new signs advertising off-site uses and activities (billboards) along these
roads. Such signage is already restricted by County regulation. All other regulatory authority remains with
the locality. A Virginia Byway designation does not limit VDOT’s ability to maintain, operate or improve
transportation facilities on such designated roads.
VDOT staff has indicated that all three road segments (Routes 53, 729, 20 and 250) are eligible
and should be considered for Virginia Byway designation (see Attachment B). Prior to Virginia Byway
designation by the State, the Board must adopt a resolution in support of the designation. The Board may
hold a public hearing on the proposed designation, but a public hearing is not required.
Since the designation would not establish any new restrictions on private property, staff does not
believe a public hearing is necessary.
The intent of the designation is consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan goals to protect
natural, cultural and historic resources, including:
Goal: Protect the County’s historic and cultural resources.
Objective: Pursue additional protection measures and incentives to preserve Albemarle’s historic
and archaeological resources in order to foster pride in the County and maintain the County’s
character.
Goal: Preserve the County’s scenic resources as being essential to the character, economic
vitality and quality of life.
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
Objective: Maintain the visual integrity of all Albemarle’s roadways.
Strategy: Pursue additional Virginia Byway designations for roads meeting State criteria:
• Route 53 (Thomas Jefferson Parkway)
A resolution supporting Virginia Byway designation for Route 53, Route 729 and portions of Route
20 and Route 250 is attached (Attachment C).
There is no direct budget impact of designating these Routes State Scenic Byways.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution supporting Virginia Byway
designation for Route 53, Route 729 and portions of Route 20 and Route 250. Since the designation
would not establish any new restrictions on private property, staff does not believe a public hearing is
necessary.
__________
Item No. 7.5. Resolution Supporting State Scenic River designation for the South Fork of the
Rivanna River and the Rivanna River from the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir Dam to the site of the
former W oolen Mills Dam.
The Executive Summary states that at the request of the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle
County, the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) conducted an evaluation of the South
Fork of the Rivanna River and the Rivanna River from the South Fork Rivanna River reservoir dam to the
site of the former W oolen Mills dam, and has determined that it is eligible for Scenic River Designation.
The evaluation criteria for Scenic River designation include: stream corridor vegetation; streambed and
stream flow modifications; human development of visual corridor; historic features; landscape; quality of
fishery; rare, threatened or endangered species; water quality; parallel roads; crossings; and special
features affecting aesthetics. That segment of the river from W oolen Mills to the James River is already
officially designated by the General Assembly as a state Scenic River. Attachment B is information from
DCR regarding the impacts of Scenic Stream designation.
The next step in the designation process would be for the Board of Supervisors to adopt a
resolution supporting the designation. If the resolution is adopted, the County would then request the
General Assembly to adopt legislation to formally designate the river in the 2009 session. The Board may
hold a public hearing on the proposed designation, but a public hearing is not required. The
Charlottesville City Council adopted a resolution supporting this proposal for Scenic River designation on
September 2, 2008.
This request began as a community effort that has included the Rivanna Conservation Society,
the Southern Environmental Law Center, and local legislators.
This proposal is also consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives
including:
Goal: Preserve the County’s scenic resources as being essential to the character, economic
vitality and quality of life.
Objective: Protect the scenic quality of Albemarle’s streams.
Strategy: Pursue Virginia Scenic River designations for rivers meeting state criteria.
Pantops Master Plan Guiding Principle: Residents of Pantops value the exceptional natural
and historical scenic qualities of this neighborhood – views to Monticello, surrounding mountains,
RIvanna River, and west to the City. It is important to protect these scenic vistas and sense of
open space as the neighborhood continues to grow.
Pantops Master Plan Recommendation: Preserve the Rivanna River. It is shown as green
space on the Parks and Green Systems Map and will create a linear park within the Pantops
Neighborhood
The designation of a river as “scenic” by the General Assembly is governed by the “State Scenic
Rivers Act” (Virginia Code Section 10.1-400). The only applicable limitation contained in the enabling
legislation is as follows:
After designation of any river or section of river as a scenic river by the General Assembly, no
dam or other structure impeding the natural flow thereof shall be constructed, operated or
maintained in such river or section of the river unless specifically authorized by an act of the
General Assembly.
DCR staff have clarified that bridges are typically not considered a structure that would “impede
the natural flow,” with the possible exception of unique “bridge” structures such as a low level/water level
bridge or a constructed ford. DCR staff advised that while the Scenic River status would not prevent a
road or pedestrian crossing from being constructed, if Federal or State funds were used for the
construction of such a project, there would be an emphasis placed on the aesthetic design of the crossing
to be in harmony with the scenic status of the river. Projects might be expected to use design features
such as see-through guardrail and other features that provide easy visual access to the river.
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
The following summarizes the impact of the designation:
• The designation does not impose any restrictions on private property.
• The only legislative prohibition of Scenic River designation is that no dam or other
structure “impeding the natural flow” shall be constructed without General Assembly
authorization.
• It does NOT give the public any right to use privately owned land.
• In general, designation is intended to recognize the scenic, natural and historic values of
the river and to encourage present and future owners to continue to exercise good
stewardship of the land and resources along the river. It also informs County officials
about the special attributes of the river, so that they can work with landowners to protect
those attributes.
Since the designation does not establish any new restrictions on private properties except
restrictions on the construction of dams or other structures impeding the flow of the river, staff does not
believe a public hearing is necessary to support this designation. The intent of the designation is
consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan goals to protect natural, cultural and historic resources
and to designate eligible streams for Scenic River designation. A resolution recommending Scenic River
designation for the Rivanna/South Fork of the Rivanna River is attached (Attachment D). Should the
Board decide to hold a public hearing, the hearing should be held in November to allow sufficient time to
meet required submittal deadlines for federal action in this year.
There is no direct budget impact from establishing the Scenic River designation. The
designation would provide opportunities for grants related to enhancing and protecting this section of
the river.
Staff recommends the Board adopt the attached resolution supporting State Scenic River
designation for the South Fork of the Rivanna River and the Rivanna River from the South Fork
Rivanna River reservoir dam to the site of the former W oolen Mills dam.
(Discussion: Mr. Slutzky said the suggested amendment to the Code of Virginia has the
provision that no dam or other structure impeding the natural flow of the River shall be constructed,
operated or maintained unless specifically authorized by an act of the General Assembly. Mr. Slutzky said
the Scenic River starts at the Rivanna Dam and as you head down to the end of this length, you
immediately run underneath where they hope to build the Berkmar Bridge. If the Berkmar Bridge needs to
be held up in the air, it will be held up by some kind of support structure that will likely be in the water. He
does not want to unwittingly create a circumstance where the bridge structure might be interpreted to be a
structure that requires General Assembly approval. He has communicated with a couple of folks and
there was suggestion that the Board add to the proposed language “nothing will preclude the
Commonwealth, the County of Albemarle or the City of Charlottesville from constructing or reconstructing
any bridge across the South Fork Rivanna River between the existing South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir
Dam and Route 29 including the bridge that crosses the South Fork Rivanna River along Route 29. He
asked if there should be some clarification language.
Mr. Davis responded that there would have to be clarifying language championed by legislators.
The Rockfish State Scenic River has language which specifically says “nothing in this Chapter shall
preclude the Commonwealth or local governing body from constructing or reconstructing any road or
bridge.”
Ms. Thomas said that seems like appropriate language.
Mr. Benish said that the Department of Historic Resources (DHR) has indicated that in their
opinion that does not fall under that restriction.
Mr. Davis suggested amending the resolution with a provision to say that “nothing in the
designation shall preclude the Commonwealth or a local governing body from constructing or
reconstructing any road or bridge.”
Board members concurred with the proposed clarification.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Rooker that the language proposed by Mr. Davis be added to the
resolution. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Ms. Thomas commented that when City Council did their Strategic Planning Retreat, the Rivanna
River rose to near the top of the things they want to focus during the coming year. That fits in with this
Scenic River designation.)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution supporting State
Scenic River designation for the South Fork of the Rivanna River and the Rivanna River from the
South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir dam to the site of the former Woolen Mills dam:
RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT STATE SCENIC RIVER DESIGNATION
FOR THE SOUTH FORK OF THE RIVANNA RIVER AND THE RIVANNA RIVER
FROM THE SOUTH FORK RIVANNA RESERVOIR DAM
TO THE SITE OF THE FORMER WOOLEN MILLS DAM
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
WHEREAS, the Code of Virginia, pursuant to Title 10.1, Sections 10.1-400 through 10.1-418, provides
for a “Scenic Rivers Act” under the jurisdiction of the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation; and
WHEREAS, the portion of the Rivanna River from the W oolen Mills dam to the Fluvanna County line
is now designated as a State Scenic River; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan, as adopted by the Board of Supervisors,
recognizes this existing designation and supports a strategy to pursue additional designations for rivers
meeting state criteria; and
WHEREAS, designation of this additional portion of the Rivanna River as a Scenic River would
recognize the quality and value of this natural and scenic resource throughout its length from the South Fork
Rivanna reservoir dam to the Fluvanna County line; and
WHEREAS, on October 31, 2007 by letter to John R. Davy, Director of the Division of Planning and
Recreation Resources, the Albemarle County Executive has requested that the Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation conduct a study of this portion of the Rivanna River to determine its potential as
a State Scenic River; and
WHEREAS, on July 17, 2008 by letter to the Albemarle County Executive, John R. Davy, Director of
the Division of Planning and Recreation Resources has declared that this portion of the Rivanna River was
found to qualify as an extension of the existing designated portion of the Rivanna.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
expresses its support for the designation of the Rivanna River from the base of the South Fork Rivanna River
reservoir dam to the junction of the South Fork and the North Fork of the Rivanna River (a distance of
approximately three miles) and the Rivanna River from the junction of the two forks to the site of the former
W oolen Mills dam (a distance of approximately six miles) as a “Scenic River” pursuant to the Scenic Rivers
Act, Virginia Code Section 10.1-400 et seq., provided that the designation shall not preclude the
Commonwealth or a local governing body from constructing or reconstructing any road or bridge.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors does hereby
respectfully request that the members of the Albemarle County legislative delegation introduce designation
legislation to the Virginia General Assembly for approval and designation in the 2009 session.
__________
Item No. 7.6. Resolution to accept the abandonment of Route 640 (Turkey Sag Road) in
the State Secondary Road System.
Removed from agenda.
__________
Item No. 7.7. Resolution to Endorse Pedestrian Bridge Project in the City of Charlottesville.
(Discussion: Mr. Rooker emphasized the importance of this resolution to endorse the pedestrian
bridge, working to connect Route 29 and McIntire Park with a ten-foot wide, hard surface, bicycle and
commuter trail that will connect to the Meadow Creek Parkway and to downtown Charlottesville via the
new Schenk’s Greenway Trail. He noted that the bridge is the only missing link in completing the trail, and
the Parkway has a similar muti-purpose trail.
Mr. Boyd asked if this bridge was part of the interchange. Mr. Rooker replied that it is over the
railroad tracks, not part of the interchange.
Mr. Boyd asked if this has any impact on the design for the YMCA. Mr. Rooker replied that it does
not have an impact.)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION TO ENDORSE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE PROJECT
IN THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville and the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning
Organization (“MPO”) have endorsed a Transportation Enhancement Project in the City of Charlottesville; and
WHEREAS, the project will add a much needed pedestrian bridge to connect the eastern and western
portion of McIntire Park that is cleaved by a railroad line, and
WHEREAS, the project will expand the City of Charlottesville’s pedestrian and bicycle network and is
the highest remaining priority in the City’s Bike Master Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors requests
the Commonwealth Transportation Board to establish a project toward the design and construction of a bike
and pedestrian commuter bridge, as more specifically described in Exhibit A.
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
__________
Item No. 7.8. FY 2008 Appropriations.
The Executive Summary states that the Code of Virginia § 15.2-2507 stipulates that any locality
may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year as shown
in the currently adopted budget. However, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the total
expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first publishing a notice of a
meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies to all County
funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
The total of these requested FY 2008 appropriations is $520,238.79. A budget amendment public
hearing is not required because the cumulative appropriations will not exceed one percent of the currently
adopted budget.
This request involves the approval of three (3) new FY 2008 appropriations as follows:
• One (1) appropriation (#2008084) totaling $94,100.00 for various School grants and programs;
• One (1) appropriation (#2008085) for General Fund over expenditures in the amount of
$308,929.65; and
• One (1) appropriation (#2008086) adjusting budgeted revenues and expenditures for the
Commission on Children and Families totaling $117,209.14
Staff recommends the approval of the FY 2008 Appropriations #2008084, #2008085, and
#2008086 totaling $520,238.79.
__________
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Appropriation #2008084 $ 94,100.00
Revenue Source: Local Revenue $ 94,100.00
At its meeting on August 28, 2008, the School Board approved the following appropriations:
• The 21st Century Community Learning Centers grant funds are used for the Club Yancey
After School Program which provides academic, civic, cultural and fitness/wellness
enrichment to eligible students at no cost to the parents. Club Yancey is a jointly operated
program through the Saint John the Baptist in the W oods Foundation and Albemarle County
Public Schools. Expenditures have exceeded appropriations for FY 2008, in the amount of
$39,000.00, due to an increase in funding.
• The Teaching American History Grant is based on a partnership of five public school
systems in central Virginia (Charlottesville City, Albemarle, Madison, Orange and Greene
Counties). The City of Charlottesville is the fiscal agent and Albemarle County Schools will
seek reimbursement for salary and compensation expenses incurred. The purpose of this
grant is to create a sustainable, long-term project that will become a model to share both
teaching strategies and content-based activities as well as inform future historical projects.
Expenditures have exceeded appropriations for FY 2008, in the amount of $25,100.00, due
to an increase in funding.
At its meeting on September 11, 2008, the School Board approved the following
appropriations:
• The University of Virginia’s mathematics Outreach Office has awarded Albemarle County
Schools with a grant in the amount of $30,000.00. These funds were used towards the
salaries of two Math Specialists at the middle school level.
Appropriation #2008085 $ 308,929.65
Revenue Source: General Fund Balance $308,929.65
Several general government departments will require an additional appropriation to cover
FY 2008 expenditures. This request will appropriate $308,929.65 from the General Fund Balance to
the following departments:
• Board of Supervisors Overtime, Part-time W ages, $ 20,906.76
Temporary Help Fees
The Board Office incurred additional overtime and part-time wages resulting
from an increase in Board meetings and transcription services.
• Circuit Court Books & Subscriptions $ 1,404.19
A new Circuit Court judge was appointed during FY 2007 resulting in an
increase in books and subscription costs.
• Police Motor Vehicles Fuel $ 1,992.89
Motor vehicle fuel costs in the Police Department exceeded budget.
• Police Overtime-Reimbursable $ 4,083.89
The Police Department exceeded the appropriated budget for reimbursable
overtime which is offset by an increase in revenue for this service.
• City Fire Contract $ 23,376.18
Based on the City Fire Contract terms, the FY 2008 payment due the
City exceeded the appropriated budget.
• Regional Jail $217,994.09
The County’s share of inmate population in proportion to other member entities
was higher than anticipated resulting in the County’s share of expenses being
over the County’s budget.
• Facilities Development Temporary Help Fees $ 2,872.68
As a result of staff turnover, temporary help fees were incurred to maintain
essential clerical office support during the hiring process.
• Tax Relief for the Elderly $ 36,268.85
Increases to the net worth and income limits for 2008 resulted in an
increase in participants and relief amount received through the Tax Relief
for the Elderly and Disabled Program.
• Soil & W ater Conservation VRS $ 30.12
The Virginia Retirement System contribution for the one County-funded
position exceeded the FY 2008 appropriation.
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
Appropriation #2008086 $117,209.14
Revenue Source: Local Revenue $ 14,732.94
State Revenue 102,476.20
The Commission on Children and Families exceeded their FY 2008 appropriated
expenditures by $117,209.14. This over expenditure was offset by additional State Grant Revenue
in the amount of $102,476.20 and additional funding from the City of Charlottesville in the amount of
$14,732.94.
(Discussion: Mr. Rooker pointed out that there are $217,000 of Jail overruns; the largest amount
in the appropriations.
Mr. Tucker said that this is based on inmate population. A lot of this has to do with inmates
staying longer because the State is not picking up State-eligible inmates and is leaving them in local jails
much longer.
Mr. Rooker commented that there are inmates in the Jail who were given 20 year sentences
several years ago and should be State penitentiary.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the Regional Jail is obligated to provide beds at our costs. Mr. Tucker
responded yes. They now have to look at an expansion of the Jail for nonviolent crimes or work release
inmates. He added that they cannot even get State funding until they are at least 150 percent over
capacity which they are now reaching.
Mr. Dorrier said they are projecting an increase in future Jail population based on the County.
Mr. Tucker said there are more than 100 inmates eligible for transfer to the State. The City has
the majority of the capacity of inmates, but the County is approaching that same capacity, so it will soon
be 50/50.
Mr. Rooker stated that there needs to be some revenue here, and wondered if it was allocated to
localities based upon number of inmates.
Mr. Tucker explained that the money goes to the population as a whole. He pointed out that the
State is taking inmates from other states because they get a higher per diem, and they were supposed to
build additional state-funding jails which did not happen. Mr. Tucker added that another problem is getting
them through the court system quickly enough, and the County is working with judicial bodies to try to
speed that up.
Mr. Dorrier added that judges have not been sentencing these people to community service.)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the FY 2008 Appropriations #2008084,
#2008085, and #2008086 totaling $520,238.79:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2008084
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Education Donations, School Board Meeting 08/28/2008 and 09/11/2008
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 3104 18000 189900 MISCELLANEOUS
REVENUE
J 2 30,000.00
2 3158 18000 181273 TEACHING AMERICAN
HISTORY GRANT
J 2 25,100.00
2 3219 18000 189900 REVENUE J 2 39,000.00
1 3104 61101 112100 SALARIES-TEACHER J 1 27,865.00
1 3104 61101 210000 FICA 2,135.00
1 3158 61101 112100 SALARIES-TEACHER J 1 1,260.45
1 3158 61101 160100 STIPENDS-CAREER
INCENTIVE
J 1 21,920.02
1 3158 61101 210000 FICA J 1 1,743.24
1 3158 61101 221000 VRS J 1 176.29
1 3219 60213 119402 SALARIES-SUPERVISOR J 1 28,000.00
1 3219 60213 210000 FICA J 1 2,142.00
1 3219 60213 221000 VRS J 1 4,000.00
1 3219 60213 231000 HEALTH J 1 4,458.00
1 3219 60213 231000 DENTAL J 1 200.00
1 3219 60213 241000 VRS-GROUP LIFE J 1 200.00
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
3104 0501 Est. Revenue 30,000.00
0701 Appropriation 30,000.00
3158 0501 Est. Revenue 25,100.00
0701 Appropriation 25,100.00
3219 0501 Est. Revenue 39,000.00
0701 Appropriation 39,000.00
TOTAL 188,200.00 94,100.00 94,100.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2008085
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: FY08 General Fund Expenditures
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 11010 120000 BOS - Overtime Wages J 1 8,433.70
1 1000 11010 130000 BOS - Part-time Wages J 1 7,552.19
1 1000 11010 320000 BOS - Temporary Help Fees J 1 4,920.87
1 1000 21010 601200 Circuit Court - Books &
Subsc.
J 1 1,404.19
1 1000 31013 600800 Police - Motor Vehicle Fuel J 1 1,992.89
1 1000 31019 129900 Police - OT Reimbursable J 1 4,083.89
1 1000 32050 560600 Charlottesville Fire Dept J 1 23,376.18
1 1000 33020 700002 Regional Jail J 1 217,994.09
1 1000 41110 320000 Facilities Dev. - Temp Help
Fees
J 1 2,872.68
1 1000 59000 579100 Tax Relief for the Elderly J 1 36,268.85
1 1000 82030 221000 Soil & Water - VRS J 1 30.12
2 1000 51000 510100 Appropriation - F/B J 2 308,929.65
1000 0501 Est. Revenue 308,929.65
0701 Appropriation 308,929.65
TOTAL 617,859.30 308,929.65 308,929.65
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2008086
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: FY08 General Fund Expenditures
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 4400 54102 301200 CCF - Contract Svcs-Other J 1 72,517.40
1 4400 54105 301203 CCF-Juv - Con. Svcs - City J 1 44,691.74
2 4400 18000 189900 City of Charlottesville J 2 14,732.94
2 4400 24000 240500 State Grant Revenue J 2 102,476.20
4400 0501 Est. Revenue 117,209.14
0701 Appropriation 117,209.14
TOTAL 234,418.28 117,209.14 117,209.14
__________
Item No. 7.9. Destruction of FY 2003 Paid Personal Property Tax Receipts.
The Executive Summary states that pursuant to Va. Code § 58.1-3129(A), the director of finance
may, with the consent of the governing body, destroy all paid tax tickets at any time after five years from
the end of the fiscal year during which taxes represented by such tickets were paid, in accordance with
retention regulations pursuant to the Virginia Public Records Act. The Library of Virginia’s Record
Retention and Disposition Schedule GS-28 requires that paid tax tickets be retained for five years from the
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
end of the fiscal year in which the tax is paid or until an audit, whichever is longer, at which time the
governing body is to be petitioned for authorization to destroy the records.
Paid personal property tax tickets for FY 2003 were included in the FY 2003 audit in December
2003 and reached the five-year retention period on June 30, 2008 and are eligible for destruction.
Attached is the County’s Certificate of Records Destruction (Attachment A), which has been approved and
signed by the Director of Finance and by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, the County’s designated
Records Retention Officer. Authorization from the Board is required to proceed with the destruction of
these records.
Staff requests that the Board authorize the destruction of the FY 2003 paid tax receipts.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board authorized the destruction of the FY 2003 paid tax
receipts
__________
Item No. 7.10. Set Dates related to development of FY 09/10 Budget Calendar.
The Executive Summary states that the process of developing the County’s Operating Budget for
FY 09/10 and the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for FY10-14 is underway. The proposed calendars are
provided to the Board to establish firm dates for Board meetings and public hearings on the budget and
CIP, and to provide the public with as much notice as possible for planned community meetings, public
hearings, and work sessions related to the budget and the CIP.
There are several dates in the budget presentation and approval process that are driven by state
code requirements and are reflected in the attached calendars. The first is the requirement that the tax
rate be adopted by April 15th for localities with a first-half tax year collection in June. In addition, the
Virginia Code requires that there be seven days between the public advertisement of the budget public
hearings and the actual hearing dates, and seven days between the public hearing and the adoption of the
budget. During the 2007 session of the General Assembly, legislation was enacted that requires localities
to provide 30 days minimum notice of the tax rate public hearing if the reassessment would result in an
increase of one percent or more in the total real property tax levied compared to the prior year’s tax levies.
In addition to these state requirements, the School Board has requested that the second public hearing be
scheduled so that it does not coincide with Spring Break.
Attachment A provides a preliminary budget calendar for the FY 09/10 budget process that
conforms to the Virginia Code requirements and meets the School Board’s request. This calendar can be
used if real estate tax levies caused by the reassessment are less than 101% of the prior year’s tax levies.
Attachment B is an alternative preliminary budget calendar for the FY 09/10 budget process that
conforms to the Virginia Code requirements, meets the School Board’s request and meets the 30 day
notice requirements triggered if real estate tax levies caused by the reassessment exceed 101% or more
of the prior year’s tax levies. This alternative schedule would only be necessary this year if the
reassessment picture changes dramatically.
Because it is unlikely that the 2009 reassessment will require the 30 day notice for the tax rate
public hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt the preliminary budget calendar set forth in
Attachment A.
(Discussion: Mr. Rooker asked about the budget calendar which recommends adoption of
Attachment A, and wondered if that locked them into a tax rate.
Mr. Tucker responded that it does not, and it is really just a matter of how it is advertised.
Mr. Davis clarified that the 30-day calendar applies to the assessment, not a change in the tax
rate.)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the preliminary budget calendar as set
forth in Attachment A:
FY 09/10 OPERATING BUDGET CALENDAR
August 2008
13 Operating budget instruction manual and forms posted to budget site
22 CIP project requests due to OMB
29 Community agency applications distributed
October 2008
1 Joint Compensation meeting with School Board
17 Department budget submissions due to OMB
November 2008
5 Preliminary FY 09/10 revenue projections, school allocation, and capital transfer estimates to the
Board of Supervisors (BOS)
5 BOS W ork Session – Five Year Financial Plan
12 BOS W ork Session – Five Year Financial Plan
12 CIP project information to Oversight Committee
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
14 Community agency applications due to OMB
17 CIP Oversight Committee Meeting #1
24 CIP Oversight Committee Meeting #2
26 CIP Oversight Committee Meeting #3 (if needed)
December 2008
3 BOS W ork Session – Five Year Financial Plan
10 Oversight Committee CIP Recommendation to Joint meeting of BOS/School Board
19 Special revenue fund requests due to OMB
January 2009
27 General fund and local government special revenue funds balanced
February 2009
18 County Executive’s Recommended Budget document published
25 Public hearing on the County Executive’s Recommended Budget
March 2009
2 BOS W ork Session – General Government
4 BOS W ork Session – School Division
9 BOS W ork Session – CIP
11 BOS W ork Session (if needed)
18 Deadline for setting tax rate for public hearing
25 Advertise tax rate for April public hearing
April 2009
1 Public Hearing on the 2009 calendar year tax rate
1 Public Hearing on the FY 09/10 Proposed Operating and Capital Budgets
6-10 Spring Break
8 BOS adopts FY 09/10 budget
8 BOS adopts the 2009 calendar year tax rate
June 2009
3 BOS approves the FY 09/10 Appropriation Resolution
__________
Item No. 7.11. 2008 Statement of Assessed Values for Local Tax Purposes for Railroads and
Interstate Pipeline Transmission Companies as certified by the Department of Taxation, was received for
information.
(Discussion: Ms. Thomas asked where railroad cars get counted. She asked if any are housed
in the County. She asked if someone could find out that information.)
__________
Item No. 7.12. 2008 Statements of Assessed Value for the Electric, Gas, Telecommunications
and W ater Companies; and Listing of Motor Vehicle Carrier Companies Subject to Annual Rolling Stock
Tax Administered by the Public Service Taxation Division for Albemarle County, as certified by the State
Corporation Commission, was received for information.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. James Utterback, VDoT Culpeper District Administrator.
Mr. James Utterback said he now serves in the position of VDoT Culpeper District Administrator.
Mr. Utterback said that he was traveling around to all nine localities in his district to further establish that
there is a step between the Resident Administrator and central office in Richmond. He has spent a
significant amount of time working on the agency response to the Governor to address the budget crisis,
noting that VDoT’s Highway Maintenance and Operating Fund has traditionally been stable regardless of
cuts. That is not the case this time. He said that trends show a change in driving patterns and a drastic
drop in forecasted revenues from the gasoline tax, especially through diesel fuel. Mr. Utterback added
that new and used vehicle sales have also dropped significantly. He noted that the Six Year Program was
cut by 44 percent last year, and it will be significant again this year – perhaps 30 percent or more. They
are looking at how that cut impacts the Interstate, Primary Urban and Secondary Programs. He said that
the rough projections for the cuts to the Program overall are well over $700 million. This is a long term
issue that will affect every member of the Department; they will be focusing on core services, what they
can deliver and how they can go forward smartly.
