2008-12-03December 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
December 3, 2008, at 9:00 a.m., in the Lane Auditorium of the County Office Building on McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Ken C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Ann 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, Clerk, Ella W . Jordan, Senior Deputy Clerk, Meagan Hoy, and Director of Planning, V. W ayne
Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Boyd.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4a. Recognition: Candace Smith for service on the Architectural Review Board.
Mr. Boyd said the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors expresses its gratitude to Candace
Smith for her dedicated service to the Albemarle County Architectural Review Board from 2001 to 2008.
As a member of the Architectural Review Board, Ms. Smith brought her significant skill as an architect, her
passion for good design, and her dedication to public service to every aspect of her tenure on the board.
Her preparation for meetings and attention to detail garnered the admiration and respect of her fellow
board members and staff. Ms. Smith’s leadership in revisions to the County’s sign guidelines help
advance design and improve the process for the public. As a strong voice for County design guidelines,
Ms. Smith has helped make the Albemarle County Entrance Corridor something all residents can view
with pride. Candace Smith’s hard work and devotion to the preservation of the County’s landscape and
beauty will be remembered for many years to come.
Ms. Smith stated her appreciation to the County for allowing her to serve, noting that efforts to
preserve the area’s beauty while supporting appropriate growth are worthwhile and she encouraged the
Board to continue in that direction.
__________
Agenda Item No. 4b. Recognition by Liz Costin, Program Coordinator, Muscular Dystrophy
Association, Inc.
Ms. Liz Costin stated her thanks to Fire Chief Dan Eggleston, Union President Kevin Bower, and
MDA “Fill the Boot” Coordinator Mr. Robbie Gilmer, the Albemarle County Fire Department and the County
for helping the Muscular Dystrophy Association with the “Fill the Boot” program during the fall. She said
the effort raised $7,676, which will help several families who have members with neuromuscular diseases
– local healthcare services from support groups, to clinics to children’s summer camps, to purchase of
wheelchairs, leg braces and communication devices, and fund research to hopefully find a cure for the
disease. Ms. Costin said that since the International Association of Firefighters partnered with MDA in
1952, they have raised $327.0 million. She said the organization is the largest sponsor of the MDA in
dollars raised and number of participants in the nation. Members of the Albemarle Fire Department also
attended a MDA summer camp this past June in W akefield, Virginia. She presented some appreciation
plaques to the firefighters.
Mr. Boyd said it give the Board members a sense of joy to see how active Albemarle County
employees are in the community.
__________
Agenda Item No. 4c. Recognition: Green Roof Award.
Mr. Boyd said the Charlottesville-Albemarle Council of Garden Clubs has recognized Albemarle
County’s “green roof” with a 2008 appreciation award for the County’s contributions “to promote and
preserve the beauty of Charlottesville and Albemarle County through attractive landscaping on your
premises – specifically the green roof.” He noted that the green roof on the Albemarle County Office
Building on McIntire Road, which is 9,000 square feet, is among the largest in central Virginia and
continues to thrive having turned three years old this past summer. He said it has become a self-
sustaining ecosystem that will continue to provide environmental benefits for years to come and it has had
a positive effect on the building’s heating and cooling load while helping to improve air quality, reduce the
urban heat island effect, enhance the building’s aesthetics, increase the lifespan of the roof and provide a
food source for insects. He said the green roof is a “visible and successful example of our significant
focus on environmental stewardship.” Mr. Boyd asked that Mr. Gregor Patsch, W ater Resources
Engineer, who oversees the green roof, to come forward and speak.
Mr. Greg Harper, W ater Resources Manager, addressed the Board on behalf of Mr. Patsch,
stating that he wanted to thank Mr. Boyd for his comments and the Board for their continued support for
environmental initiatives at the County, for staff in General Services for their help in maintaining the green
roof, to Ms. Lee Catlin for her promotional efforts, and the Charlottesville-Albemarle Council of Garden
Clubs for touring the green roof and offering the award. He also mentioned the benefit to streams that a
December 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
roof like the green roof provides by capturing and retaining rainfall so it does not become runoff. He
added that Mr. Patsch has given thousands of people in the area tours of the green roof and believes that
the educational benefit is perhaps the best of all.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Dorrier said the Monticello High School Football Team had another winning season; they were
within one game of winning the State championship. He offered motion to recognize the football team
and thank them for the exciting football season.
Mr. Rooker seconded the motion, noting that they provided a lot of excitement for local fans.
Mr. Dorrier added that they also provided a lot of pride for the community.
Mr. Boyd said Mr. Stephen Koleszar from the School Board is present this morning. He said Mr.
Koleszar will remember the trouble the School Board had when it was redistricting for that school. People
thought it would never have the good sports programs available at the other high schools. Roll was called,
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Slutzky.
NAYS: None.
__________
Mr. Rooker reported that he, Ms. Thomas, and Ms. Mallek attended the transportation meeting in
Culpeper held by the Transportation Commissioner to discuss with localities in the district impacts on
transportation from the funding changes that are occurring. In addition to State revenue problems, there
are significant cutbacks in Federal funding for transportation in the works and VDOT is going to be
reducing the number of residency offices from 45 percent to 30 percent – and the number of central
offices by 30 percent. VDOT will be reducing the number of equipment repair facilities by 40 percent and
traffic engineering services system technology emergency operation offices from six to five. They will also
be reducing the number of administrative approval levels from six-plus to about three; the Commissioner
made clear that due to massive reductions in transportation funding they are basically remaking VDOT to
live within the amount of available revenues. This will translate into reduced services locally, including
calling an 800 number instead of a local number to report problems. Construction funding was reduced
two years ago by 30 percent, last year it was reduced by 44 percent, and another 10 percent is projected
for next year with 25 to 30 percent for the next several years.
Mr. Boyd asked at what point that amount becomes zero.
Mr. Rooker replied that it is getting close – with 10 to 15 percent in non-inflation adjusted dollars
left over from what was available four or five years ago. He added that the Commissioner also reviewed
the increased costs of construction, which have gone up by double-digit percentages every year. He said
Ms. Thomas had asked about the possible impact of the Obama administration if they were able to get a
significant infrastructure program focusing on transportation approved, and the Commissioner indicated
that they will be creating lists of projects that are “ready to go.” He mentioned that Ms. Thomas had heard
an economist on NPR discuss economic multipliers under that scenario, but what is happening now is a
“massive de-stimulus” in the economy as cuts filter through the projects that were planned. He added that
virtually every state is facing the same economic challenges, and it has impacts on localities accordingly.
Ms. Thomas said a local official asked if VDOT was assuming the same kind of devolution that
the Legislature seems to be assuming, and if the State was planning to pass VDOT responsibilities on to
the localities; VDOT replied that it would not be their intent but they are trying to work with local
governments on bond issues.
Mr. Rooker said the plan for reorganization of VDOT is presently underway – 45 days into a 60-
day process – and by the end of the month there will be an announcement of the proposed plan and
opportunities for public comment; full implementation is expected to take two years.
Ms. Mallek added that VDOT’s primary goal is safety, but having more to do with less will put
VDOT and citizens in an impossible situation.
_________
Ms. Mallek reported that Remarkable Trees, written by Jeff Kirwin of the State Extension Service,
features the second largest white oak tree in Virginia – located at the Charlottesville Airport. She noted
that the Airport Commission and the community worked hard to keep the tree outside of the
improvements, and one chapter in the book focuses on how to protect trees when construction is
imminent. She added that Albemarle trees are mentioned in about six chapters in the book.
__________
Ms. Mallek said Mr. Allan Sumpter has indicated there is no speed limit on gravel roads unless
legislators are asked to add the County to a bill that already exists – “Maximum Speed Limit on Non-
Surface Treated Highways.” She said that eight or nine counties are already covered by this law and if
there is agreement and interest then Albemarle could also be added. Mr. Davis said this statute gives
localities the ability to request that VDOT place speed limit signs. It was the consensus to add this
request to the legislative list for discussion with Legislators on December 9.
__________
December 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
Ms. Mallek reported that a lot of salt had been spilled along I-64 during the last storm. She
contacted Mr. Greg Harper and Mr. Allan Sumpter about it as that location drains directly into the Ivy
Creek watershed. She said that Mr. Sumpter determined there was a vehicle that malfunctioned there,
causing the spill which has been cleaned up.
__________
Ms. Mallek said that she would like an update on sunset provisions for special use permits.
__________
Ms. Mallek asked for a discussion about home occupations to include what supervision is allowed,
restrictions about the types of operations allowed, and how degreasers and chemicals are handled.
Mr. Rooker responded that degreasers are among the worst ground pollutants.
Ms. Mallek said these are used with metalwork. ACME and Teledyne both have clean-up sites
with degreasers even though they are not home occupation businesses.
Mr. Slutzky commented that there are two issues being raised: the home occupation application
process that includes consideration of environmental impacts; and, a process to capture and address non-
applicants that might have environmental impacts. Mr. Davis replied that permits are required for home
occupations, and a Class B special use permit triggers a full review by Planning staff and their review
addresses environmental concerns through conditions when appropriate. Mr. Tucker indicated that staff
would review this matter with the Board in the future.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Mr. Steve Koleszar addressed the Board, stating that he is speaking for himself and not as a
School Board member. He thanked Mr. Rooker for his earlier remarks, adding that this could be the worst
recession in our lifetime. He asked the Supervisors to consider the School Board’s budget from a macro-
economic viewpoint, because as the second-largest employer in the County it will have a tremendous
impact on the local economy. There will need to be a significant Keynesian stimulus to jump-start the
economy, and the County has the ability to buck the trend and start the economy moving again. He
suggested filling frozen positions and funding strategic plan positions to create a lot of jobs for people who
will buy homes, shop locally, etc. He noted that the best stimulus would be to borrow local money, and the
Supervisors should consider floating bonds for construction projects; he added that an increase of the real
estate tax would also help as the money would remain locally. That real estate tax money is deductible at
the Federal level, so 20 to 25 percent of that money is coming back to County residents to be spent. He
said there is a very difficult budget challenge ahead, and the Supervisors need to be bold and creative.
__________
Mr. Jeff W erner of the Piedmont Environmental Council addressed the Board. Concerning the
water supply discussion the Board had with City Council last week, as a City resident he is concerned
about where things stand. He formed a “drink local water” group several years ago that worked with
population projections. At that time, Mr. Rich Collins emphasized that the RW SA should be forced to
prove those projections wrong, rather than having citizens’ groups prove they are right. He knows the cost
increase for the Ragged Mountain Dam project is a problem, but the situation was unanticipated and is
being exploited by local groups to create public dissent and sow the seeds of unhappiness. He has
distributed to the Board information from VHB, Inc. – a water supply alternative study from 2001 for the
RW SA which was done while Mr. Collins was Chair, along with a list from Gannett Fleming; a worst-case
scenario of cost components from the C-Ville W ater website; and, spreadsheets of comparison
information. He has delved into past studies to determine where certain numbers came from because C-
Ville W ater is understating costs for components they argue are viable. He said that in 2001, the Buck
Mountain Creek Reservoir was not pursued because it would impact 59 acres of wetlands, inundate 306
acres, and require a 34,000-foot transmission pipe from Buck Mountain to the South Fork Rivanna
Reservoir. He said Gannett Fleming had the same concerns and also found the James River Spiny
Mussel at the Buck Mountain site. In response to Mr. Dorrier’s question about the inaccuracy of the
numbers, Mr. W erner said there should be adjustments made to bring the numbers up to current figures
and to factor in engineering costs.
Mr. Rooker commented that it does not seem the C-Ville W ater numbers have been adjusted for
inflation, and the Gannett Fleming figures include a 20-percent engineering/permitting/construction
management number and a 25 percent inflation factor for contingencies. That is a huge combination and
a 45 percent add-on probably makes a 70 percent difference in the total estimated cost of the projects.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Consent Agenda.
Mr. Boyd said there are a couple of changes that need to be made in the Consent Agenda. He
said that the County Attorney has advised that discussion of the request from Earlysville Park for a water
supply cannot be on the consent agenda because State Code requires the Board to conduct a hearing on
that item. It has been moved to the regular agenda for discussion.
Mr. Boyd said the Board got some information about Yancey Mills in their packet, so he would like
to make that part of the consent agenda. Mr. Davis said the Board can discuss that item without putting it
on the consent agenda.
December 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to approve Consent Items 7.1 (as noted), 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5
and 7.6a and to accept the remaining items as information (Item 7.6 had been moved to the regular
agenda for discussion). Ms. Thomas seconded the motion, which passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Slutzky.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item 7.1. Approval of Minutes: September 28, 2007; January 16, March 17, August 13, October
1, October 22, October 24 and November 7, 2008.
Mr. Slutzky had read the minutes of September 28, 2007, and found them to be in order as
presented.
Mr. Slutzky had read the minutes of January 16, 2008, and found them to be in order as
presented.
Mr. Rooker has read the minutes of March 17, 2008, and found them to be in order as presented.
Mr. Dorrier had read the minutes of August 13, 2008, and found them to be in order as presented.
Ms. Thomas had read the minutes of October 1, 2008, page 42 beginning at Item 18 to the end
and found them to be in order as presented.
Mr. Boyd had read the minutes of October 22, 2008, and found them to be in order as presented.
Mr. Boyd had read the minutes of October 24, 2008, and found them to be in order as presented.
Mr. Slutzky had read the minutes of November 7, 2008, and found them to be in order as
presented.
By the recorded vote set out above, the minutes which had been read were approved.
Those not read will be placed on the next agenda for approval.
__________
Item 7.2. CPA-2008-01. W ater Supply Planning Update. (Deferred from November 12, 2008.)
(Discussion: Mr. Rooker said the water supply planning update is to adopt changes to the
Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the new water plan into that Plan and make conforming changes. He
thinks the Board would be remiss to not change the Comprehensive Plan to reflect what has already been
adopted as a water supply plan, but added that if new information comes forward that significantly impacts
the W ater Supply Plan the Comprehensive Plan can be amended accordingly. It is not cast in stone, but it
is important that the County reflect current thinking about the current adopted water plan.
Mr. Rooker said there have been a lot of comments and citizen suggestions on the W ater Supply
Plan lately, including a desire to use Buck Mountain Creek, but that proposed reservoir would never be
approved for reasons other than the spiny mussel. He stated that originally there were 30+ plans looked
at. Under the criteria used by agencies, the Buck Mountain plan was more environmentally damaging
than the plan which was adopted. He explained that they looked at the wetlands which would be impacted
and the streambeds inundated, and under those tests it is not even close to being as environmentally
friendly as the other options. He added that when there was a joint meeting with all boards and regulators
in 2005, that question was asked and the regulators said there was no chance the Buck Mountain plan
would be approved as an option. Many negative comments are now coming from people who did not
bother to attend the multitude of public hearing opportunities over a three or four-year period in the
process of adopting a water plan. If anyone is interested in the subject matter, he would invite them to dig
in to the information and then draw a conclusion.
Mr. Slutzky said that on the water supply plan update it mentioned “no legal review.” Did it not
require a legal review? Mr. Davis said that Executive Summary was not reviewed but the water supply
plan was reviewed.)
By the vote set out above, the Board adopted the following amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Plan – Water Resources section:
Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Plan –
Water Resources section (pages 39-49)
Watershed Management Planning
Surface water supply protection has been a special concern in Albemarle County since 1972
when the City and County adopted a joint resolution forming the Rivanna W ater and Sewer
Authority. In November 1973, the Authority appointed an advisory committee to study the reservoir
pollution problem. In 1975 a study of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir was undertaken by Betz
Environmental Engineers, Inc. for the Rivanna W ater and Sewer Authority. This study
recommended the implementation of a comprehensive watershed management plan that included
December 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
reservoir management, water treatment modifications, point and non-point source controls, and
routine watershed monitoring.
Since that time, the County has taken numerous proactive steps to protect water quality through
land use management, which are bulleted below:
1977 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors adopted a Runoff Control Ordinance applicable
in all water supply impoundment watersheds (see Map 2-3: W ater Supply W atersheds). The
purpose of this ordinance was to protect against and minimize the pollution and eutrophication
of the public drinking water supply impoundments resulting from land development in the
watershed areas
1978 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors rezoned all publicly owned properties except
school sites within water supply watersheds to a conservation district designation.
1979 South Rivanna Reservoir W atershed Management Plan was prepared by F. X. Browne
and Associates, Inc. and the W atershed Management Plan Committee.
1980 amendments to the 1977 Comprehensive Plan removed all land from the Urban Area
also located in the South Fork Rivanna W atershed.
1980 comprehensive rezoning of the County placed major limitations on development in the
Rural Areas. Special use permit criteria addressed proposed developments located within
water supply watersheds
1982 revisions to the Comprehensive Plan removed watershed properties from Growth Areas
in Crozet, Scottsville, Earlysville, and Ivy, These properties, containing over 1,000 acres, were
rezoned to Rural Areas the following year. Crozet and Ivy, both located entirely in water supply
watersheds, were scaled back in size.
1982 Section 208 Watershed Management Study of the South Rivanna Reservoir was
completed by F. X. Browne and Associates, Inc. The study concluded that the watershed plan
developed in 1977 and refined in 1979 was still valid and should be fully implemented.
1988 Crozet Sewer interceptor goes on-line to alleviate point source discharges and failing
septic systems.
1993 Lickinghole Creek Sedimentation Basin completed in Crozet to alleviate impacts from
nonpoint source discharges from the Crozet Community.
1998 W ater Protection Ordinance adopted, which consolidated and streamlined the existing
stormwater, erosion and sediment, and stream buffer ordinances. These changes included
strengthening the stream buffer requirements, updating stormwater removal criteria, and
strengthening the relationship of water quality protection in relation to land use issues.
2007 W ater Protection Ordinance amended to include the watershed of the North Fork
Rivanna River public water supply intake in the definition of “water supply protection areas” to
which extended the requirement of stream buffers to all intermittent streams in that
watershed.
2008 W ater Protection Ordinance amended to expand the stream buffer requirements to all
intermittent streams in the Rural Areas, providing the entire Rural Areas the same protection
previously afforded only to specific water supply protection areas. The 2008 amendments
also clarified the ability for development projects to impact buffers with stream crossings and
set specific design criteria for those crossings.
Comprehensive Water Supply Planning
In 2003 the Code of Virginia was amended to require the development of a comprehensive
statewide planning process. As part of this requirement, localities are required to submit water
supply plans either independently or as part of a region to the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ). DEQ will review all local and regional plans and localities will need
to review their plans every five years to assess adequacy. Albemarle County elected to join the
City of Charlottesville and the Town of Scottsville to develop a regional plan, and each locality
passed a resolution in May 2006 authorizing the Rivanna W ater and Sewer authority to develop
the regional plan, which is due to DEQ in November 2011.
Required elements of the plan include a detailed description of all existing water sources and all
existing water use for the entire locality, including both public systems and individual private wells.
The plan requires an assessment of the projected water demand and future need for the entire
locality and an analysis of potential alternatives for identified deficits. The plan must also include
a description of the condition of all existing water resources, a description of any water
management actions, a copy of any relevant plans or ordinances, a resolution approving the plan
from each locality that is party to the plan, and proof of a local public hearing.
Some of the required plan elements have already been completed during the water supply
planning process for the Urban Service Area, and are discussed in the Utilities component of the
December 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
County’s Land Use Plan. Analysis of the remainder of the County, including Beaver Creek and
Totier Creek Reservoirs, the County’s numerous community wells, and the segment of the County
served by private wells is underway to complete the plan by the 2011 deadline.
Water Conservation/Drought Response
OBJECTIVE: Support water conservation and use-efficiency measures to minimize
impacts to water resource systems and the environment and to prolong
the life of existing and future water supplies.
W ater conservation and use-efficiency are important overall objectives for water resources
management in the County and the region, for both users of public water and for private
groundwater derived systems. W ater conservation and use-efficiency measures have the
potential to prolong the life of existing and future water supplies in both the Development Areas
and the Rural Areas, which is important for economic, ecological, and ethical reasons. The
Albemarle County Service Authority provides guidance for conserving water in homes and
businesses, offers conservation kits that contain water saving devices such as aerators and low-
flow showerheads, and offers rebates to customers for replacing pre-1992 toilets with new low-
flow toilets. W ater conservation tips are posted in all bathrooms in all County buildings, and the
bathrooms are equipped with either push activated metered faucets or sensor activated faucets,
and waterless hand soap. On a broader scale, the County anticipates addressing water
conservation and use-efficiency as part of its Environmental Management System, which is a set
of processes and practices that enable an organization to reduce its environmental impacts and
increase its operating efficiency.
In 2004 a Rivanna Regional Drought Response Committee was formed to work cooperatively to
provide a coordinated response to drought in the community. Members of the Committee include
staff representing the County, the City, RW SA, and ACSA. The Committee developed a Drought
Response and Contingency Plan to define a method for predicting and identifying drought
conditions and specify drought stages that correspond to Virginia’s Local and Regional W ater
Supply Planning Regulations. The plan identifies appropriate use restrictions for each drought
stage, and clearly defines the process of public notification and information dissemination.
Drought stages are derived from the use of software that analyzes statistical probabilities as to the
rate at which the water supply levels would diminish, using the historical period of record, current
operating procedures, and existing water demand projections.
The software model currently utilizes stream flow as an indicator of reservoir levels and potential
stress to surface and groundwater systems. Stream flow and rain gauge data can be graphed to
clearly depict past drought cycles. Staff analysis of County monitoring wells has also shown a
direct correlation of groundwater levels to stream flow and rain gauge data. At this time the
County does not possess sufficient well monitoring data to predict drought, but it is clear that the
water depth in the wells represents in real time the cumulative recharge that drives the drought
cycle. It will be important for the County to continue acquiring additional well monitoring data so
that a more complete picture of hydrologic conditions can be utilized when predicting and
managing drought conditions.
Ultimately, water conservation and use efficiency must be viewed as an issue of community-wide
impact. As stated, the need for a water conservation program is imminent for users of the public
system. Users of public water should realize that their consumption (or over-consumption)
jeopardizes natural stream flow in the headwater streams that feed the reservoirs. W ithdrawals for
water supply conflict with other human or ecological uses supplied by the natural flow of a stream
or river. On the other hand, rural residents in the water supply watersheds must understand that
proper stewardship of the land is needed to protect the reservoirs and their tributaries, upon which
the public system users depend. Furthermore, residents of all of Albemarle’s rural areas cannot
ignore water conservation for their own groundwater-derived systems. Prudent use of well water
during the summer months will not only prevent household water shortages, but will also help
sustain stream flow in the County’s rural streams and springs. Thus, the need for a clean, safe,
and sufficient water supply binds together urban, suburban, and rural residents of the County.
