2008-01-23January 23, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 1)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
January 23, 2008, at 12:30 p.m., in the Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, County Office Building, McIntire
Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from January 16, 2008.
PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Ann H. Mallek, Mr. Dennis S.
Rooker, Mr. David Slutzky and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W . Tucker, Jr., Assistant County Executive,
Tom Foley, County Attorney, Larry W . Davis, Director of Community Development, Mark Graham, Director
of Planning, W ayne Cilimberg, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Meagan Hoy.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 12:34 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Boyd.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Discussion: Pantops Fire Rescue Station.
Mr. Dan Eggleston, Director of Fire and Rescue, said that during the five-year financial planning
work session in December 2007, the Board expressed a desire to further discuss the Pantops Fire and
Rescue Station. Although at the Board meeting there was some discussion about the need for this station,
most of the conversation centered on the staffing plan. To help clarify the issue, he wanted to use this
meeting as an opportunity to review the need for the station and then transition into the methodology
behind the recommended staffing plan. Mr. Eggleston said that during a meeting in May 2007, they
discussed and provided the Board with information on the need for station. At that time, the Board moved
on a vote of five to one to proceed with a temporary station during Fiscal Year ‘09 and a more permanent
sub station in Year 2014.
Mr. Eggleston said the most significant factor for a Pantops Station is the need to provide basic
level of service to the growing development area. This station will be providing urban type public safety
services, which is a vital part of any growth management strategy. The Fire and Rescue Squad has
confirmed the need of this with the citizens through a survey in which they (Fire/Rescue) asked “what
would make living in development areas more appealing?” He said that most citizens stated that having
quick responses to fire and medical services would be a strong incentive to living in this area. He said that
the strategy to provide those services was included in the Pantops Master Plan, which, calls for a station
centrally located in the Pantops area. The Comprehensive Plan calls for a five minute response time in the
development areas and currently they are seeing an average response time in the ten minute range. That
kind of service is what they strive for in rural areas.
Mr. Eggleston said that Pantops is not like an average development area but is the highest risk
development area in the County. Currently Pantops has about 640 elderly care units and 27 percent of
that population is over the age of 65. The daytime population of this area is about twice that of Crozet and
the traffic volume is about fives times that of Crozet. He said that the Pantops risk profile expressed the
urgency for providing timely, dependable, and reliable service. Another contributing factor to this issue is
replacement of City services at the end of the contract. Although the City cannot meet the five minute
response time standard, the service that is being provided by the City is consistent and reliable. However,
staff believes it is not cost effective to renegotiate the contract considering that it is likely that the cost will
increase significantly, close to $2,000,000. It is important to know that if these City services are not
replaced at the end of this contract, there will be a decreased level of service, not just in Pantops, but the
entire eastern portion of the County.
Mr. Rooker asked if when the contract expires if the County will continue to respond to some
City calls and the City will continue to respond to some County calls, and if so, would there be a cost
arrangement on a per call basis.
Mr. Eggleston replied “yes”. The issue has been discussed with the City for some time. They are
working towards establishing a mutual aid agreement, at the end of the fire contract, where the County
would help the City and the City would help the County without an exchange of money. He added that with
these additional stations the County will be in a better position to offer assistance to the City as well as
receive assistance.
Mr. Rooker asked if this mutual aid agreement was established, would the City still respond to a
call on Pantops. Mr. Eggleston replied, if needed; if it is a working fire or if there was a need for additional
alarms are required, that would be set up where the City would respond. He said that this would be a
priority type response versus relying on the City to respond to about the 600 calls that is received annually.
He said that this would be set up on a need basis when the County is in need of additional personnel.
Mr. Rooker asked the difference between the current response that is being given today in that
area and the response that would be given or received through a mutual aid agreement. Mr. Eggleston
said that currently the City responds to every call on Pantops, either a fire call or an emergency medical
call, which is about 500 to 600 calls annually in that area. He said that if the County moves to a mutual aid
agreement, the City and the County would only provide services to each other if there was an urgent need.
He said that this would not affect the response to basic normal everyday calls, but, again, if there was a
greater need, they would rely on the mutual aid resources.
Mr. Rooker asked if there was an EMS call on Pantops currently, would not the Charlottesville-
Albemarle Rescue Squad (CARS) offer the quickest response. Mr. Eggleston said that under normal
January 23, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 2)
conditions that would be true, but with a fire first response, they get there first to stabilize the patient and
then if an ambulance is available, it will respond to the call. They found this method works best because
ambulances are very busy and may not always be able to respond quickly, and the response may not be
coming from the CARS station. The response could be from the hospital or somewhere else in the
County.
Mr. Boyd asked if there was not a Pantops fire station does he (Mr. Eggleston) believe that the
City would still be agreeable to a mutual aid agreement without some sort of fee. Mr. Eggleston said that it
is difficult to speculate, but he believes that the County would have a much more difficult time trying to set
up a mutual aid agreement if things were out of tilt. He said that because the Pantops station would be a
consistent reliable resource it would be attractive to the City to help them out on the eastern side. A
Pantops station would put the County in a much better position to negotiate a mutual aid agreement and
without it the County would find itself reverting back to a contract type arrangement.
Ms. Mallek said that her understanding was that this would be the first response from the Pantops
Station and back up would come from Stony Point, East Rivanna or Monticello. This would be the quickest
response and the fastest way to get someone on the site. Mr. Eggleston replied, that was correct, because
most calls, outside of emergency medical calls or car fire, require additional resources beyond the single
engine company. In terms of replacement of the City services, the County is not in the position nor does it
have the capacity to make up this service from existing stations (Stony Point, East Rivanna or Monticello).
He believes that this was a significant issue for the Volunteer Advisory Board and was a contributing factor
for them to approve the staffing plan proposed for next year.
Mr. Eggleston said that another important issue for discussion is EMS revenue recovery. He said
that there was a volunteer committee that researched this extensively and through their research found
that the public was more likely to embrace the concept of EMS revenue recovery if the revenue was used
to further enhance the system. He said that like most stations with career staff, the Pantops Station would
respond with three people who were qualified and equipped to respond as an ALS (Advanced Life
Support) company. Therefore, he believes that it is prudent to use some of the funds from EMS revenue
recovery to not only enhance the Pantops area but also the eastern portion of the County. He reminded
the Board that the need for the Pantops station has been reviewed by two independent consultants over
the last ten years, as well as their Volunteer Advisory Board and they both reached the same conclusion
that a station is needed to provide the basic level of service in the area.
Mr. Eggleston continued with his presentation with a slide showing the gaps in service and how a
Pantops station would help fill that need. He presented a GIS map indicating areas that cannot be
covered in the five minute response. A significant portion of the Pantops area currently is not covered or
has that gap. His next slide indicated almost 100 percent coverage of the Pantops development area
within the five minute response with the location of a station.
Mr. Eggleston said that as the Fire Chief it is his job to advise the Board on how best to protect
the citizens. He has used his education and experience with a number of localities to research this
heavily, and based on his research and feedback from citizens and area business owners, and the
Board’s policies on growth management, it is his recommendation that the Board proceed with the
temporary station during FY ’09 as approved by the Board in May 2007, and then plan for a more
permanent sub-station in 2014.
Mr. Rooker asked the status of EMS recovery fee. Mr. Eggleston said they are still working with
the volunteer partners to negotiate an agreement to move forward. They feel positive and that they are
still on track for next fiscal year.
Mr. Rooker said the funding of a number of the planned expansions and services are conditioned
upon the recovery system getting in place. Mr. Eggleston agreed.
Mr. Eggleston said before discussing the staffing plan in great deal, he wanted to provide Board
members with a summary of volunteer recruitment efforts as it relates to results around the nation and
around the state. He said that nationally there has been a one percent decrease in volunteers annually
and this is related to the conflict with family demands and time required to volunteer. The State trends are
worse. They surveyed like-size localities that track their volunteer fire and rescue personnel. Roanoke
County, New Kent and Virginia Beach have all seen a significant decrease in the number of volunteers
while Albemarle County is increasing its volunteer rate at about two percent annually. Currently, Albemarle
County recruits about 150 volunteers on an annual basis, but about 135 leave the system.
Ms. Thomas asked if they do exit interviews or know why so many volunteers leave the system.
Mr. Eggleston said they are in the process of working with the Volunteer Advisory Board to do that
because they believe that if they can increase their numbers and decrease the numbers that leave the
system, they would be better off. He believes that most of this turnover is related to the University,
because there is a large student population of volunteers, so every four years there is a significant turn
over in personnel. He is not sure how Albemarle’s turnover compares with other localities.
Mr. Eggleston said that currently the system is short about 200 to 250 volunteers. There are
currently stations that need more volunteers. It takes a volunteer an average of two years to reach a basic
level of competence which adds to the complexity of this situation. It, also, makes it difficult to consider
staffing a new station primarily with volunteers. Their staffing goal is to provide consistent and reliable
service 24/7. It is also their strategy to supplement the system with career staff to ensure that the primary
emergency units get out consistently and reliably. The 12 career staff for Pantops will ensure that that fire
engine responds with a minimal of three people, an ALS trained and an equipped staff, 24/7. In addition,
January 23, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 3)
they are planning to aggressively recruit volunteers for Pantops with the hopes of adding an ambulance in
the future.
Mr. Eggleston said that he understands that the Board desires to maximize the use of volunteers
for staffing the primary unit at Pantops, and while they believe options outside of hiring the 12 career staff
would be extremely challenging, he does have an option for the Board’s consideration. If they drop back
from 12 career staff to ten, that would generate one vacant slot during the nights and weekends. In order
to fill that slot, they would need between 11 and 15 volunteers to volunteer at Pantops. Although the
County has been very successful with the volunteer recruitment program, as compared with others around
the country, there is still a need for additional volunteers at existing stations. There are unmet needs they
need to pay attention to at the existing stations. Based on the volunteers coming in and out of the
County’s system there is a net increase of about 15. Mr. Eggleston said that if the County went with this
option they would end up redirecting volunteers from existing stations to help staff Pantops. He is unsure
on whether that is good for the system overall. He added that often when a volunteer graduates from the
academy there is an internship or a period of time before they are competent enough to perform their
duties. If they go with this option, they may have to redirect some of the training resources to ensure that
when the Pantops station opens up, the volunteers are ready to go. He said that while they do not
recommend this strategy because of the negative impact on the current system, he wanted to provide the
Board with an option for consideration and discussion.
Mr. Rooker asked if there was any great risk in pursuing the middle strategy, and seeing how
many volunteers they get and then adjust accordingly. It seems somewhat imprudent to start with a
presumption that the County will be unable to fill any slots with volunteers at that station. Mr. Eggleston
said that they could use that option but he believes in the long run it would end up robbing from existing
stations to fill Pantops.
Mr. Slutzky asked if data showing that the stations are picking up an extra 15 volunteers a year is
a consistent trend and where are all the volunteers going. He asked if the rural area stations are currently
still understaffed and if they end up reaching into the volunteer pool for Pantops, will they be taking away
from the rural areas efforts to get caught up and provide the ten minute response time that has been
promised. Mr. Eggleston responded, “yes”. Based on their analysis, they are still understaffed and still
need about 200 additional volunteers in the system. He thinks they could make this work with 15 but it will
be at the expense of the existing system.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks what Mr. Eggleston is trying to say is that it is not possible to put on a
“full court press” to get volunteers to this particular station. He asked if, at this time, they are recruiting or
advertising for volunteers at this particular location. Mr. Eggleston said they are continuously on a “full
court press” when it comes to volunteers and they never take a break from recruitment. They recruit
County-wide for any volunteer and try to direct them to their local volunteer station. History proves that
they are challenged when it comes to recruitment of enough volunteers to make this work. The Board can
look back at Monticello and Hollymead for example. He said that because of the demographics of the
Pantops area, it makes it very challenging to recruit and there are not many opportunities. Mr. Eggleston
said that there has been some interest in volunteering at this station but because there is no station they
have directed the interested parties to existing stations. He repeated that he thinks that this strategy will
not work.
