2008-03-05March 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March
5, 2008, at 9:00 a.m., in the Lane Auditorium of the County Office Building on McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Ken C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Ann Mallek, Mr. Dennis S. Rooker,
Mr. David Slutzky, Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W . Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W .
Davis, Clerk, Ella W . Jordan and, Deputy Clerk, Meagan Hoy.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Boyd.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4b. Recognition: Resolution recognizing Monticello High School Football Team
State Championship.
Mr. Boyd said he would read the following resolution into the record before presenting it to Coach
Brud Bicknell, his staff and team members at Monticello High School.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Monticello High School is a Region II, Division 3, high school located in Albemarle
County competing in the Jefferson District; and
WHEREAS, Monticello High School became the home of the Mustangs when it opened its
doors in 1998; and
WHEREAS, the Monticello varsity football program began from scratch and in its first year had
a record of zero wins and 12 losses; and
WHEREAS, under the able leadership of Coach Brud Bicknell and his fine assistants, the
football program was built from the bottom up, laying the foundation for present
and future successes; and
WHEREAS, the Monticello Mustangs have been to four playoffs in their short history; and
WHEREAS, whereas Coach Bicknell and his assistants have achieved an enviable record of
69 wins and 40 losses during the past ten years, but more importantly have
instilled in their players good character, good sportsmanship and athletic
excellence; and
WHEREAS, the Monticello Mustangs won their first state football championship on December
8, 2007, by defeating defending state champion Richlands Blue Tornadoes 35-22
at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia, ending its season with a record of 13
wins and one loss;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
recognizes, commends and congratulates the Monticello principal, athletic
director, coaches and student-athletes for their contributions to the football
program at Monticello High School and their leadership in setting the high
standard for excellence both on and off the football field:
Principal, Billy Haun; Athletic Director, Fitzgerald Barnes; Head Coach, Brud
Bicknell, Assistant Coaches: Steve Ivory, Tom Estepp, Tom Sutliff, W illiam
Maddox, W ilbur Young and Rodney Redd.
2007 Varsity Football Team: Richard Aguilar, Steven Ankney, Garrett
Banks, Hines Banks, Derek Belew, Chris Black, Jace Brady, Mark Brady,
Alex Brown, W hitley Brown, Gyasi Carr-Holland, Ivan Childress, Yanek
Childress, Chris Coiner, Naseer Conway, Trent Dorsey, Tommy Draper,
Mike Evangelista, Brandon Garland, Harrison Goyne, Michael Graham,
Josh Guskind, Takeem Hedgeman, Tyler Herring, Nathan Irving, Darrick
Johnson, Derrick Johnson, Zane Johnson, Sylvester Jordan, Dylan
Kavanagh, Brian Koonce, Daniel Lieb, Shawn Lively, Anthony Matos,
Shawn Mays, Jake Miles (Captain), Marvin Mills, Tyler Mitchell, Michael
Monroe, Robert Moorhead, Dennis Morris, Jermaine Morris, Zach
Palmer, Jacob Pelton, Nic Rogers, Sam Roller, Nolan Rowland, Corey
Rush, Emmanuel Scott, Ethan Shiflett, John Spauls, Roosevelt Thomas,
W illiam Thompson, Bobby W ells-Trice, Lawrence W alker, Khiry
W ashington, Clarence W illiams, Shawn W infrey, Matt W orkman, Michael
W ynnyk and W heeler Young.
__________
March 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Agenda Item No. 4a. Recognition: Proclamation recognizing March, 2008 as Mediation Month.
Mr. Boyd read the following proclamation into the record and then presented same to Ms. Bonnie
Brewer. Ms. Brewer thanked the Board and said mediation is a wonderful service which is underutilized
and the Mediation Center would be happy to offer their services at any opportunity necessary.
MEDIATION MONTH
WHEREAS, mediation is a process of dispute resolution that offers short-term and long-term
benefits which ultimately promote harmony and understanding among a diverse
and multi-faceted population; and
WHEREAS, mediation provides a cost-effective confidential alternative to litigation to resolve
disputes between individuals, groups, and institutions throughout the County of
Albemarle; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle has sought to assist its citizens in the process of dispute
resolution by recognizing programs that allow mediation participants to best
decide the resolution of their dispute; and
WHEREAS, mediation is globally accepted as a way to creatively approach conflict through
personal expressions, education and empowerment to decide among various
outcomes;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Kenneth C. Boyd, Chairman of the Board of
Supervisors of Albemarle County, proclaim
MARCH 2008
as
MEDIATION MONTH
in the County of Albemarle and call this observance to the attention of all our
citizens.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Slutzky said there has been a problem in his district for quite a while with barking dogs. A
resident was housing about 30 dogs which barked incessantly. Due to complaints received the County’s
Zoning Department checked into the situation. They filed an action but the Board of Zoning Appeals
overruled staff’s recommendation. In their opinion residents can have as many dogs as they want, as long
as they are pets. The day after this decision was rendered the resident in question bought 10 dog tags so
now she has 10 pets barking incessantly in the urban area. Some neighbors have said they will have to
sell their homes if it does not cease. He said it is tempting to ignore the issue of barking dogs because it
is politically complicated. The BZA took its position because the County’s ordinance is silent as to the
number of dogs that are too many to be housed in a residential district. Other localities have set five pets
as the limit while others have set three as the limit. He asked if the other Board members are willing to
have staff make recommendations as to a cap on the number of dogs that can be kept without regard to
whether or not they are pets.
Mr. Davis said there are two issues involved. The Board has already asked staff to look at an
ordinance concerning barking dogs. There is also the issue as to the number of dogs, or pets, that are
accessory to a residential use. He said a number of urbanized localities regulate the number of pets in
their area. The County Attorney’s office has prepared a resolution of intent if the Board is interested in
having the Planning Commission look at a Zoning Ordinance amendment. The Board can initiate that
process today if they wish to do so, and Mr. Mark Graham may wish to address the Department’s work
plan at this time.
Ms. Thomas said she has a constituent who is in the same desperate situation, but in a
subdivision in the rural area. However, that area is in one of the adopted leash areas. This person has
suggested that the Board consider attaching new action to the leash law ordinance. The area in question
is in Peacock Hill where a person has a dog which has been adjudicated to be a dangerous dog and this
person pays fines every time the dog is loose. She said that sometimes there are situations the Board
cannot deal with.
Mr. Slutzky said in the rural area the people living in a subdivision can request that the subdivision
be placed under the leash law.
Ms. Mallek said if the Board looked at the situation from a Noise Ordinance point-of-view it would
help more people. Several people have contacted her in the last month that do not live in a subdivision,
but are affected by a neighbor’s pet. If there are situations where animals are left out at night, and nobody
can sleep, she thinks that is an issue the Board should discuss.
Mr. Davis said rather than considering this matter piecemeal, he would suggest that staff present
information about both questions at the same time. It is a mixture of the Zoning Ordinance and police
power. Ms. Thomas’ suggestion is complicated because the “running-at-large” subdivisions are not
delineated in the Zoning Ordinance. However, he does think it would be best to deal with this
comprehensively.