Strategies:
• Promote the concept of water conservation as a community-wide issue.
• Continue to initiate proactive measures to encourage community-wide water
conservation and use efficiency through multi-agency programs.
• Support the Albemarle County Service Authority, City of Charlottesville, and
Rivanna W ater and Sewer Authority and the University of Virginia’s water
conservation and use-efficiency efforts. Implement recommended measures that
require County action through regulatory or non-regulatory programs.
• Continue efforts to implement and enhance water conservation and use-efficiency
measures at existing and new County-owned buildings and facilities.
• Promote rainwater harvesting as a method of efficiently utilizing the
water that falls on our County."
December 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
• Continue participation in the Rivanna Regional Drought Response Committee,
and implement the Drought Response and Contingency Plan in cooperation with
the City, RW SA, and the ACSA.
• Promote the collection and inclusion of groundwater data in water conservation
planning and drought response.
Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Plan – Utilities section (pages 116-123)
Water Service to the Development Areas
The geology of Albemarle County makes it necessary to rely on surface water sources for
sizeable water supply. All existing water supply facilities are operated by the RW SA. The RW SA
Urban Service Area includes the Development Areas Neighborhoods 1-7, Hollymead, Piney
Mountain, and Rivanna. In addition, the Urban Service area also encompasses the City of
Charlottesville and the University of Virginia.
December 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
The RW SA Urban Service Area is supplied by finished water from the following three water
treatment plants (W TP): (1) South Rivanna W TP, (2) Observatory W TP, and (3) North Fork
Rivanna W TP. These water treatment plants receive raw water from four reservoirs and one river
intake. The South Rivanna W TP is served by the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. W ater from the
Sugar Hollow Reservoir can be released into the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir via the Moormans
River, a tributary to the South Fork Rivanna River. The Observatory W TP is supplied by water
from the Upper and Lower Ragged Mountain Reservoirs via an 18-inch diameter pipeline and
from Sugar Hollow Reservoir via another 18-inch diameter pipeline. Excess water from Sugar
Hollow Reservoir can also be transferred to the Ragged Mountain Reservoir. The North Fork
Rivanna W TP treats water pumped from an intake on the North Fork Rivanna River.
The towns of Crozet and Scottsville are not a part of the Urban Service Area, but are still served
by reservoirs and facilities managed by RW SA. The Beaver Creek Reservoir serves as the
source of water for the Town of Crozet, and the water from the Reservoir is treated at the nearby
Crozet W ater Plant. The Town of Scottsville is served by the Totier Creek Reservoir, where water
is treated at the Scottsville W ater Plant.
Future Water Demand
Urban Service Area – The safe yield available from the RW SA Urban Service Area source water
system is diminishing with time due to the significant loss of storage capacity from its primary
source, the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. Since the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir was
constructed in 1966 approximately 40 percent of the total reservoir storage capacity has been lost
due to sedimentation. Projected water demand for a 50-year planning horizon (2055) is 18.7 mgd,
which will exceed the system’s safe yield. For complex water intake systems (impoundments in
conjunction with streams), safe yield is defined as the minimum withdrawal rate available to
withstand the worst drought of record in Virginia since 1930.
In planning for the provision of additional water supply within the Urban Service Area, RW SA, in
coordination with Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville, and the Albemarle County Service
Authority explored 32 possible alternatives, then narrowed those alternatives using federal and
state environmental impact criteria to a final four alternatives. The four alternatives included a
short bladder on the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir Dam, dredging of the South Fork Rivanna
Reservoir, a new intake and pipeline from the James River, and a new dam at the Ragged
Mountain Reservoir. After significant public input it was determined that an expansion project of
the Ragged Mountain Reservoir and the construction of a pipeline between South Fork Rivanna
Reservoir and Ragged Mountain Reservoir was the least environmentally damaging practicable
alternative available for expanding the water supply to the Urban Service Area. The Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors voted to endorse this plan for the Urban Service Area at the June 7,
2006 regular Board meeting.
Numerous studies and reports have been completed that fully document demand analysis, safe
yield of the existing resources, and alternatives analysis and selection. These studies are listed
below and include as appendices other historical studies. The suite of documents is housed at
RW SA and should be referenced for detailed information:
• Safe Yield Study, Gannett Fleming, January 2004
• Demand Analysis for the Urban Service Area, Gannett Fleming, May 2004
• Safe Yield Study Supplement No.1, Gannett Fleming, July 2004
• Joint Permit Application, Gannett Fleming and Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc., June 2006
• Permit Support Document, Gannett Fleming and Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc., May
2006
• Conceptual Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan, Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.,
December 2006
The long-term viability of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir as not only a water supply, but also as
an important recreational and natural resource continues to be of paramount concern to the
County. In June 2008 the County endorsed a separate cooperative study with the City of
Charlottesville and RW SA to study the merits of maintenance dredging, siltation prevention, and
other appropriate initiatives to protect and enhance the aquatic health and water quality of the
reservoir as a long-term resource for the community.
For both Crozet and Scottsville the projected average daily demand for a 30-year planning horizon
(2035) is within each system’s safe yield, and no expansion to these systems is projected. The
following studies have been performed, are also housed at RW SA, and should be referred to for
more detailed information:
• Beaver Creek Reservoir Safe Yield Study, Gannett Fleming, June 2008
• Totier Creek Reservoir Safe Yield Study, Gannett Fleming, June 2008
Recommendations
Support construction of the Ragged Mountain Reservoir expansion and connecting
pipeline from the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir
December 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
Support and participate in evaluating the need and feasibility for maintenance dredging of
the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir to preserve its integrity as a water supply and a
recreational resource.
Continue to initiate proactive measures to encourage community-wide water conservation
and use efficiency through multi-agency programs (see Water Supply Planning in the
Natural Resources and Cultural Assets section of the Comprehensive Plan).
__________
Item 7.3. FY 2009 Appropriations.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that the Code of Virginia § 15.2-2507 stipulates that any
locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year as
shown in the currently adopted budget. However, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the
total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first publishing a
notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The total of this requested
FY 2009 appropriation is $77,854.54. 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 two new FY 2009 appropriations as follows: No. 2009-041
in the amount of $34,141.00 for the FY 2008 State Criminal Alien Assistance Program and No. 2009-042
totaling $43,713.54 for School Division donations and programs, as set out below:
Appropriation No. 2009-041, $ 34,141.00 - Revenue Source: Federal Revenue $34,141.00. The
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) reimburses localities for compensation expenses
incurred by correctional officers supervising aliens in local and regional jail facilities. Reimbursement is
given to localities even though the expenses are incurred by the correctional facility. The County of
Albemarle is scheduled to receive $34,141.00 for FY ‘08. Justice Benefits, Inc. processes the grant on
behalf of the County and after their expenses net proceeds of $26,629.98 will be forwarded to the
Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail to reimburse it for its expenses.
Appropriation No. 2009-042, $ 43,713.54 - Revenue Source: Local Revenue $40,955.00; Other
Fund Balance $2,758.54. At its meeting on October 23, 2008, the School Board approved the following
appropriations:
• Broadus W ood Elementary School received donations totaling $125.00 from various donors. Mr.
and Mrs. Mark Roberts donated $100.00 and Mr. and Mrs. Clarence W . Roberts donated $25.00.
The donors have requested that their contributions be made in honor of Mrs. Marjorie W ebber, a
teacher at Broadus W ood who eventually became principal in the 1960s and 1970s.
• W estern Albemarle High School received a donation in the amount of $15,000.00 from the Perry
Foundation, Inc. The donor has requested that the contribution go toward the Rowing Club at
W estern Albemarle High School.
• Baker-Butler Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $400.00 from Lorri Haney.
The donor has requested that her contribution be used to help purchase supplies for a second
grade class at Baker-Butler Elementary School.
• V.L. Murray Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $5,000.00 from the V.L.
Murray PTO. The donor has requested that the contribution be allocated as follows: $240.00 to
purchase a shredder, $40.50 to purchase a case of paper, and $4,719.50 for future purchases of
supplies.
• Albemarle High School received a donation in the amount of $100.00 from Mr. and Mrs. Gavin
Rose. The donors have requested that their contribution be used to help fund the turf project at
Albemarle High School.
• The Teachers for a New Era Grant provides professional development and instructional resources
for both novice teachers and Novice Teacher Network Advisors. This includes affording novice
teachers the opportunity to visit experienced colleagues, meet with their advisors for more
extended periods of time, providing them with professional literature and reflective study groups.
There is a local fund balance of $2,758.54 from FY ‘08 that may be used. In addition the
University of Virginia has awarded Albemarle County Public Schools with an additional $10,000.00
for continued implementation of this program. This request is to re-appropriate the fund balance
and appropriate the current grant award for use in FY ‘09.
• Baker-Butler Elementary School has been awarded a grant in the amount of $525.00 from
Dominion Resources Services, Inc. These funds will be used to support second grade teacher
Lisa Harman’s project titled “Science Matters”. This project focuses on providing in-depth, hands-
on science activities for students enabling them to practice asking questions, experimenting and
drawing conclusions.
• Stone Robinson Elementary School has been awarded a Target Grant in the amount of
$3,250.00. These funds will be used to hold Reading Festivals; this is a variety of activities and
contests designed to increase student interest in reading and writing. These monies will also help
fund the Lyrics Alive program, a language arts program for children that promotes creativity,
teamwork, and sharing of ideas and self-worth through songwriting and music.
December 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
At its meetings on November 3 and November 13, 2008, the School Board approved the following
appropriations:
• Broadus W ood Elementary School received several donations totaling $65.00. The following are
the donors with their amounts: Dudley B. Gaines donated $40.00 and Mary Jane Stephenson
donated $25.00. The donors have requested that their contributions be made in honor of Mrs.
W ebber, a teacher at Broadus W ood who eventually became principal in the 1960s and 1970s.
• W oodbrook Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $450.00 from The
Montpelier Foundation. The donor requested that the contribution be used to offset the cost of
transportation for a school wide field trip.
• Red Hill Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $4,340.00 from the Red Hill
PTO. The donor has requested that the contribution be used as a supplement to Red Hill’s
instructional supplies and for field trips.
• Cale Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $500.00 from Jeffrey and Christine
Riley. The donors have requested that their contribution go toward purchasing a video camera
for Cale Elementary School
• Red Hill Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $1,200.00 from Stephen and
Catherine Von Storch. The donors have requested that their contribution be used to help cover
the cost of admission fees for Red Hill students to visit the Paramount Theatre.
Staff recommends approval of the budget amendment in the amount of $77,854.54 and the
approval of the FY 2009 Appropriations No. 2009-041 and No. 2009-042.
(Discussion: Ms. Thomas said she picked up on Appropriation No. 2009-041 that the money
coming from the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program goes to the Jail by way of Albemarle County
through “Justice Benefits Inc.,” which takes out a 22 percent overhead. She said it might be justified by
the services they render, but that figure was surprising to her.
Mr. Robert W alters, Division Manager – Business Taxation, said that company processes all
claims and is the only organization that does so. He has raised that concern about the overhead cost in
the past, but it is the price the County must pay to get the funds. He explained that Justice Benefits Inc.
deals specifically with aliens who are in jails throughout the Commonwealth, and he was not aware of the
procurement process used to choose them. He assumed the Federal Government selected them.
Ms. Thomas suggested talking to a Congressman about this.
Mr. Boyd asked Mr. W alters about the shortfall in revenue transfers and fund balances, adding
that the figure of $7.25 million is a different amount than the $4.9 million amount being mentioned as a
shortfall in previous discussions. Mr. W alters said economic conditions are deteriorating, and he had to
come up with a new number.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the 2009 budget amendment in
the amount of $77,854.54 and approved Resolutions of Appropriation No. 2009-041 and 2009-042
as set out in full below:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2009-041
DATE: 12/03/08
EXPLANATION: FY ‘08 State Criminal Alien Assistance Program
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1000 33000 330085 Federal Revenue - SCAAP J2 34,141.00
1 1000 33020 700002 Regional Jail J1 34,141.00
1000 0501 Est. Revenue 34,141.00
0701 Appropriation 34,141.00
TOTAL 68,282.00 34,141.00 34,141.00
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2009-042
DATE: 12/03/08
EXPLANATION: Education Donations and Programs - School Board Meetings:
October 23, 2008, November 6, 2008, and November 13, 2008
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation J2 20,525.00
2 9001 18100 181107 AHS Donations-Turf Project J2 100.00
2 3156 18120 189900 Revenue J2 10,000.00
2 3156 51000 510100 Appropriation - F/B J2 2,758.54
2 3104 18000 181259 Revenue-Misc Grants J2 525.00
2 3104 18000 189900 Revenue J2 3,250.00
1 2201 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 125.00
1 2302 61105 800100 W AHS Mach. Equip/New J1 15,000.00
1 2217 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 400.00
1 2215 61101 800200 Mach & Equip Replacement J1 240.00
1 2215 61411 601700 Copier Supplies J1 40.50
1 2215 61411 580000 Miscellaneous Expenses J1 4,719.50
1 9001 60301 950245 AHS Syn Turf Field J1 100.00
December 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
1 3156 61101 152100 Sub/Wages-Teacher J1 1,855.00
1 3156 61101 210000 FICA J1 145.00
1 3156 61101 580500 Staff Development J1 10,758.54
1 3104 60217 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 525.00
1 3104 60210 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 3,250.00
2000 0501 Est. Revenue 20,525.00
0701 Appropriation 20,525.00
9001 0501 Est. Revenue 100.00
0701 Appropriation 100.00
3156 0501 Est. Revenue 12758.54
0701 Appropriation 12,758.54
3104 0501 Est. Revenue 3775.00
0701 Appropriation 3,775.00
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation J2 6,555.00
1 2201 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 65.00
1 2207 61101 420100 Field Trip Mileage J1 2,950.00
1 2207 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 2,590.00
1 2212 61101 137100 Pt/Driver W ages J1 418.02
1 2212 61101 210000 FICA J1 31.98
1 2214 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 500.00
2000 0501 Est. Revenue 6,555.00
0701 Appropriation 6,555.00
Total 87,427.08 43,713.54 43,713.54
__________
Item 7.4. Partnership with VDOT for County Removal of Illegal Advertising Signs in the Highway
Right-of-W ay.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that the proliferation of signs in highway rights-of-way is
both distracting and visually unattractive. Multiple un-permitted signs along designated entrance corridors
detract from the purposes of having entrance corridors, including conserving the County’s scenic
resources and enhancing economic vitality and the quality of life.
This issue has been an ongoing County concern. In the summer and fall of 2005, staff conducted
a pilot program to reduce the number of un-permitted signs. That program involved five sign sweeps,
general public information and individual letters to those responsible for the specific un-permitted signs.
Because education and voluntary compliance had limited success, County staff is now seeking
authorization to actually remove illegal advertisements, which currently only VDOT can do. This approach
has been successful in localities such as Henrico and Chesterfield counties and the City of Lynchburg.
Virginia Code § 33.1-373 allows VDOT to remove and impose a $100 civil fine for each illegal
advertisement in highway rights-of-way. Virginia Code § 33.1-375.1(D) in turn enables VDOT to enter into
agreements authorizing localities to act as agents for VDOT in removing illegal advertisements.
Staff has prepared a proposed Agreement with VDOT for the removal of illegal advertisements.
The Agreement has been reviewed by and is acceptable to VDOT. Please note that the law and
Agreement apply only to illegal advertisements and not to all signs. By law, an “advertisement” is defined
as:
“any writing, printing, picture, painting, display, emblem, drawing, sign or similar device which is
posted or displayed outdoors on real property and is intended to invite or to draw the attention or
to solicit the patronage or support of the public to any goods, merchandise, real or personal
property, business, services, entertainment or amusement manufactured, produced, bought, sold,
conducted, furnished or dealt in by any person; the term shall also include any part of an
advertisement recognizable as such.”
Note that the 1993 General Assembly explicitly removed political signs from this definition of
“advertisement,” meaning that political signs may not be removed under this law or proposed Agreement.
W hile VDOT still has the authority to remove any unauthorized sign from VDOT rights-of-way, Virginia
Code § 33.1-373 and the proposed Agreement only provides the County with the authority to remove signs
that are advertisements from VDOT rights-of-way.
This program will be conducted in partnership with VDOT; with both VDOT and the County
responding to the complaints that each receives. County staff will prioritize and focus on illegal advertising
along designated entrance corridors. Prior to beginning advertisement removal in January 2009, staff
plans to provide public information, including a press release and an informational letter to various groups
like the Chamber of Commerce, the realtors’ association, and the North 29 Business Council.
Because this program will be conducted using existing staff (primarily Building Inspectors) as part
of their regular duties, this work can occur without the need for overtime (at current building permit levels),
and is therefore unlikely to have a budget impact. Staff recommends that the Board approve the
proposed Agreement with the Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner (VDOT) for the removal of
illegal advertisements.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the proposed Agreement between
the Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner and the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, Providing for the County to Act as the Commissioner’s Agent for the Removal
of Illegal Advertisement Within the Limits Of Highway Rights-Of-Way, as set out below:
AN AGREEMENT BETW EEN THE COMMONW EALTH
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONER AND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA PROVIDING FOR THE COUNTY TO
December 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
ACT AS C O M M I S S I O N E R ’S AGENT FOR THE REMOVAL OF ILLEGAL
ADVERTISEMENT W ITHIN THE LIMITS OF HIGHW AY RIGHTS-OF-W AY
THIS AGREEMENT is made this ____ day of _______________, 200___ between the
Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner (“C o m m i s s i o n e r ”) and the Board of Supervisors
of the County of Albemarle (“B o a r d ”).
W ITNESSETH:
W HEREAS, pursuant to Title 3 3 .1, Chapter 7, Article 1 of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as
amended, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), among other things, enforces a
prohibition on the placement of advertisements within the limits of highway rights-of-way in the
Commonwealth; and
W HEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, as the owner in fee simple of
various public rights-of-way within Albemarle County (“County”), has an interest in protecting the
public health, safety and welfare and in protecting the appearance of the County in general and
the public rights-of-way in particular; and
W HEREAS, the Board has found and determined that the proliferation of unauthorized
advertisements in the rights-of-way of highways in the County is becoming more prevalent and
such advertisements can create public safety hazards and can have a negative effect on the
appearance of public highways; and
W HEREAS, the Board desires to exercise its authority under Section 15.2-1200 of the
Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to regulate the placement of advertisements in the right-of-
way of highways in the County, in a manner consistent with existing provisions of Title 3 3 .1,
Chapter 7, Article 1 of the Code of Virginia, as provided in Section 33.1-374 of the Code; and
W HEREAS, the Board desires additional authority, as an agent of the Commissioner, for
the removal of advertisements from the highways in the County: and
W HEREAS, the Commissioner desires the Boar d’s assistance in removing
advertisements from the highways in the County, and wishes to designate the Board and its
designees as agents of the Commissioner for the removal, obliteration and abatement of
advertisements placed illegally within the limits of highway rights-of-way; and
NOW , THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the parties agree as follows:
1. This Agreement is entered into pursuant to Section 33.1-375.1(D) of the Code of
Virginia by authorized representatives of the parties following approval by the Board in a
public meeting held on ___________.
2. The Commissioner designates the Board, and its designees, as his agent for the
purposes of removing any advertisements located within the rights-of-way of highways in
the County when such advertisements are found to be in violation of the provisions of
Section 33.1-373 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended.
3. The Commissioner designates the Board, and its designees, as his agent for the
purpose of prosecuting violations of Section 33.1-373 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as
amended, seeking any remedy authorized by that section, and recovering any civil
penalties, f i n e s , costs of abatement, court costs, attorney fees, and any other f i n e s ,
penalties, or costs that may be awarded by a court under that section. The County shall
be entitled to full reimbursement from the violator of its costs of advertisement removal
and enforcement. Any civil penalties collected shall be remitted by the Board on a
quarterly basis to the Commissioner and paid into the Highway Maintenance and
Operating Fund.
4. This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect unless sooner terminated upon thirty
(30) days written notice by either party to the other party.
5. This Agreement may be amended at any time by written agreement of the parties.
W ITNESS the following signatures and seals:
COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSIONER
By__________________________________________
Commissioner
C O U N T Y O F ALBEMARLE, V I R G I N I A
B y_________________________________________
C o u n t y E x e c u t i v e
__________
December 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
Item 7.5. Set public hearing for Community Development Block Grand Fund application process.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that the Virginia Community Development Block Grant
(VCDBG) is a federally funded grant administered by the Virginia Department of Housing and Community
Development (DHCD). Since 1982, the DHCD has provided funding to eligible units of local government
(non-entitlement communities only) for projects that address critical community needs, including housing,
infrastructure, and economic development. Albemarle County has received numerous grants in previous
years to support housing and community improvement initiatives.
In the past, approximately $10.0 million has been made available annually by DHCD for
competitive grant proposals in the Commonwealth, and it is anticipated that the same amount will be
available this year. The VCDBC application process requires that two local public hearings be conducted.
The first public hearing is to provide information on eligible activities that may be funded by CDBG, the
amount of funding estimated to be available, and past activities undertaken in Albemarle County with
CDBG funds.
A follow-up public hearing is required to review any proposed applications. Applications must be
submitted by the County, although the proposed activities may be undertaken by other agencies. The
second public hearing must take place prior to the application due date, which is likely to be in late March
of 2009.
There is no budgetary impact unless or until an application is made and approved for a funded
project. Staff requests that the Board set a public hearing for the Community Development Block Grant
program for January 7, 2009, to provide information to the public and interested parties regarding the
eligible CDBG activities, funding availability, the process for submitting proposals for applications, and
past activities undertaken in the County with CDBG funding and to receive public comment on this
information.
(Discussion: Ms. Thomas said she would like the Oak Ridge neighborhood sewer project to be
considered when this comes back to the Board for the public hearing. She said it has been discussed with
Mr. Ron W hite and he is encouraging the Albemarle County Service Authority to get involved. Mr. Tucker
responded that staff is talking to Mr. Gary Fern as well regarding the matter.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board set January 7, 2009, as a public hearing date
for the Community Development Block Grant program.