Mr. Slutzky asked if they are currently finding that the East Rivanna station is down in volunteers
and if this is the case, is it impacting their ability to respond. Mr. Eggleston said that East Rivanna, as well
as every other station, could always and currently needs more volunteers. He said that usually with a
volunteer organization the workload falls on a very few and he thinks that is probably the case around the
County.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the volunteers being recruited for the Pantops station are going to be in
competition with the East Rivanna recruitment efforts, which are out of the same pool of volunteers, and if
so would they more or less go to either one of those stations. Mr. Eggleston said that was a good point
because that is what they experienced with the Hollymead and Monticello stations. There was a concern
with Seminole Trail in Earlysville that Hollymead would compete with volunteers for their station, given the
need at all the stations. They reached an agreement to focus their volunteer efforts in a small
geographical area and then redirect anyone else who lived in the community to the particular stations.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the East Rivanna station is currently able to keep up with the rate of calls that
it is experiencing. Mr. Eggleston said that he thinks they are challenged across the board in some cases
to meet the demands. The demand is growing and although the volunteer numbers are increasing, he
thinks they will always have a situation in which they are challenged.
Ms. Thomas asked how it worked out with Monticello, because she knows that there was a certain
community member who worked very hard to recruit volunteers. She asked how many volunteers are
permanently at Monticello. Mr. Eggleston said that there are currently about ten volunteers at the
Monticello station and getting that amount was difficult. At one time there was less than 12 budgeted and
he had to come to the Board and ask for additional career staff in order to open up the station. He added
that even though they are still challenged at Monticello they have expanded service at the station. They
have added a first response vehicle, as well as a tanker. He thinks Fire/Rescue could possibly be in the
same situation with Pantops if they plan for less than what is being recommended, and that he may find
himself later on coming back before the Board, before the end of the budget period, requesting additional
resources.
January 23, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 4)
Mr. Eggleston said their recommendation remains to move forward as planned. He does not think
this goes against the grain of supporting the volunteer system. They will continue to work hard in
recruiting new volunteers as well as enhance the program that is currently in place now. He said that they
are talking about opening this station during the next fiscal year and creating a consistent and reliable
service.
Mr. Boyd asked if this had already been planned in the upcoming year’s budget.
Mr. Foley said, as part of the next agenda discussion, there is a scenario that suggests if the
Board reduced one person at each of the two stations, it would help to balance the five years. There has
been discussion on how to mitigate that if the Board approves the 12 for Pantops. It would give them a
head start to work on Ivy, as hard as they can, so if there were 12 hired and they were successful then
maybe they would be able to recruit some volunteers to help offset that cost. W ith two stations coming on
line, two less people is something that could be worked into the plan, but with Pantops, staff is
recommending that the Board approve the 12 and see what can be done later with Ivy, to get that two
person savings. He said that next year staff will be looking at this again in the five year plan and at that
time they will be able to see where the recruitment efforts are going, and based on the status, the Board
can make adjustments.
Mr. Boyd asked about the capital and recurring costs for the Pantops station. Mr. Eggleston said
that he did not have the figures for the permanent sub-station, but the temporary sub-station, with
material, would be approximately $100,000, and the additional cost for staffing the station with personnel.
Mr. Boyd asked if equipment was added into the $100,000 figure. Mr. Eggleston said that the cost
of the equipment needed would be around $500,000. Mr. Boyd said that it would take approximately
$600,000 in capital outlay, and then asked about the cost for 12 full time employees. Mr. Eggleston said
that it would be around $650,000 but, that price also ensures the replacement of City services and also a
quick response time in Pantops.
Mr. Boyd said that potentially in 2010 if the County had to renegotiate with the City they may be
looking upwards of $2.0 million in cost. It looks like this idea could be an even swap and may in fact save
the County some money.
Mr. Rooker said that the current payment to the City is about $650,000 and this would add an
increase of $1.4 million a year.
Mr. Eggleston added that if the County is going to continue to invest in the system, either with the
City or with County resources, staff recommends the resources go in a location that will help them achieve
the five minute response time.
Mr. Slutzky said that was an important point. There is already a 10 minute response time in the
Pantops area. If the County curtails its access to City services, when there is no specific reason to believe
there will be an abundance of staff and volunteer support in East Rivanna, then there is going to be reason
to anticipate a decline in response times. He is concerned with this growth area, particularly since it has a
large percentage of the elderly population. He is supportive of the proposal even though he does not want
to spend that amount of money. He also thinks that the County has little choice in doing so.
Mr. Boyd said the staff had started to move forward assuming that the Board had already decided
to move forward on this plan. In fact he attended a citizens meeting where there had been talk about the
new station. If there is a majority in support, he believes that the Board needs to approve moving forward.
Mr. Slutzky said he is convinced that the Board needs to move forward with this as they have
already said that they would.
Mr. Rooker said that the Board had already voted to move forward with this plan. In addition, he
met with Mr. Eggleston to discuss the plan. It is important to note that presently the East Rivanna station
is the primary back up for several other stations, including Stony Point. Currently East Rivanna is having
difficulty responding to all the calls. There are a number of calls that are not being responded to, where
they are suppose to be the second responders, because they do not have adequate personnel at all times
despite last year the Board adding a number of professional personnel. He voted against moving forward
with this plan, but presently he does not see that there are any good alternatives for providing coverage in
the Pantops area and providing secondary response that is needed in order to have adequate and
reasonable coverage. Mr. Rooker said that although this is a lot of money he does not see any other
alternative. He added that this plan has been geared down from being a full station to having a temporary
sub station and then a sub station which has substantially reduced the initial capital expense and the
projected operating expense.
Ms. Mallek said that this was as far as she was willing to go right now as an experiment to see
how it develops. She thinks that it gives the County a cushion for a couple of years to find out what kind
off success the County is going to have with a more door to door approach in that high density area. She
said that if they are sitting and waiting for people to come to them that may not be enough. Staff may
have to take a more active role to find service oriented people who live in the neighborhood. She said the
businesses and high risk companies who are currently there will more than likely make a significant
contribution to this effort as it moves forward.
Mr. Slutzky mentioned Mr. Eggleston’s earlier comments about finding out why people leave the
volunteer system and what attracts them in the first place. He would be interested if Mr. Eggleston came
January 23, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 5)
back to the Board with an analysis of his findings. As the County is urbanizing with increased pressure to
provide services, it is relying heavily on the volunteer system which has historically been an effective
system. He asked if it is realistic to continue to anticipate either staying even or getting ahead with a
certain number of volunteers every year. Mr. Eggleston informed the Board that the County is down a
couple hundred volunteers from where it should be and he, himself, finds that to be a little frightening. The
needed numbers is to get to an optimal level of service and anything less than optimal should only happen
occasionally. It is good that the County is relying on 15 new volunteers a year, but that is also bucking a
national trend. He asked if the basis for the trends could be isolated, what would make the County
continue to believe that it is going to go the opposite direction of national trends, or if the County believes
that the national trends will go with the County. He added that a needs profile of the County is important
while going through this five year planning process.
Mr. Eggleston said that he believes their data systems are in better shape than they have ever
been. They also have a well-engaged Advisory Board that has been concentrating on this effort for a long
time. There have been discussions about some incentive programs that will help to improve the retention
numbers. There are a lot of people on the Advisory Board who have experience and can help the County
with bucking this national trend. Their ultimate goal is to develop a system that can continue to meet the
demands of a combination system.
Ms. Thomas said Mr. Slutzky said many of the things she wanted to say. If they are really
depending heavily on University students, it makes sense to have this conversation with the University.
There may be incentives for the students. The Board needs to know a lot more about this and what is
causing the volunteers to leave. If it is just graduation then the County needs to take a different tact.
Mr. Eggleston said that he and the Advisory Board would like to know the exact reasons for the
volunteers leaving the system. This has been discussed at great lengths with plans for the exit interviews.
He added that one program they are excited about relative to the Hollymead station is Live in Program.
The station is due to open soon and they already have had a number of applicants interested in that dorm
type of arrangement. This is the first type of arrangement in Central Virginia that he is aware of, and it is a
great use of University students. H e believes this will help maximize the use of the volunteers. He hears
what the Board is saying, and that he hopes to come back before the Board, in the not to distant future,
and provide more details about the system.
Mr. Boyd said that unless there were any other questions, the Board is supportive of moving
forward with the plans as discussed. He asked Mr. Eggleston to confirm that this station is intended to be
a sub-station, not a full station.
Mr. Rooker said that this project had been significantly scaled back to a sub-station which
substantially cut the operating expense and the initial capital expense.
Mr. Foley said the primary issue is that the ladder truck will run out of Monticello, not from this
station. Mr. Eggleston agreed that this has been scaled back dramatically to a sub-station.
Mr. Rooker said that the scaling back cut the capital cost more than one-half.
Ms. Mallek commented that the original number was $5.0 million and now it is approximately $2.0
million.
Mr. Boyd said that it is not anticipated that this station will be at the level of Monticello or
Hollymead. Mr. Eggleston said that that was correct.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 3. Work Session: Five Year Financial Plan (continued discussion).
Mr. Foley said that the Board has had two work sessions on the Five Year Financial Plan, the first
in November and the second in December. At that time staff reviewed projections on revenue and
expenditures and reviewed a set of assumptions on priorities that the Board had set in the past. The staff
had asked for the Board’s confirmation or redirection on those assumptions so that the Plan would better
reflect the Boards priorities looking five years down the road. They have been through this process and at
the session in December the Board directed the staff to make a few changes to what was presented to
them. Mr. Foley said the purpose of today’s review is to look at how staff has incorporated the direction
that they believe the Board gave to them into the Plan and to work towards final adjustments that will end
with a balanced Five Year Plan. It is important, as staff has emphasized in the past, to remember that this
five year financial plan is a plan. It is a plan in process; this is not a five year budget. Mr. Foley said that
staff is not asking the Board to adopt a tax rate or do anything like that as a part of this plan. In any good
financial planning both the revenue and expenditure sides need to be incorporated to reflect the Board’s
priorities. Staff believes that this plan is designed to clarify those priorities and reflect them in a realistic
balanced five year picture with any final changes that the Board deems necessary or appropriate to make.
He said that staff will be looking at this plan on an annual basis to make sure that it continually reflects the
Board’s priorities within that realistic financial picture. Today he plans to go over the changes that staff has
put together, which have been based on the Board’s input. They want to see if the changes reflect where
the Board would like to go with this plan and, if, so staff would like to get the Board’s approval for this as a
planning document to create a frame work for future budget processes. Mr. Foley said that again it is
important to make the distinction between an actual budget process and this planning process.
Mr. Foley said that staff has provided the Board with a one page attachment (set out below) that
breaks down all the proposed changes.
January 23, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 6)
Mr. Foley said staff is asking the Board to accept the plan and approve the changes. He then
proceeded to review the proposed changes and asked the Board for any direction to staff so that they can
finalize the five year picture. He said that at the time the Board reviewed the plan they said that there were
some priorities that they thought were important to include in the plan and that they were willing to
consider some revenue adjustment/enhancements; not just the real estate taxes, but some other fees that
may help with the plan.
Mr. Foley said that there were basically two adjustments on the revenue side. Currently the
general property taxes are paying for County’s storm water program. Staff has shown in the model that it
is possible to offset the General Fund expense by adding storm water fees. Assuming that in year two the
County established a storm water fee that was $6 per year per equivalent residential unit; the $6 per year
would offset the $400,000 that is currently in the General Fund. The $400,000 could then be applied to
other Board priorities.
Mr. Foley said the attachment shows a tax increase in year two that could generate $700,000 in
additional revenue for other Board priorities. That reflects 40 percent of how much a penny generates
since 60 percent automatically goes to the School system. W ith some growth in value of the penny, the
attachment shows the changes in additional revenues in the five years. It starts off with $1.1 million and
grows to $1.25 million by the fifth year. Mr. Foley said that last year the Board made some revenue
adjustments related to decal fees and so forth. Last year staff looked at any revenue adjustments that
could be made including property taxes and other types of fees.