___________
March 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
Ms. Thomas said (lightheartedly) that she found an article in a magazine from California where all
the boards of supervisors were challenged as to what they were doing to be more environmentally
conscious. These boards considered podcasting as a way that citizens do not have to commute to board
meetings. One thing this Board does not encourage is that citizens can ride a bicycle to Board meetings.
Also, these other boards bring their own water bottles and fill them up at the meeting from a water
fountain, thus avoiding the use of plastic water bottles.
___________
Mr. Rooker mentioned the recent Supreme Court decision regarding the Northern Virginia Transit
Authority and their finding that the funding mechanisms for that authority are unconstitutional under State
law. He does not think that decision will impact local efforts to create a local RTA. There are a number of
ways it could be done. Taxes could be imposed at the state level and have the revenue directed to the
transit authority. Other things are being talked about which are broader, such as a gasoline tax.
___________
Mr. Rooker said that at the last PACC meeting, there was a joint presentation by the City, County
and UVA Environmental Departments about what each is doing to conserve energy and more green area.
If there is time on a future agenda, he would like for the entire Board to see the presentation.
___________
Ms. Mallek said she hopes progress is being made by staff on the question of mitigation and
clarification of buffers and stream crossings.
Mr. Boyd said that matter is scheduled on the March 12th agenda for discussion.
___________
Ms. Mallek said there was a strong outpouring from people living in the Bleak House Road area
when they saw that road appear as a paving project on the County’s list of unpaved roads. Many
residents have made it clear to her that they do not want the road paved.
___________
Mr. Boyd said the VML sent out a scoring mechanism to be filled out by localities indicating what
they are doing to lower emissions; he asked that staff fill in the form.
_______________
(Note: Mr. Boyd called the next item out of agenda order.)
Agenda Item No. 7. Consent Agenda. Mr. Rooker offered motion to approve Items 7.1 through
7.4 on the Consent Agenda, to pull Item 7.5 for a separate vote, and to accept the remaining items for
information. The motion was seconded by Mr. Slutzky. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item 7.1. Approval of Minutes: March 21A, August 1, August 8, October 3, October 10 and
November 27(A), 2007.
Mr. Dorrier had read the minutes of October 10, 2007, pages 1 to 30 ending at Item #14, and
found them to be in order as presented.
Mr. Rooker had read the minutes of October 10, 2007, pages 30 beginning with Item #14 to the
end, and gave the Clerk one typo correction.
Mr. Dorrier had read the minutes of November 27, 2007, afternoon meeting, and found them to be
in order as presented.
By the recorded vote set out above, the minutes which had been read were approved. The
remaining minutes will be moved to a future agenda for approval.
__________
Item 7.2. Resolution to accept roads in Massey’s W oods Subdivision into the State Secondary
System of Highways.
At the request of the County’s Engineering Department, the Board adopted the following
Resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Massey’s Woods Subdivision, as described on the attached
Additions Form AM-4.3 dated March 5, 2008, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on
plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised the Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street
Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
March 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County
Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) in Massey’s
Woods Subdivision, as described on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated March 5, 2008,
to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229 and §33.1-82, Code of Virginia,
and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-
way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described
on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the
Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
The road described on Additions Form AM-4.3 is:
1. Massey’s Woods Road (State Route 1008) from the intersection of Dudley
Mountain Road (Route 760) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded in the Office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 974, page 692,
with a 50-foot plus right-of-way width, for a length of 0.15 miles.
Total Mileage – 0.15 miles
__________
Item 7.3. Resolution to accept FY 2006-07 landowners’ offers to sell conservation easements.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that on September 5, 2007, the Board approved all seven
appraisals from the FY 2006-07 class of applicants and approved extending invitations to acquire
easements on the two highest ranked properties – Strawberry Hill Farm and the Clayton Farm properties.
ACE regulations require each landowner who desires to sell a conservation easement to submit a written
offer to the County to sell the easement for a fixed price, determined by an appraisal and subject to an
adjustment based on the owner’s adjusted gross income. The easement is also subject to the terms and
conditions contained in a proposed deed of easement negotiated by the parties. The regulations require
that, if the Board accepts the offer, it must do so in writing and only after an action by the Board
authorizing acceptance. The Board is not required to accept an offer to sell a conservation easement.
Either the Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities Authority (PRFA) or the Virginia Outdoors
Foundation (VOF) may be co-holders of the easements.
The County has received offers to sell conservation easements from the owners of Strawberry Hill
Farm and Clayton Farm. The Strawberry Hill Farm easement will be co-held by the VOF and the Clayton
Farm easement will be co-held by the PRFA.
Owner Tax Map-Parcel Number Easement Value Grant Co-holder DR’s Eliminated
Strawberry Hill Farm TM 50, Parcel 45 $1,130,290 $565,000 VOF 16
(Cismont) (329.920 acres)
Clayton Farm TM 56, Parcel 69 $1,429,350 $400,000 PRFA 10
(Crozet) (228.500 acres)
Acquisition of the Strawberry Hill Farm and Clayton Farm easements would result in the following
resource conservation benefits:
• Protection of 558 acres of farm and forestland;
• Elimination of 26 development lots;
• 5,304 feet of protected State road frontage (including 3,761 feet on a County Scenic
Highway);
• 3,000 feet of protected stream and river frontage;
• 9,705 feet of common boundary with other protected lands (including 6,743 feet on Beaver
Creek Reservoir);
• Protection of 330 acres of “prime” farm and forestland;
• Protection of Strawberry Hill Farm which has significant tourism value;
• Preservation of two productive, working farms;
• Clayton Farm is in the watershed of both the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir and Beaver
Creek Reservoir.
A summary of all the conservation values protected by the ACE Program after seven rounds of
applications is found in Attachment C (on file). This attachment also shows the conservation values for
each of the seven classes.
The purchase of these easements will be funded by $1,387,543 appropriated by the Board for the
ACE class of FY 2006-07, $93,041 in unused funds carried over from previous years, and $965,000 of
supplemental matching funds to be received from the Virginia Office of Farmland Preservation and the
Preservation Trust Fund. The Office of Farmland Preservation will provide at least $400,000 in funds for
the purchase of the Clayton Farm easement and the Preservation Trust Fund will provide $565,000, or 50
percent of the cost for acquiring the Strawberry Hill Farm easement. The total funds available for
acquiring the two easements will be approximately $2,445,584.
Since the total cost for acquiring all seven easements from this applicant pool exceeds the FY
2006-07 ACE budget, the Board, at its September 5, 2007, meeting, accepted the ACE Committee’s
March 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
recommendation to purchase easements on the two highest ranked properties – Strawberry Hill Farm and
Clayton Farm. Even with the supplemental matching funds from the State agencies, there are inadequate
funds available to pay the full easement value for Clayton Farm. However, the owner of Clayton Farm has
agreed to sell the easement for $1,315,350, which is $114,000 less than the full easement value.