__________
Item 7.6. Expansion of the existing water supply system at Earlysville Business Park to include a
proposed new use.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that the owner of the Earlysville Business Park has filed a
notice under Albemarle County Code § 16-102 to expand the central water supply (the “water system” or
“system”) to serve a proposed new 8,000 square foot building in the Earlysville Business Park that will be
used as a warehouse and a machine shop. The Earlysville Business Park is zoned Light Industry (LI).
The Earlysville Business Park’s water system consists of a well, a storage tank, a water treatment
facility and distribution lines to six buildings on the site. The system was approved by the Virginia
Department of Health in 1973. Because County approval of a central supply water system was not
required until 1976, the original system was not approved by the County. In 1999, the Board approved
both the central sewage system and the water system for the site under Chapter 16 of the Albemarle
County Code. At that time, both systems were determined by the Planning Commission to be sub-
stantially in accord with the Comprehensive Plan under Virginia Code § 15.2-2232. Although the water
system would expand to serve the proposed warehouse and machine shop, it is staff’s opinion that the
water system remains within the scope of the system determined to be substantially in accord with the
Comprehensive Plan in 1999. Thus, a new review under Virginia Code § 15.2-2232 is unnecessary. Staff
has received comment from the Albemarle County Service Authority regarding this request. Because the
business park is outside of the jurisdictional areas for both public water and public sewer, the ACSA has
no interest in providing public water to this area. Even if the Board expanded the jurisdictional area to
include the business park, the properly functioning water system does not require, and the ACSA does not
desire, to take over this existing water system.
The owner of the Earlysville Business Park seeks to expand the water system to serve a
proposed 8,000 square foot warehouse and machine shop. The expansion of the business park use is
permitted by right under the Zoning Ordinance. W hen a notice to establish a central water supply system
is filed, the County engineer must review the notice and the information provided by the owner to
determine whether the proposed system complies with the Albemarle County Code and the policies of the
County engineer. The County Engineer has consulted with the Virginia Department of Health and
determined that the system complies with applicable state water regulations. The County Engineer also
has reviewed the plans for the expanded system and has determined that the well and the waterworks
(the storage tank, water treatment facility and distribution lines) have adequate capacity for the proposed
use. A graph summarizing those findings is on file.
For the reasons set out above, the County Engineer recommends that the Board approve the
proposed expansion. If the Board decides to approve the expanded system, the Board is authorized to
condition the approval on the County engineer’s approval of the final plans, the Health Department’s
approval, the Department of Environmental Quality’s approval, and either approval by or proof of
notification to any other applicable state or federal department or agency. The County Engineer
December 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
recommends that approval be conditioned on the improvements being approved by the Health
Department prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the proposed warehouse and machine shop.
No budget impact has been identified with the proposed water supply expansion. The County
Engineer recommends that the Board approve the waterworks expansion, conditioned on the
improvements to the central water supply system being approved by the Virginia Department of Health
prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the new warehouse and machine shop.
This request was moved to the Regular Agenda for Action.
__________
Item 7.6a. Acquisition of Garnett ACE Easement.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that ACE (Acquisition of Conservation Easements)
regulations require that each landowner who desires to sell an open-space easement submit a written
offer to the County to sell the easement for a fixed price, determined by an appraisal, subject to an
adjustment based on adjusted gross income. That easement is also subject to the terms and conditions
contained in a proposed deed of easement negotiated by the parties. The regulations also require that, if
the Board accepts the offer, it must do so in writing and only after an action by the Board authorizing
acceptance. The Board is not required to accept an offer to sell an open-space easement. Either the
Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities Authority (PRFA) or the Virginia Outdoors Foundation
(VOF) may be co-holders of the easements.
At its meeting on November 5, 2008, the Board authorized staff to invite the Garnett family,
owners of Tax Map 44, Parcel 4J (21.500 acres) and Tax Map 44, Parcel 4K (50.000 acres), to offer an
open-space (ACE) easement over those properties at the adjusted value of $705,280. In response to that
invitation, the Garnett family has since formally offered to sell the easement at that price. The easement
would be co-held by the Public Recreational Facilities Authority.
Acquisition of the Garnett easement would provide the following resource protection:
• protection of 72 acres of farmland
• elimination of nine development lots
• 1,605 feet of state road frontage (SR 676)
• Natural Heritage resources (James spiny mussel) were found within one-quarter mile of both
properties
• 3,812 feet of common boundary with other protected land
• 71 acres of “prime” farmland
• lies in the watershed of the South Fork of the Rivanna River Reservoir
• property is a working family farm.
Funding for the purchase of this $705,280 open-space easement comes from the CIP-Planning-
Conservation budget (line item 9010-81010-580409). Staff recommends that the Board adopt a resolution
accepting the landowners’ offer to sell an open-space easement to the County, for the price specified and
subject to the terms and conditions contained in the proposed deed of easement, and also authorize the
County Executive to sign the final deed of easement for the property.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution accepting
the landowners’ offer to sell an open-space easement to the County, for the price specified and
subject to the terms and conditions contained in the proposed deed of easement, and also
authorized the County Executive to sign the final deed of easement for the property.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING OFFER TO SELL
A CONSERVATION EASEMENT UNDER THE ACE PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the County has received an offer to sell a conservation easement under the
ACE Program from the owner(s) of the following properties:
Garnett, Charles Mercer, III; Garnett, George Carr;
Garnett, Robert T.; and Moon, Leigh Garnett
TM 44, Parcel 4J (21.500 acres) and TM 44, Parcel 4K (50.000 acres)
WHEREAS, the owners offered to sell a conservation easement on the properties described
above to the County for a fixed purchase price, subject to terms and conditions set forth in the
proposed deed of easement enclosed with the County’s invitation to offer to sell, subject to any
further revisions deemed necessary by the County Attorney and agreed to by the owner.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby accepts the
offer to sell a conservation easement for the property described above, and authorizes the County
Executive to execute all documents necessary for completing the acquisitions.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby directs the County
Attorney to send copies of this resolution to the owner(s) of the property identified herein, or the
appropriate contact person.
__________
December 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
Item 7.7. Board-to-Board Monthly Communications Report from School Board, December, 2008.
It was noted in the report that on November 12, the Albemarle County School Board hosted its
second Telephone Town Hall to obtain constituent input on the Superintendent’s funding request.
Participants were asked polling questions and also had the opportunity to ask questions of panelists and
hear from the School Board Chair, Vice-Chair, Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent and the
Executive Director of Fiscal Services about the budgetary implications for various programs and services.
In addition, an online feedback forum was created where constituents could respond to the same five
polling questions addressed in the Telephone Town Hall as well as leave their comments or concerns.
Constituent input gathered from these venues will help inform the Superintendent’s funding request, which
will be presented to the School Board in December.
More than 4,500 households of employees, Albemarle County residents and parents were
reached using the Telephone Town Hall, and nearly 1,100 constituents elected to stay on the line for at
least 30 minutes to participate. By the end of the hour-long meeting, almost 500 constituents remained on
the line and responded overwhelmingly that they would participate in such an event again (98.5%). The
total cost of the Telephone Town Hall, including an additional reminder call two days prior, was $3,291.60.
W ith 29,801 households called, the cost is 11 cents per call, or 71 cents per constituent reached. More
than 50 participants left voicemail messages at the end of the Town Hall, expressing additional questions
or comments. These have been transcribed and addressed and are posted on the FY ‘09-10 Budget web
site. A recording of the Telephone Town Hall is available there.
At the November 6 School Board meeting, the Superintendent presented her recommendation for
attendance boundary changes to alleviate overcrowding at Crozet Elementary School. Of the four options
considered, the Superintendent recommended Option #3, Grayrock, as it achieves the objectives with the
least amount of neighborhood disruption. Approximately 100 elementary students from the Grayrock,
W aylands Grant, and Bargamin Park subdivisions will move to Brownsville Elementary School beginning
in 2009-10 under this recommendation. The School Board will vote on the Superintendent’s
recommendation at its meeting on December 11.
The Board received its annual Schools Safety Report at its November meeting. This report
included the Virginia Department of Education 2007-08 Discipline, Crime and Violence Verification, the
Driver Education Teen Safety Report, and the report on the Enterprise Center. The Discipline, Crime and
Violence Report is submitted electronically to the Virginia Department of Education on a yearly basis.
Data is collected at each Albemarle County School for the 365-day period beginning June 20 and ending
June 19 of the following year. The data collected meets the reporting requirements for the No Child Left
Behind performance indicator, the State School Performance Report Card, and other Federal and State
statutes regarding individuals with disabilities and guns, violence and drugs in schools.
In general, during the 2007-08 school year, incidents of alcohol possession or use, battery,
disrespect, drug possession/use, threats to students/staff, possession of look-alike weapons and knives
under three inches, and theft of school property decreased. Incidents of reported bullying increased but
incidents of harassment declined. Incidents of tobacco use declined but tobacco possession increased.
The number of cases referred to the School Hearing Officer was up to 194 in 2007-08 over 170 in 2006-
07.
The Board received a preliminary Annual Report from Human Resources in November. This
report detailed teacher hiring for the current school year, and gave updates on employee retention and
minority recruiting efforts. It also provided information about the ethnic distribution of classified, teaching
and administrative employees, the age distribution of the School Division’s workforce, and retirements and
resignations for the past five years.
The 2007-08 School Division Annual Progress Report was presented to the School Board at its
November work session. The report contains audited financial and demographic data regarding students
and operations. Some of these data include audited per pupil expenditure for 2007-08 of $11,507. Other
key data for 2007-08 are: average annual teacher salary of $50,940, average of 14 years of teaching
experience division-wide, and 58 percent of ACPS teachers have a master’s degree or above.
The School Board also received a quarterly report on implementation of the Framework for Quality
Learning across the division. Representatives from three schools - Greer Elementary, Henley Middle and
Albemarle High School, worked with School Board members and central office to discuss current
achievement at these schools using formative assessment data gathered through the end of the first
quarter.
Albemarle County Public Schools has partnered with Charlottesville City Schools to participate in
the “Be There” parent involvement campaign. This is the first time the Parent Councils from both school
divisions have worked together. “Be There” is a national campaign produced by Voss & Associates and
endorsed by the National School Board Association, the Parent Institute and many other community and
educational organizations. The program uses media, not classrooms, to inspire parents to be engaged in
their children’s lives, and to discover “teachable moments” in everyday tasks. Parent involvement is a key
correlate to student achievement, so the program aims to close achievement gaps by building adult-
student relationships. The professionally produced campaign is free to the participating school systems,
with the exception of printing costs for the materials.
As part of the School Board’s priority related to Strategic Plan Goal #3, to recruit, retain and
develop a diverse cadre of the highest quality teaching personnel, the annual Making Connections
professional development conference was held on Monday, November 3. Educators from
December 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
across the County gathered to listen to Mr. Steven Levy discuss the tenets of expeditionary learning.
Presenting in the morning to elementary educators gathered at Monticello and in the early afternoon to
secondary educators at W estern Albemarle High, Mr. Levy talked about eight high-yield instructional
strategies that are as effective, if not more effective, than one-on-one tutoring in bringing about learning
for a child. Levy’s presentation primarily focused on the power of formative, descriptive feedback, and
how it not only challenges students to reach to a higher level, it provides them the tools to know how to get
there. Teachers then met in Division-level Professional Learning Communities, and in school-level PLCs
to continue work on their staff development plans which were begun at the Curriculum, Assessment &
Instruction Institute in June.
Also, as part of the professional development initiatives toward Goal #3, and to continue Board
priorities for Goal #1 and Goal #2, school leaders and administration participated in consecutive
workshops with Mr. John Antonetti, a national educational consultant who has worked with the school
system over the past three years to implement the Teacher Performance Appraisals and Learning W alks.
These “L-W alks” are where administrators and teacher-leaders visit classrooms looking for the use of the
high-yield instructional strategies, higher level of cognitive thinking, and for student engagement. Mr.
Antonetti held workshops with staff on November 10 and 11.
At their leveled principal’s meetings in October, each school principal was given a Flip video
camera, a small digital video camera that can record up to one hour of web-quality video. Their
assignment was to record Professional Learning Community discussions at their school, places where
teachers are getting together to learn from each other about what strategies are working in the classrooms
and what interventions may be necessary to increase student learning. Principals then returned to the
November leveled meeting with evidence of their PLC work in hand. By sharing their videos and looking
at the different types of discussions about student achievement that are taking place across the division,
principals were challenged to reflect upon what is possible through PLCs and how the PLC work at their
school compares to the Division’s goals and the work in other schools across the system. This work is
part of the Board’s priorities for Goal #2, eliminate the achievement gap.
The School Board will hold its regular meeting on December 11. In addition, there is a joint
meeting with the Board of Supervisors scheduled for December 9, the Superintendent’s funding request
presentation is scheduled for December 17, and a tentative student conduct meeting scheduled for
December 16.
This report was received for information.
__________
Item 7.8. FY ‘09 First Quarter Financial Report.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that the Preliminary Financial Report provides information
on the County’s General Fund operations and Fund Balance as of September 30, 2008. The financial
report includes a bar chart that compares current fiscal year revenue and expenditure data with data from
the previous fiscal year.
A. General Fund Financial Report: Attachment “A” on file.
a. Revenues: The Department of Finance estimates that General Fund revenues, transfers,
and use of fund balance will be $7.254 million (3.2%) less than appropriations of
$224.391 million. Revenues will be revised in January after the second half 2008 property
tax bills are due, the 2009 reassessment is completed, current market conditions become
more apparent, and the Governor’s FY 2010 Budget amendments are presented to the
General Assembly.
The latest indicators show that the U.S. and Virginia economies are struggling. Nationally
employment declined for the tenth consecutive month - in October it resulted in a national
unemployment rate of 6.5 percent (4.2 percent in Virginia). The Conference Board’s
national index of leading indicators fell in October to the lowest level on record back to
1969. The Virginia Leading Index grew slightly in August, only the third increase in the
last twelve months. Auto registrations and building permits are significantly less than a
year ago and initial claims for unemployment are much higher. State revenues are now
expected to decline four percent in FY 2009. Local governments are seriously impacted
due to their reliance on decreasing property values: both real estate as well as personal
property.
In light of current revenue performance, on October 9, 2008 the Governor presented an
official revision to the revenue estimates for fiscal years 2009 and 2010. This revision will
result in significant State funding cuts for both fiscal years.
Following is a brief revenue analysis for the fiscal year:
• Real Estate Tax revenues are estimated to be $1.340 million (1.2%) less than
appropriations. The Budget was prepared based on an estimated negative
reassessment rate of 0.60 percent. The 2009 reassessment rate is now
estimated to be a negative 3.15 percent.
• Personal Property Tax revenues are estimated to be $1.556 million (6.8%) less
than appropriations. The decline is due to a shift from high dollar fuel inefficient
December 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
to lower dollar fuel-efficient vehicles, average used vehicle sale prices falling
faster than prior year comparable vehicle sales, and actual decreases in new
vehicle unit sales from prior years.
• Sales Tax revenues are estimated to be $1.815 million (12.9%) less than
appropriations. Revenue projections were prepared anticipating the start of an
economic recovery in mid FY ‘09. Unfortunately that has not materialized.
Estimated collections will be less than FY ‘08. The Commonwealth as a whole
has also experienced less than prior year collections attributed to current
economic conditions. Housing-related, grocery store, department store and
restaurants were flat to negative compared to FY ‘08. Increased internet sales
typically do not generate sales tax revenues.
• Business License revenues are estimated to be $0.116 million (1.1%) less than
appropriations. Even with the weak economy, construction has taken place at
the University. Business license revenues are based on prior year operations
when the economy was somewhat stronger.
• Utility Tax revenues are estimated to be $0.109 million (1.1%) less than
appropriations. The decline in the economy has resulted in reduced gas and
electric power generation, thereby reducing associated utility tax revenues.
• Food and Beverage Tax revenues are anticipated to exceed appropriations by
$0.200 million (3.4%). The increase demonstrates the continued shift from
home to convenience food preparation.
• Other Local Tax revenues are estimated to be $1.059 million (8.6%) less than
appropriations. The shortfall is primarily due to decreased audit revenues,
vehicle license tax collections, recordation tax collections, and seller fees
resulting from the vehicle and real estate market slowdowns which have been
slightly offset by increased delinquent collection fees.
• Other Local Revenues are estimated to be $1.283 million (20.8%) less than
appropriations. The decrease is primarily due to reduced DSS rent
reimbursement, interest earnings, development fees and excess Clerk fees
resulting from the real estate and economic slowdown.
• State Revenues are estimated to be $0.320 million (1.4%) less than
appropriations. The shortfall is due to less than anticipated Public Assistance
and Compensation Board reimbursements.
• Categories with variances of less than $0.100 million have not been analyzed
for this report.
b. Expenditures: The Office of Management and Budget estimates that total expenditures,
including transfers, will be $7.256 million (3.2%) less than appropriations. The reduction
includes frozen positions, operational savings and reduced transfers including schools
and capital.
i. Departmental expenditures are expected to total $79.889 million; a 2.6% savings
or $2.094 million from Budget:
• Administration expenditures are expected to total $10.336 million; a savings of
$0.747 million.
• Judicial expenditures are expected to total $3.833 million; a savings of $0.033
million.
• Public Safety expenditures are expected to total $28.974 million; a savings of
$0.360 million.
• Public W orks expenditures are expected to total $4.443 million, a savings of
$0.232 million.
• Human Services expenditures are expected to total $18.590 million; a savings
of $0.244 million.
• Parks, Recreation and Culture expenditures total $6.238 million; a savings of
$0.086 million.
• Community Development expenditures total $7.475 million; a savings of $0.392
million.
ii. Non-Department expenditures consisting of the Revenue-Sharing payment,
reserves and refunds are expected to total $14.452 million; a 10.0% savings or
$1.614 million from Budget. The full $1.614 million results from the release of the
“lockbox” to fund Local Government operations.
iii. Transfers are expected to total $122.795 million; a 2.8 percent savings or $3.548
million from Budget:
December 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
• Transfers to the School Division are expected to total $98.066 million, a 3.1
percent savings or $3.159 million.
• Transfers to the Capital and Debt Funds are expected to total $24.729 million; a
1.5 percent savings or $0.389 million.
c. Revenues less Expenditures: This report indicates that the fiscal year will end with
$0.002 million of revenues in excess of expenditures:
• Revenues and transfers are projected to experience a $7.254 million shortfall
which should be offset by $7.256 million in expenditure savings.
B. General Fund Budget Comparison Report: The chart in Attachment “B” (on file) tracks
changes in revenues and expenditures over time.
Revenues:
• Real Estate Tax, Personal Property Tax, Business Licenses, Utility Tax, Other
Local Taxes and Federal Revenues show positive growth over last year.
• Sales Tax, Food and Beverage Tax, Other Local Revenue, State Revenues,
Transfers, and Use of Fund Balance show decreases from last year.
Expenditures:
• Public Safety, Human Services, Parks, Recreation & Culture, Non-
Departmental, and Education show increases over last year.
• Administration, Judicial, Public W orks, Community Development, and Non-
School Transfers show decreases from last year.
C. Fund Balance Report: The report (Attachment “C” [on file] ) indicates that the County:
• Has a Preliminary Audited FY ‘08 Fund Balance of $20.440 million as of June
30, 2008,
• Appropriated $0.412 million for FY ‘09 projects,
• Resulting in an estimated June 30, 2008, Fund Balance of $20.028 million,
• Subsequently approved $1.386 million for FY ‘09 projects; and,
• Has Projected Unobligated Funds of $18.642 million as of December 3, 2008.
D. Budget Impact: This report is based on preliminary (pre-audited) operations for FY ‘08 and three
months of financial data for FY ‘09. The financial information contained in the Second Quarter FY
‘09 Financial Report to be presented to the Board in February, 2009 will include audited figures for
FY ‘08 and six months of FY ‘09 financial data. Staff will utilize these figures as the basis for the
FY ‘10 Budget.
This report was received for information.
__________
Item 7.9. Copy of letter dated November 3, 2008, from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning of
Administration, to Grant Cosner, re: LOD-2008-0017 – OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCELS AND
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS – Tax Map 94, Parcels 8 & 48 (Property of KIMCO LC) – Scottsville Magisterial
District, received for information.
__________
Item 7.10. Copy of letter dated October 31, 2008, from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning of
Administration, to Linda C. Benton, re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCELS AND
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS – Tax Map 117, Parcel 20 (Property of Andrew c. Craig Estate) – Samuel Miller
Magisterial District, received for information.
__________
Item 7.11. October 24, 2008 Board Strategic Plan Retreat Follow Up Activities.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that each fall the Board holds a retreat to discuss the
County’s Strategic Plan progress, consider upcoming challenges and opportunities, and review County
trends and citizen expectations. This year, at the suggestion of the Board’s Chairman and Vice-Chairman,
the Board’s fall strategic planning activities included both a work session on October 8 and an all day
retreat on October 24, 2008, in order to provide ample time for staff presentations and Board discussions.
At the October 8 work session, staff briefed the Board on the County’s progress during FY ‘08 toward
attainment of its Strategic Plan goals as well as the County’s 2008 Community Profile. In addition, Dr.
Thomas Guterbock, Director of UVA’s Center for Survey Research (CSR), provided a report to the Board
on the County’s 2008 Citizen Survey’s initial findings. During the October 24 Retreat, the Board reviewed
and discussed the County’s Strategic Plan progress, the County’s five-year financial outlook, staff insights,
and resource needs associated with the County’s priorities, and the Board provided guidance to staff.
At the Retreat, the Board identified which of the Plan’s Strategic Objectives could be considered
complete or near complete, which ones should receive timeline adjustments, and specific resource
options staff should consider during the upcoming Five-Year Financial Plan work sessions. The Board
also directed staff to provide it with additional information in several priority areas. Attached (on file) for
the Board’s information are:
December 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
1) Summary minutes of the October 24 Retreat;
2) List of the Action Items identified at the Retreat; and
3) Follow up information regarding the Affordable Housing Objective Performance Data.
CSR will provide the 2008 Citizen Survey Report to the County in December. The updated
Strategic Plan document (including new timelines, updated data and trends from the Community Profile
and 2008 Citizen Survey) as well as the complete 2008 Citizen Satisfaction Survey Report will be provided
to the Board in January.