Mr. Slutzky asked what is being assumed as the rate of increase or decrease in property values
that would translate into the tax rate (68 cents this year) to bring in these revenues. Mr. Boyd replied that
it is 1.5 percent in year two and then five percent thereafter.
Mr. Slutzky asked if those assumptions have been reviewed over the last few months. Mr. Foley
said they have actually been reviewed in the last 18 hours. He added that there are going to be
adjustments. They used the October estimates as the base and they have not changed this as they go
through this process since it is not a budget but a planning process. Staff has not changed the
assumptions in the model but they have changed them for the budget process. He said there are two real
estate reassessments that go into place now in every fiscal because of the annual reassessments. He
said that staff is expecting a little better in the current year based on the values but a little worse in the
second half of the coming fiscal year. Staff will be going through all that information with the Board in the
next couple weeks while going through the budget process.
Mr. Slutzky said the five year process is based on an assumption that if the economic realities
needed to be revisited then staff would make a reciprocal adjustment in its recommendation for the rate
just to make sure that the revenue stream is the same.
January 23, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 7)
Mr. Foley said that they would also look at some expenditure adjustments and those two options
would be looked at if the reassessments are not what they expected at the time they were put together.
He said that this is the basis of where they are working today and staff does expect some adjustments but
just how much is what he will be talking to the Board about in coming weeks.
Ms. Mallek asked if the $19 annual fee was considered and disregarded previously by the Board.
Mr. Foley said that it was reviewed by the Board a couple of years ago and no final action was
taken. Staff is planning a more extensive review in the next couple of months. The $6 fee does offset the
increase in the General Fund and increasing the amount to a $19 yearly fee would also offset the amount
going into the Capital Fund to pay for storm water projects. In the case of the formula for Capital funding
that would free up more money to go to other Capital projects. If there was a fee established in the future,
it could free up as much as $1.0 million in the Capital Fund to pay for some other priorities such as
infrastructure, roads or other things that are not adequately funded.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the Board were to tax residential units directly for storm water projects, how
would commercial properties fit into that. Mr. Foley said they would have more than one equivalent
residential unit. For instance the Fashion Square Mall might be charged however many equivalent
residential units, but staff would have to go out into the field in order to calculate the amount.
Mr. Rooker asked if this was based on impervious surface. Mr. Foley replied, “yes”.
Ms. Thomas commented that other communities are already doing that. Mr. Foley said that
“equivalent” is key and there must be a basis for assessing the charge. It is a typical single family
residence and the amount of impervious surface.
Mr. Boyd said it is important to note that they are working with the County’s budget now, and the
County needs as opposed to the School needs. He added that with every penny that is raised, the County
loses 6/10 of a cent and that is something that the Board should give consideration to especially since the
School system seems to be a little bit more favorable when it comes to their State funds. If we need to
raise money we only receive $40 of the $100 raised. The Board does not have to say that this 60/40 split
applies across the board when it needs to raise revenues for the local government.
Ms. Slutzky said that he does not agree with Mr. Boyd’s point of view.
Ms. Thomas said the 60/40 split is a policy, not law, and could be changed at any time. She
added that when the Board held its work session, no one put a “sticker” by that option.
Mr. Boyd said that was before the Board started discussing raising taxes. It is something that
some thought needs to be given. He questions why the Board would increase the burden on the citizens.
They are discussing rising this money because of the needs of local government.
Mr. Rooker said that he thinks that every assumption is subject to review. The tax rates are
subject to review every year. The Board may or may not adopt these particular tax rates during a
particular year. This just shows, based on current assumptions, how the Board can achieve a relatively
balanced financial picture going forward over the next five years which he believes is important. He thinks
that if the Board is going to talk about changing the formula with Schools, it needs to have a very lengthy
discussion with them about how that would impact them.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks the Board should do that. There is this policy where 60 cents of every
new dollar goes into the School system. In the current process when money needs to be raised for local
government, the Board is putting the added burden on the taxpayer.
Mr. Rooker said that staff is building this plan based upon current policy. The Board has not voted
to change that policy. He thinks that there should be a whole process that the Board goes through if they
are considering changing its policy. In the absence of it not being done staff has to assume that the
current policy is in place.
Mr. Boyd said that there are current exceptions to policy now where certain items are taken off the
top. The Board does not necessarily have to change the policy.
Mr. Rooker said that capital has always been taken off the top, as has revenue sharing. He is not
saying that that the policy has to stay the same forever, but staff cannot go about assuming anything else
until the Board changes its policy. He again stated that changing the policy would involve a process.
Mr. Boyd asked for the Board to assume that the County had a fully funded School system based
on what they needed. If the Board needed to pick up extra money for the County government would the
Board give the School system a windfall of $950,000 so that it could pick up $700,000.
Mr. Slutzky said an alternative way to look at this is that the things that may need to be added into
this budget planning process are the things that result from the evolving conditions the County is
confronting. Those things include increased fuel costs, population growth and urbanization. He added that
a lot of those same variables will have a reciprocal impact on the School Division. W hat the Board is
talking about in potentially having to increase revenue will also be experienced by the School system.
Once the Board goes into that conversation it may decide that the algorithm is in some way defective and
maybe there should be more money given to the Schools or it might be less. He does not think that it is
appropriate to consider in the confines of the five year budget process. Until there is a process to change
January 23, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 8)
the 40/60 split, he thinks the Board has to allow staff to provide the five year planning process the way
they are presenting it now, which leaves some of the fundamental assumptions in place.
Mr. Boyd said that based on the current policy in order for the Board to raise 40 cents for local
government needs, they would need to raise $1 give 60 cents of that $1 to the School system whether
they need it or not, recognizing that they would always need it.
Mr. Slutzky said that the reasons why the Board needs to raise 40 cents could apply arguably to
the Schools as well.
Mr. Foley said that one of the essential assumptions in the current five year model is the different
formulas. That process is already in place so if there are issues that the Board wants to reconsider they
can tell staff.
Mr. Slutzky said that when the Board was previously having its discussion he did not entirely agree
with the base line assumption of the tax rate remaining the same because he felt that there were a lot of
conditions in the community that suggested under funding, i.e., infrastructure and so forth. The Board
decided for this five year planning exercise that it was inappropriate for deciding the tax rate for the next
five years now. He believes that the Board needs to start with a base line assumption that is logical and
reasonable, knowing that is just an operating assumption. He said there is a point in a five year planning
process when you are unable to make the five year out decisions on the front end, and instead work with
logical assumptions that get the relative expenditures and the relative revenue.
Mr. Boyd said that he agrees with Mr. Slutzky but he does not think that the Board should make
this process something that is not realistic. He thinks that the School Board should take this five year
projection and doing the same with their long range plans. He said that the Board cannot simply say that
they are going to do this but that it will change every year depending on what is needed. The County has
too many things that they need to carry year to year that have to be planned for on a long range term
basis.
Mr. Slutzky agreed and said the Board should have started this process when the tax rate was 74
cents.
Mr. Foley said that he thinks that this process has worked out fairly well. It is the first year that it
has been done and it is being used for planning. The School system is also using this process for
planning. He added that this does not mean that next year when the Board takes a look at the things that
have changed that it will not have to take another look at the Plan. Right now it is a realistic picture and if
the Schools want to change the numbers for their purposes, they will need to come to the Board. He
pointed out that the plan already proposed a one cent increase in the real estate tax rate in the third year;
it now includes a one cent increase in the second year as the base line. He said that this will provide extra
funding for the schools.
Mr. Boyd commented that this does not mean share 60 percent of the stormwater management
fee. Mr. Foley said that fee is not subject to the formula split with the School system. Mr. Boyd said that it
could save the taxpayers more by raising the amount by another 12 cents. Mr. Foley said the Board would
have to change its policy on how much it transfers to Capital.
Mr. Rooker asked if amounts raised beyond the $400,000 would have to be spent on stormwater
programs and go into Capital. Mr. Foley said that was correct.
Mr. Boyd said that there is currently no policy that says the Board needs to spend those dollars
from operations on stormwater management; the Board just needs to make up the difference.
Ms. Mallek said there are also plenty of projects to use the total amount that the County would
save and if the Board does not put as much General Fund into Capital because of this, then that might be
a consequence.
Mr. Slutzky asked Mr. Boyd if he was open minded to the $19 fee versus the $6 fee. Mr. Boyd
said he would if a case could be made that it would be less of an impact on the taxpayers.
Referring to the above chart, Ms. Thomas asked what the parenthesis indicated. Mr. Foley said
that means it is more expense than currently in the model.
Ms. Thomas asked if the $100,000 for transit is the same as what the Board put in this year. Mr.
Foley replied, “no”, that is an additional $100,000 of cost.
Mr. Foley said currently they are putting approximately $700,000 into transit and this (referring to
the list) is saying to add another $100,000, which is another expense.
Mr. Slutzky said he assumes these funds are based on the assumption that if the County was to
take on a more substantial commitment to transit associated with a Regional Transit Authority, there
would be different funding mechanisms. The base assumption here is that if there is no RTA and no
expanded transit system, the County would still be providing these revenues as an increase in transit in
the near term. Mr. Foley agreed from the current amount of revenues that is generated in the
General Fund.
January 23, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 9)
Mr. Boyd said the five year projection is $700,000, but those projections are far short of the $3.0
million to $5.0 million cost.
Mr. Slutzky said that cost includes an expanded transit system. He would like to see the Board
committing to funding that system even though it has not gone through the decision-making process.
Although the County is heading in that direction, there is a process that needs to take place. He thinks it is
reasonable for staff to include these funds as a place holder assumption.
Mr. Boyd agreed with Mr. Slutzky, but those numbers cannot be determined in a vacuum. He
added that it would take a sizeable increase in the County’s operating budget to fund an additional $3.0 to
$5.0 million in transit which would throw the entire five year off kilter.
Mr. Slutzky said the MPO is trying to get enabling legislation for funding a RTA. They are far from
having a clear sense of a funding mechanism and the actual operating and capital budget for expanding
transit. He wants to make sure that the City does not see the County’s five year budgeting process not
taking into account the RTA. He also wants to make it clear that that is a separate issue.
Mr. Rooker said the $100,000 in FY 08/09 would represent a minimal increase for part of a route
for the year. That is not a huge increase in transit. At its last meeting the Board spent a lot of time on a
transit proposal and some of those increased service alternatives would result in substantial increases in
expenditures. He thinks that a couple of Board members said that they tie that hopefully to legislation that
gives the Board the ability to raise money other than on property taxes.
Mr. Foley said the $100,000 in transit does not reflect the $70,000 in grant match that the Board
approved at its last meeting. Staff is assuming that amount is already in the budget so it is actually a
$170,000 increase.
Mr. Slutzky said when the Board approved Treesdale, there was discussion about the need to
fund transit that would service that corridor. The estimate from CTS was approximately $475,000 per year
as opposed to $100,000. He would be amendable to increasing the transit allocation to an amount higher
than $100,000.
Mr. Rooker said that he does not expect the Treesdale project to be built and occupied until 2010.
At that time, the Board can make a decision about transit.
Mr. Boyd said that if there is a willingness on this Board to put more than $100,000 into transit
based on things that are already being anticipated to happen, then it should be looked at. He does not
think the Board should fool itself and make this a “fun” document. He wants this to be a document that is a
true planning mechanism.