Funding for the purchase of conservation easements comes from the CIP-Planning-Conservation
budget (line-item 9010-81010-580409) and the CIP-Tourism-Conservation budget (line-item #9010-
72030-580416) which funds ACE properties with “tourism value.” Staff recommends that the Board adopt
the Resolution accepting the applicants’ offers to sell conservation easements for Strawberry Hill Farm
and Clayton Farm to the County for the prices specified and subject to the terms and conditions contained
in the proposed deeds of easement, and also authorize the County Executive to sign the final deed of
easement for each property.
(Discussion: Ms. Mallek said she is glad to see this item on the agenda. She hopes there can
be a speedier process for these easements in the future. The Clayton easement was approved and
accepted last October, so the Claytons’ have had to wait a long time for their check, and she thinks it is
way too long.)
By the recorded vote above, the Board adopted the following resolution accepting the
applicant’s offers to sell conservation easements for the Strawberry Hill Farm and Clayton Farm to
the County for the prices specified and subject to the terms and conditions contained in the
proposed deeds of easement, and also authorized the County Executive to sign the final deed of
easement for each property.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING OFFER TO SELL
A CONSERVATION EASEMENT UNDER THE ACE PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the County has received an offer to sell a conservation easement under the
ACE Program from the owner(s) of each of the following properties:
Strawberry Hill Farm TM 50, Parcel 45 (329.920 acres)
Clayton Farm TM 56, Parcel 69 (228.500 acres)
WHEREAS, the owner(s) offered to sell a conservation easement on the respective
properties to the County for a fixed purchase price, subject to terms and conditions set forth in the
proposed deed of easement enclosed with the County’s invitation to offer to sell, subject to any
further revisions deemed necessary by the County Attorney, and agreed to by the owner; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby accepts the
offer to sell a conservation easement for each of the properties described above, and authorizes
the County Executive to execute all documents necessary for completing the acquisitions.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby directs the County
Attorney to send copies of this resolution to the owner(s) of the properties identified herein, or
their contact persons.
__________
Item 7.4. Requested FY 2008 Appropriations.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that the Code of Virginia § 15.2-2507 stipulates that any
locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year as
shown in the currently adopted budget. However, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of
the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first publishing a
notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The total of this requested
FY ‘2008 appropriation is $96,937.00. A budget amendment public hearing is not required because the
cumulative appropriations will not exceed one percent of the currently adopted budget. This request
involves the approval of three new FY ‘2008 appropriations as follows:
• One appropriation (No. 2008-052) in the amount of $2,835.00 for donations to various school
projects;
• One appropriation (No. 2008-053) totaling $77,576.00 for a grant received from the Virginia
Recreation & Trails Fund for the Rivanna Greenway – Free Bridge Connector; and
• One appropriation (No. 2008-054) totaling $16,526.00 for a Department of Criminal Justice
Grant received by the Commission on Children and Families.
(Note: Descriptions follow.)
Appropriation No. 2008-052, $2,835.00. Revenue Source: Local Revenue (Donations)
$2,835.00. At its meeting on January 24, 2008, the School Board approved the following
appropriations:
W oodbrook Elementary School received a donation from Rosemary McCrudden and Gray
W atson in the amount of $250.00. The donors have requested that this donation go toward the
Ann W atson Bookroom at W oodbrook Elementary School.
March 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
Burley Middle School received a donation in the amount of $2,085.00 from an anonymous donor.
The donor requested that this contribution be used for the art club at Burley Middle School.
At its meeting on February 14, 2008, the School Board approved the following appropriation:
Greer Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $500.00 from the
Landsverk/Klarman family. The donor requested that this contribution be used for educational
needs at Greer Elementary.
Appropriation No. 2008-053, $77,576.00. Revenue Source: State Revenue (Grant), $77,576.00.
Albemarle County has been awarded a Virginia Recreation and Trails Fund grant in the amount of
$77,576.00 for the construction of the Rivanna Greenway – Free Bridge Connector project. The total
project cost is anticipated to be $96,970.00. The local match portion of the grant, in the amount of
$19,394.00, will be funded from the existing appropriation in the Capital Improvements Program-Tourism
cost center for the Greenway Program. No additional local funds are required.
Appropriation No. 2008-054, $16,526.00. Revenue Source: Federal Revenue (Grant),
$16,526.00. The Department of Criminal Justice Services has awarded the Commission on Children &
Families a grant in the amount of $16,526.00 with a local match of $1,836.00 for a total grant award in the
amount of $18,362.00. This grant will provide training and the implementation of promoting greater
accountability in the juvenile justice system including the increased accountability for juvenile offenders.
Local match monies will be provided by both the City and County through their contribution to the
Commission on Children & Families. No additional local funds are required.
Staff recommends approval of this budget amendment in the amount of $96,937.00 and the
approval of the FY ‘2008 Appropriations No. 2008-052, No. 2008-053 and No. 2008-054.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved a budget amendment in the
amount of $96,937.00 and approval of FY ‘2008 Appropriation Nos. 2008-052, 2008-053 and 2008-
054 as set out below.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2008-052
DATE: 03-05-08
EXPLANATION: Education Donations, School Board Meetings 01/24/08 and 2/14/08
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation J2 2,335.00
1 2212 61411 800200 Furniture/Fixtures - New J1 250.00
1 2251 61339 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies J1 2,085.00
2000 0501 Est Revenue 2,335.00
0701 Appropriation 2,335.00
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation J2 500.00
1 2204 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 500.00
2000 0501 Est Revenue 500.00
0701 Appropriation 500.00
TOTAL 5,670.00 2,835.00 2,835.00
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2008-053
DATE: 03-05-08
EXPLANATION: Virginia Recreation & Trails Fund Grant - Rivanna Greenway - Free Bridge Connector
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 9010 24000 240447 Dept Con/Rec-Rec. Trails J2 77,576.00
1 9010 72030 950026 Greenway Program J1 (19,394.00)
1 9010 73020 950520 Rivanna-Free Bridge Connr J1 96,970.00
9010 0501 Est Revenue 77,576.00
0701 Appropriation 77,576.00
TOTAL 155,152.00 77,576.00 77,576.00
______
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2008-54
DATE: 03-05-08
EXPLANATION: CCF - Dept of Criminal Justice Grant
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1578 33000 330001 Federal Revenue J2 16,526.00
2 1578 51000 512000 Transfer - Other Funds J2 1,836.00
1 1578 53161 110000 Salaries J1 847.77
1 1578 53161 210000 FICA J1 70.23
1 1578 53161 312210 Contracted Services J1 9,314.00
1 1578 53161 350000 Printing & Binding External J1 1,900.00
1 1578 53161 500100 Travel/Training J1 6,230.00
1578 0501 Est Revenue 18,362.00
0701 Appropriation 18,362.00
1 4400 54101 110000 CCF - Salaries J1 (918.00)
1 4400 54105 550100 CCF - Travel/Training J1 (918.00)
1 4400 93010 930200 Transfer - Grant Funds J1 1,836.00____________________
TOTAL 36,724.00 18,362.00 18,362.00
__________
March 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
Item 7.5. Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities Authority Request for Funding.