Ms. Mallek asked about the status of funds for projects that are ready to go to bid. Mr. Utterback
said the intent is to move the projects into construction. He emphasized that the Advance Mills Bridge and
Meadow Creek Parkway continue to be high priorities for the Central Office. He added that the Parkway is
ready for advertisement from a technical standpoint.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that it will be impossible to ever come up with enough money from the
secondary road fund to build a project like the Meadow Creek Parkway. He asked how would a major
project ever get funded? This is something that is going to impact the quality of life for County citizens,
citizens throughout the State and the economic development potential of the State.
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
Mr. Utterback commented that they have been told to try to federalize as much maintenance work
with federal dollars as possible.
Mr. Rooker said that this puts more emphasis on the need for the area to get a local funding
source to use for transportation.
Mr. Slutzky commented that the County has been very happy with Mr. Sumpter and his
responsiveness to their requests.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Board-to-Board, Monthly Communications Report from School Board, School
Board Chairman.
Mr. Brian W heeler welcomed Mr. Utterback back to the community, and noted that he was
instrumental in helping to get a speed zone established on Morgantown Road. He mentioned that Dr.
Pam Moran, School Superintendent, was also in attendance. Mr. W heeler reported that Albemarle County
has 21 of the 382 National Merit semifinalists in Virginia; the County has about one percent of the K-12
students in the state, but five percent of the finalists. He also noted that all schools are fully accredited for
the fifth year in a row and are awaiting news on adequate yearly progress. They appealed two of the
decisions from the State related to Burley Middle School and adequately yearly progress for the division
overall. They have not heard the results of the appeals. Mr. W heeler mentioned one question from an
earlier Board-to-Board regarding the percentage of gifted students in the division, and that number is
about 15 percent.
Ms. Thomas said, from the High Growth Coalition Conference, they were alerted that they should
keep close tabs on the Legislative Committee that is looking at paying for education, because the
assumption from local governments is that the State is not thinking of ways it can pick up more of the
burden, but instead thinking of ways it can shift the burden from the state to localities. She asked if the
School Board is communicating with that group.
Mr. W heeler responded that Senator Emmett Hanger serves on that committee, and he has been
keeping in touch with him.
Mr. Boyd asked if Albemarle compares itself to “Best in Class” student designations in the State.
Ms. Moran replied that School officials look at comparable school divisions and then more specifically
individual schools. Mr. Boyd said it would be interesting data to report in the future to see how we are
doing relative to the top quartile.
Ms. Mallek asked who from the School Division would be a contact person to attend the
Community Food Program Board meetings. Mr. W heeler responded that if local food is cheaper, schools
will start buying it immediately. He stated that Ms. Kristina Fitzenburger is in charge of food services.
Ms. Moran said they do purchase some of their produce from local purchasers, but a lot of the
food that goes into the school lunch program comes through national commodities that flow through the
federal government, and are controlled by the federal lunch program.
Mr. Slutzky commented that if there is some acquisition outside of that system and local food can
be obtained competitively then it should be done.
Ms. Mallek said at a recent meeting she attended, Mr. Leber, head of the State W orkforce for
Northrup Grummond, spoke about linkages of education and business communities. She would like to
know what is done beyond two meetings a year to foster those partnerships.
Mr. W heeler responded that he is involved in the Chamber of Commerce on the Government
Affairs Committee. Mr. Rod Gentry and others have been involved with compensation reviews. They
often reach out to those individuals for expertise; they are stakeholders and our customers in the
community. They are looking for those opportunities and trying to get them involved.
Ms. Mallek pointed out that there needs to be more demand to step up and make those
partnerships. Ms. Moran mentioned that Northrup Grummond (Sperry is a branch) is one of the best
partners in the community in working with the schools, including scholarship funding and employment
placement for engineers.
Mr. Rooker said that it is helpful to have information about where merit scholars reside, as there is
some inherent prejudice as to what part of the County students who excel academically are from.
Ms. Moran said she hopes to provide a report on the specialty center that will be opening at
Albemarle High School next year. The center is a math/science/engineering oriented program. The
center came out of the Resource Utilization Study as a recommendation. It will open next year and will be
available eventually as a magnet school that attracts students from all over the County. She added that
the University of Virginia’s Engineering School is a full partner with the County in the endeavor.
Mr. W heeler noted that if one school has an exclusive offering, a student has the option of
enrolling there – such as the Air Force ROTC Program at Monticello. He also said that he tries to educate
people about school offerings. He realized when he got onto the School Board that excellence comes
from all over the County, not just one part.
_______________
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
Agenda Item No. 10a. ACSA Quarterly Update, Gary Fern.
Item No. 10.1. Albemarle Place - Meeting with Edens & Avant on September 24, 2008.
Mr. Gary Fern, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, stated that recently
RW SA representatives met with City officials, and Edens & Avant, developers for Albemarle Place, to
work on how to get wastewater flow from the Albemarle Place site to the Meadow Creek interceptor.
Edens & Avant have a route based on leaving the facility, running by the restaurant, by the post office, and
down to the interceptor – subject to obtaining some easements – and Albemarle Place would be paying
for that. Currently the City maintains a pipe in that area.
_______________
Item No. 10.2. North Fork Pump Station.
Regarding the North Fork Pump Station, Mr. Fern said RW SA is meeting with the developers. It
is their intent that the developers will pay for their appropriate share of the project – Fort Belvoir,
Northpointe development, UVA Foundation, W endell W ood, and Richard Spurzen. He said that they have
been providing projected flows and working through payment arrangements. The preliminary engineering
report should be ready within the next two months with final design, construction starting mid-year 2009,
with completion in 2010. Mr. Fern emphasized that the impetus for the project is abandonment of the
Camelot wastewater treatment facility. He noted that there is a lot of commercial and residential
development in that area.
Ms. Mallek asked if the timeline will meet the needs for a 20 or 50 year horizon. Mr. Fern said he
cannot answer that question. Their consultants are looking at a couple of different scenarios. Their
minimum timeline is through 2030.
Ms. Mallek said she thought this was about replacing the existing pump system and improving
delivery, but where does the gravity line come in. Mr. Fern said that in order to serve some of those
developments, there would need to be some gravity sewer lines put in. They would be taking out of
service the North Fork Research Park pump station.
Ms. Thomas asked if they were also looking at larger-scale improvements to accommodate
neighborhoods such as Southwood Mobile Home Park. Mr. Fern replied that they are preparing a packet
to bring back to the Board with that information, and that would include proposed pricing mechanisms for
dealing with these issues.
Mr. Fern added that the Service Authority Board of Directors has offered to begin meeting with the
Planning Commission, and they are moving forward with that.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10b. RW SA Quarterly Update, Tom Frederick.
Mr. Tom Frederick, Executive Director of the Rivanna W ater & Sewer Authority, said that the
RW SA is hoping to begin construction of a new leachate collection system for two of the closed cells at
the Ivy Landfill. This will be using directional drilling technology – already used in the phone, cable, and
electric industries – as well as pipes. It has not been used much in landfills, and not many communities
are taking proactive efforts to improve collection of older cells, which in turn promotes better groundwater
protection and clean-up. This community is out front of most communities that operate older landfills. He
explained that there would be four pipelines installed, and they would be drilled into the cell without
removing the contents of the cell.
Mr. Frederick said that RW SA continues its efforts to make the best use of its limited
infrastructure resources to balance the needs of humans and the environment in the use of water. They
recently made a decision to increase the release at the Sugar Hollow Dam – now 1 million gallons per day
or natural inflow, whichever is less. He said that the RW SA wants to optimize their system and continue
to tweak how they direct flows, which plants they operate at which capacity, etc. At the same time they do
have to continue to reserve the right to drop it back to the regulatory minimum – 400,000 gallons per day
or natural flow, during certain periods because if modeling results show that they are in the early stages of
a drought and that drought is severe, those critical decisions in the early stages can be the differences on
whether the community has water or not at the end of the drought. Their modeling shows that all
reservoirs will be full by the end of next April.
Ms. Thomas commented that that’s an unusual stance for a public water authority to take – to do
the best for the environment – walking a tight line between having enough water and getting it flowing into
the stream.
Mr. Frederick responded that Mr. Golladay, the W ater Operations Manager, has done an excellent
job of fulfilling the details of the policy decisions that are made.
Ms. Mallek asked if manipulating the height of the Sugar Hollow Reservoir bladder was a
parameter that they adjusted. Mr. Frederick replied that the best way to accomplish the objective is
through the new valve, and instrumentation feedback.
Mr. Frederick said that RW SA is continuing to provide staff support to the South Fork Reservoir
Task Force, a group that is now meeting bi-weekly. The task force will be receiving public comment in
October with recommendations coming back to the Board within the next few months.
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
Mr. Frederick reported that the RW SA is optimistic about the Meadow Creek interceptor project,
but it is not without challenges as engineers have weighed in on what is required for proper pipeline
construction. He said that the RW SA will be meeting with two homeowners’ associations in the coming
weeks, and have right-of-way agents trying to obtain easements to commit the project for early spring
construction. Mr. Frederick added that, at the request of City Council, they are doing their best to
minimize the width of the easements and construction area, and they will likely have cost implications with
narrower easements. He stated that the RW SA has instructed reputable contractors to find out what the
bidding climate might be if the easement acquisitions were changed, and the consultant is going to
present that in the form of a survey. They may take that back to Rivanna Board to get further direction.
Mr. Rooker asked if the concern of property owners is the permanent easement or construction
easement.
Mr. Frederick said “both,” and that after discussion with County and City public officials and staff,
and state and federal regulators with respect to environmental impacts, it was concluded that the best way
to build the pipeline is to replace 70 percent of it in the same location where it exists today – many in
easements already from City construction in the 1950’s. He added that the easements and access points
have not been adequately maintained, and repairs have been challenging. Mr. Frederick said it is not their
intent to create a long delay in the project, but these questions do take time to address. He will continue
to keep the Board updated on the discussions, decisions and timeline of the project.
Mr. Rooker asked if the project affects Albemarle Place. Mr. Frederick said Rivanna cannot
provide a flow acceptance certificate until the work is done. Mr. Rooker said that Mr. Fern had indicated
the project would be ready when Albemarle Place is ready, and asked if it was reasonable to assume that
timeline was still on track. Mr. Frederick replied that the amount of time it takes to work this project out
would have a bearing on the timeline.
Ms. Mallek said that the easements are from the 1950’s, and the 30 percent would need to be
acquired. Mr. Frederick confirmed this, adding that they are working with easement language drafted in
the 1950’s – but attorney review has opined that the language does not give the RW SA the right to come
back and put in a larger pipeline. In effect, they are negotiating with all the property owners along the
route.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Sugar Hollow easements would be the same situation. Mr. Frederick
said that some easements were signed in the 1920’s and 30’s, and there was not as much care taken in
the recording process so there are gaps in information.
Mr. Rooker added that sometimes the pipes are not built where the easements are.
Mr. Frederick reported that the RW SA Board gave staff direction to pursue an expert panel, and
they are finalizing the solicitation for that now, with the intent of pursuing the best they can get on dam
design in the industry. He said that they want a structurally sound and safe facility that meets all
regulatory requirements, and will be looking at ways to get the project built as economically as possible for
the community. Mr. Frederick added his appreciation for those who hear from constituents on a regular
basis, as a lot of time and effort has been invested up to this point. He mentioned that what is happening
now is a “pause” in the process.
Mr. Slutzky expressed his appreciation for the RW SA’s approach and tenacity.
Mr. Boyd agreed that this is a pause, and not a stop-work order in the process.
Ms. Thomas said that Gannett Fleming has come out with a long list of measures that might be
undertaken to change the cost picture, and the RW SA Board has chosen to go to an expert panel. Ms.
Thomas asked if any actions would be taken on the list before receiving the panel’s results on the dam.
Mr. Frederick responded that this is a broad community decision, and that list would be reviewed
by the expert panel. He is not going to be recommending that this community take action on one of those
without first hearing from the expert panel because he thinks you make a better decision when you have
more information.
Mr. Rooker also thanked the Rivanna Board and Mr. Frederick for dealing with a lot of
complexities in this project. He said that there is a rock clause in almost every construction contract – as
that is not included in initial bids – and doing the geotechnical work first is commendable. There may be
some rock issues and there may be some less expensive ways of dealing with it than Gannett Fleming
has included in their high estimate of the increased cost from that. He also said that a reporter contacted
him and mentioned a $13 million increase in the cost of the embankment part that is not reflected in the
higher cost estimate. He did not have the knowledge to discuss that further with the reporter. Mr. Rooker
emphasized the importance of having equal points of comparison.
Mr. Frederick replied that a review of embankment issues was part of the expert panel, and that is
what they intend to do. He explained that Gannett Fleming provided a laundry list of items, and this is
really an issue of satisfying VDoT regarding the roadway. They have not had these discussions with
VDoT yet, and he does not think they should try that issue in the press before they sit down and talk to
VDoT officials, in fairness to them.
Ms. Thomas added that there was a range in cost that was listed in the information, and no one
knows what the actual cost will be.
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
Mr. Frederick said they stated clearly to the Rivanna Board that RW SA is not taking a position on
any of the estimates received until the expert panel is convened. It was not the intent of the report to try to
establish a fixed number.
Mr. Rooker commented that the approach being taken is a very studied professional approach
and is in the best interest of the community.
Mr. Boyd agreed, as did other Board members.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. 2009 Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) Legislative
Program.
The Executive Summary states that the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC)
works with Albemarle County and other Planning District localities each year to develop a legislative
program for the upcoming General Assembly session. The draft 2009 TJPDC Legislative Program
(Attachment A) is before the Board for input and approval.
The draft 2009 TJPDC Legislative Program follows the same format as in previous years, identifying
priority “action items” and highlighting areas of continuing concerns. The draft program incorporates all of
the legislative priorities the Board approved at its August 6, 2008 meeting (Attachment B). David Blount of
the TJPDC will be present to receive the Board’s comments and answer any questions on the draft program.
Should the State provide additional funding for the County’s “Child Care for Low Income W orking
Families” priority, a local match will be required. Beyond that priority, there are no specific, identifiable
budget impacts, although the County’s legislative priorities seek to ensure that the State adequately funds its
mandated responsibilities and does not jeopardize the County’s ability to effectively and efficiently implement
the policies (including fiscal) and programs that it deems necessary.
Staff recommends the Board approve the draft 2009 TJPDC Legislative Program, which will be
amended to include any changes that the Board requests.
__________
Mr. David Blount, Legislative Liaison, said the Board does have before it the draft Regional
Legislative Program for 2009 – with five priority items. He emphasized that it is important for the Board to
ask for flexibility in meeting state requirements in the face of funding reductions.
Under land use and growth management, Mr. Blount said that there is a request for additional
tools without preempting existing authorities, with particular focus on impact fees and proffer issues.
Mr. Rooker said that the Board would not necessarily oppose weakening of the current proffer
authority if there were an impact fee that was adequate – right now proffers can only be imposed on
rezoned property, which is usually in the growth area and puts it at a competitive disadvantage to rural
area. He said that some formula based on a reasonable approach would encourage the Board to give up
some cash proffer authority for a separate per-unit charge.
Ms. Thomas commented that there is a low level of trust there, as the proffer authority would likely
never be returned to localities.
Mr. Davis added that the other challenge is whether they would prohibit offsite and onsite
improvements that cannot be directly attributed to the development itself, which greatly complicates
developments where road improvements have been proffered on existing roads that have problems in lieu
of a cash proffer. On the impact fee side, he said, the complicating factors have been the cap on the
amount and applying it only to new development; prior bills did not apply to already platted subdivisions.
Mr. Blount said he believes the specific language in the Program speaks to points made by the
Board. “W hile we support efforts to have impact fee and proffer systems that are workable and
meaningful…” lends itself to the give and take.
Mr. Rooker clarified that if we obtain at any time a meaningful impact fee, we are probably going
to have to give something up on the cash proffer component in order to get it.
Mr. Blount said that the remaining priority statements relate to transportation.
Mr. Slutzky noted that the Regional Transit Authority is mentioned, but nothing is included related
to funding. They are supporting our Regional Transit Authority, and it is kind of a meaningless one without
the enabling authority for those participants to be able to levy taxes.
Mr. Blount said that the intent was to encompass both of those, with a funding and governance
structure to be established without the specifics of mechanisms. He agreed to include language to reflect
the establishment of this.
Mr. Boyd said that he prefers more general language.
Ms. Thomas stated that Mr. Blount is the main lobbyist for the County and the statement should
be as inclusive as possible.
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
Mr. Rooker pointed out that there just is not going to be transportation funding unless local
taxpayers pay for it. He hopes they can include some language here that makes it clear that they are
seeking funding authority.
Mr. Slutzky said he believes the language will sufficiently address the issue and not constrain the
legislator.
Mr. Boyd emphasized that he has been clear to not get on either side of the funding issue, but he
supports enabling legislation for the RTA.
Mr. Rooker noted that at the joint meeting with City Council, everyone was in agreement to seek
local funding and enabling authority for transportation generally. He did not think there was anybody who
did not speak in favor of seeking some kind of local enabling authority to raise local transportation dollars.
The alternative is to put it all on real estate taxes, which is [not] as palatable as having it spread across
the whole population that actually uses the transportation facilities.
Ms. Mallek mentioned the referendum for sales tax as part of what was discussed before.
Mr. Dorrier emphasized that the main issue is timing.
Mr. Rooker agreed, and said that without the enabling authority this goes nowhere.
Mr. Boyd said that he has not changed his position, but he is not ready to say whether he supports
enabling legislation to assess additional taxes to the community. He cannot say that he is in favor of an
unknown because he does not know what they are talking about…$147 million and a $16 million operating
budget – is that what the Board is saying they are approving at this time?”
Ms. Thomas stated that this relates to enabling authority.
Mr. Blount noted that the joint workgroup Mr. Rooker and Mr. Slutzky sit on will be looking at draft
language this Friday, only for the authority governance piece, and after draft legislation is ready the Board
will get an opportunity to review it in more detail.
Mr. Boyd responded that once he sees those figures, he would decide his position.
Mr. Blount said there will be two separate pieces of legislation before the General Assembly.
Mr. Rooker said that the language right now needs to reference “local funding options for
transportation,” not just for transit.
Mr. Blount commented that the items the Board approved in their August 6th position paper and
the issue of rollback taxes are incorporated in the Legislative Program. He is seeking Board approval of
the Program.
Mr. Blount mentioned that the Board would be receiving invitations to the legislative luncheon on
Thursday, October 23rd, at the Planning District offices.
Ms. Mallek asked about stormwater regulations going forward with the Department of
Conservation and Recreation. Mr. Blount said he wants to track it. Ms. Mallek expressed concern about
30 percent of local fees going to Richmond to run their program. Mr. Blount agreed.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Slutzky to move approval of the 2009 Legislative Program as
proposed, modified to reflect the inclusion of a reference to funding mechanisms for transportation. Mr.
Rooker seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
2009
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Legislative Program
Representing the Local Governments of:
Albemarle County
City of Charlottesville
Fluvanna County
Greene County
Louisa County
Nelson County
September 2008
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
Connie Brennan, Chairman
Billie J. Campbell, Acting Executive Director
David C. Blount, Legislative Liaison
Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville,
and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson
The Planning District localities urge the governor and legislature to honor their funding obligations to
services provided in cities and counties by their local government partners, and to resist shifting
fiscal responsibility for these programs to localities.
After approving a FY09-FY10 state budget that included spending reductions of nearly $2 billion, the
state faces continuing revenue shortfalls that likely will result in an additional $1 billion to $2 billion in cuts over
the biennium. Reductions in aid to various local programs and services totaled nearly $250 million, including a
$100 million cut that required localities to decide how to absorb the shortchanging; for FY09 alone, this means
a $1.4 million shortfall to localities in our region. W e particularly are concerned about potential state reductions
in public education, public safety and health/human services. W e believe state funding reductions for state-
required services/programs should be accompanied by relaxation of the state requirement or flexibility for the
locality to meet the requirement.
Local governments, which are overly dependent on the real estate tax that presently is producing less
revenue due to the sluggish housing market, cannot continue to pick up the slack when the state retreats from
its obligations. Unfunded and underfunded state mandates/commitments and “cost shifting” by the state
reduce the ability, especially in our rural localities, to meet local needs, and force our citizens to bear local tax
and fee increases to pay for programs and services. Service cuts will have a direct and harmful effect on the
lives and well-being of our citizens who expect, rely and need programs in critical areas such as education,
safety and human services. In addition, increased demand for services that are primarily funded at the local
level present unique challenges to rural, urban and fast-growing localities alike (all present in our region).
Finally, any changes to Virginia’s tax code should not reduce local government revenues or restrict
local taxing authority. The legislature should broaden the revenue sources available to local governments,
rather than capping, removing or restricting them. The state should refrain from establishing local tax policy at
the state level and allow local governments to retain authority over decisions that determine the equity of local
taxation policy, if governing bodies are to provide cost-effective services. This includes the processes for
setting real estate tax rates and developing and approving budgets, which are integrated processes that are
effective in involving the public and ensuring efficient tax administration. Recent, proposed changes to these
processes would have upset this balance.
Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville,
and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson
The Planning District localities encourage the state to provide local governments with additional tools
to manage growth, without preempting or circumventing existing authorities.
The past few years have seen an increase in both mandated and optional land use provisions
applicable to local governments to address growth issues. Still, current land use authority often is inadequate
to allow local governments to provide for balanced, sustainable growth in a manner that protects and improves
quality of life.
Last year, the General Assembly considered SB 768, a measure that would have repealed local
authority to accept voluntary cash proffers from new residential projects and limited the ability to accept off-site
non-cash proffers, while revising existing impact fee authority, capping the amount of impact fees a locality
can impose at $7,500 per unit. W hile we support efforts to have impact fee and proffer systems that are
workable and meaningful for various parties, we oppose attempts to weaken our current proffer authority.
Rather, we support revising the road impact fee authority adopted in 2007 to include additional
localities and to provide for the following: 1) a fair allocation of the costs of new growth on public facilities; 2)
facility costs that include, but are not limited to, various transportation modes, schools, public safety, libraries
and parks; 3) effective implementation and reasonable administrative requirements; and 4) no caps or limits
on locality impact fee updates.
Further, to enhance our ability to pay for infrastructure costs and to support services associated
with new developments, we endorse enabling legislation and optional provisions that include the following:
ACTION ITEMS
LOCAL and STATE FUNDING OBLIGATIONS
LAND USE and GROWTH MANAGEMENT
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
• Authority for local ordinances for determining whether public facilities are adequate
(“adequate public facility,” or APF ordinances)
• Optional cluster development as a land use tool for local governments.
W e also support 1) dedicated funding through the Virginia Land Conservation Foundation for the
acquisition, preservation and maintenance of open space and recreation lands, 2) full authority to generate
local dollars for such efforts, and 3) additional incentives for citizens to create conservation easements,
including removing the cap on conservation easement tax credits approved in 2006. W e request the state
increase, from five years, the roll-back taxes assessed against property under land use taxation that changes
to a non-qualifying use to an amount equal to the sum of the deferred tax for each of the 10 most recent
complete tax years. Finally, we support authority for localities to enact scenic protection and tourist
enhancement districts.
Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville,
and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson
The Planning District localities urge the state to establish separate, dedicated and permanent state
revenue streams for our transportation infrastructure. The state also should not shift road
maintenance and construction responsibilities to localities.
The need to fund a declining transportation infrastructure is dire and state dollars remain inadequate.
Local governments need sustainable, dedicated, non-general funds from the state to support our
transportation network. Absent such an investment, Virginia faces a congestion and mobility crisis that will
stifle economic growth and negatively affect the quality of life of our residents.
This past spring, the Commonwealth Transportation Board approved a $1.1 billion reduction to the
Six-Year Improvement Program, meaning construction budgets for primary, secondary and urban roads were
slashed by 44%, while transit was cut by 10%. Instead, those dollars are being transferred to the highway
maintenance budget. It is expected that $400 million will have to be transferred from construction to
maintenance in each of the next two years to cover the maintenance shortfall, a figure that will grow as
revenues coming into the state’s transportation coffers continue to slow.
The state should direct its funding efforts at all transportation modes both statewide and regionally,
targeting investments toward solutions that put money to work on new ideas and in tandem with leveraging
private investment. It should account for urban area needs where public transportation is very important, the
increasing traffic demands placed on fast-growing localities and the ongoing improvements necessary on
rural, secondary roads. These improvements are vital to our region’s ability to respond to local and regional
congestion and economic development issues.
W e support ongoing state and local efforts to coordinate transportation and land use planning, without
eroding local land use authority, and state incentives for localities that do so. W e urge VDOT to be mindful of
local comprehensive, land use and trail/bicycle plans, as well as regional transportation plans, when planning
transportation systems within a locality. W e also request the following:
• Legislative support for enabling authority to establish governance and funding mechanisms
for a Regional Transit Authority for Charlottesville/Albemarle
• State funding for improvements along rural sections of the Rt. 29 corridor
• Increased funding for the revenue-sharing program
• Support for passenger rail service for the Piedmont corridor (TransDominion Express)
• Allowing the use of Rural Rustic Road funds to pave rural addition roads
• Increased funding to help mitigate transportation, environmental and other impacts (e.g.
educational facilities) on localities affected by recommendations of the Defense Base Closure
and Realignment Commission (BRAC).
Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville,
and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson
The Planning District’s member localities urge the state to be partners in containing costs of the
Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) and to better balance CSA responsibilities between state and local
government.
Since the inception of the Comprehensive Services Act in the early 1990’s, there has been pressure to
hold down costs, to cap state costs for serving mandated children, to increase local match levels and to make
the program more uniform by attempting to control how localities run their programs. State and local costs of
residential and non-residential mandated services continued to increase; from 2006 to 2007, CSA pool
expenditures for state and local governments rose 16% (from $295 million to $342 million). Costs also have
been difficult to forecast because of factors beyond state and local control (number of mandated children in a
community, severity of problems, service rates, availability of alternative funding). Further, localities pay the
COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
overwhelming majority (90%) of costs to administer CSA. Over the last decade, the state has increased
administrative responsibilities, but not administrative funding dollars to localities.
The FY09/10 budget modified the local share of funding for community and residential services on a
“phased-in” basis, by lowering the local share for community-based services as an incentive to serve children
who can be appropriately cared for in the community, and then increasing the local share for residential
services. Unfortunately, the approved service definitions do not include some services provided in the
community as such, and therefore they will not qualify for a lower local match. Local governments are troubled
by the haste with which service definitions were proposed and approved, that local governments were not part
of the team that developed the definitions and that the changes will have a negative local fiscal impact.
W e support the following: 1) full funding of the state pool for CSA, with allocations based on realistic
anticipated levels of need; 2) increased state funding for CSA administrative costs; and 3) a state cap on local
expenditures in order to combat higher local costs for serving mandated children, costs which often are driven
by unanticipated placements in a locality. The state also should be proactive in making residential facilities and
service providers available, especially in rural areas.