Mr. Rooker said that he agrees, and he does not view it as a fun document. He pointed out that
this is a microcosm of the entire document in the sense that these are items that were pulled out to look at
today. There was some money included for general initiatives, other new initiatives and there is nothing
that prevents the Board from doing that. He added that Mr. Elliott has indicated that he did not think
Treesdale would be built until 2011. Mr. Elliott said Treesdale needs to get tax credits and they are
looking at CDBG funding. Mr. Rooker said technically there is enough money built in to fund that route if
that came up. If there was some money built in for some other initiatives, the Board could decide that the
money could go to transit if that is a wise decision at that time
Mr. Foley said that another option is that some of the transportation money that the Board is
setting aside could go to transit. He thinks one of the main challenges is that staff does not have all the
answers to all the things that are currently being studied, or have final numbers and final approvals by the
Board. Staff did not feel that without more direction from the Board on the RTA, that it could go a lot
further. There needs to be much more discussion on the priorities. Mr. Foley said that he is also adamant
about making this a real exercise, so that the Board knows realistically what it is going to take to achieve
its’ priorities. He added that there are a lot of studies going on so it is hard to make an assumption.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to be able to put in certain amounts into the formula and see what it
does to the five year projections.
Mr. Dorrier said that he thinks the Board needs to look at how transit fits in with infrastructure
needs and affordable housing because those are the main issues.
Mr. Foley said that this is an annual exercise and that is why it is important to include these new
things so as to have a realistic picture.
Mr. Boyd said the items need to be dropped in during the Board’s discussions on transit, and not
in a vacuum and not just annually.
Mr. Rooker said that he agreed with Mr. Boyd except with respect to transit when the Board talks
about a significant increase in the system and the need to discuss other funding sources. He added that
the Board has not discussed whether transit should be funded using current revenue sources.
Mr. Slutzky said revenues also have to be looked at. For the planning process, he agrees that the
Board should move forward acknowledging that those things are sort of extra.
January 23, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 10)
Mr. Foley said that the Board now has a point of reference for the future for whenever a
large expenditure comes forward. The five years do not include a lot of excess.
Mr. Rooker said that currently there are 16 frozen positions in the budget and he thinks that there
are some departments that are being significantly impacted by those frozen positions. There are certain
things that the Board expects staff to do but are not being accomplished because the people are not
there. A new initiative could be to unfreeze some of the frozen positions so that things that are not being
done could get done.
Ms. Thomas said that she thinks it comes down to what the Board defines as core. She previously
asked that question; exactly, what are core services? She just learned that seven positions in Community
Development that were dropped are not considered core which is a major cut back that is not covered. If
members of this Board do not have the same concept of core services, as the staff that put this together,
then the Board will not only mislead itself, but also the public.
Mr. Foley said that he believes that four of the seven positions are considered to be core and they
are at the top of the list when an enhanced position becomes available. Staff will fill those positions (two
inspectors, two planners, and an erosion and sediment control person) because they are considered core.
Mr. Foley said there is also another planner position that is not considered core, but it is an enhanced
position. The Board can certainly move that planner position to the top of the list. He added that on
February 6th, Mr. Graham will have a proposal, as part of the Community Development W ork Plan, on
some revenue enhancements and fee increases in an attempt to accelerate the pace of getting those
planner positions filled to work on some of the Board priorities. There is a process that states what they
believe to be core and enhanced positions.
Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Foley to share that information with the Board.
Mr. Foley said that he would be glad to do that. He believes the Board directed Mr. Tucker to
make some decisions on that but obviously there are services that the Board is concerned about, and staff
plans to have that discussion during the February 6th work session. Staff also plans to provide some
solutions to help fill some of the important positions.
Mr. Slutzky said he thinks the Board’s use of the word initiative in its budgeting process may be
misleading to the public. A lot of the initiatives, in terms of staffing and other things, are not necessarily a
new idea; they are fulfilling a commitment that the County created. Examples are some of the planning
positions when the Board adopted the Comprehensive Plan that contemplated protecting the rural area
and creating a growth area and all the dynamics that it takes to enforce that kind of distinction. Some of
those positions are a natural result of those decisions made a long time ago.
Mr. Rooker said that his top initiative is getting back to filling some positions that have gone
unfilled now for a period of time.
Mr. Foley said that he understands the misperception associated with that word and said that staff
will take a look and see if there is a better way to term that in the future.
Mr. Foley said now he plans to work through the expenditures and answer any questions. He
referred to his earlier comments about adding back the one percent salary increase in the second year. In
the first two years of the Plan, the salary increase was scaled back from 4.35 percent to 3.35 percent. He
said that the Board confirmed that it would remain with the 3.35 percent in compensation for the next fiscal
year. Staff has also done that in the second fiscal year and then bringing it back up to 4.35 percent in the
third, fourth and fifth years. He said the reason that was done was because of the anticipated down turn in
the housing market that would diminish the County’s revenues in those two years. Mr. Foley said that
based upon the discussion that the Board had with the School Board and since staff did not have any
clear direction or policy beyond year one, staff ran a scenario so that the two Boards can give some
direction. Mr. Foley said that currently there is no strategy going beyond year one but something needs to
be done so that the model works because compensation is a big number. He added that this means that
all of the four out years, beyond the first year are at 4.35 percent in this model, pending some direction
from the Board.
Mr. Rooker said they are trying to meet a compensation goal which is objectively determined. In
his opinion all of these numbers are subject to change based upon what the market actually does. In this
regard, they are just plugging in numbers. They are assuming that three years from now the market will
be either 4.35 percent or 3.35 percent. This is determined in an objective process, not a vacuum.
Mr. Foley said staff believes that in the year ahead the salary increases are going to be lower
across the board in the current market and, therefore, the 3.35 percent is an appropriate number. It is a
little more difficult to predict two years out in the plan so they are using that average to predict the second
year until they get different direction from the Board. He said that if the Board disagrees with this
approach, staff will adjust it back out.
Ms. Thomas said at the joint work session with the School Board, she stated that one reason the
teachers seem to be getting a higher pay raise was because staff had done a lot of work with a peer group
and knew who they wanted to compete with for those teachers’ positions. The county has not done
something similar for the classified positions, which is most of the non-school, non teacher employees.
She would be interested in having a discussion about comparison of County classified positions, whether
the County is demanding more of and if the non- teacher positions should be compared with a different
peer group. She would like to have this topic on a subsequent agenda.
January 23, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 11)
Mr. Slutzky said that he agrees with Ms. Thomas. He thinks it will provide potentially helpful
information for future five year budget exercises.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks that is a major undertaking and if the Board is going to go down that route
then there should be discussion about reconstituting a task force or something. There was a lot of
studying, deliberation, and input from the public and staff. There is currently a peer market group and it is
not as simple as the teachers. W ith this group they have to check the secretaries, custodians, engineers,
planners and all the other categories or jobs. It is a major undertaking and he thought that Human
Resources was already comparing the County’s competiveness on an annual basis.
Ms. Thomas said that the School system has said that it is a top quartile school system and
therefore the County should compare itself with that group. The results are pretty dramatic this year, with
the teachers being proposed for a four percent increase while classified is not. She thinks it is a
conversation worth having and if staff says it is impossible then so be it, but it seems like it is very doable
for the teachers.
Mr. Boyd said he thought Ms. Suyes had already told the Board that the County has recognized
over the years that there are certain categories of jobs that need to be looked at differently. Ms. Thomas
said that it is very limited and is for a position like the Deputy County Executive that needs to be recruited
nationally. Mr. Boyd said it is based on how County needs to recruit and to maintain a low turnover rate.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks it would be information that some of the Board members would find
useful. Mr. Slutzky said he would welcome the information.
Mr. Rooker said that he thought that everyone agreed that the County would try to target teachers
in the top quartile of the competitive market. That does not amount to changing the competitive market or
changing the peer group that the County looks at. This may mean changing the target for classified
employees to somewhere other than the median which is where it is now. Mr. Rooker said that the
Schools are at their median with respect to their classified employees. It is only the teacher group that is
targeted at the top 25 percent; it is not the entire School system.
Mr. Boyd said the decision about the teachers was driven by the fact that the County was having
trouble recruiting and keeping teachers. Ms. Thomas asked if he had noticed the turnover in the
Community Development Department lately.
Mr. Slutzky said that he is supportive of the Board discussing our peer community and target
criteria as to whether we want to be in the midpoint or higher. The nature of the County’s staffing has
evolved in the last few years. It may or may not be appropriate to drop some of the peer communities off
and add some other.
Mr. Rooker said there are really two different things here. The first is changing the whole
approach in the peer community that is been looked at. There was a task force to do that and they went
through a long period of meetings and ultimately made a recommendation that the Board and School
system adopted. He is not comfortable with just saying “now we will just unilaterally start changing that
peer group that was arrived at by a process”. It is okay with him it the Board wants to go through another
process to develop another peer group, but he thinks it is different to say where do we go within that peer
group and target compensation. He thinks that would be a good conversation to have periodically. He
thinks that we need to give Human Resources some lead time to let us know where we are having turn
over and where we are having difficultly obtaining applications for positions. That is the same information
that the County examined when the decision regarding teacher compensation was made.
Mr. Slutzky said it might be interesting to have staff take a quick look at the criteria that was used
during the last process to determine our peer community and look at whether any of those communities
have changed in some way that makes them inappropriate. Then, if it seems that it is appropriate, leave it
alone, but if there seems to be enough change, the Board may decide to take another look at the larger
process. He is not convinced that the Board has to do it but he would like to look at it.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks it is a much shorter process to look at where you target employee
compensation within the peer group than it is to look at changing the whole peer group.
Ms. Thomas said that was pretty sacrosanct after the balancing act that it took to create the
group.
Mr. Slutzky said that if there is no will to do it then the Board should move on.
Mr. Foley said that staff has a general picture of the discussion and will come back to the Board
with additional information as it becomes available.
Mr. Boyd said the question Mr. Foley previously asked was how comfortable the Board felt about
adding back $350,000, starting with the FY 09/10 budget.
Mr. Slutzky said that he was fine with it and he thought the logic for doing it made sense. It is not
a commitment to spending that amount.
Mr. Foley said there is a challenge in doing this process with the School Board hearing about
some things, but it is difficult for staff to not start with the Board and get input on things that concern the
entire County budget. Staff will look for the Board’s direction if it thinks the process should change in the
January 23, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 12)
future. He said that staff put this together and proposed it to the Board based on assumptions. Mr. Foley
said that currently salary will not create an issue because staff has tried to take it off the table, and staff is
using the 60/40 split, and staff is not changing those assumptions. There is still an idea among some
School Board members that they should be involved in that process, however, it is difficult for staff to
involve them in the process before they involve the Board. This process leads staff to needing to identify
the things that the Board wants to talk about in the longer term.
Mr. Rooker said that, as far as he was concerned, the money put in for salaries should be the
most realistic number, based on objective information Human Resource received by looking at the market
and determining future increases rather than just picking out some numbers. He would like to receive
Human Resources input because the number is actually irrelevant.
Mr. Slutzky said he got the impression from School folks that there was not unanimity within HR
about the ultimate correct number. He does not know that the Board should be going with a number that
has not at least been discussed with the School Board because it is preemptive of a consensus of the two
bodies which resulted this year in two different pay rates, and that is problematic.
Mr. Rooker said that it has not resulted in two different pay raises and he thinks that ultimately the
School Board will adopt the one that the Board adopted at its meeting because he thinks that they will
objectively make that determination. If there is a raise given that’s too high, based upon the objective
criteria one year, the next year the Board might find itself giving no raise because the market might not
have moved. Mr. Slutzky said that the reciprocal of that is true too.
Mr. Rooker said that they need to be careful about not putting themselves in a position where the
Board is giving a raise that is out in front of the objective criteria. Mr. Slutzky said that the exact opposite
is also true because if you were to undershoot what the market ultimately does through attrition you could
end up being in a worse spot. He agrees that the Board should be using the most reliable number, which it
sounds like staff is suggesting that for the out years.
Mr. Foley said that W orldatW ork does not project beyond year one and there is no good data for
that so staff’s assumption is that they will use the average of the last three years which has been the 4
percent. He said that for now that is probably the best that they can do in this exercise and the Board
could revisit this topic as they talk about salaries and projections in the future.
Mr. Slutzky said that he was not on the Board when the peer communities were determined and
he would like information so he can understand the process a lot better. Mr. Foley said that staff could
provide Board members with information on the process, etc.