The Board had received a letter signed by Ms. Sherry Buttrick, Chairman, and Mr. Joe Cochran,
Vice-Chairman, Public Recreational Facilities Authority, requesting an appropriation of up to $5,000 to
pursue an independent legal opinion on the potential violation of the Harris open space easement on
Turner Mountain. The Authority feels the spirit and intent of the easement has been violated and wishes
counsel on the matter and on possible litigation.
(Discussion: Mr. Boyd said he would like to have this item subject to a separate vote. He will not
support this request. Staff has given the Board good legal advice on this matter, and he does not think it
would be a good allocation of County money to double-check the County’s legal department and Zoning
staff.
Mr. Rooker said this is a situation where an easement has two holders of the easement; the
County and the Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities Authority. Those two entities will not
always agree. If a party holds an easement but does not have the funds to enforce that easement, it is a
hollow thing. There is some disagreement in this case between the County and the ACPRFA about how
this particular easement should be interpreted and enforced. He thinks the Board needs to recognize that
the PRFA is a separate entity, and they have a right to legally do what the Board asks them to do by
having them hold the easement. He will support the request. He said the Board members actually
discussed this request before it became an agenda item.
Mr. Slutzky said he would like to ask how process wise the Board can discuss this matter in
closed session. Mr. Davis said he and Mr. Slutzky can talk about it during a break in the meeting. If it is
an appropriate topic for a closed session, he can add it to the motion for the closed session later today.
Mr. Slutzky said he supports allocation of this money. Independent of the fact that he would like to
see something good come of it, he thinks the Board has a separate responsibility to the other party to
cover their cost in this situation.
Mr. Boyd said his objection was caused by the use of the word “litigation” in the request. He was
in favor of simply hiring a real estate attorney to evaluate the interpretation of the easement, but an
attorney can always be found who is willing to litigate anything. That could create a lot of expense, and he
does not know how the County would be involved.
Mr. Slutzky said that $5,000 will not buy a lawsuit. If the PFRA made their decision based on
advice from their counsel to litigate, whether or not he sees the merits, he thinks the Board has a separate
responsibility to support their wishes because of the conflict issue. He would support the request even if
there were litigation involved that he thought was fruitless, which he does not believe is the case here.
Ms. Thomas said if there are to be conservation easements held by a body specifically created to
hold the kind of conservation easements which come with rural preservation development zoning,
someday something like this will come up. She is supportive of the PFRA having an attorney in this
situation.
Mr. Boyd said he appreciates what the PRFA is doing and is not implying that he is opposed to
conservation easements, but this one was worded badly and it is being corrected. He does not feel it is a
needed expense.
Ms. Thomas said she believes there are a lot of easements which are worded the same way, so
this may not be the last that is heard on this matter.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks there has been a misreading of the letter from the PFRA. This letter
asks for money for a “legal opinion” on the potential violation of the Harris open space easement on
Turner Mountain ... and possible litigation. He said the Board would not be authorizing money for the
purposes of litigation, only for an opinion. He thinks the opinion will cost a lot less than $5,000. If the
Board wanted to, he would support adding to a motion for approval that funds are not being authorized for
actual litigation. He thinks that should be a separate decision.
Mr. Boyd said he can support that suggestion.
Mr. Rooker said the letter only asks for money to obtain an opinion on whether there has been a
violation.
Ms. Thomas said she does not think the Board should tie its hands in what might turn out to be a
negotiation.
Ms. Mallek felt that would take away any leverage the Board might have.
Mr. Rooker said this is only a request for up to $5,000 for a legal opinion.)
At this time, Mr. Rooker offered motion to approve Item 7.5, an appropriation of up to
$5,000 (Resolution of Appropriation is set out below) to pursue an independent legal opinion on
the potential violation of the Harris open-space easement on Turner Mountain. The motion was
seconded by Ms. Mallek. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
March 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2008-077
DATE: 03-05-08
EXPLANATION: Albemarle County Public Recreation Facilities Authority - Independent Legal Opinion
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 11010 300201 BOS - Legal Services J1 5,000.00
1 1000 95000 999990 BOS Contingency J1 5,000.00__________________
TOTAL 10,000.00 0.00 0.00
__________
Item 7.6. Copy of letter dated February 11, 2008, from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning
Administration, to Michael W . Hudson, re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCELS AND
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS - Tax Map 100, Parcels 1 (property of Michael W . Hudson) – Samuel Miller
Magisterial District, was received for information.
__________
Item 7.7. Update on Crozet Downtown District Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA-2007-005) and
possible Zoning Map Amendment.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that the Crozet Master Plan identifies the need for zoning
changes in order to fully implement the Plan’s land use recommendations and goal of economic vitality for
downtown Crozet. Based on the urging of Crozet business and property owners, along with the
endorsement of the Crozet Community Advisory Council, the Board initiated a project to amend the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance for downtown Crozet when it adopted a resolution of intent and
approved funding in September, 2006 in order to hire a consultant. The Crozet community specifically
requested that zoning regulations related to land uses, building height, building setbacks, step backs,
parking regulations, landscaping requirements and exterior lighting requirements be addressed by either
an overlay zoning district or a new zoning district for downtown Crozet.
In May 2007, the consultant team of Community Planning + Design, in conjunction with Milt Herd
and Bruce Dotson, began work with the Crozet community. The consultant team worked with staff, a
Project Steering Committee established with members of the Crozet Community Association, Crozet
Community Advisory Council and Downtown Crozet Association representatives. Most importantly, the
consultant team engaged the Crozet citizens in a series of community meetings to develop zoning
concepts. The concepts that resulted from this work were presented and discussed in a series of
Planning Commission work sessions which began in September, 2007. The entire public process to date
for this project is summarized in Attachment B (on file).
Based on the results of the public process and its subsequent review, the Planning Commission
recommended a draft outline of zoning regulations for a new Crozet Downtown Zoning District, along with
boundaries for a potential County-initiated zoning map amendment. Staff will discuss these
recommendations with the Board in a work session on March 17, 2008.
The Board approved $75,000 for consultant fees for the project on September 6, 2006. The
consultant’s contract for the project has ended. At the Board’s March 17 work session, staff will provide
information on any anticipated budget impacts associated with the recommended zoning text
amendments and zoning map amendments for Downtown Crozet. This update is provided as a status of
the work done to date. On March 17, staff will review the details of the recommendations and seek
direction on the next steps in the process.
This report was received as information only.
__________
Item 7.8. Update on Code of Governance W ork Session.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that on December 12, 2007, Mr. Mike Chandler, Director
of Education, Citizen’s Planning Education Association of Virginia, facilitated a “Code of Governance” work
session for the Board to discuss operations and procedures that may benefit the Board in the upcoming
year. He presented data from prior Board meetings, discussed Board minutes, podcasting and the
Board’s current Rules of Procedure. Based on the information presented, Mr. Chandler suggested
changes the Board might wish to consider to improve its meeting procedures in the future.