In a further effort to help contain costs and provide some relief to local governments, we recommend
that the state establish contracts with CSA providers to provide for a uniform contract management process,
improve vendor accountability and control costs. W e encourage the state to consider penalties for individuals
who have had children removed from their care due to abuse or neglect. Finally, we support local and regional
efforts to address areas of cost sharing among localities by procuring services through group negotiation.
Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville,
and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson
The Planning District localities urge the legislature to fully fund the state share of the realistic costs of
meeting the Standards of Quality (SOQ) and to enhance teacher salaries to help recruit and retain
high-quality instructional personnel.
The state spends nearly $6 billion/year on public education, roughly one-third of its general fund
budget. Local governments, likewise, appropriate a similar amount and spend far more local dollars on
educating children than the state requires. In these tight fiscal times, the state should resist changes that
require localities to fund a greater share of K-12 education costs, such as proposals that recalculate personnel
salaries by recognizing only state (and not also local) costs, and that increase the federal revenue deduction,
which results in a savings to the state but an increase in required local costs. State funding should be realistic
and recognize actual educational needs, practices and costs (including operational, capital and maintenance
costs for school facilities and transportation). Otherwise, more of the education funding burden would fall on
local real estate taxes. W e also support establishment of a mechanism for local appeal of the calculated Local
Composite Index (LCI) to the state; changes to the LCI that negatively impact a locality also drive up local
taxes.
The state budgeted teacher salary figure (on which it bases its share of teacher costs) trails the
statewide and national averages. Teacher pay comprises the majority of K-12 expenditures, and local market
conditions dictate the level of pay required to recruit and retain quality teachers. W e believe that the localities
in our region should be included in the “Cost of Competing Adjustment” now available only to various localities
primarily in Northern Virginia. This would help our localities to reach and maintain competitive compensation to
help recruit, develop and retain a highly qualified and diverse teacher workforce.
Regarding school capital needs, we continue to urge state financial assistance with school
construction and renovation needs, including funding for the Literary Loan and interest rate subsidy programs.
The state should resist its customary seizing of dollars from the Literary Fund to pay state costs for teacher
retirement (nearly $300 million is being diverted in the current biennium). W e also support an increase in the
maximum amount of Literary Fund loans from the current $7.5 million.
AREAS OF CONTINUING CONCERN
The Planning District’s member localities recognize economic development and workforce training as
essential to the continued viability of the Commonwealth. W e support policies that closely link the goals of
economic and workforce development and the state’s efforts to streamline and integrate workforce activities
and revenue sources. W e also support increased state funding for workforce development programs:
• W e support the governor’s Economic and W orkforce Development Strategic Plan for the
Commonwealth that more clearly defines responsibilities of state and local governments and includes
new tools for local governments to use in attracting economic development opportunities.
ECONOMIC and WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
PUBLIC EDUCATION FUNDING
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
• W e support enhanced funding for the Regional Competitiveness Act to continue meaningful
opportunities for regional projects. W e also support enhanced state funding for the Industrial Site
Development Fund, the Governor’s Opportunity Fund and tourism initiatives that help promote
economic development in localities and regions.
• W e encourage the state and local governments to work with other entities to identify and promote
local, regional and state agricultural products.
• W e appreciate and encourage continuing state incentives and support for expanding broadband
technology in underserved areas.
The Planning District’s member localities believe that environmental quality should be funded and promoted
through a comprehensive approach, and address air and water quality, solid waste management, land
conservation, climate change and land use policies. W e are committed to the protection and enhancement of
the environment and recognize the need to achieve a proper balance between environmental regulation and
the socio-economic health of our communities within the constraints of available revenues. Such an approach
requires regional cooperation due to the inter-jurisdictional nature of many environmental resources, and
adequate state funding to support local and regional efforts.
W e believe the following:
• The state should not impose a fee, tax or surcharge on water, sewer, solid waste or other local
services to pay for state environmental programs. To do so would set a disturbing precedent whereby
the state could levy surcharges on local user fees to fund state priorities.
• The state should reduce permit application fees associated with stormwater management and stream
mitigation projects, as past fee increases have adversely impacted local abilities to adopt regional
stormwater management programs and to undertake projects needed for stream protection. Fees
should be used only to cover costs of administering the program.
• The legislature should provide funding for wastewater treatment and other necessary assistance to
localities as it works to clean up the state’s impaired waterways, while ensuring that system design
standards remain compatible with any new state requirements. The state also should explore
alternative means of preventing and remediating water pollution.
• The state should not enact legislation mandating expansion of the area covered by the Chesapeake
Bay Preservation Act. Instead, the state should 1) provide legal, financial and technical support to
localities that wish to comply with any of the Act’s provisions, 2) allow localities to use other practices
to improve water quality, and 3) provide funding for other strategies that address point and non-point
source pollution.
• The state should be a partner and advocate for localities in water supply development and should
work with and assist localities in addressing water supply issues, including investing in regional
projects. Also, the state’s water supply planning efforts should continue to involve local governments.
• The state should expand the list of localities that may, by ordinance, require conservation of trees
during the development process.
• The state should 1) ensure landfill closure schedules permit facilities posing no threat to property or
the public to continue to operate through their allowable life, and 2) provide adequate funding for
landfill closure and post-closure costs.
• W e support increased local government representation on the Biosolids Use Regulation Advisory
Committee (BURAC).
The Planning District’s member localities recognize that special attention must be given to developing
circumstances under which people, especially the disabled, the poor, the young and the elderly, can achieve
their full potential. Reductions to community agencies are especially troublesome, as their activities often end
up preventing more costly services later. The delivery of health and human services must be a collaborative
effort from federal, state and local agencies. W e urge the General Assembly to ensure funding is available to
continue such valuable preventive services.
• W e oppose any changes in state funding or policies that result in an increase of the local share of
costs for human services, including changes that would require additional local contributions for
indigent care.
• The state should increase funding to the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act (VJCCCA)
program, which has produced a nearly 50% drop in Department of Juvenile Justice commitments
since 1998. Further, the state should maintain a formula-driven allocation process for VJCCCA
funding.
• The state should provide sufficient funding to allow Community Services Boards (CSBs) to meet the
challenges of providing a community-based system of care, including maximizing the use of Medicaid
funding. W e believe children with mental health needs should be treated in the mental health system,
where CSBs are the point of entry. W e support state action to increase investment in the MR waiver
program for adults and young people and Medicaid reimbursement for children’s dental services. W e
also oppose any shifting of Medicaid matching requirements from the state to localities.
• W e support efforts to fund mental health and substance abuse services at juvenile detention centers.
HEALTH and HUMAN SERVICES
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
• W e oppose new state or federal entitlement programs that require additional local funding.
• W e support sufficient state funding for local social services facilities and for local departments to
maintain adequate office space to deliver services. W e also request that the state provide funds for
staffing local social services departments to 1) determine eligibility for residents seeking social
services such as Medicaid, food stamps and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), and
2) meet child and family services review goals. W e also support state assistance for providing pre-
admission screening services for nursing homes and for prompt investigation and services in cases
involving abuse, neglect or exploitation of the elderly or disabled.
• W e support continued state funding for local Disability Services Boards, as well as restored state
dollars for the Rehabilitative Services Incentive Fund.
• W e support sufficient state funding assistance for older residents, to include companion and in home
services, home delivered meals and transportation.
• W e support the continued operation and enhancement of early intervention and prevention programs
(and renewal of CSA Trust Fund dollars to support them), including school-based prevention
programs which can make a difference in children’s lives. This would include the state’s program for
at-risk four-year-olds, the Child Health Partnership and Healthy Families programs.
• W e support Virginia’s welfare reform program and encourage efforts to promote family preservation
and work requirements. The legislature should provide full funding to assist low-income working and
TANF (and former TANF) families with childcare costs. These dollars help working-class parents pay
for supervised day care facilities and support efforts for families to become self-sufficient. We oppose
any initiatives to shift traditional federal and state childcare administrative responsibility and costs to
local governments. W e support state efforts to expand access to education and training needed by
welfare recipients to become employed and self-supporting. W e believe the current funding and
program responsibility for TANF employment services should remain within the social services realm.
W e also support a TANF plan that takes into account and fully funds state and local implementation
and support services costs.
The Planning District’s member localities believe that every citizen should have an opportunity to afford
decent, safe and sanitary housing. The state and local governments should work toward expanding and
preserving the supply and improving the quality of affordable housing for the elderly, the disabled and low- and
moderate-income households. Regional housing solutions and planning should be implemented whenever
possible.
• W e support changes to the Code to allow 1) local flexibility in the operation of affordable housing
programs, 2) for creation of a state housing trust fund, 3) establishment of affordable dwelling unit
ordinances, 4) the award of grants and loans to low- or moderate-income persons to aid in purchasing
dwellings, and 5) the provision of other funding to encourage affordable housing initiatives.
• W e support measures to prevent homelessness and to assist the chronic homeless.
• W e support incentives that encourage rehabilitation and preservation of historic structures.
• W e support VHDA criteria for funding which encourages rehabilitation of existing housing and
discourages new construction in close proximity to existing subsidized housing.
• W e support retaining local discretion to regulate the allowance of manufactured homes in zoning
districts that permit single-family dwellings.
• W e encourage and support the use of, and request state incentives for using environmentally friendly
(green) building materials and techniques, which can contribute to the long-term health, vitality and
sustainability of the region.
The Planning District’s member localities encourage state financial support, cooperation and
assistance for law enforcement, emergency medical care, criminal justice activities and fire services
responsibilities carried out locally.
• W e urge the state to make Compensation Board funding a top priority, fully funding local positions
that fall under its purview. It should not increase the local share of funding constitutional offices or
divert funding away from local offices, but increase money needed for their operation, as local
governments have continued to provide much supplemental funding for constitutional officer budgets.
• W e urge continued state funding of the HB 599 law enforcement program (in accordance with Code
of Virginia provisions), drug courts and the Pre-Release and Post-Incarceration Services (PAPIS),
Community Corrections and Pretrial Services Acts.
• The state should continue to allow exemptions from the federal prisoner offset and maintain the per
diem payment to localities for housing state-responsible prisoners.
• W e urge state funding for the Volunteer Firefighters’ and Rescue Squad W orkers’ Service Award
Program and other incentives that would help recruit and retain emergency service providers. Further,
the state should improve access to and support for training for volunteer and paid providers.
• W e encourage shared funding by the state of the costs to construct and operate regional jails;
however, we do not believe the state should operate local and regional jails.
• W e urge local involvement in planning processes for homeland security measures.
HOUSING
PUBLIC SAFETY
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
• W e support state funding to develop supervised visitation centers to protect children during visitation
with non-custodial parents, when ordered by a court.
The Planning District’s member localities believe that since so many governmental actions take place at the
local level, a strong local government system is essential. Local governments must have the freedom and
tools to carry out their responsibilities.
• W e support legislation to enhance the ability of local governments to provide services required by
citizens and to meet their responsibilities in state/local partnerships. Accordingly, we support a
requirement for state agencies to notify localities of planned construction projects that may affect the
locality’s comprehensive plan.
• W e oppose intrusive legislation involving purchasing procedures; local government authority to
establish hours of work, salaries and working conditions for local employees; matters that can be
adopted by resolution or ordinance; and procedures for adopting ordinances.
• W e request that any changes to the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) preserve 1) a local
governing body’s ability to meet in closed session, 2) the list of records currently exempt from
disclosure under FOIA, and 3) provisions concerning creation of customized computer records. W e
support changes to allow local and regional public bodies to conduct electronic meetings as now
permitted for state public bodies.
• W e support local requests to the state for enabling legislation to increase the income and financial
worth limitations for real property tax exemption or deferral programs. W e also support enabling
legislation that allows property tax relief for community land trusts that hold land for the purpose of
providing affordable homeownership.
• W e encourage clarification of Code provisions that stipulate law enforcement responsibilities when
transporting persons for whom a temporary detention order has been issued for emergency medical
treatment or evaluation.
• W e oppose any changes to state law that further weaken a locality’s ability to regulate noise or the
discharge of firearms.
• W e support expanding local authority to regulate smoking in public places.
• The state should amend the Code to require litigants in civil cases to pay for the costs associated with
compensating jury members.
• W e support state funding for regional planning districts.
• W e support legislation to increase permissible fees for courthouse maintenance.
• The state should ensure that local connectivity and compatibility are considered in any centralizing of
state computer functions.
• The state must ensure that the continued implementation of electric utility restructuring is revenue
neutral to localities and that any necessary stopgap appropriations to adversely affected localities are
fully funded.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. PUBLIC HEARING: PROJECT: SP-2008-018. Rosewood Village Rehab
Services – Greenbrier.
PROPOSED: Allow non-residents of Rosewood Village to use the Rosewood Village rehab facility.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: C-1, Commercial - retail sales and service uses; and
residential use by special use permit (15 units/acre).
SECTIONS: 22.2.2(6) and 18.2.2.9.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Community Service - community-scale retail
wholesale, business and medical offices, mixed use core communities and/or employment
services, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No.
LOCATION: 500 Greenbrier Drive. Northeast corner of Greenbrier Drive and W estfield Road.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 61-W /02-1.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 15 and September 22, 2008.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. PUBLIC HEARING: PROJECT: SP-2008-019. Rosewood Village Rehab
Services - Hollymead Town Center.
PROPOSED: Allow non-residents of Rosewood Village to use the Rosewood Village rehab facility.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PD-MC Planned Development Mixed Commercial -
large-scale commercial uses; and residential by special use permit (15 units/acre).
SECTIONS: 25A.2.2(1) and 24.2.2(7).
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Town Center: Compact, higher density area
containing a mixture of businesses, services, public facilities, residential areas and public spaces,
attracting activities of all kinds. (6.01-34 dwelling units per acre).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
LOCATION: 2029 Lockwood Drive. The property is located approximately 1,500 feet from U.S.
Route 29 along Timberwood Boulevard in the Hollymead Town Center.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 32/41K.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 15 and September 22, 2008.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE and LAWS
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
Mr. Slutzky asked if he needed to recuse himself because his mother-in-law is a resident at one of
the Rosewood Village facilities. Mr. Davis replied that he did not.
Mr. Cilimberg reported that there are two special use permits – one on Greenbrier Drive and the
other in Hollymead Town Center, which is the newer of the two facilities. He pointed out the locations, and
said the request is for the Board to allow non-residents of Rosewood Village to use the physical therapy
services at both facilities. He said that there are factors favorable in the services that would be provided
to the general population. No factors unfavorable were found. Staff has recommended approval in both
requests with two conditions – one authorizing the assisted living facility and another limiting the number
of residents in the facility. Mr. Cilimberg said that the Planning Commission also recommended approved
and added a third condition to allow physical therapy services to nonresidents. He added that the third
condition is not necessary because the underlying zoning allows for such services by-right. Mr. Cilimberg
said the special use permits are recommended for approval with the two conditions.
At this time, the Chairman opened the public hearing. Since no one came forward to speak, the
public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Slutzky to move approval of SP-2008-018 subject to the two conditions
recommended by staff. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. This special use permit authorizes an assisted living facility; and
2. Maximum usage is limited to ninety (90) residents in the facility.
__________
Motion was then offered by Mr. Slutzky to move approval of SP-2008-019 subject to the two
conditions recommended by staff. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
1. This special use permit authorizes an assisted living facility;
2. Maximum usage is limited to ninety-six (96) residents in the facility; and
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. PUBLIC HEARING: PROJECT: SP-2008-021. Co-Construct Home Occ
B. (Sign #47).
PROPOSED: Home Occupation, Class B to allow up to 2 employees associated with a internet-
based home business.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PRD, Planned Residential District, with Proffers:
residential (3 - 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses.
SECTION: 19.3.2 Home Occupations, Class B.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Crozet Master Plan Neighborhood Edge CT3 -
predominantly residential uses (net 3.5 -4.5 units per acre, 6.5 units per acre if accessory
apartments added for 50% of the residential stock) in Neighborhood 7.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No.
LOCATION: 1814 Clay Drive, Crozet, VA 22932, in the W aylands Grant subdivision, off of
Jarman's Gap Road (RT 691), approx. 700 ft from the intersection of Crozet Ave (Rt 810).
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 55D-49. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: W hite Hall.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 15 and September 22, 2008.)
Mr. Cilimberg reported that this application is to allow a home occupancy business that operates
with a Class A permit to add up to two employees – which requires a Class B permit. The proposal would
add the two employees, who would park in the driveway. No customer or client visits are planned and no
additional signage would be needed. Mr. Cilimberg said that favorable factors -- it is a useable service to
homebuilders and remodelers; allowing the employer to have up to two employees offers additional
employment opportunities; no impact on surrounding properties is anticipated; and there would be
adequate space for the additional employees to park. No unfavorable factors were identified. Mr.
Cilimberg said staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval with four conditions.
Ms. Mallek asked if there is any impact with the house not being used for residential. Mr.
Cilimberg said the owners have a home occupation in their unit and they are adding two employees. Staff
is evaluating the impact of two additional employees. He added that they would not be allowed to have the
employment operation in the unit solely; that would be a home occupation.
Mr. Rooker asked if the petition itself would be included in the approval so they are limited to the
occupation described in the application; otherwise a home occupation would be approved without limit to
what that business is.
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
Mr. Davis said that if the Board wants to be clear, the application should be included as part of the
conditions.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the bullet at the top indicates the type of business that is there – an
internet-based business that provides project management software for homebuilders and remodelers.
Typically staff has had the application stand as the record of what the applicant applied for and the action
taken.
Mr. Davis suggested adding the language “as described in the application,” to condition #1.
Mr. Rooker suggested that language be included as standard language in future applications.
At this time, the Chairman opened the public hearing, and asked the applicant for comments.
The applicant, Donald W hite, said he seconds the approval of staff and the Planning Commission.
There being no one else coming forward to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Ms. Mallek to approve SP-2008-021 subject to the recommended
conditions and change in condition #1 to state: “This Home Occupation Class B, as described in the
application, replaces Home Occupation Class A.” Mr. Rooker seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. This Home Occupation, Class B, as described in the application, replaces Home Occupation,
Class A (HO 2005-00260);
2. There will be no more than two (2) employees, other than members of the immediate family living
on the premises;
3. The Home Occupation will not use more than five hundred (500) square feet of the home at 1814
Clay Drive; and
4. There will be no customer/client visits.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. PUBLIC HEARING: To amend the Albemarle County Service Authority
jurisdictional areas for Robert and Carolyn Michie to provide water service to Tax Map 79, Parcels 17
and 17C located on the north side of Route 250, near the intersection of Route 250 and North Milton Road
(Rt 729) and adjacent to the GOCO Oil site. Znd RA. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
September 15 and September 22, 2008.)
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning, summarized the Executive Summary which stated that the
applicant is requesting ACSA Jurisdictional Area designation for water service to two parcels totaling 15.8
acres with two existing single-family homes and a new single-family home which the applicant had
previously received a building permit to construct on Parcel 17C. The parcels are on the north side Route
250 East, just north of the intersection of Route 250 and North Milton Road (Rt. 729) and adjacent to the
GOCO Oil site. The parcels are located entirely within the designated Rural Areas in the Rivanna
Magisterial District. The existing well serving the home and cottage has recently been tested by the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and determined to be contaminated with Methyl
tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE), a gasoline additive that promotes a cleaner burn of the fuel. Beginning in May
2008, the property owners experienced taste and odor problems with the water, which prompted a request
to DEQ to test the well water supply for contamination.Subsequent testing of the well found MTBE
concentration of 0.021 mg/L. DEQ has funded the installation of a charcoal filter system on the well to
treat the contamination. DEQ considers charcoal filtration systems a temporary remediation inferior to
public water service (if available) and has recommended the site be connected to public water service.
The adjacent GOCO Oil site experienced a similar MTBE contamination in the wells serving that
site and was approved for, and connected to, ACSA water service in 1999.
Because of site conditions, including the location of the homes, out-buildings/barn, existing and
back-up septic fields, and the topography of the properties, there does not appear to be a viable location
for a new well on-site at a sufficient distance from the existing well to ensure no further contamination will
occur in the new well.
The Comprehensive Plan provides the following concerning the provision of public water and
sewer service:
“General Principle: Urban Areas, Communities, and Villages are to be served by public water and
sewer (p. 114).”
“Provide water and sewer service only to areas within the ACSA Jurisdictional Areas (p. 130).”
“Follow the boundaries of the designated Development Areas in delineating Jurisdictional Areas
(p.130).”
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
“Only allow changes in the Jurisdictional Areas outside of the designated Development Areas in
cases where the property is: 1) adjacent to existing lines; and 2) public health and/or safety is in
danger (p. 130).”
W ater and sewer services by policy are intended to serve the designated Development Areas
where growth is encouraged and are to be discouraged in the Rural Areas because utility services are a
potential catalyst to growth.
W ater supply and system capacities need to be efficiently and effectively used and reserved to
serve the Development Areas. Continued connections of properties in the Rural Areas result in further
extension of lines from the fringe of the existing Jurisdictional Area and into the Rural Areas, potentially
straining limited water resources and capacity.
This request meets the first criteria for the provision of service to Rural Area parcels (adjacency to
existing service lines). The adjacent property to the east of this parcel is within the ACSA Jurisdictional
Area for W ater Only to Existing Structures and is served with public water. The primary issue with this
request is whether the level of contamination experienced on-site creates a danger to the public health
and safety. The County’s Groundwater Manager has provided additional information regarding the health
threat of MTBE (Attachment B). DEQ has essentially established a “zero-tolerance” level for MTBE
contaminations. However, neither the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) nor the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has established a level of MTBE contamination which is considered a health
risk. The Code of Virginia requires quarterly testing of public water supplies for MTBE and reporting of
concentrations above 0.015 mg/L to VDH and DEQ. As previously noted, MTBE in concentrations of
0.021 mg/L was found in the Michies’ well. The County has previously granted ACSA Jurisdictional Area
designation to the adjacent GOCO Oil site and the Key W est subdivision based on MTBE contamination.
The contamination levels for those two sites were lower than the level found at the Michies’ well.
Based on the odor and taste condition of the water supply, the level of contamination within this
source falling within the range suggested for public system monitoring, the proximity to a known
contaminate site, and past actions regarding sites/requests with similar levels of contamination, staff
recommends amendment of the ACSA Jurisdictional Area for water service only to existing structures.
He also reported that the DEQ has found no extension of this contamination in the area at this
time. The property owner will bear the costs for the water connection.
Mr. Benish said at the conclusion of the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board amend
the ACSA Jurisdictional Area for water only to existing structures on Tax Map 79, Parcels 17 and 17C and
one new residence Tax Map 79, Parcel 17C (for a total of three residences served on the two parcels).
Ms. Thomas commented that this situation seems to be one of increasing development in the
rural area. She is concerned about adding service to the new structure.
Mr. Benish explained that the building permit was issued several years ago, and the applicant has
been endeavoring to build this house for some time and it is by-right. Given the lay of the land and
probability of contamination of a well to serve the site, the County would either have to wait until a new well
is drilled or approve service to the house. He said that waiting for contamination to occur would be more
in keeping with the County’s policy, but the suspicion is that contamination is inevitable, as MTBE moves
fairly rapidly and does not take much contamination to flow through the groundwater system. He added
that three separate well sites were drilled on the GOCO Oil site and he believes all three were
contaminated.
Mr. Slutzky asked what is being done to address the contamination on the GOCO Oil site. Mr.
Benish said that they have capped existing wells but there is not an extraction effort; DEQ had a brief
explanation of that in the packets distributed to the Board last month.
Mr. Rooker noted that this application is different because they have already obtained a building
permit, and to not approve this would require them to drill a well and incur that expense with a likelihood of
contamination. He also said that MTBE cannot be immediately detected in water, and a buyer could
possibly be consuming water that is contaminated. He does not think it would be wise to not include that
building permit site.
Mr. Davis pointed out that the Board adopted an ordinance in 2005 which stipulates that if an area
is designated as a contaminated area, prior to obtaining a building permit, testing and certification must be
done to certify that there is a safe well. In this case they already have the building permit.
Mr. Benish clarified that the building permit was issued a number of years ago. The applicant is
attempting to build a home for their daughters.
The Chairman opened the public hearing. There being no comments from the public, the public
hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Boyd, to approve the request to amend the ACSA jurisdictional
area for water only to existing structures on Tax Map 79, Parcels 17 and 17C and one new
residence Tax Map 79, Parcel 17C (for a total of three residences served on the two parcels). Mr.
Slutzky seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. PUBLIC HEARING: To amend the Albemarle County Service Authority
jurisdictional areas for Kirtley Property/ University of Virginia to provide water and sewer service to
Tax Map 59, Parcels 23B1. Property located on north side of Rt 250 W est, adjacent to the Northridge
Building and the Volvo of Charlottesville site. Znd C-1, Commercial and RA. Samuel Miller Dist.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 15 and September 22, 2008.)
Mr. Benish summarized the Executive Summary which stated that the applicant is requesting an
amendment to the current ACSA Jurisdictional Area designation to allow an existing warehouse building to
be served by a pumped sewer line as opposed to a gravity sewer line as required by the conditions of
approval for the existing Jurisdictional Area designation. The property is located on Route 250 W est,
between the Northridge Building and the Volvo of Charlottesville site. The property is zoned C-1,
Commercial and is designated as Rural Areas in the County Comprehensive Plan.
The Board of Supervisors amended the Jurisdictional Area designation for this parcel in 1984,
granting conditional sewer service to this parcel and the adjacent parcels to the east (Tax Map 59, Parcels
23B, 23C1, 23D, 23F). The Jurisdictional Area designations were approved with a condition that “sewer
service is approved only for the portions of these parcels which can be totally gravity fed…” Parcels 23B,
23C, 23D, and 23F have subsequently each demonstrated that the whole parcel can be served by gravity
fed sewer.
The recently submitted preliminary site plan for the Long Term Acute Care Hospital (LTACH)
(located on portions of Parcels 23B and 23B1) demonstrated that both the LTACH building and the
existing warehouse building on the Kirtley property can be served by a gravity sewer line running along the
northern boundary of the Kirtley and Northridge parcels, generally parallel to the railroad right-of-way,
consistent with the existing Jurisdictional Area designation. However, the applicant would prefer to pump
the sewer uphill and intercept the public sewer line serving the LTACH facility as opposed to installing a
lengthier and more expensive gravity line downhill to the warehouse. Aside from the benefit to the
applicant, the relocation of the line would provide protection of existing trees and vegetation that would
otherwise have to be removed to run the gravity line. The maintenance of this vegetation would allow for
better screening of the LTACH and Northridge sites from several adjacent residential properties located in
Farmington (the site is visible from at least one home).
The Comprehensive Plan provides the following recommendations concerning the provision of
public water and sewer service:
“General Principle: Urban Areas, Communities, and Villages are to be served by public
water and sewer (p. 114).”
“Provide water and sewer service only to areas within the ACSA Jurisdictional Areas (p.
130).”