Mr. Foley said that the Board asked staff to put some money into transit, affordable housing and
environmental initiatives. Staff has also included some foot notes about how they arrived at the amounts.
He pointed out that for the environmental initiative, the true cost of climate change initiatives are not
incorporated into the information. Some of the staff have done some projections which lead to some
significant numbers but he thinks those numbers need to be reviewed a little further. Mr. Foley said that
staff also needs to get more clear direction from the Board on how to implement the Cool Counties
Program, which does have community-wide impact, not just County operations, but staff at least wanted to
capture the County operations conversion as a starting point. Staff put in the $250,000 a year in for new
initiatives. The Board is able to see the cumulative effect every year as you add to that. To balance the
model, as discussed earlier, it shows a reduction of one fire rescue firefighter and one police officer. He
added that this can easily be adjusted based on the Board’s discussion today and in anticipation of
volunteers in the Ivy station to ensure that the model is balanced. Mr. Foley said that again in the first year,
it is $18,000 because it is not a full year impact.
Mr. Slutzky said that the Board had determined at some point, based on a somewhat objective
standard that it would attempt to add a certain number of new police officers every year plus the
necessary police officers to offset the increase of population. That led to an expected number of four to
five. Mr. Foley said to clarify that it is not four plus one; it is based upon 1.5 officers per thousand
projected out which led to the need for four to five per year.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the four to five new offers per year was based on getting caught up or based
on a no population growth. Mr. Foley said that the number was based on achieving the standard and
projecting the population. Mr. Slutzky asked if it also included the expectation of growth. Mr. Foley
replied, “yes”. Mr. Slutzky asked if this included reducing the numbers by one officer. Mr. Foley
responded, “yes”.
Mr. Boyd asked if the recommendation was based on staff reconfiguring the County’s needs. Mr.
Foley said that was actually based on not achieving the goal because the funding is not available.
Mr. Boyd said that he does not remember the Board voting on that. He asked if that was
something that was just brought up or did the Board vote the last time to eliminate one officer.
Mr. Rooker said at its last meeting the Board requested staff to make that adjustment of one
officer. This is actually a reduction in the increase.
Mr. Boyd said that he has a tendency to frame this a little differently in saying does the County
need $250,000 in new initiatives or another new police officer. He would maybe reduce the $250,000 by
the police officer.
January 23, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 13)
Mr. Foley said the Board has that option.
Mr. Rooker said the Board always has the option that the new initiative for that year could be to
add an additional police officer.
Ms. Thomas said that she constantly receives inquiries from people as to why the County is not
doing a better job at recycling. The County used to require the trash haulers to recycle.
Mr. Foley said these changes best reflect the direction that the Board provided for staff previously.
He emphasized that this is a plan based on the best information that staff currently has. The Board will be
looking at it each year. If there are some things that do not reflect the Board’s priorities, this would be the
time to address them. Part of him wants to say, do not get so wrapped up in this as if it is a budget that the
Board is adopting, like the one that is going to a be adopted in a few months. At the same time, if there are
any real concerns about some of these things he and staff would certainly need to know that. Staff is
going to get better at this every year; this is the first year of the plan. Mr. Foley said that staff will also have
better information as this process moves along on some of the other initiatives that are floating around
from the community and so forth.
Mr. Boyd said he was a little confused about the numbers in the parenthesis. Referring to the
adjustments handout, he asked if this was a net total or if it was the total expenditures.
Mr. Foley said staff has combined the revenues and expenditures, and from that the Board can
see the net impact. Even with these adjustments the County is short $112,000 in the first year.
Mr. Boyd asked if it would be $1.105 million the second year or $295,000 to the good.
Mr. Foley said that at three years the plan would be completely balanced after using the Board’s
reserve to wipe the shortfall out. They would actually be in a plus situation in year two and just a little bit
short in year one. He said staff considers this to be a balanced plan because year one is going to be
adjusted with the changes in revenues. Staff believes that this reflects the Board’s new priorities in a
balanced way, however, the Board’s reserve is needed to balance it out.
Mr. Boyd said in reality this is saying that the $300,000, that was previously called the Board’s
reserve, is now going to be called money for new initiatives since it is being shifted from one place to the
other.
Mr. Foley said that it is a balancing line and if the Board is not comfortable with that staff can do
something different. He said that these are the Board’s priorities.
Mr. Boyd said that he is concerned that for the past couple of years, the County has always had
huge surpluses at the end of each year which has gone to help with some initiatives and capital
improvements. It scares him that the surpluses appear to have dried up. He said there may be more need
for a Board reserve in times when the County does not have the surpluses.
Mr. Slutzky said that in years past the surpluses resulted in an ever increasing property tax base
because of the unanticipated boom in the real estate market. He said that some localities choose in those
times to maintain their tax rate and set aside money. Last year this Board opted to get rid of the entire
wind fall and reduce the tax rate by six cents. That is part of why the County is in this predicament
because now that the revenue side is challenged there is no excess. He does not think that the excess
money was used irresponsibly because there were plenty of unmet needs, even with those budget
surpluses each year. He is not sure that staff has done anything different than the Board’s wishes for the
five year planning exercises. The more difficult decisions about what kind of reserve fund and where it is
going to come from are really the Board’s decisions when it comes to setting the tax rate.
Mr. Rooker said that one of the presumptions in this plan is to remove a penny that is presently
going to the Capital Fund which equates to approximately $1.7 million. He personally does not think that is
good long term decision.
Mr. Slutzky said that he does not even think that it is a good short term decision.
Mr. Foley said that these are unusual times in terms of the County’s revenue projects and is
reflected in some of the changes.
Mr. Rooker said the Board, from time to time, has talked about establishing some type of
objective criteria to utilize for increases in the budget. He thinks that it would be a long process to get
there but, he would be in favor of starting on that process soon. He said that includes tax rates based
upon objective criteria related to growth in the community and inflation, and recognizing that there are
certain factors in the budget that are not CPI responsive. In addition there are increases in areas like fire
and rescue that are beyond inflationary factors because of the needs. He thinks that it is the difficulty of
every local government to try to budget based upon the windfalls based upon the increases or decrease in
the real estate property base. It would be an easier process for the County if it developed an objective
criteria system that would basically dictate the tax rate much like how the County deals with
compensation.
Mr. Slutzky said that he is in complete agreement that that is becoming increasingly appropriate
for the Board to do. The process would give the Board a deeper insight into the variables of decision
January 23, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 14)
making that it is confronted with each year. Mr. Slutzky asked how the Board would go about moving
forward on that suggestion.
Mr. Rooker said that staff needs to provide the Board with some recommendations on how it
might create a task force that would consist of Board members, a School Board representative, a Planning
Commission representative and members of various segments of the public.
Mr. Boyd said he has been advocating that for that for years.
Mr. Foley asked if that was a request from the Board for the staff to develop something to bring
back to the Board.
Ms. Thomas said she does not object to that but it is hard when the Board keeps freezing
positions yet continuously adding more work for the staff. She believes it would be useful.
Mr. Slutzky supported moving forward.
Mr. Boyd suggested staff come back with a recommendation about how the Board might achieve
that objective.
Mr. Foley said he believes the changes before the Board reflect what has been said, and if there
are some adjustments staff can make them. He asked if there were any major concerns that are being
reflected.
Mr. Boyd asked Board members if they believe these are adequate planning dollars. He knows
that everybody has different interests such as transit or affordable housing or something else.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the first two years are realistic but beyond that it is based on
assumptions about revenue that may or may not come true. He is willing to revisit the revenue side this
year because he is still not convinced that there are adequate reserves built in. Maybe the best time to do
that is when the Board looks at the County Executive’s budget proposal.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks the Board is establishing a baseline and once this baseline is done, and
as adjustments are added in future years, the process will get better. He thinks this is a learning curve.
Ms. Thomas said that she thinks this has been a really valuable exercise. It is very useful
because it brings in the realities. She is comfortable with it being a plan as it is not the actual budget. She
is interested in finding out what is defined as core services.
Mr. Rooker said that he is not going to be comfortable with a budget that basically shows no
reserve. It is unrealistic to have a $200+ million budget based upon an assumption that there will be no
need for a reserve. The Board has seen year after year the Comprehensive Services Act expenses
increase $400,000 to $600,000 which the County has no control. The County has no control over the Jail
expense which is based on per diem. The Board needs to recognize in a budget of that size, there needs
to be a reserve. For budget purposes a reserve needs to build in each year. He does not know if that
affects the broad assumptions of the five year plan.
Mr. Slutzky said that he is comfortable with the five year process and he is also comfortable with
what staff has presented to the Board today with the following caveats. He agrees with Mr. Rooker in that
it is appropriate when the Board reviews the County Executive’s budget, and makes decisions about the
revenue side and the expense side, that it isolates the specific things that it wants to have that would be
variant from this plan and how to fund them. This is probably an appropriate base line and he assumes
next year if there was to be an increase or decrease in expenditures and revenues, accordingly, that next
years’ exercise would be adjusted to reflect that new information. He thinks this process is successful and
is valuable.
Mr. Foley reiterated his understanding from these discussions. One is a need for stronger
reserves in the future as this process moves forward. Staff needs to take a look at the approach to
salaries and maybe look into some defined market targets. Lastly, the establishment of a budget
committee with staff to come back with some more information on the process that might work.
Mr. Dorrier asked if consideration had been given to a bond issue and integrating that into this
budget.
Mr. Foley said that this plan relies on some financing for capital projects but how that is done,
whether a bond issue or through some other method, is something that staff is going to talk to the Board
about in the next few months as a part of reviewing the Capital Plan.
Mr. Boyd said he would encourage that to be a high priority item. Mr. Foley said there will be a
budget work session dedicated to Capital.
Ms. Mallek reiterated the concern about a Board reserve.
Mr. Foley said there are reserves that do not show in the plan; those reserves are stronger than
the $300,000. There are cash reserves set aside, but there is no designated contingency fund. This can
be discussed further.
January 23, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 15)
Mr. Slutzky asked if the reserve amounts are sufficient to maintain the County’s AAA bond rating.
Mr. Foley said that the County has very strong capital reserves and if the County was ever to get
into a crisis situation, those could be temporarily used. He clarified that there is no financial instability at
all. Mr. Foley said that the capital reserves are very strong and the cash reserves are probably stronger
than they have to be. The County is in good financial condition.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks the School system always prepares a needs based budget without regard
to the amount of money that they are going to get because that is their philosophy and they feel they are
right. W hen the Board needs to raise capital for operating expenses, there should be some sort of
mechanism in the policy that does not just allow a windfall for the school system. He thinks that the School
system needs should stand alone as something that they would bring forward to the Board as needing
more money for X amount of dollars.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the School system makes their budget decisions based on what they need
independent of the revenue reality. He asked if the Superintendent gets a budget projection from Mr.
Tucker that she has to work off of. He also asked if she is being constrained by what she can reasonably
anticipate being given.
Mr. Foley said that the budget that is proposed is generally beyond the amount of revenue that
staff has indicated will be provided under the formula.
Mr. Boyd said that during the years that he was on the School Board there was a policy decision
made that they would base their budget on needs rather than revenues.
Mr. Rooker said that the difficulty is that the School Board typically submits a budget which
exceeds revenues and often they have to pair down their budget. It s difficult for them to view any
additional money that may coming in as a windfall; they see it as making up a deficit in their budget. He
thinks that is a conversation they need to have with the School Board.
Mr. Foley asked for Board approval to move forward with this as a planning document.
Mr. Rooker then moved approval. Ms. Thomas seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Boyd commented that while Board has approved this five year plan and projected process, it
does not tie the Board to a tax rate or any revenue decisions. Mr. Foley agreed.