Mr. Chandler observed that Board members are prepared for meetings, are open to different
opinions, get along well with each other, and are respectful to the public, county staff and each other. He
further noted that Board members listen well, work well as a group and explore and study issues before
offering solutions. However, he did note that the length and number of Board meetings has increased
over the years. He suggested that Board meetings could be improved if the Board adhered to the agenda
schedule and if actions were clearly identified before meetings adjourned. He further suggested that the
Board add either a third meeting each month or periodically schedule a day for work sessions. Also, the
Board should consider updates to its “Rules of Procedure,” invest more authority to the Chairman for
meeting process as well as identify additional ways to help focus discussions.
March 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
It was staff’s understanding that the Board agreed to the following:
1) Regarding the agenda item, “From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing”, the
Board requested that the Clerk develop clear written instructions for members of the public
who wish to speak under this item and that these instructions be projected on the screen
during that portion of the meeting.
2) To adopt “Small Board” procedures and incorporate them into the Board’s Rules of Procedure
in January, 2008 with the exception that motions still be seconded before voting.
3) Hold a third day meeting each month on an as-needed basis, primarily designated for
afternoon work sessions.
4) The Chairman should informally recognize which Board member is speaking in order to assist
with meeting decorum, minute preparation and podcasting clarity.
5) Review examples of summary style minutes to determine whether the Board would want to
change from the “near” verbatim minutes to summary minutes now that the Board’s meetings
are podcast.
6) At the end of the Board’s discussions on agenda items, the Board’s Chairman should
summarize the Board’s directions to staff.
Since the work session on a Code of Governance, Items 1 through 4 have been adopted and/or
incorporated into Board meetings. In January 2008, the Board amended its Rules of Procedure to adhere
to Small Board rules with the noted exception that a second is still required on all motions. Staff has made
minor adjustments in the agenda format to improve the meeting schedule. Item 5 regarding whether the
Board should move to summary minutes since meetings are available on podcast, requires additional
review and discussion. Improvements in Item 6 have increased staff’s understanding of the Board’s
directions.
No Board action is required on this item. A Board work session is currently scheduled in May to
review samples of summary minutes and to discuss whether the Board wishes to change from “near”
verbatim minutes to only summary minutes.
This report was received for information only.
__________
Item 7.9. Copy of notice from the Commonwealth of Virginia, Auditor of Public Accounts, of audit
of Statement of Assets and Liabilities of Shelby J. Marshall, former Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County
of Albemarle, for the period June 1, 2007, through December 31, 2007 (on file in the Clerk’s office), was
received as information.
__________
Item 7.10. Copy of notice from the Commonwealth of Virginia, Auditor of Public Accounts,
regarding review of Commonwealth collections and remittances of the Director of Finance and Sheriff of
the County of Albemarle, for the year ended June 30, 2007, was received as information.
_______________
At this time, the Board returned to Agenda Item No. 6. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for
Public Hearing on the Agenda, which had been accidentally skipped earlier.
Mr. Leonard Schoppa, president of the Alliance for Community Choice in Transportation (ACCT),
said this organization is committed to making possible alternative modes of transportation for all people in
the community. They are concerned about the number and severity of accidents involving pedestrians on
both Rio Road East and W est. This is a warning sign that the community needs to do more to protect
citizens attempting to walk across roads. Citizens have no incentive to walk to intersections if pedestrian
crosswalks are not marked. Berkmar Crossing is five lanes wide, unmarked, with no island in the middle,
no pedestrian signal and no overhead lights. At Albemarle High School there is a marked crosswalk
which is six lanes wide with no island; the distance is longer because it is on a diagonal. The crossing of
Rio Road at Fashion Square Mall/Albemarle Square is six lanes wide, unmarked. There are no marked
crosswalks on Hydraulic Road and Rio Road from Albemarle High School to North Street in the City.
ACCT worries that the community will not be able to achieve goals with things like bus rapid transit if
people cannot walk from bus stops to nearby shopping, jobs and homes.
Mr. Slutzky said there is a significant risk to crossing Rio Road, especially near Route 29. There
are plans in place to put a crosswalk at Rio Road where Hillsdale Drive crosses it going into Northfields
Subdivision. He met with Mr. Butch Davies recently and was told there are moneys possibly available next
year to address this issue in the growth areas. If other Board members agree, he would ask that staff
compile a list of places that need a crosswalk so the Board could prioritize that list and tackle the issue of
how to get funds for these crosswalks.
Ms. Thomas said since staff is down 16 positions making it hard to add to the work load, she
wonders if ACCT would be interested in presenting the Board with a list of places that in their opinion need
crosswalks. After presentation of such a list, staff would have to develop criteria and action items for the
Board, but that might be a good use of an organization that has identified danger spots.
Ms. Mallek said she thinks the TJPDC could also be useful in developing such a list. She hopes
citizens will continue to alert the County about such places.
Mr. Rooker said the University has done a good job of marking their crosswalks with florescent
signs in the middle of the road. If the County starts to tackle the crosswalk problems, it should look at
March 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
ways to make them obvious. One thing ACCT has talked about is to paint bike lanes a different color so
everyone is aware of what that lane is for. It has been done in other communities. There was a
pedestrian study done for the Route 29 North corridor about 10 years ago. It identified a number of
potential pedestrian improvements along that corridor. That should be looked at because it deals with
some crosswalk areas on perpendicular roads to Route 29.
Mr. Tucker said if the Board wants to take a comprehensive look at the problem, all development
areas would be included. He said ACCT could help the County focus on priority areas.
Mr. Boyd said he likes Ms. Thomas’ idea that ACCT bring this forward recognizing that there is not
a lot of money available.
Mr. Slutzky said Ms. Thomas raised a relevant point. However, he would not want to abdicate the
Board’s responsibility to identify places that need to be addressed simply because it does not have the will
to fund the staffing necessary too get all of these things done. These areas need to be identified and
there need to be suggestions on how to move forward and decide on financial aspects.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks a list of 10 to 12 projects should be developed, and then try to get them
funded year by year.
Ms. Thomas said there is the Hillsdale project that she thought was about to break ground soon.
Mr. Slutzky said that will get one crossing at Hillsdale and Rio funded from safety improvement
funds.
Ms. Thomas said the entire distance of Hillsdale Drive has crossings and safety islands which
have already been designed.
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning, said the Hillsdale Drive project is being designed now. There
were complications acquiring rights-of-way from Squire Hills and Fashion Square Mall so the project was
broken into phases and where the right-of-way is available they hope work can begin this summer. There
are four crosswalks in that section of Hillsdale Drive. Also, there will be a crosswalk at Hillsdale Drive and
Northfields Road. As to other areas, a crosswalk is being constructed at Cale Elementary School at this
time. A number of plans and documents have identified sidewalk and sidewalk crossing needs. One of
those documents was an enhancement grant application about eight years ago with funds to be used to
complete unfinished, unconnected sections of the sidewalk system. It established priorities within the
development areas for those projects. Information from community groups about other areas will also be
helpful. The TJPDC committee can be helpful, but staff already has information and priorities to work
from. At the work session on the Secondary Road Plan later today, Mr. Sumpter will make suggestions on
setting aside funding to do some projects. Technically, there is a “pot of money” in the Secondary Road
Plan that can be used for that purpose. It is being used for the crosswalk at Cale and is how the “pork
chop” constructed near Hydraulic and Solomon Roads was funded.