“Follow the boundaries of the designated Development Areas in delineating Jurisdictional
Areas (p.130).”
“Only allow changes in the Jurisdictional Areas outside of the designated Development
Areas in cases where the property is: 1) adjacent to existing lines; and 2) public health and/or
safety is in danger (p. 130).”
By policy, public water and sewer services are intended to serve the designated Development
Areas where growth is encouraged and are to be discouraged in the Rural Areas because utility services
are a potential catalyst to growth. Sewer supply and system capacities need to be efficiently and
effectively used and reserved to serve the Development Areas. Continued connections of properties in
the Rural Areas result in further extension of lines from the fringe of the existing Jurisdictional Area and
into the Rural Areas, potentially straining limited sewer capacity.
This request to modify the Jurisdictional Area designation is not consistent with the strict reading
of the policy regarding changes to the Jurisdictional Area for Rural Areas properties because there is no
health or safety reason for the requested modification. However, the applicant has demonstrated that the
existing warehouse building can be served by a gravity sewer line consistent with the current conditions of
the Jurisdictional area designation. Therefore, the requested change will have no impact on the level of
sewer service provided to this site or to the Rural Areas.
This request to modify the Jurisdiction Area would allow for the warehouse to be served by a
pumped sewer line. W hile gravity service is preferred over pumped lines because of: 1) the greater
potential for pump systems to fail due to power outages and breakdowns, and; 2) the higher level of
maintenance necessary for a pumped system over the long-term life of the facility; this would be a private
line and the responsibility for maintenance would be the property owner’s.
Installing the pumped sewer line would prevent the loss of approximately 30 trees, mostly mature
white pines, along the Northridge parking lot. These trees would have to be removed with the installation
of a gravity line. This site appears to be visible from at least one adjacent residence. New landscaping
would be planted to replace these trees, although locating the new landscaping will be more difficult to
achieve in this area due to the new easement for the sewer line (placement of trees within a utility
easement is discouraged).
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
On September 3, 2008, the Board agreed to set a public hearing on this request, but requested
that a tree preservation plan be established for the trees located in the area along the north side of the
Northridge Building site and part of the Kirtley W arehouse site that would be retained as a result of this
Jurisdictional Area amendment. A tree preservation plan has not been completed to date, but will now be
required prior to approval of the final site plan for the LTACH Building.
The property owner would bear all of the costs for connection to public water service.
Mr. Benish said at the conclusion of the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board amend
the Jurisdictional Area designation to W ater and Sewer Service for Tax Map 59, Parcel 23B1 conditional
upon a tree preservation plan being completed and approved for the trees located in the area along the
north side of the Northridge Building site and part of the Kirtley W arehouse site that would be retained as
a result of this Jurisdictional Area amendment as part of the final site plan approval for the LTACH
Building.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Charlie Hurt, representing the University of Virginia Space and Real Estate Management,
stated that this is the first time that the University has developed anything in the Three-Party Agreement
Area C. The process has gone well. They have been to the Planning Commission and ARB as well as
worked with staff. He said that the plan now is better than the one initially submitted, which contemplated
the pump-up system to the LTACH. The LTACH hospital actually has sewer capability, but this plan
contemplates service for the warehouse in the back. Mr. Hurt said that the project is about $300,000 to
run the sewer from the warehouse down to the Sieg property, so they would like to pump up to LTACH
and proceed that way. W hen they received their originally Engineering comments, it was pointed out that
that could not be shown on the site plan until jurisdictional approval was secured. There was also
someone present at the meeting from Farmington that had some concerns about the development. There
were other small items – such as turning off a small security light, etc. Mr. Hurt said that they are also
changing the pole lighting to bring that into compliance and protect his property from Northridge. He also
stated that they are going to leave the trees in to provide buffer and save the University some money, so
the tree preservation plan would be part of the final site plan approval.
There being no other comments, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, to approve the request to amend the jurisdictional area
designation for water and sewer service for Tax Map 59, Parcel 23B1 conditional upon a tree
preservation plan being completed and approved for the trees located in the area along the north
side of the Northridge Building site and part of the Kirtley W arehouse site that would be retained as
a result of this jurisdictional area amendment as part of the final site plan approval for the LTACH
Building. Mr. Slutzky seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
_______________
NonAgenda. At 11:50 a.m., the Board took a brief recess, and reconvened at 12:03 p.m.
________________
Agenda Item No. 17. PUBLIC HEARING: FY 2009 Budget Amendment. (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on September 15 and September 22, 2008.)
Mr. Richard W iggans, Director of Finance, summarized the Executive Summary which states that
the Code of Virginia § 15.2-2507 stipulates that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate
amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget. However, any
such amendment which exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted
budget must be accomplished by first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before
amending the budget. The Code section applies to all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds,
E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
The total of the new requested FY 2009 appropriations, itemized below, is $1,887,190.00.
Combined with the appropriations approved since the budget was adopted, the cumulative appropriation
total is $3,765,823.00. Because the cumulative amount of the appropriations exceeds one percent of the
currently adopted budget, a budget amendment public hearing is required. The advertised budget
amendment included reappropriation requests for uncompleted General Government, Schools, and Storm
W ater capital projects. These three requests are currently undergoing additional staff review and have
been removed from the amendment request. They will be provided for the Board’s considered at its’
November meeting.
The proposed increase of this FY 2009 Budget Amendment totals $3,765,823.00. The estimated
expenses and revenues included in the proposed amendment are shown below:
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
General Fund $ 298,086.80
Special Revenue Funds $ 1,838,781.23
School Fund $ 218,100.08
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
School Program Funds $ 420,255.00
Capital Improvements Fund $ ( 124,171.00)
Emergency Communication Center Funds $ 1,114,770.89
TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES – All Funds $ 3,765,823.00
ESTIMATED REVENUES
Local Revenues (Fees, Contributions, Donations) $ 1,305,483.96
State Revenue $ 629,029.19
Federal Revenue $ 784,396.19
General Fund Balance $ 217,503.80
Other Fund Balances $ 829,409.86
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES – All Funds $ 3,765,823.00
The budget amendment is comprised of twenty-seven (27) separate appropriations, eighteen (18)
of which have already been approved by the Board as indicated below:
Approved July 2, 2008:
• One (1) appropriation (#2009001) providing funding to the Northwestern Virginia Health Systems
Agency in the amount of $4,723.00;
• One (1) appropriation (#2009002) totaling $80,000.00 for a Fire Rescue SAFER grant;
• One (1) appropriation (#2009003) in the amount of $20,000.00 for a donation to the School
Division; and
• One (1) appropriation (#2009004) in the amount of $180,000.00 establishing the revenue and
expenditure in the School’s operating budget relating to the storage facility lease, facilitating the
transfer of appropriated capital funding.
Approved August 6, 2008:
• One (1) appropriation (#2009005) distributing the $25,000.00 budgeted in the Total Rewards
contingency to General Government departments;
• One (1) appropriation (#2009006) transferring $46,000.00 for additional motor vehicles from the
General Fund to the Motor Vehicle Replacement Fund;
• One (1) appropriation (#2009007) allocating $28,395.00 from the budgeted contingency for the
Teen Pregnancy Program to MACAA ;
• One (1) appropriation (#2009008) totaling $4,140.00 for a Crime Analysis Improvement Grant for
the Police Department,
• One (1) appropriation (#2009009) totaling $451,589.00 for Education donation donations and
grants;
• One (1) appropriation (#2009010) establishing the FY2009 budget for the Commission on Children
and Families in the amount of $952,025.00; and
• One (1) appropriation (#2009011) totaling $165,799.00 for the OAR Crisis Intervention Team grant.
Approved September 3, 2008:
• One (1) appropriation (#2009012) totaling $140,000.00 for two Commission on Children & Families
grants;
• One (1) appropriation (#2009013) in the amount of $3,800.00 for miscellaneous FY08/09 budget
adjustments;
• Two (2) appropriations (#2009014 and #2009016) for two Social Services grants totaling
$37,399.00;
• One (1) appropriation (#2009015) totaling $7,520.00 for Education donations;
• One (1) appropriation (#2009017) providing $34,042.00 for transcription services for the Board of
Supervisors; and
• One (1) appropriation (#2009018) totaling $34,000.00 to reappropriate funding for two uncompleted
Emergency Communications Center projects.
The nine (9) new appropriations are as follows:
• One (1) appropriation (#2009019) reappropriating $174,659.80 in funding for uncompleted
Emergency Communications Center projects and $906,111.09 for the Mobile Data Project;
• One (1) appropriation (#2009020) $244,248.80, reappropriating funds for outstanding purchase
orders;
• One (1) appropriation (#2009021) totaling $265,993.06, reappropriating grant and seized asset
funds;
• Two (2) appropriations (#2009022 and #2009030) totaling $35,075.08 for school programs and
donations;
• One (1) appropriation (#2009023) in the amount of $58,844.26 for the Foothills Child Advocacy
Center;
• One (1) appropriation (#2009024) reappropriating $61,835.91 for Commission on Children and
Families grants;
• One (1) appropriation (#2009025) of $130,422 .00 recognizing additional Community Development
fees and unfreezing two Community Development positions; and
• One (1) appropriation (#2009029) providing $10,000.00 to the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission for the Regional Transit Authority.
A detailed description of these requests is provided on Attachment A.
Mr. W iggans said staff recommends approval of the FY 2009 Budget Amendment in the amount of
$3,765,823.00 after the public hearing, and then approval of Appropriations #2009019, #2009020,
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
#2009021, #2009022, #2009023, #2009024, #2009025, #2009029, and #2009030 to provide funds for
various local government, school, ECC, and capital projects and programs as described in Attachment A.
* * * * * * * * *
Attachment A
Appropriation #2009019 $ 1,080,770.89
Revenue Source: Local Revenue $ 416,309.62
ECC Fund Balance 174,659.80
Mobile Data Fund Balance 489,801.47
The Emergency Communications Center had the following uncompleted projects at the end of FY 2008
that will need to be reappropriated to FY 2009:
• Computer Aided Dispatch and Records Systems Review - $50,000.00
• Prototype remote call taker workstation - $20,000.00
• Replacement of current ECC Building Security System - $100,000.00
• Shelter Training for Local Agencies - $3,000.00
• Unexpended Emergency Management Grant Funding - $1,659.80
• Mobile Data Project - $906,111.09
Appropriation #2009020 $ 244,248.80
Revenue Source: General Fund Balance $ 217,503.80
Vehicle Replacement Fund Bal. 26,745.00
Several departments had funding for projects approved in FY 2008 that had not been completed as of June
30, 2008. This request reappropriates the remaining balances for the uncompleted projects for which
purchase orders were outstanding as of June 30, 2008.
Appropriation #2009021 $ 265,993.06
Revenue Source: State Revenue $ 140,101.19
Federal Revenue 59,772.28
Other Fund Balances 66,119.59
The following grants and seized asset accounts had not expended all funding as of June 30, 2008 and will
require reappropriation. No additional local funding is required.
• In FY 2008, the Department of Motor Vehicles awarded the Albemarle County Sheriff’s
Department a grant in the amount of $9,000.00 with a local match of $2,328.00 for a total grant
award of $11,328.00. The purpose of this grant was to assist in overtime expenses and
vehicle costs for officers conducting speed checks on primary and secondary roads. The
balance to bring forward into FY 2009 is $2,109.37.
• Seized asset monies were received from the Department of Criminal Justice Services for the
Police Department ($43,469.93) and Commonwealth Attorney ($11,363.18). These monies
will be used to purchase evidence equipment and traffic enforcement items for the Police
Department and office supplies, furniture, and training/conferences for the Commonwealth’s
Attorney’s office.
• The Riparian Buffer Restoration grant provides funds to match local expenditures to restore
riparian stream buffers. Under this grant, landowners can request 50% reimbursement for the
labor and materials of adding new buffer plantings on their property. To date, we have
approved projects that commit $120,240.65 in cost share funds. The unexpended balance to
bring forward into FY 2009 is $137,991.82.
• In FY 2007 State Farm awarded the Albemarle County Police Department a grant contribution
in the amount of $5,000.00. The purpose of this grant was to hold training events and to
purchase equipment to enhance the Police Department Tactical Unit. The balance to bring
forward into FY 2009 is $1,837.30.
• In FY 2007, the Department of Justice awarded the Albemarle County Sheriff’s Department a
grant in the amount of $29,617.00 with a local match of $166.54 for a total grant award of
$29,783.54. The purpose of this grant was to purchase automated external defibrillators,
Alzheimer tracking bands, and digital video equipment and cameras. The balance to bring
forward for FY 2009 is $8,884.19.
• In FY 2007, the U.S. Department of Justice awarded the Albemarle County Police Department
a grant in the amount of $15,847.00. The purpose of this grant was to assist in funding
overtime hours by current officers in support of reducing crime and improvement of public
safety with more “Community Policing”. The amount to bring forward for FY 2009 is
$15,124.57.
• The Department of Criminal Justice awarded Bedford County a grant in the amount of
$95,000.00 to assist in the investigations of Internet Crimes against Children. Bedford has
designated Albemarle County as being an area district in the fight against internet crime and is
providing Albemarle County $19,000.00. The amount to be brought forward for FY 2009 is
$7,305.13.
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
• The U.S. Department of Criminal Justice awarded the Albemarle County Police Department a
grant in the amount of $26,235.00 in FY 2006 to assist in the funding of overtime hours in an
effort to reduce crime and improve safety with more “Community Policing”. The amount to
bring forward for FY 2009 is $1,438.96.
• In FY 2008, the U.S. Department of Justice awarded the Albemarle County Police Department
a grant in the amount of $23,557.00. The purpose of this grant was to assist in funding
overtime hours by current officers in support of reducing crime and improvement of public
safety with more “Community Policing”. The amount to bring forward for FY 2009 is
$23,557.00.
• In FY 2008, the Division of Motor Vehicles awarded the Albemarle County Police Department a
grant in the amount of $35,000.00 to assist in the purchase of radar units, breath testing units,
as well as funding overtime hours for DUI checkpoints, increased saturation of trouble spots
both on primary and secondary roads and in shopping locations. The amount to bring forward
for FY 2009 is $4,901.39.
• The Department of Homeland Security has awarded the Fire Rescue Department a grant in the
amount of $309,168.00 with a local match of $77,292.00 for a total grant in the amount of
$386,460.00. This grant will assist in the purchase of safe and compliant personal protective
equipment. The amount to bring forward for FY 2009 is $8,010.22.
Appropriation #2009022 $ 25,725.00
Revenue Source: Local Revenue (Donations) $ 25,725.00
At its August 28, 2008 meeting, the School Board approved the following appropriations:
Red Hill Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $10,000.00 from Anne Ueltschi. The
donor has requested that this contribution be used to help offset the expenses of building an amphitheater
for performances at Red Hill Elementary School.
Albemarle High School received several donations totaling $450.00. The following are the donors along
with their respective donations: Mr. & Mrs. Edward Spellman donated $50.00; Mr. & Mrs. Jeffrey Leonard
donated $300.00; and Mr. Gregory Tyler donated $100.00. These donors have requested that their
contribution go towards the turf field at Albemarle High School.
W estern Albemarle High School received donations totaling $275.00 from two donors. Daniel J. Maynard
donated $250.00 and Andrew M.D. W olf donated $25.00. Both of these donors have requested that their
contribution go towards the Turf Project at W estern Albemarle High School.
W estern Albemarle High School received two donations totaling $15,000.00. An anonymous donor
donated $5,000.00 and Craig and Martha Redinger donated $10,000.00. Both of these donors have
requested that their contributions go towards the Rowing Club at W estern Albemarle High School.
Appropriation #2009023 $ 58,844.26
Revenue Source: Local Revenue (Foothills) $ 58,844.26
For the last several years, Albemarle County has been the fiscal agent for Foothills Child Advocacy Center.
Effective July 1, 2008, Foothills became an independent entity and Albemarle County is no longer its fiscal
agent. W ith County Executive Office approval, the Grant Project Director for Foothills will remain on
County payroll for FY 2009. All salary and benefit expenses for FY 2009, totaling $58,844.26, will be
reimbursed to the County by the Foothills Child Advocacy Center.
Appropriation #2009024 $ 61,835.91
Revenue Source: Local Revenue $ 1,667.00
State Revenue 5,000.00
Federal Revenue 55,168.91
The following Commission on Children and Families’ grants had not expended all funding as of June 30,
2008 and will require reappropriation.
• In FY 2008, the Department of Criminal Justice Services awarded the Commission of Children
and Families a grant in the amount of $97,500.00. This grant will provide training and
continued services to reduce system involvement of truants and juveniles with other negative
school related behaviors. This will include staff time, staff training, and training materials. The
federal portion of the grant is $65,000.00 with an “in-kind” match of $32,500.00, resulting in a
total grant award of $97,500.00. The amount to be brought forward for FY 2009 is $38,119.13.
• In FY 2008, the Department of Criminal Justice Services awarded the Commission on Children
and Families a grant in the amount of $5,000.00 in Federal funds, $5,000.00 in State funds,
with a local match of $1,667.00, for a total award of $11,667.00. This grant will be used to
provide 200 service-learning sessions for 48 weeks for youth who are at risk of gang
involvement. The local match will be funded by the Community Attention Agency. The amount
to be brought forward for FY 2009 is $11,667.00.
• In FY 2008, the Department of Criminal Justice Services awarded the Commission on Children
and Families a grant in the amount of $16,526.00 with a local match of $1,836.00 for a total
grant award of $18,362.00. This grant will provide training and the implementation of
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
promoting greater accountability in the juvenile justice system, including the increased
accountability for juvenile offenders. The amount to be brought forward for FY 2009 is
$12,049.78.
Appropriation #2009025 $ 130,422.00
Revenue Source: Local Revenue (Fees) $ 130,442.00
As a result of increased Community Development fees recently implemented, funding is available to offset
two Community Development positions that had previously been frozen.
Appropriation #2009029 $ 10,000.00
Revenue Source: Board Contingency $ 10,000.00
At its September 10, 2008 meeting, the Board of Supervisors approved the use of $10,000.00 from the
Board’s contingency for on-going support to the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission for their
support of the Regional Transit Authority. This appropriation does not increase the County’s total budget.
Appropriation #2009030 $ 9,350.08
Revenue Source: Local Revenue $ 9,350.08
At its September 11, 2008 meeting, the School Board approved the following appropriations:
Sutherland Middle School received a donation in the amount of $100.00 from Youngmin Kim. The donor
requested that their donation go towards any school needs at Sutherland Middle School.
Scottsville Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $500.00 from Crutchfield. The donor
has requested that this contribution be used towards assisting students to participate in a Team Building
program at Triple C Camp.
Hollymead Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $1,000.08 from Microsoft. The donor
has requested that this contribution be used for any educational needs at Hollymead Elementary School.
Jack Jouett Middle School received a donation in the amount of $250.00 from Blue Ridge Radiant
Systems, Inc. The donor has requested that this contribution sponsor any students that wish to attend the
7th grade Triple C camp trip.
The Dominion Educational Partnership has awarded Henley Middle School with a grant in the amount of
$7,500.00. These funds will be used to increase students’ awareness of alternative energy in their
communities and improve their understanding of the nature and extent of energy consumption,
conservation and efficiency, the economic and environmental effects of energy use, and alternative energy
technologies. A portion of these funds will also be used towards the installation costs of solar panels at the
school.
Mr. Boyd asked if the County is obligated to continue the school storage facility lease.
Mr. Tucker said that his understanding is in the future it will be funded.
Mr. Davis noted that the lease was signed after the budget was approved so this is an adjustment
in this year only to address the obligation for FY09; next year it will be part of the regular budget. Mr.
Davis mentioned that the facility is used by both schools and local government, and the cost will be in the
budget regularly from this point forward with schools paying its’ share and local government paying its’
share.
Mr. Boyd said he thought it was a one year situation. Mr. Tucker said it is.
Mr. Rooker clarified that it is one year in the sense of a mid year appropriation, but hereafter, it will
be reflected in the adoption of the budget. Mr. W iggans added that this amount covers schools and local
government. Next year a smaller portion will be in local government’s budget.
Mr. Boyd asked for reaffirmation that the $130,000 is a wise decision because that money has not
really been collected yet.
Ms. Mallek expressed concern about that as well.
Mr. Tucker said that this could be delayed until more is known about revenue and budget. He
thought the Board was supportive with the approach of freeing up positions.
Mr. Rooker commented that the concern is the revelation that there is a $4.1 million deficit in the
current year, and as a matter of law the County needs to operate with a balanced budget. He added that
he was under the impression that these positions would be freed up once that balance was established.
Mr. Slutzky asked if last month’s discussion included these positions. Mr. Tucker replied that he
believed it did – and the fees were still moving forward as the Board approved the fee structure. Mr.
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
Tucker emphasized that the idea was funding these positions solely through the fee structure, but this can
be held off on until revenues are realized. If the intent of the Board is to not use any of the money from
the “lock box” then they may need to revisit the issue.
Mr. Boyd suggested holding off on these positions for a few months until we see if the revenues
are realized.
Board members strongly agreed that this should be held off.
Mr. Tucker noted that the Board had expressed concern about the number of positions frozen in
Community Development.
Ms. Thomas asked if there was a deadline for the Riparian Restoration Grant. Mr. W iggans
indicated that he did not know if there was a deadline for spending that $138,000, but will get the
information.
The Chairman opened the public hearing. There being no one present to speak, the public
hearing was closed.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Rooker to approve the FY 2009 budget amendment in the amount
of $3,635,401.00 and to approve Appropriations #2009019, #2009020, #2009021, #2009022, #2009023,
#2009024, #2009029, and #2009030 to provide funds for various local government, school, ECC, and
capital projects and programs. Ms. Thomas seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2009019
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Reappropriaton of ECC Operating Projects and Mobile Data Project
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 4100 31041 331800 ECC Admin - R & M Bldg. J 1 100,000.00
1 4100 31041 800700 ECC Admin - ADP
Equipment
J 1 20,000.00
1 4100 31045 312500 Emer. Svcs - Prof.
Services
J 1 4,659.80
1 4100 31046 312210 Reg. Crime Network-
Contract
J 1 50,000.00
2 4100 51000 510100 Appropriation - F/B J 2 174,659.80
4100 0501 Est. Revenue 174,659.80
0701 Appropriation 174,659.80
1 4115 31065 312700 Mobile Data - Prof.
Services
J 1 68,501.56
1 4115 31065 800316 Mobile Data - Mobile Data
Proj
J 1 527,262.45
1 4115 31065 800714 Mobile Data - Tech.
Upgrade
J 1 140,971.08
1 4115 31065 999999 Mobile Data -
Contingency
J 1 169,376.00
2 4115 16000 160502 City of Charlottesville J 2 5,176.55
2 4115 16000 160503 County of Albemarle J 2 123,668.14
2 4115 16000 160544 City Share (44.74%) J 2 128,726.00
2 4115 16000 160545 County Share (42.51%) J 2 122,309.86
2 4115 16000 160546 UVA Share (12.75%) J 2 36,429.07
2 4115 51000 510100 Appropriation - F/B J 2 489,801.47
4115 0501 Est. Revenue 906,111.09
0701 Appropriation 906,111.09
TOTAL 2,161,541.78 1,080,770.89 1,080,770.89
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2009020
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: REAPPROPRIATION – OUTSTANDING PURCHASE ORDERS
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 12013 312102 Community Relations-
ACE
J 1 2,880.00
1 1000 12013 360000 Community Relations-
Advertising
J 1 3,500.00
1 1000 21060 332100 Clerk of Ct - Maint.
Contract
J 1 1,884.00
1 1000 32015 331000 Fire Rescue-
Repairs/Maint
J 1 303.91
1 1000 32015 601100 Fire Rescue-Uniforms J 1 396.60
1 1000 42040 390001 Solid W aste - Keene
Landfill
J 1 28,832.47
1 1000 43002 331200 Gen. Svcs - R/M Buildings J 1 2,500.00
1 1000 43005 301210 Storm W ater - Contract
Services
J 1 67,989.00
1 1000 43005 331901 Storm W ater - Maint. Det.
Basin
J 1 450.00
1 1000 43006 301221 Ground Maint. - Med
Mowing
J 1 1,440.00
1 1000 43006 301221 Ground Maint. -
Landscaping
J 1 12,129.00
1 1000 43006 312373 Ground Maint. - Art In
Place
J 1 190.50
1 1000 43006 332300 Grounds Maint. - Repl/Inst
Street
J 1 689.56
1 1000 43007 332200 Environmental Mgmt -
Maint.
J 1 100.00
1 1000 71012 540000 Parks - Lease/Rentals J 1 1,979.17
1 1000 71013 540000 Parks - Summer -
Lease/Rental
J 1 692.40
1 1000 81021 312105 Comm. Dev. - Consulting J 1 650.00
1 1000 81021 317000 Comm. Dev. - Other Prof.
Svcs
J 1 4,500.00
1 1000 81022 312342 Planning - Dev. Area
Study
J 1 50,879.85
1 1000 81024 312700 Zoning - Prof Services J 1 2,025.00
1 1000 89000 562501 TJPDC - Transit Auth.