The annual Strategic Planning Retreat is scheduled in the fall to inform the budget process
and improve the alignment of the Strategic Plan with County resources. The guidance obtained from
the Board at the October 24 Retreat has been incorporated into the five-year financial planning
process.
Staff recommends that the Board review the information provided and confirm the follow-up action
items identified in Attachment B (on file).
(Discussion: Mr. Rooker said his agenda packet did not include the attachments, and he would
like to have them.)
This item was accepted for information.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Synthetic Turf Athletic Fields.
Mr. Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks & Recreation, said that last month the Board approved a
reappropriation of CIP funding to be used for the School Board’s project to convert the three stadium fields
to synthetic turf, subject to a discussion of health and safety concerns about that surface. Synthetic turf
fields are hotter than natural grass fields, which will require extra sensitivity to potential heat-related
issues. There appears to be a significant difference in the types of injuries between the playing surfaces
with more non-contact injuries and more abrasions and lacerations on synthetic turf; injuries on natural
grass generally result in more loss in playing time and tend to be more severe with more contact and
neuro injuries. He said two nylon fiber fields were closed in New Jersey in April, 2008 when their state
health officials detected unexpected high levels of lead; on July 30 the Consumer Products Safety
Commission announced after their investigation that the fields were safe to play on.
Mr. Mullaney reported that concerns have been expressed about the potential effects of exposure
to the crumb-rubber infill material used in synthetic turf. School staff has researched a New York
Department of Health study from August, 2008 that concluded – based on available evidence – that the
crumb-rubber does not pose a health hazard. To address these and other issues, several guests are in
attendance at this meeting: Mr. Fitzgerald Barnes, Athletic Director of Monticello High School; Ms.
Lindsay Check, the school’s environmental manager; CEO John Pritchett and Director of Sales Tim
Jordan of General Sports Venue – the company that will be supplying the turf product. There is a
particular product that has been selected by all athletic directors because of its playability for all the
different sports it will be used for. If the Board is in favor of contributing to this project, $225,000 is
requested subject to a memorandum of understanding between the County Executive and School
Superintendent regarding community use.
Ms. Mallek asked where the injury information came from, and Mr. Mullaney indicated that the
guests who would be speaking could address that question.
Mr. Dorrier asked what percentage of the money for the fields has been raised privately.
Mr. Barnes addressed the Board, stating that 90 percent of the funding needed has been privately
raised. He explained that he and his staff did research online and spoke with a number of other schools
and sports medicine representatives to gather the information.
Mr. Mullaney added that the information he provided to the School Board is from the American
Journal of Sports Medicine.
Mr. Rooker asked the total cost per field if the total CIP commitment for all three fields combined
is $225,000. Mr. Barnes explained that the cost for all three fields is about $600,000 which has been
reduced because of the market and increased competition.
Mr. Rooker clarified that the County’s commitment would be $75,000 per field. Mr. Barnes
confirmed that the School Board has not allocated anything to the field project. He said they approached
the project from a private perspective, as they did not want to compete with educational dollars.
Mr. Boyd said he had been hesitant to allocate County funds for the project, but what changed his
mind was viewing this as a reallocation of money already in the budget to provide more services to youth
in the County; there would be significant use time for the community.
Mr. Slutzky said his concerns are not about the money, as this seems to provide a lot of use for
the investment, but about the health and safety issues relating to turf. The lead issue and the heat issue
have been problematic in other communities, noting that on June 18 the Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) issued a warning that said there are concerns about lead in turf fields as they
decompose over time due to ultraviolet rays and from abrasions due to use. He said that later in the
December 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
summer the CPSC withdrew its objections to these types of fields based on some preliminary analyses
they had done. In response to that, Congresswoman Rosa DeLora of Connecticut wrote a letter to the
acting chair of the CPSC lambasting her for defective methodology in reaching that conclusion and
identifying inconsistencies and ambiguities in the decision. His own preliminary review of studies shows
the lead levels as comparable to those the EPA requires as the cleanup level for lead in soils at Superfund
sites. It is a factor that he is not entirely comfortable with.
Mr. Rooker said it is his understanding that materials used earlier would emit chemicals such as
lead, and he asked if these materials are still the same composition. Mr. Pritchett said their company is
the exclusive licensee of this turf. His company led the industry in the reduction of heavy metals,
specifically the lead issue that accompanied older turf systems. There was a material called lead
chromate used for colorfastness in polyethylene and nylons but they now use new organic pigments for
that purpose, and the industry has adopted new standards similar to those for food packaging, consumer
toys, water pipes, etc., that have established heavy metal content maximums. He added that there are a
variety of tests available to measure levels, and all of them relate to whether the lead can be ingested;
those tests show that the older forms are safe and do not provide a safety hazard. The industry has
adopted a goal of reducing the amount of heavy metals in the total system to 100 parts per million by
2010; his company’s products are at .001 or .002 lead levels. He said the international standard for
content is set at 85 parts per million, and his company’s total system is well below that. They are
advanced to where the Synthetic Turf Council and international standards are; the numbers are usually 30
to 40 parts per million total in heavy metals, but as it relates to fiber that number is zero.
Mr. Slutzky said the EPA requires reducing that number to 400 parts per million in Superfund site
cleanups. Mr. Pritchett said the infill material and backing have nominal levels of heavy metals, adding
that more turf fields are used in Europe because of the weather there. His company finds the SBR post-
consumer tire materials to be safe and they do not pose any concerns. He referred the Board to the
syntheticturfcouncil.org website.
Mr. Dorrier asked where their products are made. Mr. Pritchett responded that they are made in
Dalton, Georgia. His company is the largest vertical-integrated manufacturing company in the U.S. in
synthetic turf. He said that means all of the components are coming into their factories from big makers of
their own machinery. About 98 percent of all turf made in the U.S. runs through their factories, even if it is
not an Astroturf-branded system. He confirmed that there will be lead in the fill and backing materials, but
they would be at very low levels.
Mr. Slutzky reported that there was a study published on October 28, 2008, that said high levels of
toxic substances were found in the Astroturf they studied. He asked how their assurances could be
sufficient when this contrary evidence exists. Mr. Pritchett replied that he has children and he shares
those concerns, but they have produced 250 fields over the last four years with confidence that the
materials are safe. His company enlisted their own scientists in addition to available studies and data,
adding that the PAHs are found in rubber but they can only be extracted in temperatures that cannot be
replicated except with high ovens or microwaves.
Mr. Slutzky commented that the study he read seemed to disagree with those conclusions. Ms.
Check explained that the New York State Department of Health came out with a fact sheet about the
crumb-rubber infill synthetic turf athletic fields in August, 2008 that addresses these concerns. She said
all of the heavy metal data was done by a third-party laboratory.
Mr. Rooker asked if it were possible to get a written guarantee that a level of parts per million
would not be exceeded. Mr. Pritchett responded that they provide a heavy metal statement for all
products; the heavier metal contents have been found in older products.
Mr. Rooker asked if it would be possible to get that certification and have product samples for
independent testing.
Mr. Dorrier asked the cost per square foot of the product. Mr. Pritchett replied that premium
products – those that are newly engineered and at the highest end – can be up to $8.00 per square foot,
but in the typical system a $4.00 per square foot cost is more applicable with site work adding additional
costs of about $3.00 per square foot. They value-engineer the product to get the cost within a budget;
they have also done things on the site as well as the turf material itself.
Mr. Slutzky said there are other issues of concern, such as the heat-island effect and increased
incidences of MERSA infections. He said data from one study showed surface temperatures on turf on a
98-degree day reaching 200 degrees, noting that even after cooling with water the turf can return to high
temperatures. Mr. Barnes explained that in Albemarle, the fields would not be used during the heat of the
day in June and July and said that the first day for the Virginia High School League to play sports is
August. He mentioned that heat is a problem even on grass fields, and they take measures to insure
athletes stay properly hydrated. He said they contacted Salem High School, where a turf field had been
put in, and were told that they have the same concerns as they had with grass.
Mr. Slutzky mentioned that high school athletes have been lost in the Commonwealth to heat-
related issues in past years. The average surface temperature between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. is about 78.19
degrees, but it does spike in the middle of the day. If they are already managing concerns about heat
stroke and heat related injuries with a 78-degree field, he is concerned that in the enthusiasm for having a
surface that seems state-of-the-art and is appealing in many ways, students might unintentionally be
exposed to severe levels of heat exposure. He is not saying he cannot be persuaded to vote for the
allocation of money, but he has not heard anything today that is persuasive. He has many concerns about
December 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
things mentioned in the articles he has read, so he would rather hold off on making a decision until staff
does a more significant review of these specific issues of concern. He really wants more information,
maybe even having experts and people from the University come in and talk to the Board. Mr. Barnes
said UVA has already put in seven of these fields. In regard to heat, people from all three high schools
meet regularly together to address issues. They have some of the same criteria in place for athletics.
They would not allow student athletes to be on a surface – grass or whatever – when heat is a problem
because it is a concern to them also. They check on heat and humidity every day, and each high school
has a sports medicine trainer on staff.
Mr. Slutzky asked the date of the first home game this year, and what they would do if the field
temperature is 156 in the middle of their first home game. Mr. Barnes responded that their first game will
be held in September starting at 7:30 p.m. and he doubts the temperature will be that high.
Mr. Slutzky said that he is aware of several localities that are tearing up their Astroturf fields
because of concerns from the public about heat-related injuries.
Ms. Mallek commented that the reason for having these fields in the first place is their all-day,
every-day accessibility and use. All of the sudden they are not going to be able to meet that opportunity,
so we are not getting the advantage that we were told we were going to get by making this change. She
added that she is still concerned about the unknown. It could be 20 years before discovering that the turf
may have had an impact on children’s health. She said statistics can be found to support anything no
matter how outrageous the idea. Mr. Mullaney said from a community recreation standpoint the lowest
need for field space is during those hot periods of the summer. These fields would come into use for
them by having lighted fields to play on after dark for youth football. He responded that it is a matter of
scheduling and being sensitive to heat issues. He talked with someone in Salem yesterday where this
type of field was installed. They indicated that their concerns are the same as for regular grass fields. He
is not concerned about heat issues at games when it is dark. He understands these fields cool down
rapidly when the sun is off of them.
Mr. Rooker said that Ms. Diantha McKeel (School Board member) raised issues about this type of
turf field, noting that Brigham Young University and Penn State University have done studies on their fields
that show the difference between surface and air temperatures on the fields of 37 degrees, and 86
degrees hotter than on the grass fields. He asked how rapidly these fields cool down.
Ms. Thomas said there should not be a situation where Board members are never going to vote
for this but are simultaneously asking for more information. She added that she could vote for this, as it is
a good investment, but not if there are probable dangers to children. She suggested asking very specific
questions.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks the bigger question is a sense by some members of this Board that the
School Board and the School System has done their homework on this issue. He thinks some Board
members are saying they have to do that homework for them. He asked Mr. W heeler to weigh in and talk
about that issue.
Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Boyd was suggesting that the Board simply toss this issue back to the
School Board.
Mr. Boyd said Mr. Rooker read from the School Board minutes that there was concern by some
School Board members that this has not been researched adequately and he would like to know if that is
true. He would have hoped the School Board would feel comfortable with this decision.
Mr. Rooker asked if the decision of the School Board was unanimous. Mr. Bryan W heeler, School
Board Chair, said he does not remember, but does know that Ms. McKeel is supporting the project.
Mr. Rooker said he did not see the heat issue answered in the School Board’s minutes. Mr.
W heeler replied that scheduling will help address the heat issues for student athletes, adding that his
daughter plays all over these fields in the summer. Schools all over Virginia are installing these fields and
athletes are playing on them. He said they are recommending this not only to improve sports, but to have
the opportunity to host tournaments in this community. Regarding discussions about environmental,
health and safety issues, Mr. W heeler said the School Board feels they have had these discussions and
want to move forward with this project. He added that an anonymous donor is planning to make a $1.0
million contribution to the new fields.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. W heeler how his daughter felt about the heat issue when playing on these
fields. Mr. W heeler responded it has not been a problem, and there are certainly times when she plays on
the UVA fields in the summer.
Mr. Dorrier asked why the new fields have not been created earlier. Mr. W heeler replied that it
has been a money issue, but now they have the support they need.
Mr. Slutzky said he recognizes the economic benefit a new turf field could provide, but he is not
comfortable without getting more data about lead levels (from someone other than the manufacturer).
Mr. Rooker said he raised the question earlier about obtaining an independent certification of the
content and materials being used in the turf before it is delivered.
December 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
Mr. Slutzky said he wants information about the bio-availability aspect of materials. He would like
to see additional information brought forth by staff on that, as well as more information on MRSA and
information on field temperatures during time of use. Ms. Check explained that she does not have
anything to add regarding the heat issue, but as to the MRSA concern, the field is treated with “Turf Aid,”
an anti-microbial, and there are no additional concerns about MRSA.
Ms. Mallek commented that it is not a simple thing and it would have to be chemically treated and
disinfected. Ms. Check replied that there is a factory-applied treatment with an eight-year warranty; it is a
non-leaching disinfectant applied to the fiber.
Mr. Tucker suggested that two Board members meet with staff regarding the additional
information requested.
Mr. Boyd agreed but asked Mr. Barnes if there is a problem if this decision is delayed. Mr. Barnes
said he has picked up $20,000 and $50,000 contributions in the last two days, and parents are tired of
having their kids play on poor surfaces. He said their goal was to start construction by February 1 on two
out of the three fields, knowing contribution levels help in their efforts to raise funds and move forward.
Mr. Rooker asked if making the decision by the first week in January would be acceptable. Mr.
Barnes replied that he does not want to ask for additional private funding if it is not going to be needed.
Mr. Dorrier said that unless there is some direct evidence that someone has been injured by a
field like this, he thinks this decision should move forward.
Mr. Rooker said he supports having two Board members work with staff over the next few weeks.
He would be willing to come back to a special meeting to review this again.
Mr. Pritchett addressed the Board, stating that he has spent six years dealing with these issues
and investigating concerns. He added that there is no way to trace specific incidents back to turf, but
MERSA, staph, and other microbes are becoming increasingly resistant. His company has adopted a
technology from DOW called the Egis Microbe Shield to provide a 24/7 non-toxic anti-microbial. Their
products would come with an anti-microbial treatment; it is the best technology available at this time. As
to the concerns about heat on the fields, the temperatures increase because of intense direct sunlight and
the fields his company have placed all over the country are in some locations that are much hotter than
Charlottesville. It is a matter of managing time and temperature.
Mr. Slutzky asked if anyone had looked at the possibility of a white field with no pigmentation. Mr.
Pritchett said that has been considered, but there is no significant difference in temperature between light
versus dark colors.
Mr. Boyd asked if this is a matter that actually requires approval by the Board. Mr. Tucker
responded that it does because it requires a specific appropriation.
Mr. Slutzky asked Ms. Thomas for her opinion.
Ms. Thomas said she would be comfortable voting on this today as presented, but it does not
seem that there are enough votes for approval.
Mr. Boyd said there are probably pros and cons to grass versus turf fields.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that there are fewer serious injuries on turf fields, and that is an important
factor.
Mr. Rooker said if the fields currently being played on were tested, the soils would have some
level of heavy metals, microbes, and yeast. There is no material that is completely free of environmental
contaminants. He added that it would be helpful for two Board members to gather additional information
from sources including UVA about what investigation they did before deciding to use these fields, and
what their findings were.
Ms. Mallek asked if the School Board would provide additional layers to the students for skin
protection. Mr. Rooker responded that he is not aware of that procedure. Mr. W heeler explained that the
old fields might have had those issues, but new technology in the field material has eradicated those
concerns.
Mr. Slutzky said he would be happy to move forward with further research.
Ms. Mallek agreed that she would also like to be involved.
Mr. Boyd said when the Supervisors meet with the School Board might be a good time to bring
this up again if there is time to do the research.
Ms. Mallek suggested using schools in Richmond for comparison, as the temperatures there are
more similar to Charlottesville’s than those in Salem.
Mr. Rooker asked for Mr. Mullaney to comment on the community use of the fields. Mr. Mullaney
explained that the fields are intended to accommodate about 30 percent usage by community recreation.
The two projects originally planned – multi-purpose fields at Monticello and Albemarle High Schools –
December 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
were intended to provide lighted space for sports such as youth football. He mentioned that maintenance
of these fields would be from $10,000 to $12,000 per field. This project provides three lighted fields to
play on that are much better quality than current available fields.
Mr. Boyd clarified that Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Mallek would work with staff to bring information back
at the joint School Board/Board of Supervisors meeting the following week. Mr. Davis suggested that Mr.
Tucker put together a committee of Board members and staff to deal with the subject. Mr. Boyd agreed.
(Note: The Board recessed at 11:13 a.m. and reconvened at 11:18 a.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8a. Expansion of the existing water supply system at Earlysville Business Park
to include a proposed new use.
Mr. Glenn Brooks, County Engineer, said there is an existing water system located in a rural area
which does not receive either public water or sewer service. It was originally approved in 1999 when that
area of the County was a designated growth area in the Comprehensive Plan. The system was originally
built for Cooper Industries and has since been sold to a Mr. Foster with the building being used as
warehousing and offices. There is plenty of capacity in the water system itself, plenty of yield in the well;
they are slightly increasing their usage, which will still be less than the system was built to produce. He
said staff recommends approval of the request.
Mr. Slutzky asked for information about the environmental cleanup on the site. Mr. Brooks said
that about ten years ago there was a leaking underground storage tank on the site, and this is a standard
DEQ cleanup issue. The owners have an ongoing system of well monitoring and they are trying to
establish where the plume is traveling and any contamination of the groundwater. They report to the DEQ
and Health Department.
Ms. Mallek noted that in the last couple of years there was a change in the permit to take away the
requirement for monthly reports and the filters are not required to be changed as often as they had been.
Mr. Brooks said he takes for granted that it meets low enough threshold that that can be done. He
suggested that the applicant speak to that directly.
W ith no further questions for staff, Mr. Boyd asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Nick Hahn, the applicant’s representative, said the property is in compliance with the State
Health Department and DEQ with the remediation effort underway. He said the Health Department
encourages them to pump more water than they currently do because of stagnation issues with the
potable water, but the property is in compliance and this request is a minor change in use.
W ith no one from the public rising to speak, the matter was placed before the Board.
Mr. Slutzky asked that Mr. Brooks contact DEQ to confirm that they are aware that the dynamics
in hydrogeology might shift slightly. He then offered motion to approve the water system expansion for
the Earlysville Business Park, with the condition that the improvements to the central water supply system
are approved by the Virginia Department of Health prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for
the new warehouse and machine shop.
Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Slutzky.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Annual StreamW atch 2008 Report, John Murphy.
Mr. John Murphy, Director of StreamW atch, said this report is based on data collected between
2005 and 2007; some of the discussion is drawn from the 2006 report as well as findings developed after
the data window for the report. He explained that the report the Board has is restricted to that data
window, but the presentation today goes outside of that and the 30-page written report is available on the
StreamW atch website. He said StreamW atch is an environmental monitoring program that is governed
and supported by a number of partners and has the sole focus of collecting data and providing information
and interpretation of it. They do not get involved in advocacy, management decisions or policy.
Mr. Murphy reported that StreamW atch also engages a very active technical advisory committee
comprised of a number of individuals with expertise, including Mr. Greg Harper – W ater Resources
Manager for Albemarle County. Most of what they have done is biological monitoring although they are
getting into some new forms of data collection, noting that the bio-monitoring is a cost-effective way of
getting a read on the health of the entire watershed. The organisms that live in a stream indicate the
stream’s ecological health, and a healthy stream harbors many kinds of organisms that include sensitive
organisms such as stoneflies, mayflies, etc.; some somewhat tolerant organisms; and “tough bugs” like
midges. An unhealthy stream has fewer types of organisms dominated by the tough bugs and fewer if any
of the sensitive organisms. During the data window for this report they collected five or six samples at
every site, with each one taking about six hours; they are conducted by trained staff and volunteers and
parallel those done by the DEQ and other environmental agencies around the world.
December 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
Mr. Murphy noted that StreamW atch expects to be granted DEQ Level III certification within the
next year, which means DEQ will regard the data collected in the same way they regard their own data.
The next step in the process is to assess the stream’s health based on multiple samples, and that can fall
into one of five different categories ranging from very poor to very good. This report reflects the
delineation of streams that fail and streams that meet the standard. StreamW atch believes streams can
regain their standard if environmental circumstances or management changes. This report was released
in July and was covered extensively by local media, which he feels did a good job of presenting their
findings. There were 31 representative sites in the report that captured a cross-section of stream types
reflecting a number of land uses and ecological attributes. He stated that 77 percent of streams failed to
meet the biological standard, but only four of the sites were badly impaired and many sites are on the cusp
of “good” and “fair.” Over the course of the five years of monitoring, he said, StreamW atch hasn’t
detected any overall degradation across the watershed.
Mr. Rooker asked who sets the Virginia Aquatic Life water quality standards. Mr. Murphy replied
that the DEQ does, pursuant to EPA Clean W ater Act guidelines. He showed a chart and explained that
the chart includes representation of the Virginia standards for water quality, and many of them are
borderline toggling between the average score which is 55 to 65. At the high end, reference watersheds
have a score of about 80. He added that all of the representative watersheds are degraded relative to
natural conditions.
Mr. Murphy presented information on the relationship between land use, land use intensity and
biological conditions, noting that most of the “wild and rural watersheds” meet the standard. He said that
in rural and ex-urban watersheds with 75 to 85 percent forest cover and an average of 30 acres per
dwelling, failure is beginning to be seen which is not related simply to commercial and residential
development, but also to agricultural use; that has not been verified yet. Ex-urban watersheds with 60 to
80 percent forest cover and an average of 20 acres per dwelling are exhibiting frequent failures; and
suburban watersheds with 55 to 65 percent forest cover and an average of five acres per dwelling are all
failing. He added that the same holds true for the urban category.