Mr. Foley handed out an attachment pertaining to the budget process. As the Board is aware, the
General Assembly passed a law this year which accelerated the pace of the County’s consideration of
setting the tax rate for the coming fiscal year. Staff has adjusted the budget calendar to reflect that
change. The public hearing on the Boards proposed budget is April 2nd. This new law requires that 30
days before the public hearing the tax rate has to be advertised; therefore the Board needs to approve the
tax rate it wants to advertise by March 2nd. Based on the calendar that the Board previously approved,
staff scheduled the Board to make that decision on February 26th, 2008. Staff has planned two
preliminary work sessions because the Board will not have the recommended budget in full based upon
the schedule that was put out. Because of that there is going to be a preliminary review of the operating
budget and a preliminary review of the School’s proposal so that the Board can have an idea of what is
going to be in the County Executive’s proposed budget, before setting the tax rate. The one thing that was
not included to the revised calendar was a public hearing before the Board was required to set a tax rate.
Staff is suggesting a public hearing be set on the afternoon (February 20th) of the work session on the
School’s budget prior to setting the tax rate on February 26th.
Mr. Boyd expressed support.
Mr. Slutzky commented that there is a MPO meeting that afternoon so if it is possible to
reschedule that meeting, he has no problem with scheduling a public hearing that night.
Mr. Rooker suggested rescheduling the MPO meeting to an earlier time.
Mr. Boyd suggested looking at the schedule and see if it can be worked out.
Mr. Foley said staff will plan for the public hearing on February 20th and work on the time.
_______________
January 23, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 16)
Agenda Item No. 4. Consideration of Proposed Ordinance Amendments:
a. WPTA-2007-001. W ater Protection Ordinance; applicability of erosion impact area;
agreements in lieu of plans; stream buffers on other rural land.
__________
b. ZTA-2007-003. Zoning Ordinance; safe and convenient access.
__________
c. STA-2007-002. Subdivision Ordinance; family divisions; contour intervals; individual lot
grading.
Mr. Boyd said that he believes it is important to have as much public input on these items as
possible and with that being the case he is going to propose that the Board open this meeting up for public
comment. There is a sign up sheet on the table for anybody who wants to speak on these three items. He
then suggested the Board take a ten minute break.
Mr. Rooker said the public hearing on these items were opened and closed by the Chairman.
These are ordinances that have a couple of technical changes that are a result from input received from
the public at the last public hearing. There has been some comment that there is a rush to making a
decision. This process has gone on about six years with trying to adopt some of these rural area
provisions that are included in the County’s Land Use Plan. There have been more than 70 meetings held
dealing with these and other recommendations that are in the Rural Area Plan, along with numerous
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisor work sessions. He believes there have been more than 20
Board meetings that have dealt with these issues including a number of joint meetings with the Planning
Commission.
The Board’s October public hearing on these items lasted more than six hours. Just about every
idea, thought and opinion that could be expressed on these ordinances has indeed been expressed.
Perhaps if the Board had voted that night, at 1:30 a.m. in the morning, which it could have, the Board
would have gotten a comment that the decision was rushed by voting immediately following the public
comment. Now having closed the public hearing and having had plenty of time to think about the public
comment, respond to those comments and bringing back parts of the ordinances that Board members
think are appropriate, there is again the claim that the Board is rushing ahead with something. He thinks
that the characterization of this by certain Board members and the media is completely inaccurate. After
this long period of deliberation, which is now two and one-half months since the public hearing was closed,
the public has the right to have a decision. He thinks that there is some strategy involved with simply
thinking that this can be strung out forever. W hether this is voted up or down, he thinks that the public is
entitled to a decision on something that has been pending now for as long as it has been.
Mr. Rooker said that when we talk about public input, reading from the ASAP newsletter which
accurately characterizes something that took place earlier, it says “with no advance warning to the
community, with no public hearing, with an apparent disregard for residents concerned about the impacts
of relentless population growth, Mr. Boyd proposed that $200,000 be earmarked to attract new businesses
to Albemarle County”. He said that four of the Board member’s voted to approve this new Economic
Opportunity Fund. Mr. Boyd then moved that the County become a member of the Chamber of
Commerce, which is the most powerful lobbying group in the area and a frequent advocate on issues that
the Board is expected to consider without biased. Mr. Rooker said that he gets a little perturbed to see
Mr. Boyd talking about public input when in fact, in the past, he has made motions like the Chamber of
Commerce situation. That was a situation where this Board, over the years, held public hearings and
voted not to join the Chamber of Commerce, for what he thought were valid reasons. One evening at the
end of a meeting a motion was made to join the Chamber without any public input or public hearing which
was a significant change in the Boards policy simply because Mr. Boyd had a fourth vote. As a result the
County joined the Chamber. He added that this situation has been handled entirely differently. After the
October 29th hearing at any Board meeting any Board member could have made a motion for approval of
these ordinances. Those Board members who think it is wise to move forward, in some form with some of
these concepts, did not do that. Instead a motion was made to put it on an agenda, and that is this
agenda. At the end of this meeting, the Board can certainly take whatever action is appropriate with
respect to those ordinances. He does not relate to the initial characterization that was made of this.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks that the appropriations of $200,000 and the $12, 000, which the Board
does all the time without a public hearing, are not as significant an issue as the impact of these three
ordinances on the County’s citizen.
Mr. Rooker said that is why the Board had a six hour hearing at which time people aired their
opinions one way or another.
Mr. Slutzky said he does not agree with the characterization of the votes to join the Chamber of
Commerce, to set aside some money, not to spend the money. It reminds him of Mr. Rooker’s initiative to
fund ASAP with a $25,000 investment. Mr. Rooker did not suggest that be subject to public hearing
because it was not necessary or appropriate. He thinks that was comparable to the other two items that
Mr. Rooker raised. He thinks this is a significantly different issue and it is clear to him that the public
hearing process has been significant and exhaustive. He agrees that these particular issues have a
significant impact on the community. There has been a lot of opportunity for public input and as the
Board chose not to vote late that night, after the public hearing, because everyone was tired, they wanted
to absorb the public feedback, and they did not want to vote late at night when most people had already
gone home and would not have been able to hear the discussions or deliberations. The Board has had the
January 23, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 17)
opportunity to absorb what it heard that night and all of what has been stated over the years. He thinks
that everyone has developed a clear sense of the pros and cons of the proposals. He thinks that Ms.
Thomas correctly introduced the motion last week in a way that recognized that there is some scaling
back of the extent to which there seems to be support for doing what was in front of the board in October.
He thinks that it was productive to have that put into the record for people to consider. He is sympathetic
to taking some comments from folks who came out to this meeting as long as it can be done within the
time constraints of this meeting. He is not supportive of going any further than that.
Mr. Rooker said that he does not disagree with Mr. Slutzky. He thinks that the Board needs to set
some reasonable parameters. He said it would be helpful with the new changes. For instance, the Steam
Ordinance has been only about ten lines of type that have been added to the ordinance that has been in
place in the County for years.
Mr. Boyd said there has never been an adequate discussion on the ordinance. It was taken
directly to a public hearing without any kind of real discussion with staff. In fact, the night the Family
Subdivision was taken to public hearing, there was three sets of ordinances in front of the Board, one
handed to them that evening. This has been an evolving process, it has been continuously changing, and
the impacts have not been flushed out. He does not think that the Planning Commission did their due
diligence on this project and they never really investigated them to the extent that they should have.
Mr. Rooker said the Planning Commission held many meetings and a very long public hearing.
Mr. Boyd said he wants to give the public time to speak. The Board has always aired in favor of
too much input from the public as opposed to not enough. He said people who want to sign up need to do
so during the break.
Ms. Mallek said it needs to be recognized that that there are people who might have come today
that did not know they were going to be given the opportunity.
Ms. Thomas said that maybe the Board should also allow for public comment at its next meeting
before the vote is taken. She thinks that it would be good for the Board to have discussion because on
these ordinances they have not done so. She suggested that the Board allow comment at either this
meeting or the next meeting, not both occasions.
Mr. Boyd agreed with Ms. Thomas in that it may not be appropriate for the Board to have
discussion today and then allow public comment at the next meeting.
Mr. Rooker suggested scheduling these items on the Board’s February 6th agenda.
Mr. Slutzky suggested February 13th since that is a regular night meeting.
Ms. Thomas said that there should be time on the February 13th for public input. She said does
not think that there has been time for people to absorb the information and get some questions answered.
Mr. Dorrier said that in October the County sent out notices to 14,000 parcel owners of property in
the County and he asked if those same 14,000 parcel owners are going to be notified.
Mr. Slutzky said that there was a public hearing in which those 14,000 property owners had the
opportunity to weigh in. He believes it is appropriate to invite further remarks from those people if they
want to; it is not reopening the public hearing, but inviting the public to comment before the Board takes an
actual vote. He thinks that is reasonable and appropriate.
Mr. Rooker said that one of the things that are no longer in front of the Board is the critical slopes
ordinance.
Mr. Dorrier said that anyone who owns property with a perennial stream running through it is going
to be affected and he thinks they should be notified.
Mr. Slutzky said those individuals were notified when the Board unanimously amended the
W atershed Protection Ordinance last year, and that extended the same stream buffer to an increased
portion of the County. This ordinance proposes to extend it to the rest of the County. He thinks there has
been a lot of opportunity for public comment. He thinks that most of the controversy relates to the
provisions the Board chose not to bring back.
Mr. Foley commented that the February 13th meeting appears to be lengthy with other public
hearings. He suggested extending the February 6th meeting until the evening.
Board members concurred with scheduling the meeting on February 6th at 6:00 p.m.
At 2:47 p.m., the Chairman called a recess. The Board reconvened at 2:59.
Mr. Cilimberg presented a slide presentation summarizing the proposed changes. W ith regard to
the water supply protection area, the existing ordinance has two areas of which buffer applications are
different; one is for the water supply protection area and the other for rural areas where only perennial
streams and non-title wetlands contiguous to those streams and floodplains are covered. The proposed
ordinance that was previously recommended by staff and the Planning last year in October, had all the
rural areas covered by the 100 foot wide stream buffers for both perennial and intermittent streams, for
January 23, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 18)
nontitle wetlands and no less than 200 feet wide from the floodplain of public water supply impoundments.
New and different today is how a perennial stream is defined. It has been revised for more specificity. In
addition to the solid blue line on the USGS topographic map another reference is where location is to be
determined by guidance that is provided by the approved Chesapeake Bay Local Assistant Department
published options. Therefore, the determination of streams has another source.
W ith regard to critical slopes and safe and convenient access, Mr. Cilimberg said there was a
requirement for the restriction of driveways across critical slope. Based on the Board’s action was last
week, that has been removed and is no longer included for consideration. The other access regulations
for public safety vehicles are the same as they were in 2007. There is also the provision of not applying
the regulations to establishing the first single family dwelling unit on an existing lot, if the County Engineer
determines that requirement would practically prohibit that development. He said that questions have been
raised as to what building permits get covered under this. He thinks there is a clarification matter of
making sure that it is only being applied to the new dwelling rather than all building permits. There is also
the question of appealing the County Engineer determinations which Mr. Graham will discuss.
Mr. Cilimberg said that for family divisions there is currently no years of ownership required before
and two years after, by the family. There was an alternative discussed last year, five years before and five
years after. The Planning Commissions recommendation was for a cumulative 15 years before and after,
with a minimum of five years after. Last week the Board decided to consider four years before and four
years after. The origin of this was not being based on current abuses. The analysis over the years is that
there is no evidence of great abuse occurring in the creation of family divisions but originally it was
proposed as part of the phasing and clustering ordinances when there was going to be exemptions for
family divisions. He said that there was concern that there could be abuse of the family division provisions
so this is proposed in anticipation of any possibilities of abuse that would result from other future
ordinance changes.
Mr. Boyd said that he does not understand why the County is doing this now for the future when it
seems to him that they should address it at that time rather than now. Mr. Cilimberg said that is for the
Board’s discussion among themselves. He added that the Board decided last week that they would make
this change from what occurred in 2007.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff wanted to give the Board the most recent information that they have on
the required time for holding family divisions. There are many different types of approaches taken by
different counties and this is the most the current information on the surrounding counties for the Board’s
reference.