Mr. Boyd said the Board would like for staff to work with ACCT and the other organization to make
some suggestions on this matter.
__________
Mr. Kip Newland of the Advanced Mills Neighborhood Association thanked the Board for their
work on the safety of their neighborhood. Unfortunately, the process is back to “square one” and they ask
that the Board remain vigilant as the process begins again. He made some suggestions he believes will
help to accelerate the Advanced Mills Bridge project, such as: take the old bridge down now instead of
waiting until January; accelerate the request for a contract; have VDOT make sure the Federal money is
actually available; and, think about the aesthetics now. He said Mr. Butch Davies has set up a meeting for
the neighborhood with VDOT on March 18 to discuss the present situation with the project. He invited the
Board members to attend.
__________
Mr. Gary Grant said he is a resident of Bleak House Road. He appreciates Ms. Mallek mentioning
that some residents do not want to have the remaining portion of this road paved.
__________
Ms. Mary Laymen said she lives on Bleak House Road. Her husband asked for the Rural Rustic
Road designation at the public hearing. They live 7/10ths of a mile from Buck Mountain Road and 9/10ths
of a mile from the paved section of Bleak House. They have lived there for five years and had hoped the
RRR request would help to get the road paved without additional right-of-way. There are safety issues
with the existing road.
Mr. Slutzky said this isn’t the first time the Board had received differing opinions from the residents
who live along a road. He asked if there is a practical way to solve this situation. He said staff might send
out a letter to the residents most directly affected by the condition of the road and ask if they have a strong
bias about paving.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks that is already a part of the process.
Mr. Benish said for a regular road construction project there is either a notification process or a
requirement for donation of right-of-way. The Board reviews a list of projects eligible to move forward
through the planning process. Regular road paving projects are not done unless there is a 100 percent
March 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
dedication of right-of-way and that is the way the community is engaged to insure willingness to pave that
road. For unpaved roads, in lieu of that process, the Board adopted a policy several years ago that
requires staff to notify all adjacent property owners, provide a notice on the road through signage to notify
the driving public that there is a potential paving project, and solicit comments from the public. Staff
evaluates those comments and lets the Board know if there are concerns or opposition to the project. At
that point in time, the Board can decide if the project moves forward. There have been several unpaved
road projects which worked through this process and the Board chose not to have the roads paved;
Catterton Road is the most recent example.
Ms. Mallek suggested that the Earlysville Area Residents’ League be asked to raise this issue
through their newsletter which will go out about six weeks from now.
Mr. Benish said citizens can make their comments at the public hearing on the Six-Year
Secondary Road Plan. If the Board knows there is a concern about a project, that project can be deleted
from the list.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks it would be appropriate to raise this subject during the Board’s work
session on the Road Plan later today.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population (ASAP) Scope of W ork for
the “Optimal Sustainable Population Size” Research Project.
Mr. Jack Marshall from ASAP spoke. He presented this request to the Board last June and asked
the Board for a $25,000 contribution toward a total project budgeted at $90,000, which now stands at
$110,000. This would help the community get a better sense of its optimal sustainable population size.
There are seven categories of studies in the overall project; first-rate scientists are involved. The Board
set aside $25,000 with conditions that: a) ASAP would submit a scope of work (that has been done); b)
ASAP would match the funds (they have more than matched those funds); c) ASAP would use the County
money only for studies to assess the biological carrying capacity (two studies have been isolated, although
there could be more. They have developed an accounting system with firewalls so that County money
would only be used for that and nothing else.); and, d) the Board would approve the consultants (they
have forwarded to the County resumes of the two consultants). The first consultant is Dr. Claire Jantz, a
faculty member at Shippensburg University, who is focused just on this issue and who would be the main
consultant for the eco-system services element. Second is Dr. Mathis W ackernagel, Director of Global
Footprint Network, Oakland, CA, and a co-creator of Environmental Footprint Analysis. He is excited
about collaborating on this system because it would look at his environmental footprint analysis approach
in a new way.
Mr. Marshall said ASAP believes this project is a step forward in the County’s effort to work
toward a truly sustainable community. The product of the exercise is knowledge and the knowledge is
incomplete and imperfect, but it will be obtained by objective researchers with exacting standards and
transparent approaches. The result of these groundbreaking studies will not produce definitive answers to
questions of public policy. They are not focused on saying what a public policy should be, nor will the
results be above controversy. It is puzzling that knowledge alone seems to be threatening to opponents of
this idea. The study should help understand issues of paramount importance to the future of Albemarle
County and help move toward a more informed way to go about planning and decision-making. He then
offered to answer questions.
Mr. Slutzky said in October, 2006 he embraced the idea of redefining how the community deals
with land use planning. The objective was to develop process tools for the County to use. Instead of
deciding how to accommodate human activity on the land, first the County would look at the ecological
asset that needs to be protected, and then human activity would be accommodated in a way that is
protective of those ecological resources. That kind of green infrastructure planning is a new paradigm. At
this time, it lacks knowledge and process tools. W hen ASAP suggested they might be willing to undertake
some of the work necessary for the County to achieve that new paradigm of land use planning, he
embraced it with enthusiasm and still does today.
Mr. Slutzky said at the time Mr. Marshall presented the request for funding, he went back and
listened to the podcast of the meeting and read the Board’s minutes. He thinks he did a mediocre job of
articulating at that time his apprehensions, so he would like to make those clear today. He thinks it is
imperative that: 1) the community undertake this work to determine the eco-system services that are
provided from the ecological systems; 2) the County understand its ecological footprint; and, 3) there be a
deeper understanding of the air and the water elements because they are the most sensitive. ASAP’s
body of work proposes to address the scientific considerations. His concern was and still is that the Board
would be funding an advocacy group to do the work because the County would not be doing this work
itself. The Board must be careful when using public money, but this is for a good public purpose. His
concern is that if an advocacy group undertakes not only the scientific elements, but the softer social
science elements, they have the inherent characteristic of being more vulnerable to influence. That will be
part of the controversy if the Board has ASAP take on all of this work on its behalf.
Mr. Slutzky said he would like for the Board to fund the hard science part of this study. Mr.
Marshall has said ASAP has a plan for segregating the work into two different elements. He is willing to
support this request only under the circumstance that the body of work dealing with the hard science is
completed, presented to the Board in draft form, reviewed by the Board, and then ultimately made final
before any additional work is done. In other words, Items 1 through 3 in the extensive work plan should be
done now with the County’s money, but that is all ASAP should undertake until those items are done.
March 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Once that is done and the Board is satisfied with the outcome, if ASAP in an independent effort wanted to
embark on a mission to address Items 4 through 7, he would be fine with that. Some people in the
community might find Items 4 through 7 to be valuable. He would not want those items funded with
taxpayer money, and he would not want them to occur concomitantly. Unfortunately, he thinks they would
compromise the political legitimacy of an extremely valuable body of scientific work.