Mr. Murphy reported that as a generality, Albemarle parallels most of the Rivanna River
watershed, where streams are suffering from the impacts of historic and current land use. StreamW atch
found particularly strong correlations between biological health and current development indices such as
percent of forest cover and percent of development-impacted land. The Rivanna River Basin
Commission’s technical advisory committee has identified altered hydrology and associated stream
sedimentation as the primary threats to stream health in the Rivanna Basin. The consensus view is that
forest clearance and impervious surfaces cause high runoff that exceeds channel capacity, and
StreamW atch hasn’t examined this interpretation specifically but their data is consistent with that theory.
That committee says that violent stream flows erode stream banks and streambeds and the resulting
sedimentation and streambed instability compromises stream habitat and stream life.
Mr. Murphy added that the problem is not unique to this area. The National Academy of Sciences
recently published a paper documenting the unprecedented rate at which agricultural and forestlands are
being converted for residential and commercial development, creating an extensive stormwater runoff
problem throughout the U.S. In the Rivanna Basin, the relative importance of agricultural impacts is
unclear, but scientific literature says that operations such as livestock grazing can affect stream health.
He noted that in the data StreamW atch collected, indices such as population density and percent of
development-impacted land correlate more strongly with biological health than agricultural indices.
Mr. Murphy commented that as a society, we’re not accustomed to quantifying the economic costs
of stream degradation and he is unaware of any economic analysis of watershed degradation in Central
Virginia. He presented information on the Grand River W atershed in Ontario, which showed that replacing
agricultural lands with reforested land would result in significant reductions in water treatment costs – a 30
percent reduction in sediment removal costs and a 47 percent estimated reduction in phosphorous
removal costs. He mentioned New York’s investment in the Catskills, where they are investing $1.5 billion
to generate cost savings of between $6.0 and $8.0 billion over ten years. He explained that they are
buying land in the watershed and subsidizing sewage treatment plant upgrades instead of building more
treatment facilities downstream.
Mr. Murphy concluded his presentation by reporting that StreamW atch is now engaged in a three-
year land use effect study whereby they plan to improve upon earlier work done examining the relationship
between land use and stream health – collecting more types of data will help answer the Rivanna River
Basin Commission’s questions about sedimentation processes, and some bacteria data collection will
show the impacts of agricultural activities. He explained that the study will also include an updated land-
use land cover map partially funded by the County, the Commission, StreamW atch, and The Nature
Conservancy – it will take satellite imagery and convert it to GIS information that will allow precise
quantification of impervious surface in any given watershed.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the presence of certain types of bugs at a water site means the habitat varies
from swamp to mountain stream. Mr. Murphy replied that he doesn’t know much about swamp bugs but
he believes the bug community in a greatly impaired stream would be closer to the community in a
swampland than a mountain stream. W hen water quality declines, tough bugs can take over because
they can live where other organisms cannot; good water quality allows more organisms to survive and
reproduce.
Mr. Rooker asked where the three-year study was being done. Mr. Murphy responded that it is
being done over the entire Rivanna watershed and includes a multi-county area of focus. He confirmed
December 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
for Mr. Boyd that StreamW atch works closely with the Rivanna River Basin Commission and there is
membership overlap to insure they are not duplicating efforts.
Ms. Thomas said the Board will be getting something from the Rivanna River Basin Commission
in the next couple of weeks urging certain protective actions.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. CountyView W eb Demonstration. Because the Board was running very
late with the agenda, Mr. Boyd said this item will be added to the agenda at an appropriate time after
lunch.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Economic Development Policy, W ork Session.
Mr. Boyd asked if other members wished to hold a work session on the Economic Development
Policy today. By consensus, the Board agreed to postpone this discussion until January 7, 2009.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing: To consider an ordinance to amend Chapter 9, Motor
Vehicles and Traffic, of the Albemarle County Code, by amending Article I, In General, and Article IV,
County Vehicle Licenses. The proposed amendment would 1) eliminate the requirement to display a
County vehicle decal, 2) make failure to obtain a County vehicle license a Class 4 misdemeanor, an, 3)
eliminate the requirement that a vehicle license tax be paid before a violation for a failure to obtain a
vehicle license could be discharged. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on
November 17, 2008 and November 24, 2008.)
Mr. Joe Correa, Division Manager - Revenue and Taxation, said Finance Department staff has
proposed the elimination of vehicle decals. Some of the largest localities in Virginia have eliminated the
placing of decals on vehicles, especially in transient areas such as Northern Virginia and Tidewater. He
said Mr. Tucker asked about eliminating the decals during the County’s move to permanent decals, but he
wanted trends in the State to be investigated. Since that time, over 51 localities have eliminated their
vehicle decals. Counties outside of large urban areas have followed the lead of the cities and abolished
the decal system. He feels there are controls in place to prevent any loss of revenue. The localities he
checked with have not experienced declines in revenues attributable to the elimination of vehicle decals.
Ms. Thomas said the County uses those decals to determine residence of fisherman at the
reservoir and other recreational locations. She asked if there is a device that can be pointed at a license
plate to survey where cars are from. Mr. Correa said Arlington County is very aggressive in that regard.
They use a device that looks like a radar gun in about 150 parking lots and garages to find out whether a
vehicle is on their tax rolls; if they are not registered, they place a notice on the windshield of that car
requiring the owner to come to the treasurer’s office within 24 hours. Many other localities said they are
checking licenses in both refuse facilities and parks, or just in parks. Mr. Tucker mentioned that at
recycling centers they are beginning to question those who drive in, noting that those surveys are not done
every day but just twice a year.
In response to Mr. Slutzky’s question about the device that reads plates, Mr. Correa said they cost
$18,000.
Mr. Slutzky said the figure of 20,000 decals seems low since there are 93,000 people in
Albemarle County. Mr. Correa responded that when the County went to a permanent decal scheme
several years ago, it did not affect tax collections. Mr. Davis said the City of Charlottesville, Orange
County and Fluvanna County have done away with decals so surveys are becoming increasingly difficult to
do. Mr. Correa said Augusta County is doing away with their decals and that revenue line item, choosing
instead to bump up the personal property tax rate. There is an employee in the Finance Department who
reviews thousands of DMV records every week and follows up on any questionable item to insure that a
citizen in Albemarle County is on Albemarle’s tax rolls.
W ith no further questions for staff, Mr. Boyd opened the public hearing.
Mr. Bruce McCall said three years ago he recommended to the Board that elimination of decals
become a permanent measure. He feels the expense involved in the decal process is unnecessary and
wasteful. He encouraged the Board to search out all expenses that fall into this category. He said that
between $300,000 and $500,000 is allocated to nonprofit organizations in the County budget; he thinks
they should step up their own fundraising as he feels these are low priority dollars that could be removed
from the budget. He then recommended that the Board approve this ordinance amendment.
W ith no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed and the matter
placed before the Board.
Mr. Dorrier immediately offered motion to adopt An Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Chapter
9, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by amending Sec. 9-118,
Removal or immobilization of vehicles with outstanding parking violations – Enforcement of parking
regulations; notice of violations; waiver of trial; contesting charges; penalties - Sec. 9-401, Violations -
Sec. 9-403, Application for decal; payment of tax; issuance of decal - Sec. 9-406, License tax – Refunds -
Sec. 9-408, Decal not to be issued until all personal property taxes are paid - Sec. 9-409, Duration, and by
repealing Sec. 9-410, Display of license decal, etc. - Sec. 9-411, Decal for replacement vehicle - Sec. 9-
412, Duplicate license decal, etc.
December 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
Ms. Thomas seconded the motion, which passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Slutzky.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The Ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 08-9(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 9, MOTOR VEHICLES AND
TRAFFIC, 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
9, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, Article I, In General, and Article IV, County Vehicle Licenses, is
hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 9-118 Removal or immobilization of vehicles with outstanding parking violations –
Enforcement of parking regulations; notice of violations; waiver of trial; contesting
charges; penalties
Sec. 9-401 Violations
Sec. 9-403 Application for decal; payment of tax; issuance of decal
Sec. 9-406 License tax – Refunds
Sec. 9-408 Decal not to be issued until all personal property taxes are paid
Sec. 9-409 Duration
By Repealing:
Sec. 9-410 Display of license decal, etc.
Sec. 9-411 Decal for replacement vehicle
Sec. 9-412 Duplicate license decal, etc.
CHAPTER 9. MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC
ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL
Sec. 9-118 Removal or immobilization of vehicles with outstanding parking violations—
Enforcement of parking regulations; notice of violations; waiver of trial;
contesting charges; penalties.
A. Police officers and other uniformed personnel designated by the chief of police to
enforce the parking provisions of this code shall post a written notice of violation on the windshield
of each vehicle found illegally parked. Such notice of violation shall state that the recipient of the
notice may elect to waive his or her right to appear and be tried for the offense or offenses
indicated in the notice.
B. Persons desiring to waive trial may do so by voluntarily remitting to the office of
the director of finance the amount of the fine stipulated for each violation marked on the notice.
Such fines shall be levied in accordance with the schedule set forth in paragraph (E) of this
section. If the required amount is not received in the office of the director of finance or mailed and
postmarked within forty-eight hours after the notice of violation is issued, the amount of the
applicable fine shall be doubled.
C. W henever the fines are paid by mail, the responsibility for receipt of the payment
by the director of finance shall lie with the registered owner of the vehicle parked in violation.
Payment may be made by personal check; provided, that if such check is returned for insufficient
funds, the vehicle owner shall remain liable for the parking violations, and shall likewise be subject
to a service charge of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for processing the returned check.
D. Any recipient of a notice of violation desiring to contest the charges cited in the
notice shall appear at the office of the director of finance and, on forms provided by the director of
finance, file a written request for administrative review and dismissal of the charges. The facts of
the request shall be reviewed and commented upon by a representative of the director of finance
and a representative of the police department, who shall recommend whether the request should
be approved or denied. Acting on such request and recommendation, the attorney for the
commonwealth or his assistant shall decide whether the charge shall be dismissed. The recipient
of the notice shall indicate on the request for review whether a hearing in court is demanded in the
event the request for dismissal is denied. If the request for review is made within forty-eight (48)
hours of the violation, the recipient shall have an additional forty-eight (48) hours after denial of
the request to remit the fine, before the amount thereof is doubled.
E. The schedule of fines shall be as follows:
Offense Paid before
96 hours
Paid after
96 hours
Parking on Sidewalk $10.00 $20.00
Blocking Driveway $10.00 $20.00
Park within 15 feet of fire hydrant $10.00 $20.00
December 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
Park within bus zone $10.00 $20.00
Park in crosswalk $10.00 $20.00
Double Parking $10.00 $20.00
Parking in Fire Lane $25.00 $50.00
Parking in loading zone $10.00 $20.00
Parking in prohibited zone $10.00 $20.00
Overtime parking $5.00 $10.00
Parking within 50 feet of railroad
crossing
$10.00 $20.00
Parking alongside or opposite street
obstruction or excavation
$10.00 $20.00
Parking on bridge $10.00 $20.00
Parking where prohibited $10.00 $20.00
Handicapped Parking $100.00 $200.00
F. Any vehicle owner who fails to respond to a notice of violation, either by paying
the stipulated fines or by filing a request for review or hearing with the director of finance within ten
days, shall be subject to summons and arrest pursuant to Virginia Code § 46.2-941.
(10-11-89; Ord. of 6-9-93; Code 1988, § 12-9.1; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 08-9(1), 12-3-08)
State law reference--Va. Code § 46.2-1225.
ARTICLE IV. COUNTY VEHICLE LICENSES
Sec. 9-400 Vehicle license tax imposed.
There is hereby levied a license tax upon every person owning a motor vehicle, trailer or
semitrailer normally garaged, stored or parked in the County and used or intended to be regularly
operated upon the streets or highways in the County, except as otherwise specifically provided in
this article.
(Code 1967, § 12-90; Ord. of 2-14-90; Code 1988, § 12-21; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 05-9(2),
12-7-05, effective 1-1-06)
State law reference--Va. Code § 46.2-752.
Sec. 9-401 Violations.
It shall be unlawful for any owner or operator of a motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer to
fail to obtain a valid local license, as required by this article. Law enforcement officers may issue
summonses or warrants for violations. A violation of this article shall constitute a Class 4
misdemeanor.
(Ord. of 8-8-90; Ord. of 6-9-93; Code 1988, § 12-21.1; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 05-9(2), 12-7-
05, effective 1-1-06; Ord. 08-9(1), 12-3-08)
State law reference--Va. Code § 46.2-752(G).
Sec. 9-402 Exempted vehicles-Generally.
A. The provisions of this article shall not apply to any vehicle exempted by the
provisions of Virginia Code §§ 46.2-663 through 46-2.683 or Virginia Code § 46-2-755, nor shall
the provisions of this article apply to any vehicle licensed pursuant to Virginia Code §§ 46.2-750
through 46.2-75l.
B. The provisions of this article shall not apply to any carrier operating under a
certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the state corporation commission for
buses operated in special or chartered party service or to any carrier operating under a certificate
of public convenience and necessity issued by the state corporation commission or the Interstate
Commerce Commission, or under a local franchise granted by any city or town pursuant to
Virginia Code § 46.2-696.
(Code 1967, § 12-91; Ord. of 2-14-90; Code 1988, § 12-22; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference--Va. Code §§ 46.2-663 through 46.2-683, 46.2-696, 46.2-750, 46.2-751, 46.2-755.
Sec. 9-403 New vehicles required to obtain a license.
The purchaser of a new vehicle or a new resident of the County is required to obtain a
vehicle license within thirty (30) days of the purchase date or the date the owner moved into the
County.
(Code 1967, § 12-92; Ord. of 2-14-90; Ord. No. 96-12(1), 12-11-96; Code 1988, § 12-24; Ord. 98-
A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 05-9(2), 12-7-05, effective 1-1-06; Ord. 08-9(1), 12-3-08)
State law reference--Va. Code § 46.2-752(I).
Sec. 9-404 License tax--Amounts.
A. On all motor vehicles, except as otherwise specifically provided in this article,
there shall be an annual license tax based on gross vehicle weight. The license tax shall be thirty-
December 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
eight dollars and fifty cents ($38.50) for vehicles with gross vehicle weights of four thousand
(4,000) pounds or less and forty-three dollars and fifty cents ($43.50) for gross weights in excess
of four thousand (4,000) pounds. Gross maximum loaded weight shall be substituted for gross
vehicle weight for motor vehicles not designed and used primarily for the transportation of
passengers.
B. On every motorcycle there shall be an annual license tax of twenty-six dollars and
fifty cents ($26.50).
C. On every trailer or semitrailer not designed and used for transportation of
passengers, there shall be an annual license tax as follows:
Gross W eight Annual Tax
0 - 1,500 lbs. $19.50
1,501 lbs. and above $30.00
D. In the case of a combination of a tractor-trailer or semitrailer, each vehicle
constituting a part of such combination shall be taxed as a separate vehicle.
E. On every motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer upon which well-drilling machinery is
attached or other "specialized mobile equipment" as defined in Virginia Code § 46.2-700(B), there
shall be an annual license tax of sixteen dollars and fifty cents ($16.50).
F. Except as provided in section 9-403(B), the license tax prescribed herein shall be
due and payable on or before June 5 of each year, and shall be included and separately stated on
the personal property tax bill.
(Code 1967, § 12-93; 1-18-73; 6-7-89; Code 1988, § 12-25; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 99-9(1),
11-10-99; Ord. 02-9(1), 11-6-02; Ord. 05-9(2), 12-7-05, effective 1-1-06; Ord. 07-9(2), 12-5-07,
effective 1-1-08)
State law reference--Va. Code §§ 46.2-694(A), 46.2-694.1, 46.2-752, 46.2-1168.
Sec. 9-405 License tax--Prorating.
For new registrations only, the license tax prescribed by this article shall be prorated
monthly commencing with the month in which such license tax first becomes due and payable.
Renewals, timely or otherwise, of previously registered vehicles, trailers or semitrailers shall not
be prorated. The license tax shall be collected from and include that month on the basis of one-
twelfth of the annual license tax through each month remaining in the current license year. The
prorated license tax shall be rounded to the nearest dollar. In no case, shall the amount of license
tax collected be less than two dollars ($2.00).
(Code 1967, § 12-94; 4-21-76; 6-7-89; Ord. of 3-20-91; Code 1988, § 12-26; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98;
Ord. 05-9(2), 12-7-05, effective 1-1-06)
State law reference--Va. Code § 46.2-752(A).
Sec. 9-406 License tax--Refunds.
Any person who has paid a license tax under this article who disposes of the vehicle,
trailer or semitrailer for which the tax was paid and does not purchase another vehicle, trailer or
semitrailer may request a prorated refund of the license tax paid. The director of finance shall
refund to the applicant one-twelfth (1/12) of the annual license tax for each full month remaining in
the current license year. The refund shall be rounded to the nearest dollar. an amount of less
than two dollars ($2.00) shall not be refunded nor applied to any other fee, tax or amount due the
County of Albemarle.
(Code 1967, § 12-95; 4-21-76; 6-7-89; Ord. of 2-14-90; Ord. No. 96-12(1), 12-11-96; Code 1988,
§ 12-27; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 05-9(2), 12-7-05, effective 1-1-06; Ord. 08-9(1), 12-3-08)
State law reference--Va. Code § 46.2-752(A).
Sec. 9-407 License tax--Disposition.
All license taxes collected pursuant to this article shall be deposited by the director of
finance in the general fund of the County.
(Code 1967; § 12-96; 4-21-76; Ord. of 2-14-90; Code 1988, § 12-28; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord.
05-9(2), 12-7-05, effective 1-1-06)
Sec. 9-408 License not to be issued until all personal property taxes are paid.
No motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer taxable under the provisions of this article shall
receive a vehicle license unless and until the applicant for such license shall have produced
satisfactory evidence that all personal property taxes on the motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer to
be licensed which have been assessed or are assessable against such applicant have been paid,
and satisfactory evidence that any other delinquent manufactured home, motor vehicle, trailer or
semitrailer personal property taxes owing by the applicant and which have been properly
assessed or are assessable against the applicant have been paid.
December 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
(Code 1967, 12-97; 4-9-80; Ord. of 8-8-90; Code 1988, § 12-29; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 05-
9(2), 12-7-05, effective 1-1-06; Ord. 08-9(1), 12-3-08)
State law reference--Va. Code § 46.2-752(C).
Sec. 9-409 Duration.
The license tax year under the terms of this article shall commence on the first day of
January and shall expire on the thirty-first day of December of the calendar year.
(Code 1967, § 12-98; Ords. (2) of 2-14-90; Code 1988, § 12-30; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 05-
9(2), 12-7-05, effective 1-1-06; Ord. 08-9(1), 12-3-08)
Sec. 9-410 Reserved.
Sec. 9-411 Reserved.
Sec. 9-412 Reserved.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Public Hearing: SP-2008-033, Shadwell Market (Signs #8 & 20).
Proposal: Use of more than 400 gallons of groundwater per site-acre per day for convenience
store.
Zoning Category/General Usage: C-1 Commercial-retail sales and service uses; residential uses
by special use permit (15 units/acre); EC Entrance Corridor Overlay-to protect properties of
historic, architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts of development along routes of
tourist access.
Section: 22.2.2.11, Uses permitted by right, not served by public water, involving water
consumption exceeding 400 gallons per site acre per day. Uses permitted by right, not served by
public sewer, involving anticipated discharge of sewage other than domestic wastes.
Comprehensive Plan Land Use/Density: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,
open space and natural, historic and scenic resources/density (.5 unit/acre in development lots).
Entrance Corridor: Yes.
Location: Intersection of US 250 (Richmond Rd) and Routes 22/231.
Tax Map/Parcel: Tax Map 79, Parcel 9.
Magisterial District: Scottsville.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on ?.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff’s report which is on file in the Clerk’s Office and made a part
of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said this is a request for redevelopment of the
Shadwell Market site to allow usage of groundwater to exceed 400 gallons per site acre per day; at this
time there is a site plan in process. This store is at the corner of Routes 22 and 250 and was zoned for
commercial use prior to the rural area plan for this area. The ordinance permits up to 400 gallons per site
acre per day without special use permit, but since this is expected to exceed that amount a special use
permit is requested. He said staff has found that the requested level of water use would not affect the
supply of groundwater for nearby properties; there is the existence of MTBE contamination in the general
area - based on an analysis done by groundwater staff, they do not expect the requested water use to lead
to contamination on the site. This type of contamination can be easily detected and filtered. He said staff
and the Planning Commission have both recommended approval of this permit with no conditions
attached.
Ms. Thomas asked if the presence of MTBE led to the addition of a jurisdictional (service) area for
the ACSA for what was going to be residential property; was it because there is a taste and odor problem.
W hy is this contamination being taken so casually?
Mr. Cilimberg said that jurisdictional area request was made because of the existence of the
contaminant, and because of water quality concerns the Board allowed only the existing structures to have
water. In this particular case there is no contamination evident at the site so there is not an issue in
granting the special use permit, but should MTBE become evident on this site, it can be filtered and dealt
with in the future.
Ms. Thomas said she would hate to see creeping jurisdictional lines and would not want approval
to imply that jurisdictional area designation is just around the corner.
Mr. Slutzky asked what effect the increased draw from the groundwater table would have on the
contamination plume from the nearby GOCO site. Mr. Cilimberg said that location is some distance away
and it is difficult to tell from the underground geology whether it is even in the same area of the plume.
Groundwater staff did look at that and a groundwater test was done for the Church of the Nazarene site.
That test found one foot of drawdown per .12 gallons per minute pumped. Using that rate at Shadwell
would allow for a reasonable assumption that pumping 1,000 gallons over the 17 hours per day the store
is open would render a drawdown of 8.17 feet at the well. The staff’s report indicates that the distance
below the casing of the Church’s well to the water bearing zone is 230 feet and the effect of the drawdown
would be a matter of inches not feet. The judgment is that the drawdown is non-existent or negligible
even pulling this water will not pull on the plume that is in an area farther removed from this location.
W ith no further questions from staff, Mr. Boyd opened the public hearing and asked the applicant
to speak.
December 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
Mr. L. F. W ood, owner of the Shadwell Store, said they have been working on this with County
staff for two years. The site plan has been approved except for the special use permit requested today for
the water. The old Shadwell Market used less than 400 gallons per day, but the new store will probably
use more than that as it will be more modern. He said there is no foreseeable reason to believe that any
other contamination can leak into the site as their drawdown will be minimal.