Plan
J 1 33,492.34
1 1000 59000 Approp - F/B J 2 217,503.80
1 9200 43001 800500 GG Vehicle Replacement J 1 26,745.00
2 9200 51000 510100 Approp - F/B J 2 26,745.00
1000 0501 Est. Revenue 217,503.80
0701 Appropriation 217,503.80
9200 0501 Est.. Revenue 26,745.00
0701 Appropriation 26,745.00
TOTAL 488,497.60 244,248.80 244,248.80
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2009021
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Reappropriation of Grants and Seized Asset Accounts
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1214 24000 240010 Revenue - State J 2 2,109.37
1 1214 21070 120000 Overtime J 1 1,518.14
1 1214 21070 210000 FICA J 1 125.75
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
1 1214 21070 601000 Police Supplies J 1 465.48
1214 0501 Est. Revenue 2,109.37
0701 Appropriation 2,109.37
2 1234 51000 510100 Appropriation - Fund
Balance
J 2 11,363.18
2 1235 51000 510100 Appropriation - Fund
Balance
J 2 1,825.72
2 1236 51000 510100 Appropriation - Fund
Balance
J 2 41,644.21
1 1234 22010 320000 Temporary Help Service
Fees
J 1 813.18
1 1234 22010 550100 Travel/Training/Education J 1 7,000.00
1 1234 22010 600100 Office Supplies J 1 2,500.00
1 1234 22010 800200 Furniture/Fixtures J 1 1,050.00
1 1235 39000 580905 State Drug Seized Assets J 1 1,825.72
1 1236 39000 580902 State Drug Seized Assets J 1 41,644.21
1234 0501 Est. Revenue 11,363.18
0701 Appropriation 11,363.18
1235 0501 Est. Revenue 1,825.72
0701 Appropriation 1,825.72
1236 0501 Est. Revenue 41,644.21
0701 Appropriation 41,644.21
2 1410 82050 580419 Dept. of Conservation J 2 137,991.82
1 1410 82050 580419 Riparian Buffer
Reimbursement
J 1 137,991.82
1410 0501 Est. Revenue 137,991.82
0701 Appropriation 137,991.82
2 1510 51000 510100 Appropriation - F/B J 2 1,837.30
1 1510 31013 550100 Travel/Training J 1 1,837.30
1510 0501 Est. Revenue 1,837.30
0701 Appropriation 1,837.30
2 1513 33000 330001 Revenue - Federal J 2 8,884.19
1 1513 21070 800100 Equipment J 1 8,543.90
1 1513 21070 800700 ADP Equipment J 1 340.29
1513 0501 Est. Revenue 8,884.19
0701 Appropriation 8,884.19
2 1524 33000 330001 Federal Revenue J 2 15,124.57
1 1524 31013 120000 Overtime J 1 13,963.61
1 1524 31013 210000 FICA J 1 1,160.96
1524 0501 Est. Revenue 15,124.57
0701 Appropriation 15,124.57
2 1528 33000 330033 DOJ Pass Thru J 2 7,305.13
1 1528 31013 120000 Overtime J 1 3,509.30
1 1528 31013 210000 FICA J 1 290.70
1 1528 31013 550403 Training J 1 3,059.84
1 1528 31013 800100 Machinery & Equipment J 1 445.29
1528 0501 Est. Revenue 7,305.13
0701 Appropriation 7,305.13
2 1536 51000 510100 Appropriation - F/B J 2 1,438.96
1 1536 31013 120000 Overtime J 1 1,328.88
1 1536 31013 210000 FICA J 1 110.08
1536 0501 Est. Revenue 1,438.96
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
0701 Appropriation 1,438.96
2 1538 33000 300001 Federal Revenue J 2 23,557.00
1 1538 31013 120000 Overtime J 1 21,754.89
1 1538 31013 210000 FICA J 1 1,802.11
1538 0501 Est. Revenue 23,557.00
0701 Appropriation 23,557.00
2 1539 33000 330001 Federal Revenue J 2 4,901.39
1 1539 31013 120000 Overtime J 1 3,461.41
1 1539 31013 210000 FICA J 1 286.73
1 1539 31013 800100 Machiner & Equipment J 1 1,153.25
1539 0501 Est. Revenue 4,901.39
0701 Appropriation 4,901.39
2 1540 51000 510100 Appropriation - F/B J 2 8,010.22
1 1540 32015 800100 Machinery & Equipment J 1 8,010.22
1540 0501 Est. Revenue 8,010.22
0701 Appropriation 8,010.22
TOTAL 531,986.12 265,993.06 265,993.06
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2009022
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Education Donations – School Board Meeting: 08/28/2008
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 2000 18100 181109 DONATION J 2 15,000.00
2 9000 18100 181136 RED HILL COMMUNITY
DONATIONS
J 2 10,000.00
2 9001 18100 181107 AHS DONATIONS -
TURF PROJECT
J 2 450.00
2 9002 18100 181107 WAHS DONATIONS-
TURF PROJECT
J 2 275.00
1 2302 61105 800100 MACH/EQUIP-NEW J 1 15,000.00
1 9000 62420 950241 RED HILL
PERFORMANCE AREA
J 1 10,000.00
1 9001 60301 950245 AHS SYN. TURF FIELD J 1 450.00
1 9002 60302 950245 WAHS TURF FIELD
PROGRAM
J 1 275.00
2000 0501 Est. Revenue 15,000.00
0701 Appropriation 15,000.00
9000 0501 Est. Revenue 10,000.00
0701 Appropriation 10,000.00
9001 0501 Est. Revenue 450.00
0701 Appropriation 450.00
9002 0501 Est. Revenue 275.00
0701 Appropriation 275.00
TOTAL 51,450.00 25,725.00 25,725.00
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2009023
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Foothills Child Advocacy Center
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUN
D
DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1569 19000 190248 Recovered Costs -
Foothill
J 2 58,844.26
1 1569 53157 110000 Salary - Regular 43,000.00
1 1569 53157 210000 FICA 3,289.50
1 1569 53157 221000 VRS 5,822.16
1 1569 53157 231000 Health Insurance 6,153.00
1 1569 53157 232000 Dental Insurance 227.04
1 1569 53157 241000 VRS Group Life 352.56
1569 0501 Est. Revenue 58,844.26
0701 Appropriation 58,844.26
TOTAL 117,688.52 58,844.26 58,844.26
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2009024
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Reappropriation of CCF Grants
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1559 33000 330032 Federal Revenue J 2 38,119.13
1 1559 33000 110000 Salaries - Regular J 1 21,876.40
1 1559 33000 210000 FICA J 1 1,673.54
1 1559 33000 221000 VRS J 1 2,518.26
1 1559 33000 231000 Health Insurance J 1 2,518.26
1 1559 33000 232000 Dental Insurance J 1 141.90
1 1559 33000 241000 VRS Group Life
Insurance
J 1 187.50
1 1559 33000 520300 Telecommunications J 1 478.80
1 1559 33000 550100 Travel/Training J 1 4,000.00
1 1559 33000 580000 Miscellaneous Expense J 1 2,724.47
1 1559 33000 800330 Computer Equipment J 1 2,000.00
1559 0501 Est. Revenue 38,119.13
0701 Appropriation 38,119.13
2 1573 18110 181318 Local Revenue -Comm.
Attn.
J 2 1,667.00
2 1573 24000 240000 State Revenue - DCJS J 2 5,000.00
2 1573 33000 330001 Federal Revenue - DCJS J 2 5,000.00
1 1573 53160 312105 Consulting Services J 1 11,667.00
1573 0501 Est. Revenue 11,667.00
0701 Appropriation 11,667.00
2 1578 33000 330001 Federal Revenue J 2 12,049.78
1 1578 53161 110000 Salaries J 1 847.77
1 1578 53161 210000 FICA J 1 70.23
1 1578 53161 312210 Contracted Services J 1 4,000.00
1 1578 53161 350000 Printing & Binding J 1 1,900.00
1 1578 53161 550100 Travel/Training J 1 5,231.78
1578 0501 Est. Revenue 12,049.78
0701 Appropriation 12,049.78
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
TOTAL 123,671.82 61,835.91 61,835.91
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2009029
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: TJPDC – Regional Transit Authority
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 89000 562501 TJPDC - Regional Transit J 1 10,000.00
1 1000 95000 999990 BOS Contingency J 1 (10,000.00)
TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2009030
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Education Donations – School Board Meeting – 09/11/2008
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 3104 18000 189900 MISC. REVENUE J 2 7,500.00
2 2000 18100 181109 CONTRIBUTIONS J 2 1,850.08
1 2205 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 1,000.08
1 2209 61101 601210 CONTRACT SERVICES J 1 500.00
1 2253 61101 420100 JOUETT/FIELD TRIPS J 1 250.00
1 2255 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 100.00
1 3104 60252 312700 PROF SERV
CONSULTANTS
J 1 150.00
1 3104 60252 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 300.00
1 3104 62421 800621 SOLAR PANELS-
HENLEY
J 1 7,050.00
2000 0501 EST. REVENUE 1,850.08
0701 APPROPRIATION 1,850.08
3104 0501 EST. REVENUE 7,500.00
0701 APPROPRIATION 7,500.00
TOTAL 18,700.16 9,350.08 9,350.08
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. PUBLIC HEARING: Revalidation Ordinance Amendment. An ordinance
to amend Chapter 15, Taxation, of the Albemarle County Code, by amending Section 15-803, Same –
Processing; Continuation of Assessments, etc.; Fees, of Article VIII, Special Assessments for Agricultural,
Horticultural, Forest or Open Space Real Estate. The proposed amendment would require effective tax
year 2010 that property owners in the Land Use Value Tax Program verify every two years that
participating properties continue to meet Program requirements and would establish a filing deadline and
late filing fee. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 15 and September 22, 2008.)
Mr. W iggans summarized the Executive Summary which stated that on July 9, 2008, the Board
held a work session on a proposed revalidation requirement for property in the Use Value Tax Program
(“Program”). On September 3, 2008, the Board authorized a public hearing for October 1st to consider
adoption of an ordinance to establish the revalidation program. In addition, the Board reviewed a proposed
revalidation form and provided comments to staff.
Virginia Code § 58.1-3234 authorizes the governing body of any county, city, or town to require
property owners in the Program to revalidate any previously approved application. Revalidation requires
property owners in the Program to confirm that the property continues to meet Program requirements.
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
To date, the County has not required revalidation. Prior to January 2007, the County conducted
property reassessments on a biennial cycle. That two-year reassessment schedule allowed the Assessor’s
staff to conduct site visits of each property in the County every two years to reassess the property and, if
the property was in the Program, physically inspect the property to gauge compliance with Program
guidelines.
In 2007, the County changed from biennial to annual reassessments. This change resulted in the
Assessor’s staff visiting each property every three to four years instead of every two years. Revalidation is
a tool to assure that parcels enrolled in the Program continue to qualify without a field visit by an assessor.
Advantages/Disadvantages:
There are several advantages and disadvantages of a revalidation requirement. Advantages of requiring
revalidation include:
• greater public confidence that only qualifying parcels are receiving the special tax benefits of the
Program.
• regular notification to property owners of their enrollment in the Program and the requirements of
the Program.
• requirement that Program participants certify their farming/forestry/horticulture/open space use
(i.e., Schedule F, income receipts, farm numbers, etc.).
Disadvantages of requiring revalidation include:
• additional administrative costs (i.e., supply/postage expense, staff assistance, and storage space
needs).
• failure to meet deadline(s) and/or provide proper documentation would result in parcel(s) being
removed from the Program, the possible assessment of roll back taxes and taxpayer complaints.
Comparative Information:
The following chart shows the revalidation requirements of other localities:
Locality Use Value Parcels Revalidation
Augusta County 6,000 Every Year, W ith Fee
Chesterfield County 800 Every Year, No Fee
Fluvanna County 1,500 Every Year, No Fee
Greene County 600 No
Henrico County 410 Every Year, No Fee
James City County 249 Every Year, No Fee
Louisa County 3,400 Every Two Years, No fee
Loudoun County 5,000 Every Year, W ith Fee
Nelson County 2,000 Every Six Years, W ith Fee
Orange County 1,000 Every Year, W ith Fee
Rockingham County 5,400 Every Six Years, W ith Fee
Albemarle County currently has 4,981 tax parcels in the Use Value Tax Program.
Recommended Revalidation Process:
Staff recommends that property owners in the Program be required to revalidate every two years,
beginning in 2009 for tax year 2010. This two-year approach would ease the burden of the property owner
having to file every year, while still providing the County adequate documentation that the property
conforms to Program requirements.
Staff recommends an extensive education process prior to implementation of a revalidation
requirement. This education process would begin by providing information about revalidation to all affected
owners with the second half 2008 tax bills (to be mailed in late October 2008) and the 2009 reassessment
notices (to be mailed in January 2009). Using the tax bills and reassessment notices for this step of the
education process would save the cost of additional mailings to Program participants.
The second step of the process would be the distribution of the actual revalidation forms. These
forms would be mailed in late April 2009, separately from the tax bills, to all owners in the Use Value Tax
Program. The deadline for filing the forms with the Assessor’s Office would be September 1, 2009. Staff
recommends no fee for applicants who file by the deadline. Applications would be accepted after the
deadline until December 5, 2009, but would require payment of a late fee of $125. As with the initial Use
Value applications, a separate revalidation would be required for each parcel.
Proposed Ordinance:
Following the Board’s discussion at its September 3 meeting, staff is presenting for the Board’s
consideration a proposed ordinance to implement the revalidation process recommended above.
Specifically, the proposed revisions to Albemarle County Code Sec. 15-803 would require participating
owners to file (at no charge) a revalidation form with the Assessor’s Office every other year by September
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
1. After September 1, participating owners could still file for revalidation as late as December 5, upon
payment of a late filing fee of $125.
The proposed effective date of the ordinance is January 2, 2009, which is the appropriate date to
make the revalidation requirement effective for the 2010 tax year.
Proposed Form:
Staff collected revalidation forms in use by 12 other localities and incorporated the best elements of
each form to develop the attached proposed form (Attachment A). The proposed form requires property
owners to provide certain information and forms to verify the continued qualifying use of the property. Staff
then consulted with several representatives of the Farm Bureau and the farming community to ensure that
the form, while providing the needed information, would not be unduly burdensome. Staff has also
incorporated suggestions made by the Board at its September 3 meeting, namely:
• Including a brief statement of the purpose of the Program at the top of the form;
• Highlighting the filing deadlines in bold; and
• Clarifying the standards for forestal use and providing a link to the state Department of Forestry
website for additional information.
Administration of the Revalidation Process:
Upon receipt of the revalidation forms, the Assessor’s staff would review the paperwork for
accuracy and compliance, and would make every attempt to contact landowners concerning incomplete
applications prior to the final filing deadline. Property that qualified would remain in the Program. Owners
of property that did not qualify would be notified and the non-qualifying properties would be removed from
the Program.
Although the revalidation forms would be sent as a separate mailing, the fiscal impact of
revalidation is expected to be minimal (less than $2,000). Expenses would include postage and printing
costs. It is anticipated that existing staff will be sufficient to review the documentation upon submission.
Minimal expenses are anticipated for supplies and storage. Minimal late fee revenues are projected.
Mr. W iggans said after the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt the proposed
ordinance to implement the revalidation program.
Referring to the Revalidation Form, Mr. Rooker asked about the rent/income for crop value done
under a barter arrangement.
Mr. Tucker said there have been lots of questions raised about the form. The form does not need
to be ready until April of next year, and staff would like to take Board members’ questions and comments
and incorporate those into that.
Mr. Slutzky noted that there has traditionally been a custom in the rural area of bartering things
like cut hay.
Mr. Davis replied that there is no minimum amount of income that has to be derived in order to
qualify, but this is just evidence that the farming operation is ongoing and a barter system would qualify
just as well. Maybe the form needs to recognize that in some respect.
Mr. Boyd said that he thought there was a dollar amount on gross receipts.
Ms. Thomas said that it is an either/or – cash or proof of value of crops or animals.
Ms. Thomas also expressed concern about this form’s print size, noting that Henrico County’s
form is in larger print and easier to read.
Mr. Davis noted that the Board is not legally required to approve this form – that is an
administrative matter – the legal process is just approving the ordinance.
Ms. Mallek asked if value income can go across the farm as opposed to per parcel. Mr. Davis
said he thinks that is correct. He said that there would need to be some recognition that there is
agricultural activity on all parcels if they are to qualify.
At this time the Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Neil W illiamson, of the Free Enterprise Forum, addressed the Board, thanking them and staff
for working on this with landowners to meet their mutual goals. He thinks this is a great example of good
government.
Mr. Corky Shackleford, a farm owner in Stony Point, addressed the Board and thanked them for
working on this. He helped work on the form. Their intent was to make it as simple a process as possible
and easily identify those individuals who do not qualify.
There being no other comments, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Rooker to approve Ordinance 08-15(2) to implement the
Revalidation Program. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
ORDINANCE NO. 08-15(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 15, TAXATION, ARTICLE VIII, SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR
AGRICULTURAL, HORTICULTURAL, FOREST OR OPEN SPACE REAL ESTATE, OF THE CODE OF
THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 15,
Taxation, Article VIII, Special Assessments for Agricultural, Horticultural, Forest or Open Space Real
Estate, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 15-803 Same--Processing; continuation of assessment, etc.; fees
CHAPTER 15. TAXATION
ARTICLE VIII. SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR AGRICULTURAL,
HORTICULTURAL, FOREST OR OPEN SPACE REAL ESTATE
Sec. 15-803 Same--Processing; continuation of assessment, etc.; fees.
A. The application fee due under this article shall be figured at fifteen cents ($0.15) per acre on
total acreage with the minimum charge of fifteen dollars ($15.00) per individual application and shall be paid to
the director of finance of the county. However, where a landowner is required to file a new application under
this article because the use or acreage of such land previously approved has changed, the application fee for
each reapplication shall be fifteen dollars ($15.00).
B. The tax for the next succeeding tax year for property qualifying under this article shall be
based on the use value recorded in the Land Use Tax Assessment Book.
C. Continuation of valuation, assessment and taxation under this article shall depend on the
continuance of the real estate in the use for which classification is granted, continued payment of taxes as
referred to in Virginia Code § 58.1-3235, continued revalidation every second tax year as provided in
subsection (D) below, and compliance with the other requirements of this article and Article 4 of Chapter 32 of
Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia, and not upon continuance of the same owner of title to the land.
D. A parcel’s eligibility for use value assessment shall be revalidated every two years during the
second tax year of each two-year revalidation cycle. A revalidation form shall be filed with the local assessing
officer on or before September 1 of the year preceding the two-year period for which the revalidation is sought,
on forms prepared by the county. A separate revalidation form shall be filed for each parcel receiving a use
value assessment. Late filing of a revalidation form may be made on or before December 5 of the year
preceding the two-year period for which the revalidation is sought, upon payment of a late filing fee of one
hundred twenty-five dollars ($125.00).
(8-23-73; 12-20-73; 7-17-75; 7-2-86; 4-13-88; Code 1988, § 8-34; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference--Va. Code § 58.1-3234.
This ordinance shall be effective on and after January 2, 2009.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. PUBLIC HEARING: Transient Occupancy Tax Ordinance Amendment.
An ordinance to amend Chapter 15, Taxation, of the Albemarle County Code, by amending Section 15-
901, Imposed; Amount of Tax, of Article IX, Transient Occupancy Tax. The proposed amendment would
conform the County’s transient occupancy tax to the new State law that requires the County to designate
and spend that portion of the revenue collected from the transient occupancy tax rate over two percent
solely for tourism and travel, marketing of tourism or initiatives that, as determined after consultation with
the local tourism industry organizations, attract travelers to the County and generate tourism revenues in
the County. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 15 and September 22, 2008.)
Mr. Tucker summarized the Executive Summary which stated that the 2008 General Assembly
adopted House Bill 1453 that requires an amendment to Albemarle County’s ordinance regarding the
transient occupancy tax. Prior to July 1st, Albemarle’s enabling authority provided that it and 14 other
named counties could impose a 5% transient occupancy tax provided that the portion of the tax rate over
two percent was designated and spent for promoting tourism, travel or business that generated tourism or
travel in the County. Under the new legislation, Albemarle is now required to designate and spend any
excess over two percent solely for tourism and travel, marketing of tourism or initiatives that, as
determined after consultation with the local tourism industry organizations, attract travelers to the County
and generate tourism revenues in the County.
The proposed ordinance revises the transient occupancy tax provisions of the County Code. The
proposed revision is required to comply with recent changes to state law.
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
Effective July 1, 2008, Virginia Code § 58.1-3819(A) included Albemarle among the 34 localities
for which “any excess over two percent [of transient occupancy tax] shall be designated and spent solely
for tourism and travel, marketing of tourism or initiatives that, as determined after consultation with the
local tourism industry organizations, attract travelers to the locality and generate tourism revenues in the
locality.”
The new state law simply requires consultation with local tourism industry organizations regarding
how best to spend certain tax revenues to attract travelers to the County and generate tourism revenues.
It does not require approval by the tourism industry organizations. Staff anticipates that this requirement
will be satisfied by consulting with the Charlottesville Albemarle Convention & Visitors Bureau. It is not
anticipated that it will change how these funds are currently budgeted. This proposed revision neither
raises nor lowers the amount of the transient occupancy tax.
No budgetary impact is anticipated.
Mr. Tucker said after the public hearing, staff recommends that the attached ordinance be
adopted.
Mr. Boyd asked if this would impact ACE.
Mr. Davis responded that the money must be spent for tourism and travel, marketing of tourism,
or initiatives that attract travelers to the County and generate more tourism. He said that ACE falls into the
initiatives piece but does not require approval. If it is established that ACE does attract visitors to the
County, it will not affect how ACE money is spent. Mr. Davis said that staff currently goes through a
process of identifying those easements along routes that are tourist corridors and have scenic value.
Those are the ACE easements for which occupancy tax money is used. He thinks the County has done a
good job of documenting that it has met the criteria.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that several years ago she made a presentation to the Tourism Council
which was very valuable. That might be something the County should think about doing from time to time.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Neil W illiamson, Free Enterprise Forum, commented that he has no doubt the activities the
County is doing are legal and are meeting criteria for tourism activities, but questioned whether those who
are generating these funds and collecting them agree with the allocation, and perhaps they should be
consulted.
There being no other public comments, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to approve Ordinance 08-15(1) as presented. Ms. Thomas
seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
ORDINANCE NO. 08-15(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 15, TAXATION, ARTICLE IX, TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX,
OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 15,
Taxation, Article IX, Transient Occupancy Tax, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 15-901 Imposed; amount of tax
CHAPTER 15. TAXATION
ARTICLE IX. TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX
Sec. 15-901 Imposed; amount of tax.
A. There is hereby imposed a tax on the occupancy of all rooms or spaces in hotels, motels,
boarding houses and travel campgrounds within the county. Such tax shall be assessed at the rate of five
percent (5%) of the amount charged for such occupancy; provided, however, that nothing herein shall be
construed as imposing any tax upon rooms or spaces rented for continuous occupancy to the same person or
group of persons for thirty (30) or more days in hotels, motels, boarding houses, or travel campgrounds.
B. The revenues collected from that portion of the tax over two percent (2%) shall be designated
and spent solely for tourism and travel, marketing of tourism or initiatives that, as determined after consultation
with the local tourism industry organizations, attract travelers to the county and generate tourism revenues in
the county.
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
(11-28-73; 8-15-74; 4-13-88; 3-19-97; § 8-41; Code 1988, § 8-42, Ord. No. 98-8(2), 6-10-98; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-
5-98; Ord. 08-15(1), 10-1-08)
State law reference--Va. Code § 58.1-3819.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. Closed Meeting.
At 12:35 p.m. motion was offered by Ms. Mallek that the Board go into closed meeting pursuant
to Section 2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards,
committees, and commissions; under Subsection (1) to evaluate the performance of a County Department
which requires the discussion of the performance of a specific individual; under Subsection (7) to consult
with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters requiring legal advice regarding agreements
necessary to implement a funding source for public safety services; under Subsection (7) to consult with
legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters requiring legal advice regarding regional
authorities; and under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal
matters requiring legal advice regarding the renegotiation of the terms of a lease. Mr. Rooker seconded
the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. Certify Closed Meeting.
At 2:08 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Ms. Mallek offered motion that the Board
certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member’s knowledge, only public business
matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act
and identified in the motion authorizing the closed meeting were heard, discussed, or considered in the
closed meeting. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 22a. Boards and Commissions: Vacancies/Appointments.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Slutzky to:
appoint Mr. Scott Huang to the Jordan Development Corporation, with said term to expire August
13, 2009; and
reappoint Mr. W allace McKeel to the Jefferson Area Board on Aging (JABA), with said term to
expire October 20, 2010.
Ms. Thomas seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
_______________
NonAgenda.
Motion was offered by Mr. Slutzky to authorize the County Executive to enter into an amended
lease with the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc. that will: 1) terminate the lease for the Visitors’ Center
property located at 600 College Drive effective January 31, 2009; and 2) reduce the rent paid by the
Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc. from $5,644.54 per month to $2,822.27 per month effective October 1,
2008.
Mr. Rooker seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
_______________
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
Agenda Item No. 23. Transportation Matters:
Item No. 23a. VDOT Monthly Report.
Mr. Allan Sumpter, Charlottesville Residency Administrator, highlighted information he provided in
his Monthly Report. VDoT has started tracking pedestrian improvements. He stated that VDoT has been
moving along with signal installations for the State Farm light, which should be operational by the end of
October. The Burnley Station Road signal should be operational by the end of November or beginning of
December. The signal will probably be blinking for about three days or so.
The draft agreement for the illegal signs in the right of way issue is in the Attorney General’s
office, and VDoT is insisting that sight distance requirements be enforced immediately. They are
approaching the issue of political signs very carefully. Mr. Sumpter said that VDoT management has
asked the Attorney General’s office to reconsider the original opinion on signs in the right of way, and it
may be that signs are not allowed to be collected under that part of the Code.
Ms. Mallek asked if it would be helpful if citizens weighed in on their support of VDoT’s appeal.
Mr. Sumpter said he is not sure that would be appropriate. This issue is certainly a lot of unclarity with this
issue.
Mr. Sumpter asked the Board to emphasize to candidates that they know not to block sight
distance. He indicated that every year they send out a letter but that has not been done because of the
questions involved with this issue. They are trying to address the issue from a safety standpoint. In
response to Ms. Mallek, he does not want to issue any statements or press releases this year because the
normal process has not been completed.
Ms. Thomas asked that Mr. Sumpter keep this Board informed of any decisions.
Mr. Slutzky commented that he is opposed to having commercial signs, but is not as concerned
about the political signs – unless they are blocking sight distance or causing other safety issues.
Mr. Sumpter reported that the Dry Bridge reopened this morning. VDoT’s Bridge Office will next
assess the weight limit to determine proper posting. VDOT has received authorization to begin right-of-
way and utility relocation for Advance Mills. Right-of-way agents have been working on gathering all their
appraisals and moving forward. The funding is all in place. They are still moving along on schedule.
__________
Item No. 23b. Transportation Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Slutzky said that there is something wrong with the sequence of stoplights at Rio Road and
Northfields.
__________
Ms. Mallek said when VDoT repaved and repainted the slip lane into the former W hite’s grocery,
now All Good Grocery, near the big parking lot near Earlysville Forest Road, it was painted solid white
instead of dotted, and it is causing confusion.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she and Mr. Sumpter have been working on W hite Mountain Road. The project
will consist of surface hardening in a couple of places, not total pavement.
__________
Mr. Rooker asked how VDoT would be impacted by proposed budget cuts. Mr. Sumpter replied
that he is not sure but Mr. Utterback has said that every employee will be touched in some way. All State
agency heads have been asked to prepare 5, 10, and 15 percent cuts. Mr. Sumpter said that there are 90
local employees. For example, they are looking for cutbacks in their maintenance operations like pipe
replacements, mowing, etc. He reiterated that they expect that every facet of VDoT will be affected.
__________
Item No. 23c. Ashcroft Traffic Calming Resolution.
Mr. Benish said the Executive Summary states that the residents of the Ashcroft Homeowners
Association (HOA) contacted the County in 2006 concerning speeding on Lego Drive, the main road in the
Ashcroft subdivision. The County Police Department conducted a traffic survey that showed a speeding
problem exists on Lego Drive from vehicles both coming down the mountain and those going up, and that
the speeding problem exists throughout the day. The posted speed limit on the portion of Lego Drive
where the traffic calming improvements are being considered is 25 mph. There are no
sidewalks/walkways along the road.
Staff met with the Ashcroft HOA and the traffic committee on several occasions to discuss the
safety of pedestrians and vehicles on Lego Drive.
Staff provided information to the Ashcroft subdivision residents about the VDOT Traffic Calming
Program and the process. The community has followed the process and the following three traffic
calming solutions have been approved by the HOA:
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
• Construct a median in the road adjacent to the clubhouse. This was once the end of the
state-maintained road with a turn-around traffic circle. The road has now been extended
beyond the circle, so this area of the road is very wide. The HOA would landscape and
maintain the median with a permit from VDOT, and the new traffic pattern would be well-
marked.