Mr. Slutzky said, in short, he is trying to say that he thinks this is extremely valuable for the
community, and if ASAP could agree – he thinks the consultants they have identified are quite worthy from
his review of their credentials and some conservations – to do only Sections 1, 2 and 3 of their proposal in
their entirety before starting to do the remaining four items, he could be comfortable supporting the
allocation. If there is an insistence on the part of ASAP to do these things simultaneously, even if the
money is sequestered, he could not support this proposal. He asked how the other Board members feel.
Mr. Boyd said he is sorry he let Mr. Slutzky go ahead with this speech because he thinks there are
some members of the public present who would like to speak about this issue, and he would like to hear
their comments before the Board gets too far into the conversation. He just wondered if there were
questions for Mr. Marshall, rather than making a statement.
Mr. Marshall said the question is whether ASAP would be willing to cut the study in half, and the
answer is “no.” To use a metaphor, they are the blind man trying to define an elephant. The elephant is
an optimal, sustainable population size. They don’t know how to go about that. They are grappling at
ways to define it.
Mr. Rooker said Mr. Slutzky has said he does not mind if ASAP does the second part of the study,
but he just wants the first part of the study done first, and a draft of that sent to the County before the
second part of the study is undertaken. The County would be participating in funding that first part. He
said ASAP may view that as part of the whole, and it may end up being that, but from the County’s
perspective, it is not. The Board is interested in funding the scientific component. The Board wants a
report on that scientific component and does not want its investment in the scientific component to “bleed
over” into the less objective components of the study.
Mr. Slutzky said he also does not want to be compromised politically. Mr. Marshall said he does
not understand the compromise. First, doing the studies all together would not delay the studies on the
biological carrying capacity. Second, the foundation is giving ASAP the money they described in this study
as one package.
Mr. Rooker asked if the study could be done in phases. Mr. Marshall said they probably could do
that, but Mr. Slutzky is asking that the completion of the study be postponed for at least a year. He does
not know how their foundation would respond. Initially, they gave ASAP the money for a year. He really
does not understand the “hard”, “soft” dichotomy Mr. Slutzky made. One of the soft studies is the
economic cost of growth. There are hard costs and ASAP will be working with people who know budgets
and it is not arguable.
Mr. Slutzky asked if a business person or a finance person will determine the economic cost of
growth. Mr. Marshall said the two people who will be the administrative heads of this study are Mr. Ed
Stennett (he wrote a book filled with economic data on the costs of growth nationally and in Maryland) and
Mr. Jeff W erner (familiar with local costs of growth). For all of these studies, they hope to create a team
that includes local business people, and shareholders in the results of these studies.
Mr. Boyd said if the idea is to come up with a sustainable population figure (he opposes setting
any cap), economic needs will need to be looked at in the way of jobs and the economy. You can’t look at
eco-systems in a vacuum; there cannot be a thriving community if there is no economy. He does not think
there needs to be an ultimate population.
Mr. Slutzky said the Zoning Ordinance defines an ultimate population.
Mr. Boyd said that is a fluid document. The Board has been talking about TDRs and a lot of other
things that will change in the future as the County grows. He thinks setting a population cap and building
the future of this Board, other boards, and people in the future based on that number is a waste of money.
Mr. Rooker said no one has suggested the Board adopt a cap on population. Part of the ASAP
study is to come up with what they think is an optimal population. Optimal does not mean it is capped.
Mr. Boyd asked the value of the study.
Mr. Rooker said the County can either operate on the best available information or can “put its
head in the sand.” He would rather operate on the basis of more knowledge than less knowledge. He
thinks it can be helpful when the Board is making decisions about land use. W hether this Board would
ever adopt a new section in the Comprehensive Plan about an optimal population would be a decision to
be made at that time. The things the Board has talked about funding provide it with valuable tools for
making land use decisions. More is being provided by other parties for this study than the County would
put into it.
Mr. Boyd said the Board goes to great lengths to keep up with the evolution of technology and
science. He thinks that is the better approach rather than setting an ultimate population and building
procedures now against unknown future technology.
March 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
Ms. Mallek said when the Board makes zoning decisions now it has no knowledge about the
natural resources being paved over. She thinks the Board needs that information.
Mr. Slutzky said he is less focused on the phrase “maximum sustainable population.” In October,
2006 the Board talked about ecological systems that provide service value but which are vulnerable to
intrusions of human action. He wants to understand the point at which there is the potential for precipitous
decline in the provisions of those eco-system service values. If the Board were worried about nitrogen
issues, there is cap beyond which there is a significant decline in the bio-diversity of organisms which
gives the outcome of a dead body of water. The contribution to that can come from vehicle miles traveled,
intrusions of animal feces in the streams, different kinds of human actions that result in the same
outcomes. The Board could make a decision to accommodate more human population in terms of
vehicles miles traveled by deciding to keep cows out of streams. This study will not give a firm number for
a maximum sustainable population, but it will illuminate the variables that should inform decisions about
not only how much development to allow, but more importantly where it should be allowed to occur. For
him, the three scientific pieces will give a lot of information that can be used when making those new land
use planning paradigm decisions. For him that is a rich value to the community, and taxpayer dollars are
being leveraged to get the information. This will be cutting edge work when it is done, but it will not define
a maximum population. It will inform land use planning decisions.
Mr. Marshall said that on page 5 there is a paragraph that says “it should be noted that any
calculation of the community’s optimal sustainable population size is not immutable. It will evolve as
community values change, as technology improves, as environmental conditions are altered, as better
data and analytical methods become available. Thus, estimates of the right size should be revisited
periodically, possibly in conjunction with updates of local comprehensive plans.” He is not saying this is a
number or range forever. It must be adjusted.
Mr. Boyd asked why throughout the proposal it talks about obtaining an optimal science. As far as
he is concerned, ASAP is an advocacy group that advocates population control. All of the people on the
committee are ASAP people, except for Mr. W erner.
Mr. Marshall asked the point of Mr. Boyd’s remark.
Mr. Rooker said he is comfortable with the first three parts of the proposal, and there is a good
group of scientists and skilled people involved that would provide the County with valuable information
about community resources and the limits they have to sustain impacts.
Mr. Dorrier said he thought the County already had some of this information. The County tries to
protect rivers and streams now through the Zoning Ordinance. W hat will ASAP tell the County that it does
not already know? He is having trouble determining if the County will get something from this study that
really helps it. Public money will be spent on this study when there are huge demands in the way for fire,
police, rescue squads and schools. W hat will that money produce for the County? On Page 17 of the
proposal it says: “For the build-out population, provide several cost estimates based on: ... modeling the
potential mix of development possible under current planning and zoning. From these could be inferred a
‘ratio’ of residential to non-residential mix ....” He said this seems to be developing something that will
conflict with the present Zoning Ordinance, and the County will end up supporting something which works
against what is already being done.
Mr. Rooker said the Board is not being asked to support anything other than a one-time
expenditure of money that it previously allocated to obtain information. How the Board uses that
information is up to it. If the County did this itself, it would be more costly than obtaining it through this
process. This is not a decision to do anything other than to pay for putting together some scientific
information on the resources in the County and the various ways those resources get impacted.