Mr. Slutzky suggested that Mr. W ood explore a geothermal HVAC system, as it might be more
cost-effective for him in the long run. Mr. W ood said the area they are using on the north side of Route
250 is about one-half of an acre, and on the other side of Route 250 is another one-half an acre being
used for drain fields and a drip system to handle about 1,000 gallons per day. He said the holding tanks
underground have meant they are maxed out on space, but he does like the efficiency of a geothermal
system.
W ith no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter was
placed before the Board.
Mr. Dorrier immediately offered motion to approve SP-2008-033. Ms. Thomas seconded the
motion, which passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Slutzky.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Closed Meeting. At 12:16 p.m., motion was offered by Ms. Mallek that the
Board go into a 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. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Slutzky.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Slutzky.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Certify Closed Meeting. At 2:09 p.m., the Board reconvened into open
session.
Motion was immediately offered by Ms. Mallek that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to
the best of each Board member’s knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the
open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion
authorizing the closed session were heard, discussed or considered in the closed session.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Slutzky.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Boards and Commissions: Vacancies/Appointments.
Mr. Slutzky offered motion to:
Appoint Mr. DeForest (Mike) Mellon to the Natural Heritage Committee with said term to expire
September 30, 2012.
Appoint Mr. Albert LaFavre, Jr. to the Region Ten Community Services Board to fill an unexpired
term which will end on June 30, 2011.
Appoint Mr. John Springett to the Police Department Citizens Advisory Committee to fill an
unexpired term which will end on March 5, 2010.
Reappoint Mr. Ross Stevens to the ACE Appraisal Review Committee with said term to expire
December 31, 2009.
Reappoint Mr. David Booth as an alternate member to the Board of Building Code Appeals with
said term to expire November 21, 2013.
Reappoint Mr. Bruce Dotson to the Public Recreational Facilities Authority with said term to expire
December 13, 2011.
Reappoint Mr. Reed Muehlman to the Rivanna Solid W aste Authority Citizens Advisory
Committee with said term to expire December 31, 2010.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
December 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Slutzky.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17a. Transportation Matters: VDOT Monthly Report.
Mr. Allan Sumpter, Residency Administrator, said VDOT is still working actively on the W oodlands
Road/Rea’s Ford Road intersection. He has set a goal for establishing a plan for that project by the end of
this month. He said VDOT is engaged in conversations with property owners and the Traffic Engineering
about available options.
__________
Mr. Sumpter reported that VDOT is planning to start concrete work on the Crozet curb project
sometime next week, weather permitting.
__________
Mr. Sumpter said the Rural Rustic project for W alnut Level Road has been delayed by cold
weather conditions. It will not be completed this year as hoped. VDOT will put base stone down and will
resume work in the spring. He said inquiries have been received about whether funds will go away if the
work is not completed by a certain time, but there is no time limit on project completion and the funding will
remain in place.
__________
Mr. Sumpter said that Advance Mills Bridge right-of-way negotiations and utility relocations are still
ongoing. Both the telephone and power companies are engaged in the work as well. He added that the
final administrative work such as printing contract documents and the final sets of plans with signatures is
ongoing and on target for advertisement on January 13.
Ms. Mallek asked Mr. Sumpter to explain the impact of the Burch’s rejection of VDOT’s land
purchase offer on the right-of-way timeframe. Mr. Sumpter said he cannot comment fully because it is still
under negotiation, but whenever there is a refusal there is a filing of a condemnation certificate; he is not
sure that has been done. He added that there has been enough done in the process that the project can
be advertised and the right-of-way issue does not have to be settled prior to commencing construction.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17b. Transportation Matters not listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Dorrier asked for a report on Apple Mountain Road (Route 618) stating that there is a deep
ditch about a mile from Route 6 and two cars have had wrecks there in the last six months.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she will be talking to the Legislators about speed limits on rural roads, and she
thanked Mr. Sumpter for the information he provided related to that.
__________
Ms. Thomas asked about the weight limit on Dry Creek Bridge. Mr. Sumpter said it is still under
evaluation due to the railroad company putting timbers back on the bridge that are smaller than the size
VDOT normally uses. There is an ongoing discussion about how to deal with it.
__________
Ms. Thomas commented that there needs to be a better strategy for detours when I-64 is blocked
as it is confusing for people who get detoured off of the interstate. She thinks improved signage would
help, and added that this is a City issue also when the portion of the interstate that falls in the City is
affected. Mr. Sumpter explained that VDOT has established teams to deal with emergencies – police
departments, fire departments, VDOT, etc.
__________
Ms. Thomas said including the name of the roads in his report in addition to the route numbers is
helpful to her.
__________
Mr. Rooker said the MPO has established priorities for bridge projects in their plan. This was
done to insure they are in the long-range plan in the event Federal money becomes available. He added
that there is potential for a public works program in the next Federal administration and he wants to make
sure Albemarle is ready to act if there is an allocation for bridges. Mr. Sumpter responded that this is
being done, and some of the priorities have been set by Mr. David Pierce – VDOT’s bridge engineer. He
also mentioned that there may be lower postings placed on some bridges as they are deteriorating more
quickly than expected.
Mr. Rooker said that some of those bridges need to be replaced as they are serving a lot of traffic,
but there is not funding currently available for those repairs. Mr. Sumpter stated that the entire bridge
program, including both new construction and repairs, is being looked at much more closely than in the
past.
__________
Mr. Rooker pointed out that the turn lane at Dunlora is difficult to see, especially in the dark or
when it is raining. He said it would be helpful to put high visibility paint and reflectors on the turn lane. Mr.
December 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
Sumpter replied that all of that area is going to be affected by the Meadow Creek Parkway project; also,
repairs in those areas tend to be postponed.
__________
Mr. Rooker mentioned that the improvement on Route 29 North in front of the Post Office has not
accomplished its purpose. The turn lane disappears rapidly, stops when a piece of land juts out, and then
reappears as a turn lane. He suggested eliminating that piece of land so people do not have to veer left
back into traffic.
Mr. Slutzky agreed that has been an issue for a long time and perhaps VDOT could reevaluate
the removal of that small piece of land. Mr. Sumpter said VDOT was waiting to see what would happen in
that area, noting that there is a box drop inlet drainage structure there which would involve substantially
more work to remove that piece of land. He mentioned that there was a bus stop on that land.
Mr. Rooker expressed his appreciation for the work Mr. Sumpter and VDOT have been able to do
with their limited resources.
__________
Ms. Mallek said that Earlysville residents are pleased at how quickly the bridge at Buck Mountain
Creek has been replaced.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. CountyView W eb Demonstration.
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, said this presentation will be live using
the CountyView W eb program. This is an application that allows people to see the same information staff
uses to administer projects as they go through the review process. This will greatly improve transparency
in what staff is doing and public access to information, adding that there will be ongoing improvements to
the program. He said staff will hold a training program to help the public learn the program and better
understand the process. There will be an extensive advertising campaign in January before this program
is formally “rolled out.” He mentioned that the training would be available to the development community
and the general public; the program is already receiving 200 to 250 “hits” per week.
Mr. Francis MacCall, Customer Service Planner, said CountyView can be accessed from several
web locations – the main one being the E-government drop down menu on the County’s website. He said
to access the program a user needs to know what they are looking for. This search is often prompted by
a letter received as an adjacent property owner or something learned through media coverage. An
application number for a project can be used and a contact number will be provided for user help.
Mr. Dorrier asked if deeds will be recorded on this system. Mr. McCall replied that they will not be
available here. If the tax map and parcel number are known, you can find neighboring parcels based on
that information; building applications can be researched via application number or parcel ID. He
demonstrated on a computer the process of looking up a particular property, using the building permit
number and finding the status of a certificate of occupancy and information on subcontractors, application
details, etc.
Mr. Graham said this is a way to find if the applicant is complying with State law and using
licensed contractors. Mr. McCall pointed out that there is automatic generation of an inspection list when
an application is recorded, and while not all inspections are needed for a building permit the system
assists with scheduling those that are required. He added that a builder can access the system and fill in
the appropriate inspection information. He said it shows basic information about property searches,
indicating that a user can search by address, street name, parcel ID, tax map, parcel and owner name.
He said using the parcel activity link will show a user everything going on for that property. He explained
that under planning applications, a user can search for developments such as Hollymead Towncenter, Old
Trail, etc.
Mr. Graham noted that Old Trail has about 100 pertinent applications, and the only thing the public
will not be able to see is a zoning violation complaint as that information is confidential.
Mr. Boyd asked for a demonstration of pending Comprehensive Plan amendments. Mr. Graham
and Mr. McCall showed information such as “Planning Commission (PC) approved” and the date and time
at which those decisions were made. Mr. Graham emphasized that no other locality has come close to
what Albemarle is doing as far as available information, and soon there will be staff reports, photographs,
supporting information, etc. online. It is going to make Community Development a very transparent
department for the public.
Mr. Slutzky commented that having the ability to sort by date would be valuable. Mr. Graham
responded that there are several different general search parameters available with this system.
Ms. Mallek asked if an application must be made on paper first and then entered. Mr. Graham
replied that the department provides application forms as a starting point for the applicant to insure that
they have the necessary information, and essentially provides hands-on training for the public. He
confirmed that all of the data entry is being done by individual County reviewers, and said that with newer
applications there is an attachment that includes letters that can be scanned directly into this system. He
said meeting agendas are now available through hyperlinks.
December 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
Ms. Thomas asked if historic preservation information comes up for particular properties. Mr.
McCall replied that it is part of basic property information. Mr. Graham explained that the application
information tells the County reviewer intaking the permit whether a property is in the Entrance Corridor,
has a conservation easement, etc. There are those special districts and the system will flag those and let
staff know an application needs to be treated differently.
Ms. Lee Catlin, County, Community Relations Director, mentioned that staff will be doing monthly
“drop-ins,” open opportunities for entry, and will be posting a tutorial online for new users. They will be
continuously accepting input and suggestions for further improvements to the system.
Mr. Graham noted that the more information given, the more information people will want and this
may actually turn out to create more work for staff rather than less work.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Five Year Financial Plan, W ork Session.
Mr. Richard W iggins, Director of Finance, said Mr. Boyd had noted earlier in the meeting that the
revenue shortfall in the first quarter was estimated at $7.2 million. He explained that the Five-Year
Financial Plan figures for 2009 were based on projected revenues as of October 14, 2008, when the
model was built. It also assumed a one-cent increase in the tax rate to 72 cents for calendar year 2009
based on the Board’s approved Five-Year Plan from last year. He said the first quarter financial report is
based on the latest financial information and the continuation of the currently adopted 71-cent tax rate. He
emphasized that this national economic downturn is unprecedented in its scale and how quickly it is
occurring, adding that the State is now reducing its revenue estimates for the next two-year period by
approximately $700.0 million.
Mr. W iggins said staff is anticipating declines in several significant revenue sources – sales tax,
utility tax, interest income, development fees, business licenses, and food and beverage taxes. This
shortfall for FY 2009 is balanced by expenditure savings and reductions in transfers to Schools and
Capital; the impact will potentially affect the projections for FY 2010 and beyond if the shortfalls occur. He
said staff will present the second quarter financial report and the FY 2010 budget to the Board in February,
2009. At that time additional financial information will be available including reassessment figures, holiday
season sales tax receipts, vehicle assessments, six-month expenditure data, etc. He said staff is
encouraging the Board to continue its review and adoption of the Five-Year Financial Plan; it is not the FY
2010 budget or a five-year budget but a planning document to identify Board priorities.
Mr. Boyd said it was his impression from the latest numbers the Board had been working with that
the FY 2008-09 Budget was going to be $4.9 million short in revenues. He asked if that figure has now
escalated to $7.2 million. He knows that if a penny is put on the tax rate, the County will get half of that
amount. He asked if things are getting worse. Mr. W iggins explained that in the six or more weeks since
staff prepared the figures in mid-October for the Five-Year Financial Plan, information being received
continues to show declines.
Ms. Mallek commented that it has changed about $2.5 million in six weeks. Mr. W iggins replied
that of that $2.3 million, approximately $800,000 is the impact of that penny on the property tax rate; it is
still about a $1.5 million decrease in projected revenues for the current year.
Mr. Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive, said the reassessment looks a little better than
projected, but that figure is not reflected in this report yet but will be next quarter. He added that the
State’s shortfall is now projected to be $3.2 billion instead of the originally anticipated $2.5 billion, and car
and sales taxes continue to decline. This is a very volatile time. He said this report was only finalized last
week, and was distributed immediately. He emphasized that the data are constantly changing based on
the most current information. Staff needs to do a better job of making the distinctions between those two
fiscal years.
Mr. W iggins presented an overview of what staff has already done and discussed with the Board
in terms of balancing the plan. He explained that they have focused on reductions in operating costs –
frozen positions at various levels, a $1.7 million reduction in non-personnel operating expenditures, no
increase in salaries or funding in community agencies in FY 2010, elimination of previously approved
Board initiatives, and delays in capital projects with associated operating impacts.
Mr. Rooker asked if those outside agencies have been notified that there will be no increase for
them next year. He said that usually modest increases are given. Mr. Tucker commented that staff did
not want to notify them before the Board had its work sessions on the budget. Mr. Foley mentioned that a
joint letter from Mr. Tucker and the City Manager was distributed to all agencies about six weeks ago
indicating the tenuous financial situation and the probability of there being no increase for the coming year.
Mr. W iggins said that looking at increases in available resources for operations, the Plan reduces
funding to Capital programs by three cents and it also utilizes the effective tax rate, a 3.5-cent increase,
based on the residential real estate assessment change for calendar year 2009 and beyond. He
explained that about 85 percent of residential properties have been reassessed, with an average decline
being expected as five percent but it is actually closer to four percent.
Mr. W iggins said the Board has talked about use of the lockbox to unfreeze additional positions
and to also establish a rainy day fund. As to the rainy day fund, the Plan sets aside $0.5 million in fiscal
years 2010 through 2012; it increases that to $600,000 in FY 2013 and $700,000 in FY 2014. The Plan
also changes the number of frozen positions because of additional funding made available to Local
December 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
government. A total of 47 positions are frozen in FY 2010, two would be unfrozen in FY 2011, the same
number would be kept frozen in FY 2012, three would be unfrozen in FY 2013, and eight more would be
unfrozen in FY 2014.
Mr. W iggins said that attached to the Executive Summary (on file) are two pieces of information
the Board requested – a ten-year history of General Fund personnel by department and a matrix that
summarizes all adjustments and potential funding needed to reinstate particular items. Staff added some
additional information concerning the increase needed to provide a four percent average increase for
outside agencies – it would require a 0.8-cent increase in the tax rate. Just to provide a four percent
increase to human service agencies would necessitate a 0.3-cent increase in the tax rate. He clarified
that this chart (on the screen) starts with a 3.5-cent increase.
Mr. W iggins said the numbers presented in the First-Quarter Financial Report have not been
updated for FY 2010 in the model. The lower revenues in the current year could have an impact on 2010.
He said the numbers are still fluctuating, and in February staff will provide the Second Quarter Financial
Report along with the FY 2010 budget. The numbers will change again. It is a continually moving target.
Ms. Thomas asked if any thought had been given to the stressful impact of a long recession on
agencies such as the Social Services Department. She anticipates an increased demand on their
programs. Mr. Tucker responded that staff is looking at their needs as well as other human service
agencies, as reflected by the hypothetical 0.8-cent and 0.3-cent tax rate increases.
Mr. Slutzky said an economic downturn would generate additional need for services. Mr. Tucker
replied that two additional police officers are provided in the proposed FY 2010 budget. It would take 0.9
cents – or $1.4 million – to add four additional police officers.
Mr. Slutzky said two officers are actually being taken away and this does not take into account the
need for additional police services attributable to the downturn in the economy.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that this is the worst recession since the Great Depression. It is helpful
to have information on how the County has grown and prospered. He noted that 99 police officers have
been added over the last ten years, primarily during times of good economic conditions.
Mr. Slutzky said that is reflective of the pressures of an increasingly urbanizing community without
downturns in the economy.
Mr. Rooker said personnel is increased when the money is available to do so, and the only way to
accomplish that now would be to tax citizens more in times when they probably have less in their pockets.
Mr. Slutzky pointed out that one penny on the tax rate would translate into 1/24 of one percent of
an average homeowners’ income.
Mr. Rooker said County services and personnel – including public safety – have grown in recent
times, but this might not be a time to continue on that path.
Mr. Slutzky said he is focused today on transparency, and he wants to make sure the public is
aware of the Board’s rationale for setting the tax rate. He has not said the tax rate should be high, but to
be fair to the public he thinks both points of view need to be represented.
Mr. Rooker does not think the public has an expectation for four new police officers next year; that
is a goal the Board set for the community.
Mr. Boyd explained that traditionally the Board has approached budgeting as here is what we are
going to budget for and here is a list of the things that we’re not going to add in.” He said Mr. Slutzky’s
approach is here is what we are going to budget for and here are the things you are going to lose.
Mr. Slutzky responded that the County is creating expectations for the public in the
Comprehensive Plan, and with that in mind the County is actually down 17 police positions. Mr. Foley
mentioned that the only other new item on the Board’s list of programs is a plan for environmental
initiatives Ms. Thomas had requested, and 0.1 cent would put some of those back in.
Ms. Sarah Temple, Environmental Manager, said staff had included some money in the CIP for
the Climate Protection Program based on her research and estimate; she contacted 20+ localities around
the State and took the lower end of the average range to use in the Plan. The funding would be for public
education and outreach, and greenhouse gas emission reduction projects such as building improvements
and internal energy upgrades. She pointed out that window replacement is included in the CIP but that
has not been put in this year’s budget.
Mr. Foley said that last year the number was from $80,000 to $100,000 primarily to cover
additional staff to help manage these projects. For the Five-Year Plan staff intended to follow through on
resolutions the Board had adopted. He mentioned that some of these items were planned over a year
ago.
Mr. Rooker said some CIP expenses for energy initiatives were based on an expected payout
from reduced energy expenditures.
December 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
Mr. Bill Letteri, Director of Facilities Development, said this is an amendment year for the CIP. It
has been an extremely challenging process for the CIP Oversight Committee and the CIP Technical
Advisory Committee. He said that in order to balance the Capital Program over the five-year period, they
have reduced the adopted Program by more than $100.0 million. He mentioned that they are in the
middle of the process. He and other staff will be coming to the joint boards next Tuesday to review the
details of adjustments, stating that there are a number of concerns related to specific project adjustments.
In the spring the Plan will go to the Planning Commission, and then to the Executive Office, and there will
be a series of public hearings as well.
Mr. Letteri said in terms of a funding policy, it has been the goal to fund a portion of the Capital
Program with cash/current revenues, and the amount of the goal has been three percent of total County
revenues. For FY 2010, he said general revenues would be about $220.0 million – so three percent of
that would be a little over $6.0 million to fund cash projects in a given year. In the current program for FY
2010 the County is at about $2.0 million or about one percent. He said that is a substantial deviation from
the goal.
Mr. Letteri said that over the past several years, there has been about a 35 to 40 percent pay-as-
you-go ratio, with about 40 percent of projects being funded in cash. He noted a chart on the screen
showing how that looks over the next five years, trending downward to as low as 22.0 percent. These
ratios are still within debt structures. There are two debt limit policies that are relevant to the CIP. One
states that total debt will not exceed two-percent of market value of taxable property. The other ratio
relates to the amount of Debt Service as compared to general revenues – that policy has been no more
than 10 percent. He noted a chart showing the ratio of debt as a percent of assessed value. He said the
program staff is recommending is below the AAA bond rating mark but is hovering close. There is not a
lot of room for extra borrowing without exceeding that mark.
Mr. Boyd said the Oversight Committee had noted that the AAA rating is not a hard and fast line
with the rating agencies. Mr. Letteri agreed, adding that the figure used is from 2007.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the assessed property value data being used is the revised first-quarter 2009
number. Mr. Letteri said that is true. As property values fall that exacerbates the problem. He said that
for the five-year period of the CIP the County remains below that AAA line, but that could change with
more borrowing in the future.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the County increased its borrowing in the next five years to accelerate
projects because they are cheaper to do at this time, could projects in the out years be delayed to
compensate for the fact that the borrowing percentage has gotten closer to the average. Then, if those
projects needed to be delayed, the County would still have the ability to do that and stay within the
parameters of the AAA bond rating. Mr. Letteri said that could possibly happen. In this CIP, a number of
very critical projects have been postponed into those future years.
Mr. Rooker said interest on debt becomes an operating expense to be reflected in the Five-Year
Plan. Mr. Foley said debt is officially a capital expense, rather than a Five-Year operating expense.
Ms. Thomas asked the value of an AAA bond rating when the County has not gone out for a bond.
Mr. Letteri pointed out that the orange line on the chart reflects an average of AAA-rated jurisdictions in
Virginia from their 2007 financial reports. The County’s financial advisors provided staff with that
information; it is just below eight percent of AAA jurisdictions in Virginia and it shows debt service
expenses as a percentage of revenues.
Ms. Thomas said if the County keeps to the goal of staying an AAA bond rated locality, it has less
opportunities to have debt. She asked the value to holding onto the AAA rating. Mr. Letteri said it might
be the rate difference between AAA bonds and AA bonds.
Ms. Thomas said the County is not going out on the market for bonds so what difference does it
make. Mr. Foley said Mr. W iggins has spoken with the County’s financial advisors about this, and even
though a bond issue is not being done, financing rates for lease-purchases, etc., are also impacted by that
AAA rating. Mr. Letteri said staff has recently spoken with Davenport & Associates and VML/VACO. He
said they have a pooled-bond approach similar to that currently being used by the County for financing of
schools. The difference in AAA versus AA rates is between 10 and 20 basis points – so if AAA was at a
4.8 percent rate, the AA rate might be five percent. He said interest rates have been fluctuating wildly
over the last two months.
Ms. Thomas said the County is not now in the bond market so how would it impact the County.
Mr. Letteri replied that if the County’s bond rating went from AAA to AA and it went out for a debt issuance,
the County could anticipate paying 20 basis points or 0.2 percent higher in interest.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that the AAA bond rating is an indication of the financial soundness of the
policies of the County. Mr. Foley pointed out that the average will likely go up based on current economic
conditions, but it is not known what that will be yet.