• Install a speed hump north of the Anderson Lane intersection.
• Install a speed table north of W right Lane. The speed table is basically an extended
speed hump. Staff and VDOT believe this improvement will serve as a good introduction
to the reduced speed limit.
These three solutions are illustrated on the attached diagram (Attachment A). Advisory signage
would be installed with all of the above improvements.
The County Police Department, School Transportation, and the Department of Fire Rescue have
approved the requested improvements. Fire Rescue expressed concerns that the installation of the speed
hump and speed table would increase the response time to the homes in Ashcroft (VDOT estimates about
4 to 8 seconds per hump/table). Community Development staff advised the HOA of this concern, and the
HOA responded that the potential impact to emergency response time is acceptable to the residents in
order to achieve safer travel speeds along the main access road for the community. Fire and Rescue
service to the Ashcroft Subdivision would still meet the emergency response time standards established in
the Comprehensive Plan with the installation of the traffic calming measures.
VDOT guidelines for the Traffic Calming Program state that 75 percent of the residents within an
area impacted by proposed traffic calming improvements should support the recommended
improvements. Because of the single-access point/cul-de-sac design of the community, VDOT required
that all of the 142 homes in the Ashcroft Subdivision be included as part of the impacted area.
Attachment B is a copy of the letter and the accompanying ballot that was mailed to all of the residents.
The HOA gathered signatures from October 2007 to May 2008. A copy of the full petition is available for
review in the in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, Albemarle County Office Building, 401
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday.
One hundred and two (102) residents approved the recommended improvements (71.8%) and 32
residents voted against the improvements (22.5%). The HOA was unable to get responses after
numerous attempts from eight property owners. County and VDOT staff met with the HOA’s traffic
committee representative to discuss why the 75 percent approval threshold was not reached. County and
VDOT staff were satisfied that the HOA has made a strong effort to reach all of the residents and had
worked hard to acquire the signatures for nearly eight months, which is an extraordinary amount of time
and level of commitment. VDOT indicated that the 75 percent approval threshold is a guide and can be
modified based on the individual project. VDOT believes that the intent of the Traffic Calming guidelines
has been met, and that a strong majority of the residents support the recommended improvements.
If the Board adopts the attached Resolution (Attachment C), staff will work with VDOT and the
Ashcroft HOA to install the improvements. Staff estimates that the improvements would be installed in the
spring of 2009, although it is possible that they could be completed this fall. The traffic speed on Lego
Drive thereafter would be monitored to determine the effectiveness of the improvements.
The cost for the speed hump, speed table and median would be approximately $20,000. These
improvements would be funded from the VDOT Six Year Secondary Road Construction Program where
funds have been allocated for traffic calming.
Mr. Benish said staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution supporting the
Ashcroft Home Owners Association recommended traffic calming improvement for Lego Drive (Rt. 1090).
Motion was offered by Mr. Boyd to adopt the resolution to support Ashcroft Homeowners
Association traffic-calming measures for Lego Drive. Ms. Thomas seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES
ON LEGO DRIVE (ROUTE 1090)
IN THE ASHCROFT SUBDIVISION
WHEREAS, speeding has been identified as a major concern of the residents of Ashcroft Subdivision;
and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle Police Department has conducted a speed study in the Ashcroft
Subdivision, which confirmed that a speeding problem exists on Lego Drive (Route 1090); and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has reviewed and concurs with the speed
study; and
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50)
WHEREAS, a strategically placed speed hump and speed table on Lego Drive (Route 1090) would
encourage slower speeds; and
WHEREAS, a median placed at the end of the cul-de-sac at the Ashcroft clubhouse would further
encourage slower speeds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia
requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to construct a speed hump, a speed table and a median as
recommended in the Lego Drive Traffic Calming Plan dated August 3, 2007.
_______________
Item No. 23d. Primary Road Improvement Priorities.
Mr. Benish said the Executive Summary states that the Commonwealth Transportation Board
(CTB) will conduct a public hearing to give citizens and public officials an opportunity to review and provide
comments on projects and programs for inclusion in the Fiscal Year 2010-2015 Six-Year Improvements
Program (SYIP). The hearing date has not been set, but it is typically held in mid-October or early
November. This is the opportunity for the Board of Supervisors to inform the CTB of the County’s
interstate, primary road, rail, bicycle, pedestrian and transit improvement priorities. Primary roads are
those roads with route numbers below 600, including interstate highways (Routes 6, 20, 22, 53, 29, 231,
240, 250 and I-64). The County has maintained a priority list of improvements for a number of years, and
uses this list as the basis for each year’s update.
The Six Year Interstate and Primary Road Plan process differs from the Secondary Road Plan
process in that specific amounts of funds are set aside for secondary road projects in the County, whereas
funds for primary road projects are allocated for each construction district, and all primary road projects
proposed within all localities in the district compete for those funds. The Culpeper District includes
Albemarle, Culpeper, Fauquier, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, Madison, Orange and Rappahannock
Counties.
The purpose of this review is to receive the Board’s direction on transportation projects to be
included in the FY 2010-15 SYIP for the Culpeper District. Staff has provided a proposed priority list of
improvements which is based on last year’s priority list approved by the Board (Exhibit A). Changes
proposed by staff are identified in bold italics or strikethrough type. The Priority List includes an
“Attachment A”, which provides a more detailed narrative description of the County’s project priorities.
The only major changes to the priority list are to bridge improvement priorities (see Section III.
Bridges). The Free State Bridge improvement project has been deleted as a priority improvement. The
construction of the entrance road to the Belvedere development has eliminated the need to improve the
bridge. Improvements to the Route 250 East bridge over the CSX railroad in Shadwell have been added
as a high priority project. Staff was informed by VDOT that a high level of deterioration was found during a
recent inspection. VDOT recommended that this be included in this year’s priority list. Staff recommends
this project as the second highest bridge priority, after the Advance Mills bridge project. The Route 250
East bridge is the only bridge project on the list that is actually part of the primary road system. Staff is not
recommending any other changes to the Priority List except for relatively minor updates and corrections.
The County is providing its priorities for projects to be funded through the State’s interstate,
primary and urban system funding. The impact on the budget will be determined after VDOT has identified
the projects it will fund in their Six Year Financial Plan.
Mr. Benish said staff recommends that the Board 1) approve the attached recommended priorities
(Attachment A) for primary road system improvements; and 2) provide direction regarding the presentation
of the County recommendations and comments.
Mr. Benish added that the safety improvements for Route 22/250 intersection are underway and
near completion, so they have been removed from this list. Mr. Benish said that staff did add a
component for shoulder improvements/off-street trails and bike paths.
Mr. Slutzky said that if for some reason a lot of federal money comes to the County, a bridge over
the Rivanna should be mentioned in the Berkmar Drive extended project (Item #1, 2d).
Mr. Rooker pointed out that several projects here are City projects – such as 2A and 2C – and
asked if these should be included as part of the County’s list. He asked whether it is appropriate for one
locality to request funding for projects in another locality.
Mr. Benish replied that these improvements, while in the City, help the level of service in the
County – and many were part of the 29-H250 Phase II projects that were a teaming process with VDoT,
the City, and the County. He added that staff relies on this list of priorities to help focus decision making
on land use decisions and budget issues related to the CIP.
Ms. Thomas asked if staff has analyzed what the most effective use of a limited amount of money
would be – for projects such as Hillsdale Drive Extended or a bike lane, etc.
Mr. Rooker suggested choosing some primary road projects to emphasize, some secondary road
projects, a few bridge projects, and a couple of safety projects, because they are different pots of money
for each that would likely be affected separately by funding cuts.
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 51)
Mr. Slutzky commented that the ranking has really already been done through the priority lists.
Mr. Boyd said that a lot of projects here relate to the Pantops Master Plan, and wanted to make
sure that some of these items are considered priorities, even though the Crozet Master Plan was the first
one approved.
Mr. Slutzky agreed, and said that Route 29 would really be a top priority. He added that Mr. Boyd
is raising a really relevant point.
Mr. Rooker said they are arguing over money they do not have. He said that if a primary road
project is to be emphasized, it should be Route 29 north to Hollymead Town Center from the bridge.
Mr. Boyd commented that it has a much bigger price tag.
Mr. Benish noted that that is the first primary road project after Meadow Creek.
Mr. Rooker suggested breaking out the City projects because he does not want to ask the State to
do those projects ahead of County projects.
Mr. Slutzky concurred.
Mr. Boyd said he agrees with what is being said, but he asked if the Board should rethink some of
the smaller projects and rank them by need.
Mr. Slutzky said maybe after the Board goes through each of the master planning exercises, it
may be time for the Board to step back and look at ranking and priorities.
Mr. Boyd said he agrees with that suggestion.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that these things cannot be done without money, and the Board needs to
unanimously get behind some kind of revenue source to get these done.
Ms. Thomas said that she does not want 2A to be moved into another category, as a lot of work
went into getting that on the list.
Mr. Graham noted that the City has Revenue Sharing money from a different pot that they have to
match money that presumably would come from the proffer change with Albemarle Place, which is
currently under review. He said that the private money would essentially be a match for the City’s VDoT
Revenue Sharing money, and he understands that a combination of the two would be enough to complete
the project.
Mr. Rooker said he agrees that the project should remain on the list but he is not sure where it
should go.
Mr. Sumpter commented that Mr. Utterback had mentioned earlier a strategy to federalize as
many projects as possible. The County may want to think about projects that would fit in the parameters
of what would qualify for federal funds – such as Route 29 improvements.
Ms. Mallek referred to No. 5, and asked if the Main Street should be higher than some of the other
projects because of its relationship to the Library. She also asked about the Eastern Avenue connector
not being a part of the list. Mr. Benish explained that some of the projects on the list are in the planning
process stage and some are on the way. The three projects are all part of the Streetscape project and
Library project; they can probably be combined. Eastern Avenue is actually ahead of these smaller
projects.
In response to Mr. Benish, Board members agreed that it would be helpful to mention bike lanes
in the spoken part of the presentation, as well as the written part.
Mr. Slutzky asked if there is a mechanism to note bike lane placement when roads are being
resurfaced and widened, noting the lack of available shoulder at Northfields.
Mr. Sumpter explained that VDoT physically goes out and measure roads when it does
resurfacing. W hen funds are available, VDoT have attempted to get widening for bike lanes – even if they
are not officially designated bike lanes. If the bike lanes are official, they look at every segment of the
roadway to see what the critical needs are.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Rooker to adopt the Primary Road Improvement Priority List with
the change adding the Berkmar Extended bridge. Ms. Thomas seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 52)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY RECOMMENDED PRIORITIES FOR SYIP,
FOR PRIMARY ROAD, TRANSIT AND ENHANCEMENT IMPROVEMENTS
(OCTOBER, 2008)
The following are Albemarle County’s priorities for each federal funding allocation and each sub-allocation
of the Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds. Attachment A provides a more detailed explanation
of the priority projects.
I. Surface Transportation Program (STP Projects)
Undertake projects in The CHART–UNJam 2025 Regional Transportation Study (adopted May 3,
2004). These include:
1. Construct Meadow Creek Parkway from Route 250 Bypass to Rio Road, including the
interchange at the Route 250 Bypass. The CTB should make every effort to provide
adequate funding and resources to maintain the current construction schedule;
2. Improvements to Route 29 North Corridor:
a. Funding of 29H250 Phase II Study, Option B design recommendations. These
improvements include an extra ramp lane on Route 29 North onto the Route 250
Bypass and an extra lane on Route 29 from Hydraulic Road (in the City);
b. W idening improvements to Route 29 North--construct third lane on northbound
and southbound lanes, from South Fork Rivanna River;
c. Construct Hillsdale Drive extension from Hydraulic Road to Greenbrier Drive in
the City of Charlottesville; and
d. Construct Berkmar Drive extension including the Berkmar Bridge across the
Rivanna River.
3. W idening of Route 20 South, from I-64 to Mill Creek Drive, including bike lanes and
sidewalks.
4. Improvements to Route 250:
a. Improve two intersections on Route 250 W est: the Tilman Road Intersection
(Route 676) and the Owensville Road intersection (Route 678). Otherwise,
maintain the current two-lane road configuration from the Bypass to Yancey Mills;
b. Improve Route 250 East corridor as recommended in the Pantops Neighborhood
Plan (improvements to interchange, pedestrian crossings, widening to no more
than six lanes, parallel road and new bridge/crossing at Rivanna River); and
c. Improve Route 250 W est from Emmet Street to the Route 29/250 Bypass.
5. Improve Route 240 in accord with the recommendations of the Crozet Master Plan:
a. Implement sidewalk plan (per Downtown Sidewalk and Parking Study and Crozet
Master Plan);
b. Create bike lanes to and in downtown;
c. Construct Eastern Avenue, to include the Lickinghole Bridge and a railroad
crossing; and
d. Construct Main Street east from Crozet Avenue.
6. W iden Route 20 North, from Route 250 to Elks Drive/Fontaine Drive intersection, including
bike lanes and sidewalks.
7. Undertake improvements recommended in the Southern Urban Area B Study, including
improvements to Fontaine Avenue and construction of Fontaine Avenue to Sunset
Avenue connector road.
8. Improve two intersections on Route 20 (Valley Street) in Scottsville: the W arren Street
intersection and the Hardware Street intersection.
II. Transit Improvements
1. Regional Transit Authority - Funding to support establishing a regional transit entity with
expanded service to Albemarle County and Charlottesville.
2. Expand Existing Service - Funding to expand existing transit service capacity for CTS,
JAUNT, RideShare, including capital projects to enhance capital operations (such as bus
pull-outs, shelters, etc.).
3. Funding for Transit Operational Costs - Fully fund the State’s existing formula share of
transit operating costs or provide fuel subsidies in the face of rapidly escalating fuel
costs.
4. Inter-City Rail – Improve and increase inter-city rail service to Albemarle County. The
County continues to support the funding and implementation of the TransDominion
Express as a means to provide improved inter-city rail service within the
State.
III. Bridge Projects
Bridge priorities identified by Albemarle County, VDOT Local and District Offices.
1. Route 743, Advance Mill at North Fork Rivanna
2 Rt. 250 East over the railroad near Rt. 729.
3. Route 708, Dry Bridge Road at Buckingham Branch RR
4. Route 677, Old Ballard Road -Buckingham Branch RR
5. Route 616, Black Cat Road - Buckingham Branch RR
6. Route 637, Dick W oods Road – Ivy Creek
7. Route 641, Frays Mill Road at Marsh Run
8. Route 795, Presidents Road at Hardware River
9. Route 614, Sugar Hollow Road at Moormans River
10. Route 649, Proffit Road at Norfolk Southern RR
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 53)
IV. Safety Improvements
1. Construction of pedestrian walkways and crosswalk along primary roads in the County’s
Urban Neighborhoods and Development Areas as part of road widening/improvement
projects. Absent major road improvements, the following roads are prioritized for
improvement:
a. Route 240 in downtown Crozet;
b. Pedestrian crossings at strategic locations on Rt. 29 North.
c. Route 250 East in Pantops-extend from the existing sidewalks and provide
pedestrian crossings at strategic locations;
d. Route 250 W est from the City limits to the Farmington/Ednam entrance;
e. Route 20 South from City limits to Mill Creek Drive extended.
2. Safety improvements in Crozet area including Route 240 underpass.
3. Intersection improvements on Route 250 W est at 1) Tilman Road and 2) Owensville Road
(noted above).
4. Support the construction of bikelane improvements along primary roads consistent with
County and Regional bicycle plans (bikelanes, paved shoulders and/or adjacent bike
paths).
5. Develop functional plans, including an analysis of safety improvements for Route 22 and
Route 231.
V. Enhancement Projects/Safe Routes to School Program
1. Pedestrian Streetscape improvements in downtown Crozet.
2. Beautification of entrance corridors.
3. Construction of bikeway, pedestrian, and greenway improvements as prioritized in the
Jefferson Area Bicycle, Pedestrian and Greenways Plan and the County’s
Comprehensive Plan.
4. Development of portions of the Rivanna River Greenway path system.
5. Removal of non-conforming billboards.
6. Continued support of Scottsville Downtown Streetscape Improvement Project.
VI. National Highway System (NHS)
The Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Policy Board approved the NHS as proposed by VDOT in this
area excluding the Route 29 Bypass.
VII. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program
This does not apply to Albemarle County. The County is not in an area of non-attainment for
ozone or carbon monoxide.
ATTACHMENT A
ALBEMARLE COUNTY RECOMMENDED PRIORITIES FOR SYIP,
FOR PRIMARY ROAD, TRANSIT AND ENHANCEMENT IMPROVEMENTS
(OCTOBER, 2008)
The following are Albemarle County’s priorities for each federal allocations and each sub-allocation of the
Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds. This attachment provides more information about each
project.
I. Surface Transportation Program (STP)
Standard Projects:
The following projects, listed in priority order, are eligible for STP funds. The County supports
these projects as referenced.
Undertake those projects in the Charlottesville Albemarle Regional Transportation Study (CHART)
– UnJam 2025 (adopted May 3, 2004) eligible for the primary program in the sequence as called
for in the February 2, 1992 joint resolution between the City, County and University and agreed to
by VDOT. These include:
1. Meadow Creek Parkway from the Route 250 Bypass to Rio Road. The Parkway is the
County's highest priority project after Route 29 North, and is of the utmost importance in
order to maintain an adequate level of service on Route 29 and to improve the overall
roadway system serving the urbanizing area north of the City. This project is being funded
in the County's secondary program and has been approved by the Commonwealth
Transportation Board (CTB) as a low speed parkway in the City of Charlottesville and the
County. The County asks that this section be designed and built in accord with the
County’s design and alignment recommendations developed with the assistance of an
independent consultant and endorsed by resolution of the County Board of Supervisors
on June 20, 2001 and approved by the CTB on December 18, 2001. This endorsed
design and alignment emphasizes the parkway corridor’s potential as a linear park and its
relationship to the development of adjacent urban land. The linear park concept is
intended to replace McIntire Park land lost due to the project and, at the same time, link
McIntire Park to the Rivanna Trails Foundation trail along Meadow Creek and the
County’s urbanizing area along Rio Road. The County requests that the CTB make every
effort to provide adequate funding and resources to maintain the current construction
schedule for this project.
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 54)
Meadow Creek Parkway/Route 250 Bypass Interchange. The County also supports
the construction of the Meadow Creek Parkway interchange at the terminus of the
Parkway with Route 250 in the City of Charlottesville. This interchange is essential to the
safe and acceptable future traffic operation of this high volume intersection. The County
is grateful for the funding earmarked in the Federal Transportation Bill for this
interchange. It is recognized that this interchange project, and its funding, is a separate
but related project from the Meadow Creek Parkway mainline project. The County
requests that the CTB make every effort to provide adequate funding and resources to
maintain the current construction schedule for this project.
2. Route 29 North. This highly urbanized area continues to grow and transportation system
improvement needs continue to increase. The County, City, VDOT and the MPO have
completed Phase I and Phase II of the 29H250 (US 29 – Hydraulic – 250 Bypass
Intersection) Study. The County appreciates continued VDOT and Commonwealth
Transportation Board support of initiatives in the Route 29 North corridor. The County, in
coordination with the MPO, is currently utilizing VDOT, developer proffered and County
general funds to study the concept/alignment of Route 29 North as part of a larger
transportation network study for the County’s northern development areas from the City
limits to the Greene County line. This study, a component of the County’s Places 29
Study, will include a comprehensive and integrated evaluation of both transportation and
land use issues and planning to establish a series of land use recommendations,
transportation network improvements and multi-modal approaches that will support the
northern development areas and the Route 29 Corridor.
a) The County requests that VDOT plan for the funding of the 29H250 Phase II
Option B design recommendations, which emphasize improving Route 29 to
serve regional trips and changing the character of Hydraulic Road between Route
29 and the Route 250 Bypass. These improvements include an extra ramp lane
on Route 29 North onto the Route 250 Bypass and an extra lane on Route 29
from Hydraulic Road (in the City).
b) The County requests funding for a third lane northbound and southbound on
Route 29 from the South Fork Rivanna River to north of its intersection with
Hollymead Drive. These improvements would tie into a third lane recently
constructed in each direction along Route 29 as part of major land development
projects at the Hollymead Town Center. This new third lane section, and other
road improvements in the area, was funded by the developer through zoning
proffers related to the project’s approval. There are significant peaks and valleys
in Route 29 through this area that create an existing dangerous condition and this
will only worsen as traffic increases as development occurs in this area in accord
with the Comprehensive Plan. This section of road already experiences a high
level of vehicle accidents, particularly in the area of Forest Lakes South.
Completion of this section would essentially complete the three phases of
improvements to Route 29 from Hydraulic Road to Airport Road that were
originally programmed in the Six-Year Plan in 1988. These and other
Comprehensive Plan transportation system recommendations envision future
development to be served by a transportation network that ultimately provides a
complete system of urban streets and supports walking and biking and
comprehensively links all land uses.
Other projects listed in CHART in the northern study area must be actively pursued and
completed. These projects include:
c) The Hillsdale Drive Extension Project;
d) Berkmar Drive Extended including the Berkmar Bridge across the Rivanna River.
Also, while funding has previously been dropped for Route 29 improvements north of the
South Fork Rivanna River, transportation system improvements as identified by the
County in its Comprehensive Plan are imperative to this area.
3. Complete preliminary engineering and undertake the widening of Route 20 South from I-
64 to Mill Creek Drive. Incorporate sidewalks and bike lane facilities into these
improvements. This is a curvy section of road in the County’s Urban Area that serves the
traffic from Monticello High School and has experienced several accidents with fatalities
in recent years.
4. There are three areas of emphasis the County requests be addressed on Route 250:
a) The County does request funding for the improvements of the Tilman Road
intersection at Route 250 and the Owensville Road/Route 250 intersection
(possible round-about at Ownesville Road). Otherwise, the County recommends
maintaining the present two-lane configuration of the corridor with any short term
or spot improvements being as non-intrusive and consistent as possible with the
special character of this scenic by-way.
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 55)
b) VDOT has completed a similar study of Route 250 East from Free Bridge to the
Fluvanna County line. This study’s findings have been presented to the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors. The County has included a number of the study’s
recommendations in the adopted Pantops Master Plan, a component of the
County’s Comprehensive PlanThis Pantops Plan focuses on creating a
neighborhood plan that integrates land use and transportation planning to
establish land use recommendations, transportation network improvements and
multimodal approaches that will support neighborhood development.
Recommendations include improvements to the I-64 interchange, pedestrian
crossings, parallel roads and a possible new bridge/crossing of the Rivanna River
connecting to the City, and limited widening of Route 250 to no more than six
lanes.
c) Improve Route 250 W est from Emmet Street to the Route 29/250 Bypass. This
section is covered by the joint Ivy Road Design Study conducted by the City,
County and University of Virginia and originally recognized for improvement in the
Lewis Mountain Neighborhood/University Heights (Area B) Study. Any plans for
the improvement of this section of Route 250 W est need to be coordinated
among the City, County and University.
5. Undertake improvements that will benefit/improve Route 240 in Crozet in accord with
recommendations from the recently completed Crozet Master Plan.
a) Implement sidewalk plan (per Downtown Sidewalk and Parking Study) and Crozet
Master Plan.
b) Create bike lanes to and in downtown.
c) Construct Eastern Avenue, to include the Lickinghole Creek Bridge and a railroad
crossing.
d) Construct Main Street east from Crozet Avenue.
6. Undertake the widening of Route 20 North from north of Route 250 East to the Elks
Drive/Fontana Drive intersection. Incorporate sidewalks and bike lane facilities into the
west side improvements. The County has also listed these improvements under “Safety”
priorities. To date, the County has constructed sidewalks on the east side of Route 20
from Route 250 to Fontana Drive.
7. Undertake improvements recommended in the Southern Urban Area B Study recently
completed in coordination with the City of Charlottesville, County of Albemarle, and the
University of Virginia. The Study recommends improvements to Fontaine Avenue and the
construction of a new connector road between Fontaine Avenue and Sunset Avenue.
8. The Town of Scottsville has requested that VDOT improve Route 20 (Valley Street) at the
intersection of both W arren Street and Hardware Street. VDOT had proposed these
improvements in the 1970’s, but the improvements were not completed. The
improvements will enhance the safety of the traveling public in the Town.
ll. Transit Improvements
1. Regional Transit Authority - Funding to support establishing a regional transit entity with
expanded service to Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville.
2. Expand Existing Service - Funding to expand existing transit service capacity for CTS,
JAUNT, RideShare, including capital projects to enhance capital operations (such as bus
pull-outs, etc.).
3. Funding for Transit Operational Costs - Fully fund the State’s existing formula share of
transit operating costs or provide fuel subsidies in the face of rapidly escalating fuel costs.
4. Inter-City Rail – Improve and increase inter-city rail service to Albemarle County. The
County continues to support the funding and implementation of the TransDominion
Express as a means to provide improved inter-city rail service within the
State.
III. Bridges
The County has worked with VDOT to identify the top ten bridge projects for Albemarle County.
The top three priorities on the list below have been listed on the County’s Strategic Priorities for
Secondary Road Improvements. All priorities were chosen from a comprehensive list of bridges
located in Albemarle County found on Attachment D. This list includes the lowest sufficiency
ratings for all bridge projects. These projects are, in priority order:
1. Route 743, Advance Mill at North Fork Rivanna
2 Rt. 250 East over the railroad near Rt. 729.
3. Route 708, Dry Bridge Road at Buckingham Branch RR
4. Route 677, Old Ballard Road -Buckingham Branch RR
5. Route 616, Black Cat Road - Buckingham Branch RR
6. Route 637, Dick W oods Road – Ivy Creek
7. Route 641, Frays Mill Road at Marsh Run
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 56)
8. Route 795, Presidents Road at Hardware River
9. Route 614, Sugar Hollow Road at Moormans River
10. Route 649, Proffit Road at Norfolk Southern RR
The County strongly encourages the Commonwealth Transportation Board to fund all the bridge
projects identified by VDOT and Albemarle County as needing to be upgraded.
IV. Safety Improvements:
Several projects in the County seem to qualify under this 10% set-aside. They are, in priority
order:
1. Construct pedestrian walkways and crosswalks along various primary routes within the
County’s Urban Neighborhoods. Absent the incorporation of such walkways into full road
widening/improvement projects, the following road sections are priorities for pedestrian
walkways:
a) Route 240 in “downtown” Crozet;
b) Pedestrian crossings at strategic locations on Rt. 29 North;
c) Route 250 East in the Pantops area as an extension to existing sidewalks and
provide pedestrian crossings at strategic locations;
d) Route 250 W est from the City limits to the Farmington/Ednam entrance; and,
e) Route 20 South from the City limits to Mill Creek Drive.