Ms. Thomas said that she understood that Shenandoah County has five years before and five
years after.
Mr. Cilimberg said the staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
ordinance amendments in 2007. The considerations today remain consistent with the recommendations
that were made in 2007.
W ith regard to the appeal issue, Mr. Graham said this came up under part C of the Zoning
Ordinance change where it speaks to the County Engineer having the ability to allow modification of the
driveway grade. As he indicated earlier the reading of that says that an appeal of that decision would go
to the Board of Zoning Appeals. There has been a question as to whether that would be more appropriate
to go to the Planning Commission primarily because the Commission already deals with private road
waivers and they are more experienced road issues.
Mr. Slutzky said that would be his preference.
Mr. Rooker and Ms. Mallek, also, said that would be their preference.
Mr. Boyd agreed.
Mr. Graham added that if they wanted to apply this to building permits where a new house is
being created there would be a need to add the word “new” in front of dwelling.
Mr. Slutzky commented that people could do renovation work and not be subject to having to redo
their driveway. Mr. Graham said that was correct.
Mr. Slutzky said that he would support that modification as well.
Ms. Mallek asked if a motion was necessary for that action.
Mr. Davis said that if there is a consensus among Board members, staff will have that reflected in
the amended ordinance available for the February 6th agenda.
Ms. Thomas said that the County already has safe and convenient access as a requirement for
getting a building permit. It defines a driveway grade; it is not 16 percent. That is the main change that is
being made. She suggested sharing with the public the fact that there are already those requirements for
getting a building permit. This is not something that the Board has ever done before.
January 23, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 19)
Mr. Graham said that is true; before the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, the Zoning
Administrator has to determine that there is a safe and convenient access. He agreed that it is very late in
the process.
Regarding the stream setbacks, Mr. Boyd said that he has been doing some investigation with
some people who are published on this topic and they seem to indicate that increasing it from 50 feet to
100 feet is not going to be that much of an increase in either the sediment or the nutrient control. In fact
there is some published material coming out in the near future to that. Mr. Boyd asked if this had been
discussed and if scientific data had been presented to the Commission or Board.
Mr. Slutzky said there had been a presentation of that made to the Board where they stated that it
was not easy to find scientific or peer review journal articles that were supportive of going from 100 feet to
200 feet, but it was kind of pervasive in the literature that the 100 foot set back was necessary and
appropriate.
Mr. Boyd said that he is finding some scientists who disagree with that based on research.
Mr. Graham said the Board’s authority to create the stream buffer ordinance comes through the
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. Seventeen years ago an enormous amount of time and energy was
spent trying to determine the appropriate stream buffer width and the decision after almost a year of
deliberation was 100 feet was the appropriate measure. If Albemarle was east of I-95, located in one of
those counties, the resource protection areas are mandated to have a 100 foot buffer. The 100 foot buffer
is a very well known state established state standard and that is what the County is going with.
Mr. Slutzky said the Board voted 6-0 in the last two years, with the updated W atershed Protection
Act, to implement that same stream buffer requirement on a significant portion of the northwest part of the
County. At that time the Board looked at the 100 foot setback and was satisfied that it was reasonable and
appropriate. He is not sure why the change in opinion.
Mr. Boyd said that he now has new information that was not available at the time.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks that an ideal buffer that is planted to perfection might in some
scientific study come out as a wider buffer that is just allowed to exist. You then need to take into account
that areas with clay soils should have bigger wider buffers. Albemarle County has clay soils and steep
slopes that should not count. There are a lot of ways in which the Board can fine tune this, a scientist in
their study can fine tune this, but for a buffer in Virginia to match what is already being done in a dozen
counties, and to then be using enabling legislation, she thinks that the 100 foot buffer is totally defensible.
Ms. Thomas said that it was mentioned this morning that the Department of Forestry people are
looking to see if they can come together with information for a smaller buffer. She highly values the forest,
but she does not know how to feel about the Forestry Department because they are in the business of
trying to harvest a maximum number of trees and they are not known for being very good about the
erosion control. She thinks that legally and scientifically the Board should continue doing what it is already
doing in half of the County.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the Mountain Overlay District considered a 200 foot set back. Ms. Thomas
replied, “yes”.
Mr. Dorrier asked if a perennial stream is a flowing stream. Mr. Graham said it is a stream that is
shown as a solid blue line on the USGS map or that meets the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance
Department criteria.
Mr. Dorrier asked if intermittent streams have a broken blue line. Mr. Graham said that is correct.
Mr. Dorrier commented that Albemarle County is full of intermittent streams. He asked if these
regulations would apply to all intermittent streams. Mr. Graham said, “yes”, it would take what is already
applied to the intermittent streams in one-half of the County and apply to the remaining intermittent
streams.
Ms. Mallek asked, for clarification, if this was mostly talking about structures and construction of
buildings. Mr. Graham said it would apply to construction of structures or any other disturbance of those
buffers associated with development. This does not impact agriculture except for row crops located within
25 feet of the stream. It does not impact forestry operations because those are specifically exempted.
Mr. Boyd said that Board members received a letter from a land surveyor regarding the impact
and he asked how this impacts stream crossing. Mr. Graham said that staff has been enforcing the
existing ordinance. There is a section in the existing ordinance that speaks to “no disturbance of the
buffer except where necessary to establish a use on that property not to establish any use”. In other
words, if there is a building site that would not require crossing the stream versus using another building
site on the same lot that would require crossing the stream, staff is not authorized to do a modification to
allow a mitigation plan to allow that disturbance of the buffer.
Mr. Boyd said that from the letter he understood that staff can accept a mitigation plan in order to
do a stream crossing. Mr. Graham replied in certain circumstances that is true but not in the circumstance
where there is use of the property without crossing/disturbing the stream.
Mr. Boyd asked what if there was not a use of the property or suppose the only way to get to the
property was to cross the stream. Mr. Graham said in those circumstances that they would use a
January 23, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 20)
mitigation plan to offset the impacts of that buffer. Mr. Boyd asked if that would continue even with these
new regulations. Mr. Graham said absolutely and that there is no change under this proposal for that
section of the ordinance.
Mr. Rooker said that what would be applied is exactly what is being applied in one-half of the
County currently. There has been a discussion of property values but he does not think that it has any
diminution in the value of the properties that are part of the County that are already subject to this
ordinance. He would guess that the property values in that part of the County might be higher than in other
parts of the County.
Mr. Boyd asked the cost for enforcement, for staff to do this either in lost project time, or for
additional staff. Mr. Graham said they are not anticipating any additional staff time for the water protection
ordinance. In some ways it simplifies their work in that they will no longer have to figure out whether it is in
or not in the water supply area.
Mr. Boyd asked if they have to go out and look at a lot of intermittent streams to determine their
impact. Mr. Graham said they would if asked by the property owner to make an examination, but in the
past they have not received many requests.
Mr. Boyd asked they would be asking for more staff to implement these three ordinances. Mr.
Graham said they are talking about the water protection ordinance. From staff’s perspective, the correct
way to enforce the driveway standard would be to require a grading plan in association with the building
permit. To have that grading plan, to review that grading plan and then to inspect the driveway after it is
constructed, would take additional staff. He thinks it would take an additional engineer planning reviewer/
inspector.
Mr. Boyd asked for costs for the additional staff. Mr. Graham said it would be approximately
$50,000 per year.
Mr. Rooker said that the problem is that the County has a steep slope ordinance that without a
grading plan, staff cannot adequately enforce because they do not have a plan to make a determination of
whether or not steep slopes are being invaded. This is really necessary to enforce current ordinances.
Mr. Boyd asked if the information on the County’s GIS will change significantly when they receive
the new US Geological Survey information in April. Mr. Graham said people will see a better resolution on
critical slopes and other areas. Right now there are ten foot contours and by mid year they will have four
foot contours throughout the County.
Mr. Boyd asked if, during the next two weeks, staff could publish on the website a list of commonly
asked questions and responses. Mr. Graham responded that could be done.
Ms. Thomas said there should also be information on how to access Albemarle GIS.
Mr. Slutzky said he had a number of people question the 16 percent number for the safe access.
He previously asked Mr. Graham where he could experience a 16 percent slope or a 20 percent slope.
Mr. Graham described the County Office Building driveway in the back that goes next to Bodo’s, as being
20 percent slope. He asked if Fire and Rescue personnel find that to be too steep, such that the 16
percent is essential. He asked if 16 percent is more restrictive than it needs to be.
Mr. Graham said that Mr. James Barber from Fire and Rescue is at the meeting and he can
answer with respect to their equipment. As Ms. Thomas noted there is already a safe and convenient
access requirement in the Zoning Ordinance and as a rule of thumb staff has routinely used 20 percent as
what they thought possible for the maximum slope.
Mr. Barber, Assistant Chief for Fire Prevention, said that fire rigs are designed with VDoT
standards in mind in that this is considered rolling terrain which is what a 16 percent grade is designed for.
There are exceptions for a specific linear foot and that that can be exceeded up to 20 percent under
certain circumstances. Basically, 16 percent grade is something that would be considered, with the design
of their apparatus, as a maximum with those exceptions in mind.
Mr. Rooker said that the ordinance allows staff to grant a waiver based upon the length of the
grade that would exceed 16 percent. Mr. Barber said that was correct and staff would look at the needs of
each case and either approve it or make recommendations for change.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the exceptions are set out or should the Board incorporate them into the
ordinance. He asked why there are just saying 16 percent if there are going to be predictable instances
where a steeper grade would be appropriate from the safe access perspective.
Mr. Barber said that the 16 percent is not an arbitrary number, it actually comes from VDoT
standards, for rolling standards. There are some predictable standards that could be published but each
the waivers are looked at on a case-by-case basis and either approved by staff or not.
Mr. Graham said that the criteria by which they would consider a waiver is set out in Section C.
Ms. Mallek asked if the 16 percent is based on icy roads, dry roads, or best case scenario.
January 23, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 21)
Mr. Barber said that it is the VDoT standard and it takes into account all sorts of weather of all
sorts. There are some other questions with respect to icy road surfaces but not so much with a private
residence. He said that, with commercial structures, they get a little more involved into who maintains the
roadway and if there are more than three houses built in a subdivision, who is responsible for clearing the
roadway. If a private citizen wants to build a residence on their property these are still concerns for them
but there is not the same requirement for them to maintain their driveway.
Mr. Slutzky said the purpose of this ordinance is to ensure safe access and he is trying to figure
out if they need to be as aggressive with the 16 percent slope or if 20 percent makes more sense.
Mr. Graham said he is comfortable with 20 percent for passenger vehicles. He thinks the real
question is emergency vehicles.
Ms. Thomas said it is also emergency situations. The chances of there being a fire from a fire
place or woodstove are in direct proportion with how bad the weather.
Mr. Boyd asked how often Fire and Rescue runs into cases where they cannot gain access. Mr.
Barber said that it happens very frequently and especially with driveways, more so than private roads
because of their enforcement authority.
Mr. Boyd said that he meant not being able to get to an emergency or fire situation because the
road is too steep. Mr. Barber said they would continue their effort until they get to the fire or situation, but
it does slows them down. He is unable to point to a specific occasion and say here is one that they could
not get to.
Mr. Slutzky said he lived next to Peavine Hollow and had to watch a friend’s house burn to the
ground because the fire truck stood on the road and could not get to the house. That was his first personal
experience with safe access and it made him more interested in pursuing this ordinance even if it is
somewhat restrictive.
Mr. Rooker said that Mr. Barber started out by saying that the current equipment that they use is
designed to be useable in the VDOT rolling terrain standards, which allows 16 percent.
Mr. Boyd said that there were six people who signed up to speak to this issue. He then opened
the public comment portion of the meeting.
Mr. Mark Keller thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak. He does not own any land that
can be subdivided in the County. He does not own any land that has a perennial stream or otherwise. He
has no personal interest in any land development projects. As a land use consultant, he is impacted by
these new regulations and the current regulations. It is important for him, and other members of the public
that are going to speak, to clearly understand any new regulations that the Board wishes to impose and
that they can interpret them in an objective manner.