Mr. Slutzky said a decision to accelerate projects would be based on cost-savings under the
current economic climate. He asked if staff had observed changes in bid amounts. Mr. Letteri explained
that the County has experienced a favorable bidding climate and has seen subcontractors and general
contractors cutting their margins, but materials and labor costs have not changed significantly. He does
not have a total accounting of expected versus realized bids, but several recent projects have come in by
as much as five percent lower.
December 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
Mr. Boyd said when he was going through review of the CIP, he thought about it in a different way.
He said everybody is saying the Federal Government is going to “throw” a lot of money into infrastructure,
and if they do, he said construction costs will increase. He looked at lost opportunity costs – things which
have been mentioned today – being able to leverage ten percent and get million dollar ball fields. That is
a lost opportunity if the County can’t spend that money. Also, there is going to be a discussion of
competitive swimming, and there is an opportunity cost there that is a huge amount which should be
considered.
Ms. Thomas agreed that the multiplier effects of certain projects need to be considered. Mr.
Letteri said that over the five-year period, staff tried to balance the budget and maintain cash reserves of
approximately $2.0 million per year; whether a project is added and paid for in cash or from borrowed
funds, the reserve will be reduced accordingly – less so for debt, more so for cash – unless more is
transferred into the CIP.
Mr. Letteri said he would like to give an overview of reductions in certain areas. He pointed out
the most notable adjustments; the Administration category which contained purchase of new voting
machines and polling place equipment has been deferred five years; the Courts received a major
reduction – more than 93 percent of the program in the next five years was reduced - the most notable
items are the Levy Building renovation and the Court Square renovations. These are real concerns of the
CIP Oversight Committee which feels that the Court issues are acute and will present themselves again
before the five years is up.
Mr. Boyd emphasized that the CIP Oversight Committee did not take these projects out of the
CIP, but moved them into the out years. Mr. Letteri said the Levy Building is a joint facility shared with the
City and the City has no funding in their five-year program for the building nor do they have any definitive
plans as to how it should be used. He said the Public Safety category was adjusted down about 32
percent; a major portion of that is related to the County’s approach with the Ivy and Pantops Fire/Rescue
Stations; the major projects in the CIP were replaced with much smaller projects by way of land donation
for the Pantops Station and working with UVA on the Ivy Station. It appears that the costs will come in at
far less than anticipated.
Mr. Boyd clarified that part of the savings was because it was deferral, and part of the savings
was because it reduced the costs. Mr. Letteri agreed, adding that the two smaller stations were deferred
two years to help with the budget situation, but are expected to be completed before the City’s Fire
Contract expires.
Mr. Slutzky asked how much of the 32 percent reduction is attributable to the right-of-way
acquisition versus actually delaying the projects. Mr. Letteri replied that it could be as much as 25
percent. Mr. Foley pointed out that these projects will be covered in more detail during the joint Boards
meeting next week.
Mr. Letteri reported that adjustments in Public W orks saves about 10 percent, with the principal
items being deferral of recycling centers, elimination of the contingency for the Keene Landfill; certain
security improvements for both the Courts and some public buildings have also been deferred.
Ms. Thomas said there is great interest among her constituents about recycling. She asked for
information about how much it would cost the taxpayer to have improved recycling centers.
Mr. Boyd noted that the Solid W aste Task Force will present some information to the Board prior
to moving forward with any new initiatives. Mr. Tucker said there are operational costs associated with
these projects that would need to be considered. The entire Solid W aste Plan has been delayed because
of the water issue. The long-range plan for the region needs to be figured out first. He would actually like
to see a curbside recycling program implemented.
Mr. Boyd said there are two independent haulers bidding on curbside recycling in his
neighborhood.
Mr. Rooker said having a single hauler could cut people’s rates and still provide curbside
recycling. Mr. Foley said when the packets are sent out for next week’s meeting, they will include
breakdowns of individual items.
Ms. Mallek asked about the solid waste study that was to be completed this year. Mr. Tucker
responded that the study has been put on hold until RW SA meets with various localities, and Mr.
Frederick has not been able to find time to do that because of a focus on the water supply plan and
related issues.
Mr. Letteri said the area of Neighborhood/Community Development probably experienced the
largest reduction - $16.0 million – most of which has to do with transportation and infrastructure; it
corresponds to the two-cent reduction in the transfer to Capital. He said there is about $10.6 million in
transportation funding reductions, with the balance in Neighborhood Plan implementation, roadway
landscaping programs, sidewalk construction programs, and street light programs.
Mr. Letteri said several Parks & Recreation type of projects have been delayed – North Fork
Rivanna Natural Area, Northern Urban Area Community Park, Southern Fork Rivanna Reservoir Boat
Access, and Southern Urban Area Park – all deferred beyond the five-year period.
December 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
Ms. Thomas said those are examples of projects that may be eligible for grant funding. She
wants to insure that any opportunities there might be for leveraging funds are not lost. Mr. Letteri stated
that projects with grant opportunities and leveraging of funds were the top projects left in the program
whenever possible. He said Libraries was a major category. In this case there were three libraries in
question – Crozet, Central and Northern – the latter two have been postponed beyond the five-year period;
they were the major component of the reduction. The Committee is also proposing delay of the Crozet
Library by two years. He said that there was no change made in the Technology and GIS categories, but
the ACE Program, per the Board’s direction, was also reduced as part of the two-cent reduction, by half;
funding was maintained for the Tourism component and one-half of the ACE Program remains. The
Stormwater Program was reduced by 75 percent – it had been funded at about $1.0 million annually, but
the proposed program is at $250,000 per year for the five-year period. There are accumulated funds in
the Stormwater accounts and that will enable the County to do projects which have been identified.
Mr. Rooker said in looking at a project such as the Crozet Library, he wonders if the citizens would
prefer to have a less expensive library built sooner rather than putting a more expensive project off. He
suggested that question be brought up at the Crozet Advisory Committee level. Mr. Letteri reminded the
Board that most of that project is to be done with borrowed funds, so for every $1.0 million of reduction it
reduces the impact on cash flow by about $100,000.
Mr. Letteri reported that the adopted CIP of $153.0 million was reduced to approximately $67.0
million over the five-year period, a 56 percent decrease. He said School programs were adjusted by $14.0
million, or 17 percent, and most of it has to do with project delays – notably the W estern Albemarle High
School addition by two years; the support services complex facility was delayed by two years; the Crozet
Elementary addition and renovation was postponed four years. There was also a reversion back to the
adopted plan for the southern feeder elementary projects generating a reduction of about $12.0 million.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to see a list of the school projects since County projects have been
cut by 56 percent and the Schools have only come up with 17 percent. Mr. Letteri agreed to provide the
full details of the School reductions.
Mr. Letteri said the CIP Technical Committee has concerns about the delayed, deferred and
eliminated projects. One in particular is the Levy building which will be vacated in April when the Juvenile
& Domestic Relations Court facility is complete. The needs in the Albemarle County Courts are acute,
with space problems in Circuit Court operations, District Court operations, and in the Commonwealth
Attorney’s office.
Ms. Thomas noted that the judges can actually force the County to do something. Has there been
mention of this happening? Mr. Letteri responded that County staff has maintained communication with
them and they understand where the County is in the process; there will be a study about how the Levy
Building can be used to meet court needs. They also know the County must work with the City on a joint
project for the building. Mr. Tucker said keeping communications open with the judges and other
personnel at Court Square is the best approach now.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks staff should give the Board a short list of uses for the Levy Building as
soon as one is ready. Mr. Letteri explained that an abbreviated study is to be done of how the County
might use the facility itself, as the City may not want to use the facility as originally thought. Mr. Foley said
the County needs to get with the City prior to making any decisions.
Mr. Rooker asked if selling the building when it is vacated is a possibility. It could be leased for
some period of time and then sold. Mr. Foley said that option is available.
Mr. Letteri reported that the CIP Committee is also concerned because the Court Square
renovations were to follow the completion of the Levy Building Renovations. For the reasons he just
mentioned they are not funded in the five-year period. The Public Safety Training Facility has been
delayed beyond the five-year CIP, and the Jail expansion project is not scheduled to begin until FY 2013.
If that project should happen the County would no longer have access to the existing “burn building”
training facility at that location; deferral of this project may create a problem at that time.
Mr. Rooker asked the cost of that project. Mr. Letteri indicated that the cost is about $2.0 million.
Mr. Boyd said it included two phases. It was not just the burn building noted but also the firing
range. If the Jail project occurs, neither facility would be available for use, which is free at this time.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that now there is another facility used for firing range purposes. He asked
if there was indication that the County’s ability to use that would be cut off. Mr. Letteri replied that there is
no indication of that at this time.
Mr. Letteri said the County initially earmarked $2.0+ million for the YMCA, but there is no definitive
timeline for that project so the allocation has been moved out of the five-year window.
Mr. Rooker said the County does an operating budget and a capital budget. Because some of the
cash flow items are included in capital, is an analysis of cash flows over the five-year period being done
concurrently with the CIP plan and Five-Year Financial (Business) Plan? W hen he looks at a business
plan, interest shows up as an annual operating expense. Mr. Letteri explained that interest is the only
operating expense that is included in capital funds; all other operating accounts are funded through
operations.
December 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
Mr. Rooker asked how all of these decisions affect cash flows.
Mr. Boyd said they tried to maintain a $2.0 million Fund Balance in the CIP Fund. The CIP
Oversight Committee looked at how that could be maintained, so the cash flow is reflected in that $2.0
million; it will drop below the $2.0 million in the fifth year.
Mr. Rooker said he assumes all of the presentations assume the maintenance of a certain level of
fund balances on the operating side. Mr. W iggins said the County has a policy of eight percent of Fund
Balance for School and General Fund revenues. There are still unaudited figures for FY ’08 and it is
slightly below that eight percent figure. He said staff will present that in more detail in February. Mr. Foley
said in the Five-Year Plan that is one reason why staff proposed to utilize the lockbox money over time
and build those fund balances back up.
Mr. Boyd said a separate income and expense statement is being maintained for the CIP – the
income is the transferred dollars in and the expenses are what goes out in cash for debt service and
projects.
Mr. Letteri stated that the Northern Library project has been deferred beyond the five-year period;
the County now has a lease arrangement for the Albemarle Square location through FY 2013 and is
negotiating an extension to that lease; if those negotiations are unsuccessful the project might need to be
moved back. He said the adopted Plan had included $1.2 million for a competitive pool facility and that
was deferred beyond the five years. However, the County is now entertaining proposals – the most
attractive is for at total of $400,000 over the next four years – but, there are no funds currently available in
the CIP for that purpose. He said the committee feels the proposal should be pursued if at all possible.
Mr. Boyd said the County is essentially trading out $500,000 for the $1.25 million; for the STARS
proposal there are no operating costs involved, whereas for the $1.25 million there are operating costs.
Mr. Rooker said this is a no-brainer if the Board thinks the facility will serve a similar community
need. This is the kind of multiplier the Board has talked about, not only is there the multiplying effect, but
there is a non-operating expense for a facility needed for the community.
Mr. Slutzky said the Oversight Committee’s recommendation with that caveat noted is to not have
that $400,000 reflected in this budget. It is something the Board could chose to add in during the budget
cycle based on perceived value.
Mr. Boyd said the reason it was left out was because the two School Board members hesitated to
include this item in the Five-Year Plan.
Ms. Mallek asked if the Oversight Committee had also ruled against the Crozet YMCA pool which
was also at no operating expense and could be done for $300,000 total.
Mr. Boyd said this project is on the bubble. It is not included in the numbers, but it is something
that some think should be included because of the leverage effect.
Mr. Rooker said he thought the Crozet proposal presented to the Board was not nearly as
advanced as this proposal. The Board specifically asked if they were in a position to commit to go
forward. He thought they said “no.”
Ms. Mallek said about three weeks later they filed a complete set of materials with the application,
the same as everyone else had done.
Mr. Boyd said a group was established to review those numbers, and he does not think they have
made a report yet. Mr. Elliott mentioned that Mr. Mullaney is working on an executive summary for that
recommendation. There is no funding available for it now. He will coordinate the recommendation with
the School Superintendent for the ranking of the three proposals. One important thing about the Crozet
facility is that in the out years – years five through ten of the CIP – there are a number of projects
associated with the Crozet Park facility, one of which includes putting a cover over that facility as well.
Mr. Slutzky asked if all of the recommended reductions are predicated on the assumption of a
three-cent reduction in contributions to the CIP. If the Board chose to not have that three-cent reduction,
where does that leave the Board with respect to these recommendations? Mr. Foley said that information
is coming up on the next few slides.
Mr. Letteri explained that the adopted CIP had included security improvements – including some
for Court Square – they have been eliminated or deferred. The assessment report from the Sheriff’s
Office and the comments from the Commonwealth’s Attorney and the judges indicate these issues need
to be addressed in the short term. He explained that the report looked at a variety of things for the Court
buildings.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks there should be grant money available for this, as he is skeptical that
counties are expected to pay for cameras for courtrooms. Mr. Foley said staff is looking at alternatives
now because they think this will need to be addressed in the short-term.
Mr. Letteri reported that a southern feeder elementary school project remains in the CIP as it was
adopted at a total of about $12.0 million which is anticipated to be less than would be required to renovate
December 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
the three smaller schools or address one larger elementary school. The School Board and its staff are
conducting a studying of alternatives and hope to conclude that effort by May, 2009.
Mr. Boyd explained that last year there was $12.0 million in the CIP to renovate the schools in the
southern feeder pattern, and this year the School Board has recommended $24.0 million to build a new
school. The Oversight Committee moved the item back to $12.0 million because this is an adjustment
year and the School Board is still not sure what they want to build.
Mr. Letteri said staff was requested to present different scenarios if a penny or so was put back.
He said the value of each penny over five years would be about $8.4 million. He said priorities in the
Strategic Plan are for the transportation, the urban infrastructure and the ACE Program which were taken
out. If all were put back that would be $16.0 million or two cents. He said some portion of that could be
put back if that was the priority of the Board. There were other projects and adjustments made during the
Oversight Committee process that were identified as being critical items in addition to those just described
as being concerns.
Mr. Slutzky commented that the County needs to be careful about how it builds its budget for FY
2010, and suggested that Mr. Tucker present a budget that splits the difference between a lower tax rate
and a tax rate as high as 82 cents in order to present a transparent and neutral budget to the public,
noting specific items that could be removed in order to achieve a lower rate. He thinks that choosing the
74-cent level is essentially matching last year’s budget and it is completely deficient with respect to
anticipated spending.
Ms. Mallek said she is always in favor of getting more information. The public will be able to make
more reasonable comments if there is detail about the trade-offs that will need to be made.
Mr. Boyd emphasized that traditionally the Board has been presented a list of items that can be
funded based on anticipated revenues, and a list of unfunded initiatives that could be funded with an
increased tax rate. He said staff has suggested a rate of 74.5 cents which they feel is sufficient for
funding County operations without moving forward with the initiatives.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the Crozet Library is an initiative. The Board is talking about delaying it for a
couple of years in order to achieve the 74.5-cent tax rate. It is actually something that was already
planned that will now be delayed.
Mr. Boyd said he does not like it to be said that the Board had planned on adding ten percent to
the budget next year, but since it will not be added that is a cut in the budget. He thinks it is a
misrepresentation to say it is a cut because the Board is not adding money to the budget. The Board is
not really cutting the budget, it is just not moving forward with initiatives that were planned because it
cannot afford to do that without increasing the tax rate.
Mr. Rooker asked if staff had looked at what the tax rate would be in order to make the budget
revenue-neutral, including the sales tax, the State tax cuts, etc. He added that a VML report projects a
$3.5 billion State deficit. They talk about jails and how the State had previously funded 59 percent of jail
operating costs and now they are down to 46 percent. There is a backlog now so they are not going to
accept any prisoners into the State system now, housing them instead at local jails at the expense of the
locality. He thinks it would be helpful to determine what the real estate tax rate would have to be to make
up the other cuts that have occurred.
Mr. W iggins said he has been talking with Ms. Laura Vinzant who is pulling together numbers, but
she thinks the tax rate would have to be raised another 1.5 cents above the 3.5 cents to be revenue-
neutral. He added that next year’s budget includes a significant increase in the City-County Revenue
Sharing Payment, so even a revenue-neutral budget would actually be a decrease in funding for other
operations.
Ms. Thomas asked how much it would take to make up for that payment. Mr. W iggins said that is
about $4.0 million so it would take about 2.5 cents to generate that amount.
Mr. Slutzky said that would put the rate at 78.5 cents which ignores factors like inflation.
Mr. Boyd said that still ignores the fact that staff has gone through a good process of identifying
areas which could be cut back on and still provide County government. There are reductions in workloads
because there is a decrease in building permits, etc. That is just being ignored, and the Board keeps
saying it needs the same amount of money and probably more every year. That is the part he disagrees
with.
Mr. Slutzky said a three-cent cut on the CIP was part of that analysis and the Board has already
talked about how the three-cent cut on the CIP may be done at a time that it is valuable for the County to
continue to invest in local jobs and take advantage of reduced costs.
Mr. Boyd said he disagrees wholeheartedly with what Mr. Koleszar said this morning that the
government needs to decide how to spend the people’s money because they can do a better job than the
private sector. Philosophically, he is totally opposed to that.
Ms. Thomas said the theory that governmental money is even more valuable in its projects that it
spends on local projects in a time of financial distress is a pretty well worked out theory. That is not saying
the government knows how to spend your money better than you are spending it.
December 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
Mr. Boyd said Mr. Koleszar said there is a need to invest in government infrastructure rather than
leaving more money in the people’s hand so they can invest in infrastructure. It would be better spent
locally if it is the government that is spending it.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that there is a difference between a local government and the Federal
Government. Keynesian economics purports that the Federal Government can run deficits and spend
money that it does not take in, in order to stimulate the economy. Theoretically it does stimulate the
economy. The Board does not have that luxury. It has to balance the budget every year. The Board
cannot print money to create a stimulus package in the local economy. There is an argument for deficit
spending when there is a down economy time, and that argument is being furthered now at the national
level.
Mr. Dorrier noted that people in the County are not asking for a tax rate increase, and this budget
should reflect a zero-based proposal for new initiatives.
Mr. Rooker said the Board already has that; there are no new initiatives proposed in the budget.
Mr. Boyd said that Mr. Slutzky’s proposal is to come up with a rate that does include several of
those initiatives.
Mr. Slutzky said what he does not support is more of a zero initiative.
Mr. Rooker said if there is a revenue-neutral budget that would allow restoration of money to the
Capital Fund that traditionally, as a financially sound approach, has been done. Right now the Board is
axing money that went to Capital in order to preserve a reasonable operating budget. There are still 47
frozen positions and no salary increases.
Ms. Thomas said there are no salary increases at a time when inflation is going forward, and
health care costs are increasing.
Ms. Mallek said the increase in health care costs having to be paid from employee salaries is a bit
of a concern because that is an extra 12 percent deduction which will be made.
Mr. Rooker suggested the County pick up the increase in medical benefits.
Ms. Mallek asked if that includes the part deducted from the employee’s salary.
Ms. Thomas said it is just the County’s contribution.
Ms. Mallek said everybody is saying something different. She suggested that this be squared
away now. Mr. Foley said the plan is that employees will not see an increase in their health care rates;
only the County’s portion will go up.
Mr. Rooker said no raises are being provided, but the employees are being held harmless from
the increase.
Ms. Thomas said she assumes the same thing is proposed for the School side as well.
Mr. Rooker said it has been proposed both ways.
Mr. Slutzky said he has something to mention that he has shared with members of the Board, but
which has not been shared with the public at all. He does not know what the tax rate should be, and
expects that to be sorted out next spring based on information at that time. In terms of giving Mr. Tucker
clear directions as to how to prepare the budget, there is some information that might help in that process.
In the Commonwealth in localities that have populations of 90,000 or more, he noted that Arlington
county’s tax rate last year was 84 cents, Chesterfield county’s was 97 cents, Henrico county’s was 87
cents, Hanover county’s was 81 cents, Loudoun county’s was $1.14, Prince W illiam county’s was 97
cents, Roanoke county’s was $1.09, Spotsylvania county’s was 62 cents (Spotsylvania also has service
district taxes as well), and Stafford county’s was 84 cents.
Mr. Boyd asked why Rockingham County was not used as a comparison.
Mr. Slutzky said he only used localities with a population of 90,000 and above, as Albemarle is at
93,000. To compare those tax rates to what Albemarle is building the budget around, it must be
compared to 61 cents last year because of the 10 cents paid for the Revenue-Sharing Agreement which
he removed from the equation. He said people have suggested that the tax rate is too high because
housing affordability is high. There was a study done in 2004, and the numbers have not changed
substantially. There was a report done on homeownership affordability – released by the Virginia Tech
Center for Housing Research done in conjunction with the Virginia Association of Realtors – and it showed
that throughout the Commonwealth homeowner payments as a percentage of income were 19.3 percent
for Virginia as a whole; Northern Virginia localities were 30 percent and above; Charlottesville was 19.8
percent. He said the median home price in Albemarle is less than $300,000 so a six-cent adjustment on
the tax rate for the average homeowner would translate into $180 per year or $15 per month; according to
Fannie Mae the median household income for Albemarle/Charlottesville is $68,500. To raise the tax rate
by six cents is approximately one-quarter of one percent of income per family. He thinks it is reasonable
for the County to present to the public what it is confronted with now. He wants the Board to look at what
will be done in the community if projects expected by the public are delayed. He thinks it is a reasonable
thing to present to the public, in the most transparent manner possible, what the County is confronting
December 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
financially. He thinks that could be done showing a service-neutral budget and some form of a revenue-
neutral budget for the start of the budget discussions. The Board could chose to accelerate some CIP
projects, but yet cut back on operating expenses by freezing positions for a while. If the Board does that,
it will be the most open and honest with the taxpayers, and then they can weight in on the different things
they want the Board to cut out of the budget, or even suggest that certain things be added back in
because of their concerns.
Mr. Boyd said he views this in a different manner. He does not think going in with a budget that
holds the tax bill to the taxpayers at neutral as being something that is not transparent. The Board can be
just as transparent by simply giving a list of things that are not in the budget, such as: a Comprehensive
Plan change or the Police Department where last year the Board only added two new officers because the
County could not afford four.
Mr. Slutzky said that last year when the County Executive presented his proposed budget, at the
public hearings the public said the County Executive recommended “x” budget adding something in goes
beyond what the County Executive thinks is needed. He is not sure that is a fair description of the
circumstances.