2. The County has placed a high priority on pedestrian improvements in the Crozet area.
The County chose Crozet as the first community to be master planned based on the
County’s adopted Neighborhood Model. The County received TEA 21 funding in July 2004
for Phase I of the Crozet Streetscape Plan and continues to seek additional funding to
undertake needed improvements (see Enhancement Project section). Another potentially
eligible safety project is the improvement of the Route 240 underpass at the CSX Railroad
tracks in Crozet (including pedestrian facility improvements).
3. Improvements to Route 250 W est in the Ivy area to address existing traffic circulation
problems at the Tilman Road intersection and the Owensville Road intersection (as noted
in l.4.a, above), including access to developed properties in this area. Of particular
concern is the Tillman Road intersection (Route 676), which serves school bus traffic and
has poor sight distance. These improvements should be undertaken in accordance with
recommendations approved by the Board of Supervisors in the Route 250 W est Corridor
Study.
4. Support the construction of bikelane improvements along primary roads consistent with
County and Regional bicycle plans (bikelanes, paved shoulders and/or adjacent bike
paths).
5. Functional plans, including an analysis of possible safety improvements, for Routes 22
and 231. The County remains concerned with overall public safety as it relates to traffic
created by large trucks along these road segments, and encourages VDOT to consider all
appropriate measures to ensure that trucks travel safely along these roadways in the
future. The County has repeatedly requested VDOT to restrict through trucks on Route 22
and Route 231.
V. Enhancement Projects/Safe Routes to School Program:
This is a valuable funding source for which several projects appear to be eligible. Unfortunately
funding for new projects is not available this year. The County urges that funds be made available
for new pedestrian and bicycling projects. For the County, new projects, in priority order, are:
1. Pedestrian streetscape improvements in downtown Crozet. These streetscape
improvements, which were included in an Enhancement Grant submitted in January 2002,
June 2003 and October 2004, include the relocation and burial of overhead utility wires,
and construction of historically compatible sidewalks. The County received TEA 21
funding in July 2004 for Phase I and July 2005 for Phase II of the Crozet Streetscape
Plan.
2. Beautification of entrance corridors (particularly Routes 20, 29 and Route 250).
3. Construction of bikeway, pedestrian, and greenway facilities as prioritized in the Jefferson
Area Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Plan.
4. Development of portions of the Rivanna River Greenway path system.
5. Removal of non-conforming billboards.
6. Continued support of Scottsville Downtown Streetscape Improvement Project.
VI. National Highway System (NHS)
The Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Policy Board approved the NHS as proposed by VDOT in this
area excluding the Route 29 Bypass. The Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) has approved
the NHS, which includes the existing Route 29 and the Route 29 Bypass. The County believes
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 57)
any projects that are included in the NHS should reflect the recommendations that result from the
previously referenced transportation improvement study of the Route 29 North corridor area.
VII. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program
This does not apply to Albemarle County. The County is not in an area of non-attainment for
ozone or carbon monoxide.
__________
Mr. Benish stated that there has not been a set date for the submittal of the National Byway All-
American Road designation other than the fall of 2008. Ms. Lynn Crump, from DCR, indicated that the
Journey Through Hallowed Ground is concerned that if the Board of Supervisors does not support one of
the legs of the route, they would need to amend their Management Plan, a requirement for this
designation. His understanding is that the submittal date is in the mid to late November time frame, but he
cannot confirm that. He also said that the process through the federal government is only opened up
every three to four years.
W ith regard to the State designation, Mr. Benish said that if the Board wanted to hold a public
hearing on November 5th, the CTB could not act on it until December 18th; the Journey’s packet is due to
VDoT on December 1st. So holding a public hearing next week would be the better course.
Mr. Slutzky said he is sympathetic to engaging the public, but the County is not obligated to hold a
public hearing. These designations do not materially impact roads or private property rights other than
billboards – which are already regulated.
Mr. Rooker suggested advertising a public hearing for October 8th and deal with the resolutions at
that time. He added that the resolution should include all road segments and that they be contingent on
action by the CTB.
Board members concurred.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 24. Eastern Connector Alignment Study.
Mr. Juandiego W ade, Transportation Planner, summarized the executive summary which states
that the Eastern Connector was identified in the long range transportation plan for the Charlottesville/
Albemarle area for an alignment study. The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors (Board) and
Charlottesville City Council (Council) decided in 2006 to jointly fund a $500,000 Eastern Connector Study.
The study area for the Eastern Connector is roughly an area bordered by Route 250 to the south, Route
29 to the west, Proffit Road to the north and Route 20 to the east. The purpose of the study identified in
the Scope of W ork was to: “Determine the basic feasibility of the proposed Eastern Connector and the
definition of no more than three alternatives for this proposed facility. In essence, this will represent a
major investment study (MIS) for the defined study corridor. A ranking of the performance of the three final
alternatives was to be prepared to allow for the members of the Council and the Board to identify a locally
preferred alternative which could then be advanced into the more detailed formal preliminary engineering
and environmental impact assessment phases of project development.”
The Board and Council appointed a Steering Committee to direct the consultant and select
alternative alignments. At its August 7, 2006 meeting, the Board approved the membership and
duties/function of the Eastern Connector Steering Committee. The mission of the Committee was to:
“Work with a consultant to determine a minimum of three alternative alignments that will provide a
connection between US 250 east of Route 20 and US 29 North between Rio Road and Profit Road. Study
shall provide a thorough assessment of issues related to each alignment and a recommendation on
preferred alignment based on analysis and direction provided during project” (See Attachment A)
The Committee’s recommendation will be presented to the Board on October 1, 2008 by Lewis G.
Grimm, P.E., Project Manager for the transportation consultant. Mr. Grimm has been working closely with
staff and the Committee to develop the recommendation. Mr. Grimm will include additional information on
issues relating to developing a recommendation and the process the Committee used in developing its
recommendation. The Steering Committee held meetings throughout 2007 and 2008 with the consultant,
which allowed for public participation and input. The input from the pubic was valued and considered in
the Committee’s recommendations. Attached are summaries of the Committee and public meetings
(Attachments B and C).
W hile the details of the recommendation are best explained with the presentation, staff has
attached a map showing the recommended alternatives (Attachment D). Staff notes that all of the
recommended alternatives considered have serious challenges. The preferred alternative (3) includes
either a 4 lane or 2 lane road going through Pen Park and possibly through Darden Towe Park. The
Committee recognized there is considerable public opposition to the connector going through the parks
(see public comments in Attachment C) and there are possibly significant federal hurdles in placing a
roadway within parks that have received federal funding or for a roadway to be built with federal funding
through a park.
Despite those issues, the transportation modeling showed the roadway would have to be close to
Route 250 to be effective and this alternative was considered the only viable option available when
weighing all of the factors. Additionally, as shown on the graphic, the Committee has recommended
planning for future connections far into the future with Alternatives 1 and 2. Neither of those alignments
was considered effective within the Eastern Connector timeframe, but the lack of a better option closer to
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 58)
Route 250 sparked recognition that there is a need for planning further into the future for transportation
improvements (e.g. 50 year timeframe). Staff notes that both Alternative 1 and 2 also have significant
issues and that there are potential conflicts with the Southwest Mountain Historic District, Proffit Historic
District, and properties already in qualified conservation easement. (Attachment E). Additionally, these
alternatives may conflict with some goals of the County’s Rural Areas Plan. All of these issues would
need to be further studied if there is interest in planning for a future connector using either Alternative 1 or
2.
Cost estimates for each of the alternatives are identified in Attachment F. These estimates
include the costs of construction and right of way acquisition associated with each alternative and range
from $40,000,000 to $169,000,000. No funding sources for these costs have been identified.
Finally, it is noted that the Committee decided against seeking additional public comment before
presenting this recommendation to the Board and Council. This decision was based on the Committee’s
recognition that the public sentiment on the recommended alternatives has already been heard and it was
more appropriate to first review the recommendation with the elected officials.
This study has already been fully funded. If the consultant is required to provide additional
services beyond the presentations to the Board and Council, a contract amendment and additional funding
would be required. If the City and County decide to move forward with an Eastern Connector alignment,
funding would be required for engineering, surveying, permitting and right of way acquisition. Previous
long range transportation studies done by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) estimated that
$9 Million would be needed for that phase of the project. A source for that funding has not yet been
identified.
The presentation completes the Committee’s task by providing a recommendation to the Board
and Council. If the Board and Council are interested in moving forward with the Committee’s
recommendation, staff recommends two options for proceeding:
1. Complete a more detailed analysis of federal and state permitting requirements, as related to
a road though the park(s) and across the river, to determine if Alternative 3 is viable. After
reviewing this information, if the Board and Council believe the permitting requirements allow
a road to be constructed through the park(s), a public meeting can be scheduled to receive
comments on this proposed road.
2. Schedule a public meeting to receive comments on the recommendation. Following the
public meeting, if the Board and Council are interested in proceeding, staff recommends an
analysis of the federal and state permitting process be completed and presented to the Board
and Council.
Following completion of the public meeting and analysis of federal permitting requirements, if the
Board and Council have interest in proceeding further, staff recommends possible funding strategies be
identified before initiating a design effort.
If there is interest in including Alternatives 1 or 2 in the County’s Comprehensive Plan, staff
recommends that the Board direct staff to develop and present to the Board an analysis of issues related
to establishing a future road alignment across conservation easements and historic districts. After
consideration of this analysis, the Board can make an informed decision as to whether either of these
alternatives is viable and should be considered for inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan.
__________
Mr. Grimm reported that they are hoping to move forward with things that are already in progress
– intersection and timing improvements on the Route 250 corridor, increasing the transit service frequency
in the Route 250 corridor into the Pantops area, and adding the proposed four-lane concept (Alternative 3)
linking the Rio Road corridor with Route 20 into the Regional Transportation Plan. In the short term, the
two alternatives looked at adding Proffit Road and Polo Grounds into the long-range plan as unfunded
needs, so it puts a placeholder in for those projects. Mr. Grimm said that then they would move ahead
with detailed planning, engineering, and environmental studies associated with Alternative 3. In the next
three to five years funding would be sought for that option from federal, state and local resources including
a more detailed engineering study. Continuing to expand public transportation improvements, moving
ahead with more detailed studies of the other two options – Alternatives 1 and 2 on Proffitt and Polo
Grounds-- and hopefully moving those alignments into the County’s Comprehensive Plan, as a
placeholder. He added that other Rivanna River crossings would also be studied as part of the overall
effort, with funding sought over 15 to 20 years for additional crossing improvements, and for continued
improvements for public transportation from Pantops to downtown Charlottesville, and from downtown to
along North 29 corridor. These are the basic recommendations developed by the Steering Committee.
Mr. Grimm explained that the Steering Committee worked out of the 2025 UnJAM Long-Range
Transportation Plan, with additional input from the City and County, a study of history of traffic in the
corridor, projected changes in population and employment, and what that means in terms of future traffic
and congestion levels. He said that the 2025 plan stipulates a need to improve connections, mobility, and
choices to foster more livable communities. Mr. Grimm said that that Plan called out the Eastern
Connector as one element of a fairly large number of alternative studies including the Free State Road
connector and the Route 250/ East Pantops multi-modal study. It is important to keep in mind that this is
all part of the larger system. He stated that City and County staff put together an RFP which his firm
responded to in fall 2006 which was to look at alignments and connection possibilities for the area along
US 250 to the east of Route 20, and the area along Route 29 along Rio Road and Proffit Road. Mr.
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 59)
Grimm said that the recommended study area was defined by the consultant team, and a background
analysis of changes was undertaken.
Mr. Grimm emphasized that the majority of changes had occurred along Route 250 – from High
Street to Route 20 – according to VDoT analysis traffic went from 30,000 vehicles per day in 2001 to
52,000 in 2006, or a 73 percent increase in volume across that one length. He said that the segment from
High Street to Route 20 has a much larger change from the areas further to the east and west in the
Route 250 corridor.
Mr. Slutzky noted that one of the recommendations include a section of Rio Road where there is
no data. Mr. Grimm said he would include traffic information on the farthest east section of Rio Road in
the summary table.
Mr. Grimm noted that 2010 figures show a region of about 229,000 people, with projections of
growth through 2030 to about 277,000 people – or 39 percent - for the entire metropolitan area. He
explained that certain areas are experiencing more intense growth – with about a 116 percent increase
within the defined study area for the Eastern Connector study area. Mr. Grimm said that they used the
2005 level as the base level, and studied the traffic crossing the Rivanna River Bridge with projections to
2025; the results say there will be a lot more demand, but no major change in direction of vehicle trips. He
stated that the interchange at Meadow Creek Parkway and the Route 250 Bypass was also studied, and
during the morning peak hours traffic in the westbound direction has 63 percent of traffic coming further to
the east of Route 20, about 25 percent coming south on Route 20 and making a right turn, and about 72
percent of traffic on the bridge going to the west with 23 percent making the left turn onto High Street to
come into downtown.
Mr. Slutzky asked if it is known what percentage of the traffic coming from Pantops and beyond
that cross over the bridge are heading somewhere on Route 29 and north of Rio Road. Mr. Grimm
responded that they do have that information and he will get to it further into his presentation.
During the evening peak hours, Mr. Grimm explained that about 53 percent of traffic going across
the bridge going eastbound is coming from somewhere from the west on the bypass; 35 percent is coming
up on High Street and making a right turn; when it crosses the Route 20 intersection about 25 percent
makes a left turn to go north on Route 20 and about 67 percent continues to go east.
Ms. Thomas asked why the 35 percent from Downtown Charlottesville is a bigger number in the
evening than the morning. Mr. Grimm noted that they are looking at percentages, not raw numbers, and
travel patterns in the morning are work-trip oriented but in the afternoon it is work, shopping, etc. The data
shows that the linkage to and from High Street is important.
Mr. Grimm said they also looked at a series of figures westbound and eastbound. They found
that about 55 percent of the total traffic crossing the bridge could be traced back to the interchange. He
then continued with additional statistics on traffic patterns (included in the PowerPoint presentation on file
in the Clerk’s office). The statistics provided data on the major corridors being used.
Mr. Boyd asked about the traffic coming down Park Street. Mr. Grimm responded that it is about
eight percent in the morning, and seven percent in the afternoon, noting again that this is a percentage
basis not an actual number.
Mr. Slutzky said that they would be candidates for diversion, but there are also people coming
from north on Route 29 who choose not to go down Park Street but instead get on Route 250. It is those
cars that are potentially part of that Eastern Connector traffic. He noted that there are no origin and
destination studies, so these are really hypothetical numbers.
Mr. Grimm agreed, but said that these are actual traffic volumes even if you do not know exactly
where they are coming from and where they are going. He stated that these figures are used to establish
transportation patterns everywhere in the country, and improvements are based upon results of traffic-
forecasting processes.
Mr. Rooker commented that origin and destination studies are not done very often because they
are so expensive.
Mr. Slutzky said that there will be good origin and destination information available as part of the
household study for the 2010 census.
Mr. Rooker noted that that still has to be overlaid onto the total number of trips. He added that
when the origin and destination study was done previously on Route 29 – at a cost of several million
dollars – it did not reveal data that was much different than other traffic pattern studies.
Mr. Grimm pointed out the location of arterial projects – proposed improvements along Route 29
and the Meadow Creek connection from Rio Road to Route 250 – and a number of collector projects that
are parallel to Route 29 such as Hillsdale Drive. He said that there really are no other projects in the study
area because they have not been a major priority. He also noted the areas with the lowest levels of
service – along Route 29 and along Route 250 – and projected into 2025 there is not much change and it
would continue to be a heavily congested area. Mr. Grimm said that model-number generated volumes
show that at all crossing points of the Rivanna, the total for those is showing a projected 47 percent
increase with Proffitt showing the highest percentage increase and Route 250 with the second highest.
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 60)
He reiterated the probability of increased traffic across the Rivanna River, particularly along the
Route 250 corridor. The adopted long-range plan does not address many of the current and future travel
demands in the region. It does not solve all the problems.
Mr. Grimm said that the committee developed a series of alternatives for testing and evaluation
that was responsive to those travel patterns and took input from the public and agencies, and began with
the idea of using two-lane collector-type roadways. He stated that in evaluating those alternatives, there
are not a whole lot of empty spaces in the study area because there is a lot of existing development,
residential, commercial, historic areas, wetlands areas, and other constraints to try to work around. Mr.
Grimm said that they came out with a final group of concepts for presentation, beginning with the long-
range plan. He stated that one option would be a Proffit Road relocated corridor; the second would be a
Polo Grounds Road corridor; and the third would be a Rio Road to Route 20 corridor via Penn Park. Mr.
Grimm reported that in 2025, Route 250 is projected to carry about 65,500 vehicles per day and Proffit
Road would be a little less than 11,000. If improvements were made to Proffit Road, Route 250 and Polo
Grounds would not change much but a two or four-lane linkage from Rio Road to Route 20 over to Route
250, significant diversions off of Route 250 would occur.
He explained that there are projections for changes regarding how many hours per weekday there
would be high levels of congestion on the Rivanna River Bridge – in 2005 it is about 1.3 hours per day; in
2025 it is about 4.3 hours per day under the constraints of the current long-range plan. Mr. Grimm said
that under alterative one, a minor change is noted; the Polo Grounds alternative also makes a minor
difference; but alternative three as a two or four-lane route makes a more significant change. He added
that having another bridge to the south of the Route 250 bridge in addition to a new northern crossing
would bring down the level of congestion as well.
Mr. Boyd noted that when Martha Jefferson is built they are going to be connecting Pantops Drive,
but you still cannot cross the bridge.
Ms. Thomas noted that there was no modeling with a bicycle and pedestrian bridge from MJH to
the W oolen Mills area. Mr. Grimm responded that it was not modeled although the idea does have merit.
Mr. Slutzky asked if an analysis was done for the scenario of a significantly expanded transit
system. Mr. Grimm replied “no”. He noted that at the time of his group’s analysis, the travel demand
forecasting model for the region did not have a transit mode choice element as part of it. He understands
that the work VDoT is sponsoring in conjunction with the MPO includes a better model that has that
component.
Mr. Slutzky said a fourth option would have a transit only route that would take Penn Park Lane,
cut along the side of the park property, cross Meadow Creek and end up on River Road. He commented
that it would be logical to have a transit station at River Road right by the bypass, as there is a substantial
flow of cars from the east that could be doing a park and ride there. He brought that to the table as
another option, but it was not included here. Mr. Slutzky said that he is not comfortable with these three
options, and his constituents strongly oppose the Rio Road option. He thinks there are other opportunities
for us to get the notion of an Eastern Connector right that might require us to wait until we have better
origin and destination data, and we see where we are going with our transit system in the next couple of
years. Those two factors could greatly impact the outcome of the Eastern Connector location discussion.
Mr. Grimm said that they have not answered all the questions, and there are a lot of issues
associated with each alternative because it is a very changing community. He stated that the best
available tools are used, and there is a need to look at linking Rio Road over to Route 20 and Route 250;
better planning tools would allow for consideration of other alternatives.
Mr. Rooker wondered how much relief would actually be provided on the Route 250 corridor to
simply leg around to about one-half mile of Route 250 at a cost of $40 million. Mr. Grimm said they
cannot just bring a crossing over to Route 20 and forget about it; it needs to tie into the entire system. The
Pantops Master Plan shows a number of alternative traffic models, but there needs to be a good system
on both the east and west sides of the River for those options to hook into. He reiterated that this is not a
regional bypass, but a road designed to serve locally-oriented traffic. A lot of that is the natural growth,
evolution and development of areas like Pantops.
Mr. Rooker asked if it was considered to look at the impact on the Route 20/250 intersection of
driving additional traffic down Route 20 as opposed to bringing it across the bridge. Mr. Grimm replied
that they did not look at that specifically but there is some information that gives a reasonable
approximation, including some early concepts that focused on grade-separated interchange, etc. He
noted that those options are expensive, but can be effective in reducing congestion.
Mr. Slutzky commented that neither Proffit nor Polo Grounds seem to offer much in the way of
relief in traffic. The report also highlights the need to deal with traffic on Free Bridge.
Mr. Boyd noted that there may be a difference in what the City and County want, and the County’s
priority has been relieving traffic on Route 250 which might be best served by a bridge on the other side of
Route 250 utilizing the High Street route. He added that that route was not looked at because the City said
the purpose of the study was to figure out how to lessen the number of cars driving through the City.
Mr. Slutzky said that this discussion has yielded a couple of options that need further exploration:
a southern crossing of the Rivanna, south of the existing Free Bridge.
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 61)
Mr. Rooker stated that that’s a City decision and the County cannot force it to happen.
Mr. Slutzky suggested bringing it to the MPO and waiting to see what happens with regional transit
in the next few years; he also advocated for origin and destination studies.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that the chance of doing this project in their lifetimes are slim, as it took 25
years to get Meadow Creek funding, not even considering VDoT’s recent cuts. There is no money.
Clearly the close-in route would not qualify under Primary Road funds under any formula for Primary Road
funds that he has seen.
Mr. Grimm noted that the funding source is unspecified, but if the County is looking to connect Rio
Road (a secondary road) with two primary roads – Route 29 and Route 250 – it could be done with
another secondary road or say that Rio Road be converted into a new primary road.
Mr. Slutzky said that there is another pot of money – intermodal funds – for a bridge over the
Rivanna if it includes a transit function in the form of a rail line.
Mr. Rooker stated that in all of his years in transportation, they tried unsuccessfully to get primary
road designation for Meadow Creek and that seems to meet more requirements than this short leg. He
asked how much more money should be spent on a concept, given the current funding climate. The
County is going to have a very limited scope of things that it can accomplish with County-generated
transportation money and minimal state money. There are many needs for projects that are already in the
Plan.
Mr. Slutzky said he agrees with Mr. Rooker but he does not want to send the signal to the City that
the County is abandoning the notion of an Eastern Connector. He thinks that out of deference to funding
realities, given that there will be origin and destination data available in the not too distant future, and in
consideration that the County is trying to address some of the transportation challenges through an
expanded transit system, which hopefully the City will participate, the Board hold this in abeyance until it
has an opportunity to reconsider it based on better information in two or three years.
Mr. Rooker said he would be hesitant to put additional money into an Eastern Connector unless
the funding situation changes significantly.
Mr. Grimm also explained that there are other barriers, but if a project has a minimal impact on
the basic function of a historic site, etc., approval could still be granted for a road that goes through a park
or historic area. He mentioned that any transportation project utilizing federal funds or federal action
affecting park land would have to go through the 4-F process.
Mr. Rooker asked how hard it would be to get traffic modeling information on the impact to the
Route 20/250 intersection if alternative three was built.
Mr. Grimm responded that there would need to be a longer list of assumptions, and the model
currently calculates daily trip estimates so it is not really precise.
Mr. Slutzky said there is no modeling tool that can help determine the percentage of cars that now
down to Route 29 and Route 250 that would reallocate over to an Eastern Connector at any time of day
because there is no basis to come up with a number.
Ms. Thomas said it would be the same, if the same modeling system is used.
Mr. Grimm explained that the flow pattern graphics are based on actually observed traffic counts
collected years ago in connection with the Meadow Creek Parkway/Route 250 interchange study.
Mr. Rooker commented that Mr. Grimm’s study determined the number of vehicles per day that
would be taken off based upon all the assumptions by building alternative three, and presumably all that
traffic is hitting Route 20. He added that most of the traffic would be coming back to Route 250 because
there is not a whole lot to go to on Route 20. He said that presumably most of the 9,000 vehicles per day
would be hitting that intersection at Route 250 and Route 20. Vehicle counts are one thing but traffic
movement is another.
Mr. Grimm said that most of the model work focuses on segments of streets instead of individual
intersections, but you can get a reasonable estimate. He concluded by saying that short-term actions
would be adding concepts into the fiscally-constrained long-range plan, designate alternative one and two
as unfunded needs, and undertake and complete the more detailed planning, engineering, and
environmental studies for alternative three.
Mr. Slutzky suggested a third option – instead of forging ahead and spending money on more
study of the permitting requirements and holding a public hearing that is not going to be happening any
time soon – the Board forward this matter to the MPO for further discussion with the City as far as
appropriate next steps. His suggestion to the MPO is to hold off for the next couple of years until the
funding circumstances have evolved, look at transit, the availability of origin and destination data, and then
decide how to proceed.
Mr. Rooker agreed, adding that forthcoming information from the transit study would help this. A
creative solution needs to be found to this problem. He said that a $40 million project that might not ever
be approved because it goes through the park should not be pursued in terms of preliminary studies.
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 62)
Mr. Dorrier agreed.
Ms. Thomas said that the County has an agreement with the City to pursue the Eastern
Connector, and taking it to the MPO to get input would be a good move. She also said she wants the
County to be creative in their thinking, as something as small as bike/pedestrian bridge over the Rivanna
might help.
Mr. Boyd said the committee came to the conclusion early on that there is no one thing that will
solve the problem. He then thanked Mr. Grimm for all the work that was done.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 25. Voting Credentials for VACo Annual Business Meeting.
Mr. Boyd commented that given current economic constraints, he will not be attending the Annual
Meeting.
Mr. Tucker said that Ms. Mallek, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. Dorrier are signed up to attend the
conference.
Ms. Mallek agreed to be the voting representative, and Ms. Thomas agreed to be the alternate.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, to appoint Ann Mallek as the delegate and Sally Thomas as
the alternate to cast votes on behalf of the Board of Supervisors at VACo’s Annual Business Meeting. Mr.
Slutzky seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 26. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
There were none.
_______________
The Board recessed at 4:06 p.m. and reconvened in Room 241.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 27. Joint Meeting with School Board,
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Diantha McKeel, Ms. Barbara Massie Mouly, Ms.
Pamela Moynihan (arrived at 4:26 p.m.), Mr. Ronnie Price, Sr. (arrived at 4:26 p.m.), Mr. Jon Stokes, and
Mr. Brian W heeler.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Steve Koleszar.
SCHOOL BOARD STAFF PRESENT: Dr. Pamela Moran, Superintendent, Dr. Bruce Benson,
Assistant Superintendent for Student Learning, Mr. Jackson Zimmermann, Executive Director of Fiscal
Services, and Ms. Jennifer Johnston, Clerk of the School Board.
Also present were: Mr. Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive, Ms. Kimberly Suyes, Director of
Human Resources, and Ms. Lorna Gerome, Assistant Director of Human Resources.
__________
Item No. 27a. Call to Order. At 4:13 p.m., Mr. Boyd called the Board of Supervisors back to order
and Mr. W heeler called the School Board to order.
__________
Item No. 27b. Discussion: Total Compensation Report.
The following Executive Summary that was provided to Board members state that in November
2000, the School Board and Board of Supervisors approved a Total Compensation Strategy to target
employee salaries at 100% of market median and benefits slightly above the market. The adopted market
approved by the Boards is shown in Attachment #1.
This report details the supporting analysis for the recommendations to achieve the adopted Total
Compensation Strategy for last year and for the Boards to consider in giving budget guidance to the
County Executive and Superintendent for the coming fiscal. These projections are presented to the
Boards for their information regarding the FY09-10 budget process. It is noted that all final funding is
subject to, and based upon, available revenues and Board direction. This report provides information on:
1) Compensation Strategies
2) Benefits Strategies
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 63)
Staff recognizes that due to the projected revenue shortfall, funding to support these
recommendations may not be available. However, this information is provided based on the Joint
Board’s adopted process to maintain our Total Compensation strategy.