Mr. Keller said that relative to the lot access requirement he suggested the Board consider
rewording the partial phrase “rectangular zone super-adjacent”. He said that a regular person, who is not
in his industry, would probably not understand what that means. Relative to the subdivision of land family
subdivisions, the rewording has gotten so lengthy and restrictive that, in his opinion, the intent of the
ordinance has been lost. It appears that the language is trying to close a loop hole for developers and the
spirit and ability of landowners is lost. Mr. Keller said the ability of farmers to retire debt, settle estates,
offset cash flow deficiency or avoid foreclosure may be severely impacted by this change. The last
statement under Paragraph 12 states “clearing and all other lot improvements” and he thinks it would be
impracticable for himself or any of his clients to tell the Board what kind of impacts or improvements
comprehensively would happen on that.
Mr. Keller said he supports water protection but as a consultant, they need to know that in the
beginning. He said they do a lot of plans with rezonings that take two to three years to get Board
approval, and if the new determination of the stream changes, then it is important to consider vesting
language.
Mr. Rooker said these only apply to the rural areas, not the development areas.
Mr. Keller said Ms. Tamara Ambler and Mr. Mark Graham confirmed that it does apply in the
development area if the stream has not currently been compromised. This wording can be read under
definitions. He thinks that everyone needs to understand completely what is meant by that. He said that
the vesting of that is important for people who have already invested years in developing a plan and it then
might have to change which would require revisiting the rezoning.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks grandfathering needs to be clarified.
Mr. Davis said that the approved plan would be vested. The perennial stream definition is the
clarification of perennial stream definition throughout the County. It does specifically address, in the
development areas, certain streams that no longer resemble a stream.
Mr. Rooker said that the proposal to apply the ordinance, to the other part of the County, is a
proposal to apply it to the rural part of the County. It is not a proposal to expand the ordinance; it does not
apply in the growth area today and it would continue not to apply in the growth area today.
January 23, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 22)
Mr. Davis said that was correct unless this definition of a perennial stream expands what is
determined to be a perennial stream within the County.
Mr. Graham said the definition has already been set. Using W illow Glen as an example, they
looked at the stream buffers as part of the re-zoning application so that one is pretty well set.
Ms. Linda McRaven said that one of the things that Board members have expressed concern
about is that there has been six years of hearings dealing with this issue. She, as well as the audience,
thinks the Board has not been listening for six years because those who live on two acre lots in
subdivisions have no idea what she has to do living on 22 acres up against green mountains in northwest
Albemarle, and how these decisions will affect her. She has five children, 22 acres, and five building
rights, which are part of her children’s heritage. The Board is essentially telling her that she cannot share
what she has invested since 1978 with her children. She could locate all five houses on the property and
none of them would be seen because of the configuration of the land.
Ms. McRaven mentioned that the Board is going to pay ASAP $25,000 to do a study. That is a
large amount of money to go to an organization that has a very clear agenda. Monticello would never
have gotten built with a 16 percent slope. There is no place on her property that has a 16 percent slope
and that puts a severe limitation on her. She said the Board is making decisions on projects like Avon
Park, Hollymead, Crozet, that are affecting directly a very small percentage County residents. She has
asked how the County could allow the houses on Avon Park to be built on that hillside slope. Ms.
McRaven said that she does not know what the Board’s agenda is and she does not understand why the
people in rural areas are being targeted like this because the farmers are not the ones guilty of doing harm
to Albemarle County. She believes they are good stewards of their land.
Mr. Jim Morris said he owns a small piece of land that has five steams on it. He said the Board
needs to start calling its buffer 200 foot because it really is a 200 foot buffer because a stream has two
sides to it. He said that a small parcel of land with five springs and streams running off into the Reservoir
like his property is protected. He cannot do too much with 200 feet on each side. If he wants to build a
small road to get to his house and where he hopes to have a cow someday, it will require him going
through a site plan process that is already cumbersome because of the rules and ordinances. Mr. Morris
said that years ago he was involved in the River Bend project, and it was appalling as they were trying to
protect the 100 foot buffer on their side of the Rivanna River, to see that the County had built a sewage
pipe through there about three to four feet tall and within 25 feet of the River. He knows that the County
has to consider the public good and protect the Chesapeake Bay, but he believes that installing that
sewage line did more damage than all the cows and fences that people have built. He asked for the
County to observe some of their own rules and some the binds that it puts people in when they are trying
to accomplish some specific things. He objects to tightening these restrictions.
Mr. Graham Adelman said that his family lives on about 300 acres in Boonesville, most of which
would be impacted directly by these proposals. W ith respect to the four year holding period requirement,
he asked why there are no exceptions for estate sales. Transfers by devise or decent are addressed but
not by the executor or administer of the estate of a person who dies within four years after a plat is
recorded. It seems that the ability of an estate to be able to generate liquidity to pay estate taxes should
not be limited by the Board of Supervisors. He asked why retain the USGS blue-line test in view of the
proposed additional language. In other words why should a stream be considered perennial if Program
Authority finds it not to be using the sighted of guidance. In many cases the USGS information was wrong
when it was created or have become wrong because streams meander, stream courses move and in the
rural areas the stream courses have been affected for many decades by agricultural use. He said that
many landowners see the 16 percent driveway limitation as a cynical means of accomplishing a
conservation goal under the cloak of public safety. He asked that before the Board decides on committing
themselves to support this measure that at least answer the following questions for their constituents: Has
the Board asked the County Sheriff or the Dyke, Crozet, or Earlysville rescue squads if they require this
protection? They may say that they have been able to safely perform their services for generations
without it. W hy is this only a safety concern only in the rural areas? There are many lots in the suburbs
with rolling or hilly terrain with steep access and it seems to him that in some part the Board is saying that
it is okay to be unsafe there. W hat public safety or engineering studies have been given to the Board by
County staff that supports a 16 percent slope or any particular slope? If such studies have been given can
the Board make them available to the County residents because these studies may be persuasive? He
hopes that the Board will tell the citizens if the ultimate effect of these programs are to put rural land and
mountainous areas in much the same development position as if they were placed under conservation
easements which obviously cost money today to be able to obtain and also the landowners derive tax
benefits from them.
Mr. Daniel G. Van Clief, Jr. said he and his family are landowners in Southern Albemarle County.
His comments are directed more towards the application of the current ordinance than the proposed
amendments. His family is currently in the process of working through a land plan for family purposes and
they have been dealing with a surveyor/land planner as well as an appraiser over the last 18 months. It
was brought to their attention, within the last two weeks that the application of the current water protection
ordinance is being handled in such a way as to be extremely inhibitive in terms of their family’s goals and
their land value. He said that they are being told that the Planning Commission staff either has been
directed, or is of their own accord, routinely and consistently disapproving the application for stream buffer
mitigation plans. If that is the case, their concern is that such application would have the unattended
consequence of wiping out the development value based on current development rights under County law
and under the recent research that they conducted and the determination they received from the County.
If those rights are wiped out, by the way that this ordinance is being applied, it would greatly reduce or
eliminate any incentive to put land under easement because of the damage to the value of the tax
January 23, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 23)
incentives. They are being advised that the application of this ordinance inhibits them from locating family
homes, which would be on large tracks. If the value of the rights are wiped out by the application of the
ordinance, then the land value will be reduced significantly overall. He said that their current concern is not
so much the amendments proposed but with the current application of the present ordinance.
Ms. Clara Belle W heeler said she opposes all of the proposed amendments. She said that her
background is that of a scientist and she has spent many hours and years collecting scientific data. She
thinks the appropriate thing for the Board to do before passing any of the amendments is to get scientific
data. She thinks that the scientific data for each of these proposed amendments is lacking and even right
now there has been a discussion of two different members on the Board citing different scientific data and
coming up with two different answers. She said that if the Board is going to put restrictions on an
individuals use of their own private land then the Board needs to have the science done right. She said
that if the Board is trying to not build a road, access or house then they need to have the scientific data to
support that. She said that the subject of critical slopes is purely imaginary because 16 percent is nothing
considering how this County is in the Piedmont and Piedmont is defined as rolling hills. If someone
chooses to build a house where a fire engine cannot get to it, then that is a personal choice. If their house
burns down because the fire engine cannot get to it, it is their decision. She said that there is nothing to
say that a 16 percent, 20 percent or even a 25 percent slope cannot be maintained with good land
management.
Ms. W heeler said she has no decedents but there are those who do and when they own land and
pay taxes on it, they should be able to disperse it anyway which they want to. She believes that developers
seem to get free reign to build anywhere that they want to on any slope next to any stream. There were
no restrictions when the Board allowed the developers to build North Point on the Rivanna River. There
were only two Board members who did not approve the proposal, and one was Ms. Thomas, because of
on the environmental impact to the Rivanna River. The developers seem to be able to do anything they
want to, but individuals have to stand up and beg for what they want. She asked for the Board to take
these things into consideration and get the scientific data before they make a decision.
Mr. Boyd said that the Board heard some good suggestions from the public today. He thinks that
it is a good place to start with the County’s commonly asked questions and answers. Mr. Boyd asked
about clarifications to the language that may be addressed.
Mr. Davis said that he believes that the clarifications that were discussed earlier need to be
included in the ordinance. He said that when reading the entire sentence about the “super adjacent
space”, the meaning is clear. He thinks that they could explain the same thing in a paragraph but he is not
sure it would end up improving the ordinance.
Mr. Rooker asked about estate transfers. Mr. Davis said that the current ordinance allows for that
to happen.
Ms. Thomas said that because these ordinance proposals are affecting the rural area, she thinks
that the citizens are getting the idea that the Board is letting the development area go scot free and that
the Board is only focusing on the rural area. However for the last 12 years the Board has been tackling the
development rules in the development area. There have been many hours of Board meetings, the
Development Area Initiative Steering Committee, and various focus groups. The County has somewhat
unique rules that developers have to go through in the development area. She said that those rules are
constantly being refined. As has been pointed out she does not always agree that the developers come
up with the best product. She said the Board does have tight rules for what can go on in the development
area.
Mr. Rooker said he remembers when the Board originally adopted the Neighborhood Model and
there were a number of developers that said it could not be done, that it would be impossible to sell a
house in a mixed pedestrian friendly-type area in Albemarle County. He said that virtually every
development that the Board has approved within the last four years has been just this with an effort to try
and reduce car trips by trying to allow people the ability to walk to things that are close to them. He said
that there are people here that would attest that the development community does not think the Board has
been easy on them over the last couple of years. He said that the people who are at the meeting today are
not typically here when the Board is proposing regulations that affect the development community, but that
issue has come up many times.
Mr. Slutzky said that the comments today have been extremely useful to him and that he is
looking forward to more discussion on this and more comments from the public on February 6th.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to see answers to those things that were posed as questions.
Mr. Slutzky said that if there is an estate exemption it needs to be clearly highlighted so people
could understand that, because he has had a number of people corresponding with him on that issue.
Ms. Thomas said that also the regular subdivision is not being effected in any way by anything that
the Board is saying about the family subdivision and the family subdivision’s main use is to cluster some
houses with inadequate roads access; that is its main value and if someone wants to give a gift to their
child, they are not going to put in an inadequate road and hope that their child can sell it some day.
Mr. Dorrier said that he would like staff to comment on whether or not it is typical for certain
stream buffer mitigation plans to be disapproved.
January 23, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 24)
Mr. Graham said that it is a totally separate issue from these ordinance amendments. He said
there is an appeal, under the ordinance, to the Board of Supervisors, and that they have yet to have
anyone appeal this to the Board. If individuals think he or staff is interpreting the ordinance wrong, they
would welcome them to appeal that decision to the Board.
Mr. Boyd said he would encourage everyone to look at the County’s website, and call staff with
their questions.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
There were no other matters from the Board.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6.
Adjourn. At 3:58 p.m., there being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 08/13/2008
Initials: EW J