Mr. Boyd commented that it is either a fiscally responsible budget or it is not a fiscally responsible
budget. He is not 100 percent against putting a lot of tax burden on the citizens in these times.
Mr. Slutzky asked if Mr. Boyd thought that one-quarter of one percent of their income would be an
unreasonable burden to impose. That is what six cents on the tax rate would cost. Is Mr. Boyd saying the
Board should not disclose that kind of information to the public?
Mr. Boyd said that is an average figure but it is not realistic impact on everyone. He said there is
a big discussion as to what services must be provided to people.
Mr. Slutzky asked if Mr. Boyd was saying that everything on the list of things to be cut are excess,
for instance, deferring the Crozet Library for two years.
Mr. Boyd asked how Mr. Slutzky balances his own personal budget. Does he simply raise his
prices every time he runs into economic downturns?
Mr. Slutzky said in the private sector it is done through marketing.
Mr. Boyd said there have to be layoffs of people and reductions in times like these.
Mr. Slutzky said he is not interested in having a 90-cent tax rate. In the spirit of presenting to the
public in the most transparent fashion possible the severe circumstances the County is confronted with at
this time it is important to explain to the public that there are a bunch of things the Board cannot give
them, but it will still cost more than it did last year. He thinks that to direct the County Executive to balance
his budget on an 82-cent tax rate with a series of “add-ons” and “take-aways” is the fairest way to get at
that. He is curious to know what the other Board members thank about this.
Ms. Thomas said this is the most important budget she has worked on in her time on the Board.
She is intrigued by the idea of a 79-cent tax rate to make up for falling revenues, but she does not agree
that it is really “revenue neutral.” She added that the state is considering picking up only 50 percent of
educational costs instead of 55 percent. W hatever the Board does she wants the public to know where
the Board is starting from, what sort of things are being cut off, what it costs to add different things, and
work through the budget process in that way. Mr. Tucker said the matrix staff provided in “Attachment B”
shows the costs to add specific initiatives or change certain assumptions. He said the Board could review
those items one by one and determine if there is majority supporting for them or not.
Mr. Boyd said Mr. Tucker is the “Chief Executive Officer” of the organization. It is appropriate for
him to present a firm budget scenario, as all of it is up for discussion anyway. Mr. Tucker said these
things could be identified now or during the budget work sessions.
Mr. Rooker said the Board has directed Mr. Tucker to present a budget based on a 74.5-cent tax
rate, that being the “tax neutral” level for the average residential homeowner, and he has done that. This
isn’t his recommendation; this is his response to the Board’s directions. The question is, is this the best
way to approach building the budget?
Mr. Dorrier said the 3.5-cent addition was to make up for the lack of revenue.
Mr. Rooker said he would like to look at a budget that reflects no increase in revenue for the
County, stating that he is not in favor of any new hires or thawing of any of the 47 frozen positions. He
emphasized that other localities are having to compensate for the reduction in State funds, and will
probably increase their tax rates to make up for the shortfalls from other revenue sources. He added that
belt tightening is a good thing to do, and the County will emerge in better times as a more efficient
operating unit; the Resource Management Study currently underway will likely yield some new solutions.
However, there are increases in cost over which the Board has no control, such as the payment to the City
which is going up by $4.0 million.
Mr. Boyd said he thought that was reflected in the budget using 64.5-cent tax rate.
December 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
Mr. Slutzky said the Board had said the tax rate should be set so the average single-family
homeowner’s tax bill would stay the same. That is different from a budget that reflects the loss of
revenues from all of the other sources. Only 35 to 40 percent of the overall budget is paid on the backs of
the property owners. There are a lot of other revenue sources that are in decline. He said Mr. Rooker is
talking about revenue-neutral in the ultimate sense so there is the same amount of money to work with as
there was last year after allowing for those adjustments.
Mr. Rooker said the state is trying to push transportation expenses onto localities, and next year
the County is expected to get only about 12 percent of what it received five years ago. Jail expenses will
increase based on the State’s effort to push those costs off to the locality. The taxpayers are being fooled
by the Legislators in that they think services don’t cost anything. He said the buck has to stop somewhere
and somebody has to pay for the services being provided, noting that the County spends $4.5 million per
year because the State stopped funding Federal mandates for Social Services personnel and that funding
is needed in order to secure a Federal match. He is not comfortable with gutting the CIP on a long-term
basis, as it may squeeze the County’s ability to provide facilities in the community.
Mr. Slutzky said the Board is in this predicament this year because it has not had a very healthy
reserve. Thank goodness there was that penny in the lockbox. The Board has learned quickly just a
couple of months into the fiscal year that that money is long gone. He thinks it would be imprudent of the
Board not to build in an additional component of significant reserve that it would plan not spending unless
there is a decline in revenues beyond what was projected.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the situation is going to be even worse than anticipated. The State has
already gone up another $300.0 million, and part of that will be squeezed down to the localities. They are
already talking about reducing the percentage of education expense picked up by the State. He thinks it
would be imprudent to go forward with a budget that does not include at least a one-cent allocation. Mr.
Tucker said staff has tried to work in at least some amount, and are trying to build in a rainy day fund
through FY 2014.
Mr. Rooker said he does not think the numbers presented today are adequate the current climate.
Mr. Slutzky said based on this conversation, he would suggest that Mr. Tucker present a budget
using an 82-cent tax rate, with three cents of that as the safety valve.
Mr. Rooker said that he is not comfortable with 82 cents.
Mr. Boyd agreed.
Mr. Rooker said he would be comfortable looking at a revenue-neutral budget, and whatever the
number is to get there.
Mr. Slutzky asked if Mr. Rooker had included a safety valve.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to clarify what Mr. Rooker is saying because he thinks they are closer
than they realize. He said Mr. Rooker is saying that a revenue-neutral budget would include some of the
reductions and expenses such as no salaries, etc. That is not revenue-neutral per se, that is really asking
what it will take to cover a budget less these cost savings.
Ms. Mallek said if she tallies up the things on the list today it comes to about $4.5 million in cuts in
the other tax revenues that are not shown anywhere which is more than three cents because the penny
has changed. That definitely needs to be included, and the Revenue-Sharing numbers that the Board will
not see has to somehow get on this list.
Mr. Boyd said the list needs to be updated based on new forecasts. Mr. Foley said to get
residential real estate collections revenue-neutral, 3.5 cents is needed. He thinks Mr. Boyd is saying that
he would like it to also be neutral in terms of the other revenue losses and how many more cents would be
needed to get to that neutral place as a starting point. From that there would still be the list of things on
the expenditure side. He said Mr. Tucker provided the Board with a balanced Five-Year Plan, so if
adjustments are made by enough pennies to get to revenue-neutral, the Board will have more revenue to
spend from the list.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks it would be imprudent to have a budget that did not have at least 1.5
pennies of reserve. Mr. Foley said that first you have to get to revenue-neutral which means that more
pennies will go back in and there will be more money to spend. W hat he heard is that the Board is
concerned about the cut to Capital so putting more back in would be a priority. If three more cents had to
be added to get to revenue-neutral, the Board would want to put money back to Capital and also make
sure there was at least a penny in reserve.
Mr. Tucker suggested that the Board get to a revenue-neutral number. Based on what staff is
hearing today, they will bring back a number on December 9 to show what a capital increase would take,
what a reserve increase would take, what a rainy day fund increase would take and any other priorities.
Mr. Foley asked if 1.5 cents is what the Board would like to aim for this year.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks that is a prudent number.
Mr. Slutzky said for the purposes of this exercise he can agree to the 1.5 cents although he will
probably argue for more than that. Mr. Foley said staff will work with the 1.5 cents.
December 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
Mr. Slutzky suggested staff look at some of the other operating costs, such as the frozen
positions. Mr. Foley said staff has no way to pick those; that is up to the Board.
Ms. Thomas said this is being done without first having the School budget to review. W hen that is
received it will throw things into a new category of needs. Mr. Foley said any penny that goes up to be
revenue-neutral will generate about $960,000 for the School System.
Mr. Rooker said he envisions a rainy day fund being like the lockbox approach, where that money
comes off the top. Mr. Foley said since this is a Five-Year Financial Planning process, staff has to pick a
point in time where revenues are not updated so he suggested that the process stay with the model
knowing that further work has to come. That has to shift to the annual process. This is just a Plan, not a
budget, and more discussion will be needed as the Board goes into the next fiscal year planning process.
Staff will try to make a final recommendation on December 9, and will use 1.5 cents in reserve with the
rest to Capital and the Board can decide whether to leave it that way.
Mr. Boyd said the list of items on the sheet it has before it, as well as the list for the CIP, he wants
put before the public as the things which have been proposed to be cut and not hurt core services for the
community.
Ms. Thomas said she must protest that the list was not put together saying the Board can make
these cuts without hurting core services. It was put together saying that if there is going to be a 74.5-cent
tax rate these are the things the community will have to do without.
Mr. Slutzky said there are 47 frozen positions, so they might disagree with that.
Ms. Thomas said whether this is the time to cut the Affordable Housing Program by $200,000 or
cut transit money still need to be discussed. She regards transit in a time of recession as an important
service.
Mr. Rooker said the Board has a policy of allocating one penny to the ACE Program, and it has
broad community support; that is being eviscerated.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks it needs to be done.
Ms. Thomas said that can be part of the Board’s discussion as to whether it is one of the County’s
essential services. She said Mr. Boyd is speaking for all of the Board about core services.
Mr. Boyd said he only speaks for himself.
Mr. Rooker said that is true for this year, but it is projected to continue over the full five-year period
of the business, so essentially the Board has eviscerated that policy. .
Mr. Boyd said he thinks it is an important thing to do, but for him it is not as important as providing
emergency services for the safety of the citizens.
Ms. Thomas said that is the kind of discussion the Board should have.
Mr. Slutzky said that conversation should happen in February. He would like to refine this slightly
along the lines he has enunciated today. He thinks it is appropriate for staff to bring back a budget based
on the newly defined revenue-neutral concept, plus 1.5 cents for a reserve. He would still ask that staff
include the equivalent of “Attachment B”, modified based on the Board’s suggestions today. Also, he
would like to see this list translated into a service-neutral rate, showing what these items would add up to if
they were to be funded. He said some members of the public will ask why the things on the list are not
included, and the answer will be the cost of them. He asked if the Board members object to staff
presenting that service-neutral number based on these cuts as a point of information.
Mr. Boyd asked if Mr. Slutzky wanted to fund all of the things on the list.
Mr. Slutzky asked if Mr. Boyd objected to having the County Executive present a number which is
service-neutral based on what it would cost the taxpayer to fund all of these items.
Mr. Boyd asked if he was referring to it as an alternative budget.
Mr. Slutzky said that is not what he said; he wants it just as a point of information. He said the
public needs to understand what the current proposed budget is.
Mr. Boyd said the Board needs to talk again about the list.
Mr. Slutzky asked if Mr. Boyd did not want the public to know what it would cost.
Mr. Boyd said Mr. Slutzky puts words in his mouth all the time, and he is not going to let him do
that. He is not saying he does not want to be transparent with this budget. He is absolutely saying that. It
is just a different approach. He said Mr. Slutzky is saying everything is a cut and he is saying the Board is
going to reduce the amount of additions.
Mr. Slutzky asked why Mr. Boyd objected to having that information provided. He asked if it is
okay with Mr. Boyd to ask the County Executive to include that number in his presentation.
December 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
Mr. Boyd said that is fine.
Mr. Foley said since there is agreement, the staff will say what the tax rate would be to fund the
Board’s previously adopted budget without the frozen positions and cutbacks.
Mr. Rooker said that would basically add the rates back.
Mr. Slutzky said the Board is not going to fund that budget. There is no chance of doing that. Mr.
Foley said it would yield a rate of about 80 cents. He said staff will bring it back with more definition. Mr.
Tucker noted that it would be about 87.4 cents. Mr. Foley said that would put the County back to where it
was before things had to be cut.
Mr. Slutzky said he is not asking that a budget be prepared with that number; only that the cost is
shown. Mr. Foley said the adopted budget did not include future housing and future transit costs, etc. He
asked if Mr. Slutzky wanted a rate that included all of the Board’s planned increases that were never in the
adopted budget or just the adopted level of expenditures and services.
Mr. Slutzky responded that the Board adopted a Five-Year Financial Plan last year that included
certain assumptions for this fiscal year. From those assumptions staff has identified things that cannot be
delivered – they are noted on the list. He said that included an assumption of using $200,000 in FY ‘10 for
affordable housing, and another $200,000 for transit; those are things that were proposed in the last five-
year plan for FY ‘10. If the Board is not going to fund them, so he wants staff to show what the rate would
have to be to fulfill those assumptions. Mr. Foley said that was both current levels of service at that time,
plus the expanded items the Board wanted to put forward.
Mr. Slutzky said that was correct, the projected budget for FY ’10. Mr. Foley said staff will provide
the number both ways.
Mr. Rooker said staff would just be adding up all the items on the list. Mr. Foley said staff will
simplify it.
Mr. Boyd said he does not have a problem with an approach this year to not have a budget
recommended by the County Executive, but instead to have a number of different budgets based on
different scenarios. He is okay with that, but he does not think the Board should force the County
Executive to come up with a budget that calls for a 90-cent rate.
Mr. Slutzky said the Board has discussed today having the County Executive present a budget
which is revenue-neutral as the Board described it.
Mr. Boyd said he has no problem with that. Mr. Foley emphasized that this is all part of the Five-
Year planning concept, not the actual budget. There will be a lot of different information available by the
time staff proposes a budget.
Mr. Slutzky said the numbers might change, but the concept will not.
Mr. Boyd said the Board has been talking about giving the County Executive directions for his
recommended budget, and he does not think the Board has given him clear directions.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks a majority of the Board gave Mr. Tucker clear directions to come back
with a revenue-neutral budget, and Mr. Slutzky is asking him to provide a rate that would fund all of the
items previously in the Five-Year Plan for this year. That primarily just adds up all of the additional
increments.
Mr. Boyd said it adds even more because there was the three cents taken out. If it is just for
informational purposes, he does not object.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks the Board will do a valuable thing for the public with this thing that is
now being called a revenue-neutral budget. She said the State Legislators are always pushing expenses
onto the localities and reducing promised money in a way that the public almost never learns about. She
thinks that taking into account what real estate owners will have to pay to make up for those cuts as well
as the other things happening in the economy will provide a rather shocking figure. This is not a blame
game, but it will be an interesting figure the Board has never shown to the public.
Mr. Boyd said that figure should be broken down; that shortfall is not all from reduced State
funding. For example, the economy is off; sales taxes are down.
Mr. Rooker said the Speaker of the House has talked about having the maintenance expenses for
all roads devolved to the localities. That would be another $5.0 or $6.0 million pushed down to the local
budgets.
Mr. Slutzky asked if staff had clear signals. Mr. Tucker said staff will try to have this information
for the Board at the December 9 meeting. W hat he heard is that once the revenue-neutral number is
determined, staff would then take 1.5 cents for a rainy-day fund and the rest for the Capital Fund; but, the
Board may want to move that around. Mr. Foley clarified that the Board wants a total of 1.5 cents in a
reserve, not an additional 1.5 cents.
December 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
Mr. Slutzky asked if that revenue-neutral number will actually include settling the deficit for the
current year.
Ms. Mallek asked if it would be possible to get some additional information early about Social
Services. She felt badly that the Board left that budget short last year – they have been short staffed for
three years in a row even before all of the increase in workload. She thinks the hardships will be even
greater with this economy and she thinks the Board might want to be prepared for a “disaster” in that
department. Mr. Tucker said that department has had one of the highest increases in staff over the last
ten years - 39 positions have been added during that time.
__________
Mr. Boyd noted that the Board had skipped Agenda Item No. 11, Economic Development Policy
work session, earlier today. He asked if the other members wished to have that discussion. The Board
members agreed to postpone the discussion until January.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Davis presented a draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City, the County,
the Albemarle County Service Authority and the Rivanna W ater & Sewer Authority, as revised by the
attorney for RW SA asking for a few changes, and through an e-mail the City Attorney has also requested
an additional change. He said it will be difficult to move forward with four different boards providing input
on this document.
Mr. Boyd said it does not have to be finalized right now.
Ms. Mallek commented that Item 6 seems to imply that the South Fork Rivanna River Task Force
is recommending a study when in fact they have not come forward with their report yet.
Mr. Rooker agreed noting that in Paragraph 3 it is clear the study will only go forward if
recommended.
Ms. Thomas said what will come from the Task Force is a discussion on the timing of dredging.
She would not want this MOU to imply it needs to be done immediately.
Ms. Mallek suggested including language related to the timetable issue.
Mr. Slutzky said doing a dredging study will not necessarily delay moving forward with a dam; that
seems to be addressed in Item 6.
Mr. Boyd said this implies a study would be initiated soon.
Mr. Slutzky responded that it does say a study would move forward, but that does not negate
moving forward with a dam.
Ms. Mallek said the timetable of the dredging study is important to add in Item 3. Mr. Tucker
stated that Item 6 speaks to Paragraph 1, 3 and 4 above. Mr. Davis clarified that the Board does not want
to lock in the timing of a dredging study without first considering the recommendations of the Task Force.
Ms. Mallek suggested the Task Force determine what the timetable should be.
Ms. Thomas said the RW SA should probably decide that, not the Task Force.
Mr. Slutzky suggested passing a resolution that supports this MOU but do not sign off on the
official wording. Mr. Davis emphasized that the Board does not need to vote on this memorandum today;
the expert panel looking at the dam is not being delayed by this document.
Ms. Mallek said this MOU does provide some positive momentum.
Mr. Boyd said it implies that the four chairs would be making some decisions without input from
the full boards.
Ms. Mallek stated that she is happy with Item 7. Mr. Davis clarified that that item does not speak
to the four chairs, but to agency executives. Mr. Tucker said Item 3 relates to the four chairs.
Mr. Rooker commented that he is comfortable with giving Mr. Boyd that latitude, as he will be
representing the general consensus of the entire Board.
Mr. Slutzky said if the study needs millions in capital expenditures to be implemented, it should not
be handed over to staff.
Mr. Rooker stated that this pertains to the studies themselves, not the implementation of specific
measures. Mr. Davis noted that none of these studies are being funded by the County.
Mr. Rooker clarified that the studies themselves are being addressed here, not the activities
resulting from those recommendations. Mr. Davis reviewed the Board’s suggested changes as follows: In
paragraph 3, add clarification to deal with the timing of the dredging study and to confirm that it is an
December 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
RSW A implementation of that recommendation; in paragraph 6, in parenthesis, add “(if such study is
recommended as provided in paragraph 3, above.)”; and in paragraph 7, delete the reference to “tasks.”
__________
Mr. Boyd said he thinks it is worth asking the Planning Commission to take another look at the
Yancey Mills proposal. Mr. Davis said if the Board wants to direct the Commission to initiate a
Comprehensive Plan amendment it could adopt a resolution of intent requesting them to study it and also
set a timeline for them to bring forth a recommendation. He said Mr. Cilimberg and Mr. Graham could
provide some insight into how that project would fit into the Crozet Master Plan.
Mr. Graham said staff has recommended that this request be made a part of the Crozet Master
Plan update; the timing is such that the two things will overlap anyhow.
Mr. Boyd said this seems to be more of a countywide issue. He does not feel comfortable putting
it into the hands of a relatively small group of people.
Ms. Mallek said this would bring it before the public.
Mr. Boyd asked if Comprehensive Plan amendments will continue to be handled in this way.
Mr. Rooker said this issue is a little more fundamental. It includes changing a growth area
boundary, changing the Comprehensive Plan, and rezoning the parcel. He thinks the Planning
Commission captured the reasons why this is an unusual request, adding that the parcel is not contiguous
to an existing growth area and it also lies in a watershed area. A lot of the same issues are going to be
raised during the Master Plan update, and he thinks this would be an efficient way of handling it.
Mr. Slutzky said the Planning Commission would consider it and make a recommendation so it
would come back before the Board.
Mr. Boyd said the request was essentially dead after the Planning Commission’s review.
Mr. Slutzky said the Board is capable of reaching an independent decision, but community input is
needed and this is timely given the master planning process. Mr. Davis added that normally the Planning
Commission would frame the parameters of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the Board would
see what they recommend; in this case, if the Commission does not want to expand the growth area, a
plan would come before the Board that does not show the growth area expansion. He said staff would
need to know whether or not the Board wants information that includes this parcel.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the Board envisions the Crozet Master Planning process including
review of this proposed expansion of the growth area. Mr. Graham agreed.
Mr. Rooker said that he is not comfortable recommending an expansion of the Crozet growth area
without the Crozet community having an opportunity to weigh in on that issue as a part of planning for that
community. Mr. Davis said typically that would happen, but there is no guarantee that what will come to
the Board is a recommendation for expansion of the growth area. Mr. Cilimberg said this is similar to
Places29, where staff had several contacts with the Board during the process so it could weigh in.
Mr. Rooker said many issues were raised by the Planning Commission; also, the County has
never approved expansion of a growth area into a watershed area. One question is whether this could be
developed in a manner that would have no impact on sediment flow into Stockton Creek. Another issue is
the non-contiguous nature of this addition to a growth area, coupled with the need for light industrial
property in a reasonable location. He thinks the Board needs to consider whether this accomplishes
Comprehensive Plan goals, and the community needs to weigh in on this.
Mr. Boyd agreed, but said he wants to make sure the Board has a chance to provide input. Mr.
Cilimberg said that in January the Crozet Master Planning process would be presented to the Board. He
agrees that the Board could move forward with an action to insure that this is reviewed as part of that
process since the Planning Commission did not include it in their directive.
At this time, Ms. Mallek moved that the Yancey Mills Business Park proposal be included in the
review of the Crozet Master Plan with the understanding that by taking this action, the Board is not
advocating a position on the expansion of the growth area. Mr. Slutzky seconded the motion, which
passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Slutzky.
NAYS: None.
_______________
December 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
Agenda Item No. 20. Adjourn to December 9, 2008, 12:00 Noon, Room 241.
At 5:52 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, motion was offered by Mr.
Slutzky, seconded by Ms. Mallek, to adjourn this meeting until December 9, 2008, at 12:00 Noon, in
Room 241.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Slutzky.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 06/03/2009
Initials: EWJ