To maintain competitive compensation based on the adopted strategy, two separate, but related
actions are required:
1) Ensure a competitive salary scale so that the County is able to attract and recruit new
employees.
2) Ensure current employees are rewarded for performance by maintaining internal equity in
their pay range and also maintaining market competitiveness for similar skills.
To adhere to the Boards' adopted strategy, the following processes are implemented each year:
Step 1: Annually survey the adopted market to determine the salary scale adjustment
implemented in those localities/schools for the current fiscal year.
Step 2: Annually survey the adopted market to determine the average total salary increase
granted to employees in those localities/schools for the current fiscal year.
Step 3: This market data is analyzed to ascertain where the salary scales (both classified and
teacher) for Albemarle County stand relative to the adopted market and arrive at
recommendations for next year’s salary increases.
Step 4: Obtain data on what other organizations are projecting for salary increases for the next
fiscal year through a compensation database (W orldatW ork, Eastern Region). This data
is used to project the merit increase percentage and develop the teacher scale, including
step increases.
In March 2004, the Joint Boards adopted compensation strategies for different positions to
address competitiveness in certain areas as follows:
1) Teachers - Target market position at top quartile of adopted market.
2) Positions recruited from outside of our adopted market - Identify competitive market as
the specific localities within our adopted market that may also be competitors for those
positions. This subset of our adopted market should address cost of living issues and
target competitive market position. These localities represent areas that are in
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) both above and below Albemarle County in cost of
living and currently include: Hanover County, Loudoun County, City of Charlottesville,
Prince W illiam County, Spotsylvania County, Chesterfield County, City of Chesapeake,
James City County, and City of Roanoke.
Section 1: Board Adopted Process for Compensation Strategy: Market Analysis and Projections
Last year, the initial projections based on the Joint Board adopted process presented in October were to
increase the classified salary scale by 3%, classified merit increase of 4.35 % and fund teacher increases
by 4%. However, as our adopted market consists of other localities that were also facing revenue
shortfalls, in December and January, staff collected revised salary projections on their increase amounts.
W hile many localities were unsure as to their salary increase projections, the data indicated that most
localities were planning lower salary projection amounts than previously indicated. Based on that
information, the recommendations were revised and adopted as follows:
1) 2% increase in classified scale.
2) 3.35% merit increase for classified staff.
3) Design teacher scale to meet market and distribute 4.0% along teacher scale.
The following information is provided to both Boards to consider regarding development of the
FY09-10 budget.
Step 1: FY08-09. Survey the market to determine if the scale adjustment implemented for
classified/administrator and teacher pay scales achieved the strategy.
Classified/Administrator Scale Adjustments - Target median of adopted market
A competitive scale is important in attracting new hires. For classified employees, the scale
adjustment impacts new hires and any employees with pay rates that might fall below the new
minimums. The Albemarle County scale was adjusted by 2% in FY08-09. In reviewing the salary
scale data for FY08-09, our adopted market’s median scale adjustment was 2.5 %. However, we
started last year at -0.76 below market, therefore our current scale remains below market by -1.26
%.
Step 2: FY08-09. Survey the market to determine if the total salary increase implemented for
classified pay achieved the strategy.
Classified Total Salary Increases - Target median of adopted market
Our salary increase for the FY08-09 merit was 3.35%. The median salary increase amount
implemented by our adopted market in FY08-09 was 3.63%. However, we started last year at -
0.35 below market, which results in our 08-09 salaries remaining below market by -0.63%.
Teacher Scale Adjustments - Target top quartile (75th percentile) of adopted market
For teachers, the scale adjustment impacts actual salaries. Data indicates that our teacher scales
are in the top quartile at the following steps: minimum, 5 years, 10 years, 25 years, and 30 years.
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 64)
Although we did not quite reach the top quartile at both T15 and T20, we are very close. This is
shown in Attachment # 2.
Step 3: Projections for FY09-10. Based on current market position and scale/salary
projections, determine the changes necessary to achieve the Board approved strategy using
the WorldatWork, Eastern Region data.
Classified/Administrator Scale Adjustments
The scale adjustment impacts new hires and any employees with pay rates below the new
minimums.
• Adopted Market Salary Scale Median: 2.5%
• Albemarle Scale Relative to Market: -1.26%
• W orldatW ork projection for Eastern Region (including Virginia): 2.6
• FY09-10 Recommended scale adjustment: 3%
Classified/Administrator Salary Increase (merit percentage)
• Adopted Market Median increase: 3.63%
• Albemarle Salary Increase Relative to Market: -0.63 %
• W orldatW ork projection for Eastern Region (including Virginia): 3.3%
• FY09-10 Recommended increase: 3.93%
Teacher Scale and Teacher Average Salary Increase
The teacher scale is based on the projected total increase obtained from W orldatW ork. This
survey projects a 3.3% salary increase. Any increase would include the step increase. Our
strategy regarding the teacher scale has been to target $1000 above at minimum. Specific scale
recommendations will be brought forth as part of the budget process.
Section 2: Benefits Strategy: Projections for Medical and Dental Insurance Premiums
The Joint Board adopted benefits strategy is to maintain a benefit program that is slightly above market.
As the medical plan is a critical component of the benefits package, the plan design and employee
premium levels of our medical plan are carefully reviewed every year.
FY08-09 Plan Year
Medical - Our medical insurance costs (both the Board contribution and employee premiums) increased
by 8% this year. The annual Board contribution amount for full time employees is $6648. There were no
plan design changes for this plan year.
Dental - Our dental insurance costs (both Board contribution and employee premiums) increased by 6%.
The annual Board contribution amount for full time employees is $238.
FY09-10 Plan Year Projections - Medical and Dental
Based on claims data and reserve balance, along with trend information provided by our benefits
consultant, Tom MacKay with Keiter, Slabaugh, Penny & Holme, LLC, our estimated medical cost
increase for FY09-10 is 12%. Our dental insurance cost increase is estimated at 5%. As we have just
started the new plan year, staff will continue to monitor claims experience and develop recommendations
for both plan design and premiums as part of the County Executive's and Superintendent's budget
proposals.
In light of the anticipated revenue shortfall, staff has provided several scenarios to be used in
determining the degree to which the Total Compensation strategy can be achieved in the FY09-10 budget.
Projections are inclusive of salary and benefits.
Classified Employees Merit Increase Local Government School Division
To be provided after Sept payroll
3.93% increase (merit projections included) $1.81 million Still being calculated by School
Division
2.93% increase (merit projections included) $1.43 million Still being calculated by School
Division
2.00% increase (across the board, no merit
projected)
$0.85 million Still being calculated by School
Division
Note: Local Government projections maintain frozen positions
Teacher Increase (Step and Scale) To be provided after Sept payroll
3.93% Still being calculated by School Division
2.93% Still being calculated by School Division
2.0% Still being calculated by School Division
Please note: Staff is not providing a recommendation at this time. The projections below are
based on the Joint Board process and adopted strategy.
1) 3% increase in the classified salary scale.
2) 3.93% merit increase for classified staff.
3) Fund teacher increases to reach and/or maintain top quartile (3.3%) to be distributed along
the scale.
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 65)
4) Continuation of a longevity increase for teachers and lump sum merit increase for classified
employees.
5) Anticipate a 12% increase in medical plan costs.
6) Anticipate a 5% increase in dental plan costs.
__________
Mr. W heeler read an email he received from a School employee – Mr. Richard W right, a sixth-
grade teacher at Henley Middle School – who thanked the Board for his pay raise.
Ms. Suyes addressed the Boards, stating that the adopted comparative market is comprised of 30
cities, counties, and school districts within the State of Virginia of similar size and in the same geographic
region. She presented compensation targets for classified staff (100 percent of median adopted market);
nationally and regionally recruited positions (100 percent of median subset market); and teachers (top
quartile). Ms. Suyes reported that last year the market gave a 3.63 percent increase; Albemarle gave a
3.35 percent increase, which started the year with .35 percent below market, and now the County is at .63
percent below market. She said that the County did not reach the top quartile for teachers of 15 and 20
years, so effort would need to be put to bring that group in line. Ms. Suyes said the County is in the top
quartile for all other teacher steps.
Ms. Suyes presented information on market-adjusted scales, noting that classified employees
were adjusted by 2.5 percent so Albemarle is below scale by 1.26 percent. Using the W orldatW ork
projections (2.6 percent), Albemarle would need a 3.0 percent scale to maintain competitive strategy. She
said that classified salary increase, the market gave a 3.63 percent and Albemarle is below that; W orld of
W ork is at 3.3 percent, so Albemarle is looking at a 3.93 percent needed to maintain the competitive
market position.
Ms. Thomas asked when W orldatW ork does their survey. Ms. Suyes responded that
W orldatW ork does their projections in April.
Mr. Boyd noted that the County decided to deviate from W orldatW ork projections last year based
on County projections; they were a percentage off. Ms. Suyes said W orldatW ork had a 4.0 percent
projection last year but the adopted market increase was 3.63 percent; the County gave a 3.35 percent
increase. The County did not deviate from W orldatW ork; it is a piece of information that the County uses.
She said that that has been a consistently strong measure.
Mr. Rooker asked what it would mean in terms of a raise for an employee if both salary and scale
were increased by three percent. Ms. Suyes said that scale rarely affects someone who is already
employed, but teachers include step or scale adjustment increases. She explained that classified
employees get a merit increase, but teachers might get more because there is a focus on getting them
into that top quartile.
Mr. Rooker stated that he just wants to clarify that the increases are not cumulative, noting that
generally a three-part compensation strategy is adopted. He wants to know what the total budget
allocation to compensation would be as compared to last year’s allocation. He understands that the
benefits (medical) part is an additional piece.
Mr. W heeler said for the first time this year, the Boards have estimates on the total cost of what
the data is suggesting is needed. That information was not available last year.
Continuing with the PowerPoint presentation, Ms. Suyes said that for salary projections for
teachers any increase would include the 3.3 percent increase from W orldatW ork data.
Mr. Slutzky commented that Albemarle is being compared to a number of like communities, but
their cost of living is not comparable. He asked how the County takes it into account when it is being
compared to a cohort that is not exactly like it. Ms. Suyes responded that the County looks at the
competitive market of 30 organizations, and cost of living was not taken into consideration; however,
positions recruited for regionally and nationally have a subset target so the size and cost of living rate in
those localities is taken into account. She noted that Albemarle used nine localities, and the County was
right in the middle for cost of living.
Mr. Slutzky asked if there is a reasonable way every year to look at the comparison communities
and make adjustments. Ms. Suyes responded that cost of living has not been a consideration in that, and
when the 30 organizations were identified as the “market,” it was clear that that was not going to be a
factor.
Mr. Slutzky emphasized that if the goal is to attract the top quartile teachers, the market needs to
be competitive and part of that is taking cost of living into account. Ms. Suyes said that if the Boards want
that to be included as part of the competitive strategy, that could be done.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that that’s why the top quartile benchmark was adopted for teachers, as
well as the higher standards for national and regional general government positions. There was a
response to the market conditions.
Mr. Slutzky also mentioned the strategic planning goal to build a “world-class” workforce. He said
that it might be useful for Ms. Suyes to provide cost-of-living data. Ms. Suyes said that she has provided
that in the past – which yielded a change to the top quartile instead of changing the competitive market
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 66)
benchmarks. Ms. Suyes said that she gets that data regularly, but using that would change the current
model.
Mr. Slutzky said that perhaps the retention rates and application numbers would need to be
viewed as related to cost of living.
Ms. Moran stated that Albemarle is able to benchmark against specific Virginia localities with a
high cost of living rate – Northern Virginia, Prince W illiam, Loudon, Charlottesville, Fluvanna, etc.
In terms of benefits, Ms. Suyes reported that the County is looking at a 12 percent increase in
medical plan costs and a five percent increase in dental plan costs – and sometimes the County has little
or no costs. She also explained that there were nine claims that were over $150,000, including several
accidents. Ms. Suyes added that Albemarle has done well overall with prevention initiatives and they are
very happy with the health and wellness of the employees. She emphasized that most of the time,
medical plan increases are very low, but this year is an exception.
Ms. Thomas asked if there is any indication that the aging of the County’s workforce is affecting
medical plan costs. Ms. Suyes said she has asked for some additional information to see if that is the
case. She is hoping to have some additional data in the next couple of days.
__________
Mr. Foley addressed the Board, noting that the County’s General Fund budget is about $224.0
million for this year. There is a revenue shortfall that has been allocated between capital, schools and
local government; about a month ago the amount was $4.1 million. Staff has also factored in another
$500,000 in additional State reductions. In addition there have been other adjustments downward on
some revenue sources. The local government revenue shortfall went from $1.4 million to $2.5 million.
Mr. Foley said that for the upcoming year, it is anticipated that a $3.0 million shortfall will likely
start off the fiscal year. Staff is anticipating cumulatively in 2010, a reduction of $1.0 million in State
revenues. He clarified that this is the projection in 2010 based on the Five-Year Financial Plan and latest
estimate of revenues. Mr. Foley said that the downturn this year adjusted the whole base for 2010, so that
“black hole” is being continued into the new fiscal year, with the comparative point being the Five-Year
Plan – based on revenue projections. He noted that this is just the local government side, not schools.
Mr. Foley explained that the revenue side would need to cover that gap of $3.0 million, but the
Board’s adopted Five-Year Financial Plan for expenditures actually makes that gap $9.3 million. He said
that there are projections for cost increases for the Jail, CSA, etc. Staff has incorporated salary (4%) and
benefit increases (12%) as presented earlier, and Board initiatives for 2010 – opening two fire stations,
adding new police officers, adding funds for transit and housing, as well as other impacts of capital
projects that have been planned for a number of years. Mr. Foley noted that some items are not really
optional, but others could be delayed. He said that this number also includes tax increases (FY 2010 and
FY 2011) approved in the Five-Year Financial Plan, so if they are left out that amount would be even
greater. Mr. Foley confirmed that that amount was a penny in 2010 and a penny in 2011. He noted that
effectively in FY 2010 the amount is actually a penny and a half, because taxes raised for FY 2011 has a
half-year current year impact.
Mr. Foley said a couple of weeks ago staff talked with the Board about the need to freeze an
additional 15 positions. He reported that there is a total of 32 frozen positions, and that has reduced the
shortfall from $9.3 million to $8.6 million. He said that if the initiatives for the first year of the Five-Year
Plan are removed, that shortfall could be reduced to $5.5 million – with salary and benefit increases kept
as they are, as well as meeting increased Jail and CSA costs. Mr. Foley also reported that eliminating
salary increases could reduce the shortfall to $3.6 million; local government share of the lockbox money
could save another $600,000, leaving a $3.0 million shortfall. He added that freezing 32 more positions
and coming up with another $1 million in operating expense reductions would bring the County back to
even. Mr. Foley said that there would also be additional tax scenarios presented when the Board talks
about the Five-Year Plan in November.
Mr. Foley explained that if the tax increase was 3 cents instead of a penny and a half, it would
generate about $1.0 million extra. He added that there was approximately a $500,000 cut from the State
this fiscal year, and that cut is now between $2.0 million and $3.0 million, and that may not even be
conservative enough. Mr. Foley said that by mid-to-end October there should be more specific figures
available from the State.
Mr. Benson addressed the Boards, stating that the Schools started out with $151.0 million. They
now need to reflect the shortfall in local revenues of $2.1 million. He said that there have not been school
cuts from the State this fiscal year, but there would likely be for next year – perhaps a $3.0 million cut
based on estimates and Governor Kaine’s comments; which would bring the school’s deficit to $5.1
million. Mr. Benson explained that schools are looking at another $754,000 reduction in revenue
projections from the locality going into next fiscal year as well, bringing the total deficit to $5.85 million.
During past years staff turnover has saved about $1.0 million through hiring of less experienced workers,
although he thinks there will be less turnover this year. Mr. Benson said that increases in health and
dental would be about $1.35 million for a deficit of $6.2 million. In order to maintain current strategies, Mr.
Benson said that classified salary increases would be $1.5 for a deficit of $7.7 million; teacher
compensation increases would be $2.6 million for a deficit of $10.3 million. He also said that what is not
included here are any initiatives from the school side, and those agreed on before are left out.
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 67)
Mr. Slutzky said the Boards may want to recognize the school initiatives the School Division
thought were important should be recognized so that everyone is aware of what is being given up.
To look at what is needed to close the deficit, Mr. Benson said that increasing class sizes by one
student would save about $1.4 million; reducing support staff would yield about $682,000; eliminating
retirement bonuses would yield about $250,000; reducing funding for replacement cycles for learning
resources and computers would generate about $224,000. But he emphasized that that would still leave a
sizeable deficit - $7.7 million.
Mr. Benson emphasized that the $5.5 million shortfall for local government and the $10.3 million
shortfall for schools do not represent any new initiatives.
Mr. Rooker said that a comparable number on the local government side would be $9.3 million,
not $5.5 million. In order to get to $5.5 million, local government would have to freeze another 17 or 15
positions.
Mr. Foley said that new initiatives on both sides were taken out to get to these comparable
numbers.
Mr. Foley explained that if the lockbox penny is used, that will have a $600,000 effect on the $5.5
million; salaries taken out will have another $1.8 million effect. The key on these two numbers – $5.5
million and $10.3 million – is they do include the full salary and benefit increases, but obviously with that
there are some significant deficits to deal with.
Mr. Boyd asked how much is left in the County and School system fund balances. Mr. Foley
replied that he does not have those numbers, but they are just one-time savings. Mr. Boyd said that there
has been a pattern there.
Mr. Foley said that the Five-Year Financial Plan discussion will include fund balance discussion
and details on revenues and other expenditures. He added that there is a significant amount of work
going into the Capital Improvements Program (CIP), but obligations for paying debt are eating up most of
the revenue going into the CIP. He added that formula that generates the money that goes to Capital also
pays debt off top. Mr. Foley mentioned that the revenues generated to go to Capital are “way down” and
the year-end transfer will also be way down, as will proffer revenues. He said that the CIP must be
significantly adjusted because once debt obligations are met there is not much to work with. Staff is going
to be scraping by in the Capital even when they move some projects out and do some different things.
Mr. Foley said that staff is going to recommend suspending the CIP process this year and making it an
adjustment year – not a full review year – because there is already a struggle to move projects around and
keep it above zero.
Mr. Boyd said that he would like to see the same presentation for operating funds be given for the
CIP.
Mr. Slutzky said that he would not want to have the only option being doing away with projects just
because the revenues are gone right now. Expectations have been created.
Mr. Foley stated that if the Board wanted to take a penny from Capital and use it for operating, it
would generate about $1.6 million to be split 60/40; which would be about $600,000 for local government.
Mr. Dorrier asked if new student projections for new students were accurate for schools this year.
Ms. Moran replied that the projections were within eight, and they have more students this year than last
year. Ms. McKeel clarified that there were 45 to 50 new students overall.
Ms. Thomas noted that enrollment might go up as parents pull their children out of private
schools. Ms. Moran said they have seen an increase in some schools. Ms. McKeel added that in certain
areas, people are moving in with grandparents so school enrollment figures are changing.
Mr. Rooker asked if anyone knows what the State plans to do about salary raises. Mr. Price
reported that the two percent pay increase is still in for State employees at the University of Virginia, and
the expectation is it would stay there.
Mr. Foley said that the information presented today is the best available at this time, and if there is
agreement from the Boards as to how to proceed, now would be the time to do that.
Mr. Boyd said he is not sure the Boards are in a position to do anything other than to wait and see.
Mr. Foley said he thinks both staffs will say that they do not know that there will be any more
significant information available in the next month or so. There is some anticipation that the State will cut
local government even more than projected.
Mr. Slutzky suggested that as information on options is provided by staff, he would like to see
information on revenue options to fill gaps and encouraged staff not to assume the Board would
automatically make certain cuts.
Mr. Rooker said that the number is there as a $9.3 million shortfall.
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 68)
Ms. Thomas added that the worse-case scenario is $16.0 million deficit. She said that a ten-cent
tax increase would be needed to cover that, just to put a number on what is happening here.
Mr. Dorrier asked when the deficit occur – at the end of the fiscal year or middle of the year. Mr.
Foley noted that there is an existing deficit this year that will need to be made up – part of it will be filled by
freezing positions, but there is still $600,000 to go and departments are looking at five percent reductions.
Hopefully those five percent reductions would carry forward to the next year to help with the added deficit.
Mr. Slutzky commented that there would need to be a significant tax increase to get to what the
County has historically promised, so the deficit in the Comprehensive Plan fulfillment might need to be
discussed.
Mr. Boyd commented that the Comprehensive Plan is a guide and not an absolute, definite that
this is what the County plans to do.
Mr. Slutzky said it is a document of expectations from the public.
Mr. Rooker said this is a classic situation where the only thing the Board can adjust is the real
estate tax rate when State revenues are flat or being cut, sales tax revenues down, and other revenue
categories down.
Mr. Boyd mentioned that a majority of income is generated by the economy, with 36 percent
coming from real estate taxes. This economy is in a downturn and there is “belt-tightening” needed by
government, just as citizens have to do.
Mr. Rooker said to get to $5.5 million, 32 frozen positions have to be maintained in General
Government, and that is significant belt-tightening. Beyond that on the expense side will involve layoffs.
On the school side, it will mean substantially increasing classroom sizes.
Ms. Thomas said that another effect of the bad economy is increased reliance on social services,
and it puts increasing strains on those departments/agencies if they are understaffed and underfunded.
The County is part of the economy and downturn, but it also becomes the safety net and economic
stimulus for a lot of people.
Mr. W heeler said that he agrees that the economic climate needs to be taken into account, but he
feels like the schools tighten their belts every year and a lot of initiatives do not get funded. He added that
compensation is a key goal of the School Board and the community. The School Board has made
commitments in its Strategic Plans to try to achieve those goals. He thinks that staff needs to understand
that the Boards value the contributions they make. He pointed out that cost of living and inflation are
running over five percent this year, and even if raises were paid employees they would still be falling
behind. Mr. W heeler added that last year after the Board of Supervisors set the tax rate, the schools lost
an additional $1.0 million from the State. He suggested that for the present, the School Division allow Ms.
Moran to reflect on these numbers and come back to the School Board, tell them what her recommenda-
tion is, and let them give direction on some placeholder for compensation. As one Board member, he
does not feel comfortable picking any one number for the compensation piece.
Mr. Rooker agreed with Mr. W heeler. He stated that the money in the lockbox should be put on
the table right now and used in the current budget. In his opinion, this is the reason the Board set aside
that penny. The financial situation is even worse than anticipated.
Mr. Boyd said before doing that, he would like to see what is in the fund balances.
Mr. Slutzky commented that two years ago the County had an excessive amount of potential
revenue associated with accelerating property values. The Board made a decision to reduce the tax rate
by six cents, and he thinks there was an implied argument that if there was a rainy day, the Board may
have to come back to the higher rate.
Mr. Rooker said he believes that if the tax rate had been kept the same, the money would
probably have been spent. The deficit they are looking at today would then have been worse.
Ms. McKeel suggested that Ms. Moran review the options, looking at worst-case scenario to best-
case scenario, and bring back a recommendation to the School Board.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that it would be helpful to get information on how competitive market
localities are dealing with this crisis and it would be helpful to find out what they are doing.
Mr. Price said that he received an email from Frank Barum of the Virginia School Board
Association, and Loudoun is looking at a $176.0 million shortfall because of real estate assessments. Mr.
Foley said that Fairfax is at $430.0 million and most localities have frozen positions, and are dealing with
the same issues as Albemarle. Mr. Foley added that the County is not dealing with projected deficits; it is
dealing with deficits.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks it would be worthwhile for the County to survey surrounding communities
to see what they are doing.
Ms. Suyes said she is hesitant to do that because they did it last year and none of the information
they received was accurate. She pointed out that Albemarle was under W orldatW ork market rates.
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 69)
Mr. Foley added that the market did not move as much as W orldatW ork said it would, but there
was also a cumulative effect.
Mr. Boyd commented that economic times are very different today than they were even in April.
Ms. Moran said that the reality is schools are going back to tried and true targets for cutting –
extracurricular activities, electives, significantly cutting staff and/or freezing positions, shorter work weeks,
delaying opening of schools, etc. Ms. Moran reiterated that they are not talking about building on the
current budget, but instead backing down from that budget. She added that now is the time for schools to
focus on what their vision, mission, and core work needs to be.
Mr. Foley again reiterated that there will likely be a couple years of budget down-turns. He asked
if there is going to be another joint meeting of the two Boards so there is a commonality decision on
classified salaries.
Ms. McKeel said she thinks there may need to be another meeting in either January or February;
this cannot really be decided now.
Ms. Thomas emphasized that the information is here, and this assumes it would be similar to last
year.
Mr. Rooker commented that there are no final numbers from the State.
Mr. W heeler suggested the Boards coming back at the beginning of 2009 and reevaluating this
with even more information and a clearer picture of the outlook.
Mr. Boyd said that he would not take off the table the possibility of no salary increases. He thinks
that is something that has to be realistically looked at. He added that the University has consistently given
lower increases than the County in the past couple of years.
Mr. Slutzky and Mr. Dorrier agreed.
Mr. Rooker noted that U.Va. gets around that sometimes by reclassifying employees.
Mr. Foley pointed out that the numbers presented today were based on assumptions from two
weeks ago, and would be updated again in early November. Assessments are still coming in. He added
that Ms. Moran may be proposing a number that may differ from the number proposed by the County
Executive. There will be no joint decision before the Superintendent presents her budget.
Mr. Tucker said when General Government and Schools are building their budgets, he thinks they
should both come forward with the same number for compensation. The Boards should probably meet
again in November even if they have to meet in February, if the revenues are different. Otherwise two
different budgets will be brought forward.
Mr. Slutzky asked why the two divisions could not develop a base line with a range of options.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the two Boards need time to reflect on the numbers that have been
presented. He would suggest not picking a number this afternoon. He also suggests the two Boards get
together in another month to look at any additional information and then try to come up with the best
decision.
Ms. Moran emphasized that schools need to work with what they have got now to see what will
happen with salaries. She is concerned about employees losing ground. She needs to give her Board
some perspective at the end of October.
Mr. Price clarified that all of U.Va.’s salary increase money for classified staff comes from the
State, and there is “no extra bucket of money there.” He also said that if the health care costs are taken
into account, with no salary increases, employees would make less in a declining economy and that
concerns him.
Mr. Rooker said it would be helpful to have information on salary increases for U.Va.’s classified
employees for the last five years.
_______________
Item No. 27c. Matters not Listed on Agenda.
There were none.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 28. Adjourn to October 8, 2008, 3:30 p.m., Room 241.
At 5:54 p.m., motion was offered by Ms. McKeel. The motion was seconded Mr. W heeler, to
adjourn the School Board. On a voice call vote, the motion passed unanimously.
__________
October 1, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 70)
At 5:54 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr. Slutzky, to adjourn the Board
of Supervisors to October 8, 2008, 3:30 p.m. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 01/07/2009
Initials: EW J