Mr. Boyd said it is a decision to spend County resources on one project while denying County
resources being spent on others. The decision the Board is making is that it feels this is more important
than other things which will not be funded in the budget. It is a small amount of money, but $24,000 goes a
long way. He heard yesterday about the $13,000 for the W orkforce Group that will not be funded, so the
Board will not invest in W orkforce, but will invest in ASAP.
Mr. Rooker said the Board put $250,000 in an Economic Development Fund that has been just
sitting, and not a dime has been spent to date. Maybe the Board could take $25,000 from that fund for
this study.
Mr. Slutzky said the Board has already allocated the $25,000 for this study.
Mr. Rooker said these are not new dollars; this is last year’s budget.
Mr. Slutzky asked if Mr. Boyd was going to take comments from the public on this item.
Ms. Mallek said there is an opportunity, particularly in No. 7, to use people in the local area who
are good sources of information. Many people have said the County is relying on residential growth, but it
needs to rely on productive and business growth, and this is a way to bring these stakeholders into a
valuable process to help with that economic issue. She thinks there would be valuable and statistical
information in the study.
Mr. Slutzky said his concern with the economic component is that the ASAP proposals talk about
estimating build-up populations based on proposed zoning and other land use policies. There is a
March 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
significant amount of “wiggle room” written into the actual work plan for Item 7. The body of work
represented by Item 7 will be valuable to the County; staff has already looked closely at the economic
impacts of growth because they must advise the Board of the economic implications of density increases.
He does not see in the proposal as drafted that Item 7 gets the Board what it wants. He is concerned
about being politically vulnerable to attack only because it is a bit imprecise and is not as scientifically
driven. He thinks the Board should fund the first three items because that will be valuable information for
the Board to have. That is additive to what the Natural Heritage Committee has been working on.
Hopefully, there can be collaboration with that committee. W hile the subject matter in Item No. 7 may be
valuable to the Board, it is potentially problematic to have it done by an advocacy group in the context of
the three hard science projects. The County will be leading the country if it undertakes this body of work.
There will be people around the country who will admire Albemarle County and follow its leadership for
trying to embed ecological considerations into its land use decision-making process. He wants to be sure
it is done right from the beginning. It is risky to have an advocacy group do it, but ASAP has identified
good methodology and good people to do the work, and if they just do that there will be some good
outcomes.
Ms. Mallek said Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are likely to cost more than $25,000. She wonders if the Board
members are flexible about the demand to see-saw the work on the rest and disrupt the one-year
proposal of the Foundation, and have them focus on 1, 2 and 3 and not put in arbitrary boundaries.
Mr. Slutzky said the Board does not know that that organization will have any problem delaying.
Their website sets out a clear objective for their work. For whatever reason, they have funded this study
to the County’s benefit; he welcomes that. If the Board will be investing taxpayer money, he still thinks it
has to be done prudently. He would like to stick with the first three items in the study.
Mr. Rooker said there could be two separate steering committees having two different projects
going on at the same time.
Mr. Slutzky said if both parts are done by ASAP at the same time, it will be hard to separate them.
He said the Board needs to use this money to buy it some knowledge that will be valuable without that
information being compromised or tainted. It is risky to have an advocacy group undertake something like
this on behalf of the County, and he just wants to minimize the dangers of doing that.
Mr. Marshall said ASAP came to the Board and asked the County to do the work. The Board said
staff resources were not available to do it. ASAP said it would try to do it, and came back to the Board
with this proposal. Any of these studies can be adjusted. If the Board thinks ASAP can assess the
economic costs of growth in better ways than have been outlined in the proposal, they would be willing to
work on that. He said Mr. Slutzky’s proposal catches them by surprise. They tried to meet the conditions
which were stated clearly in June for matching funds by giving those who would match the funds a
description of the project. Now, the Board is saying that is not what it meant at all. He is both
embarrassed and puzzled if ASAP has to go back to the people who gave the money and tell them only
part of the proposal will be done.
Mr. Rooker said he does not understand Mr. Marshall. The Board is saying the proposal should
be done in two phases, and the first phase which the County would be putting money into, needs to be
completed in at least draft form before the second phase is undertaken. It is a timing issue.
Mr. Slutzky said since Mr. Marshall is saying he has been caught off-guard and is surprised, that
he and Mr. Marshall actually met to discuss this more than a month ago. At that time, he reiterated his
views and Mr. Marshall had said he did not remember it that way from the original discussion. He had
said if he was not clear previously, he is being clear now. If there was any uncertainly in Mr. Marshall’s
mind a month ago, he was made aware at that time that Mr. Slutzky was focused on doing just the three
hard science studies.
Mr. Marshall said he sent Mr. Slutzky a lengthy e-mail in response to that discussion but he did
not get a response.
Mr. Slutzky said he made his feelings very clear at the time. Because Mr. Marshall said he was
blindsided today, he wanted the record to show that that was not the case.
At this time, Mr. Boyd asked if any member of the public would like to speak about this agenda
item.
Mr. Neil W illiamson, Free Enterprise Forum, said they are not in opposition to knowledge, but are
opposed to government funding for the ASAP proposal. He did not understand at the last meeting on this
subject that ASAP had to present a script of work, but that the Board wanted to approve that script of
work. He thinks the timing the Board is discussing would be part of the approval process for that script of
work. Also, the Board needs to approve the consultant team that ASAP intends to engage. He also thinks
the Board needs to consider whether it is in agreement with that team which it will partner with. He thinks
the key element is the script of work and whether it accurately captures what the Board wants. He
believes the consultants selected, based on his research, are solid and if the Board reviews the work they
have done it will know the result of the study. That is okay; it is scientifically backed. They can defend it,
but he thinks other consultants can come forward and defend another side. In his review of the California
consultant’s website yesterday, one thing they were triumphing was an article in The Telegraph on
February 28 in Britain. It claimed the need for a national population control policy. In the end, that is what
this is about; government funding for population control. This is the first step, and he asks that the Board
vote “no.”
March 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
Mr. Tom Olivier said he is a member of the ASAP project team, but is also Conservation Chair of
the Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club, and he will speak on behalf of that organization. The Sierra Club
has been seeking to protect the environment for over a century; its Piedmont Group has over 1200
members. From the beginning they have supported the ASAP project but think it would be imprudent to
proceed with planning without knowing more about the issues raised in this project. People who do not
agree with ASAP have expressed support for the project because these are things about which more
should be known. It is foolish to proceed with planning in these challenging times without examining them.
He said Mr. Boyd has noted that there are interconnections between biological issues and economic
issues. The question before the Board today is a narrow one. Has ASAP met the conditions for release
of the $25,000? He said the Sierra Club believes that ASAP has met those conditions and they believe it
is time for these funds to be released. He does not understand the notion of taint between the biological
and social studies. He personally has degrees in both biology and anthropology and he has never had the
sense that studies in one discipline have tainted his work in the other; actually they have been very helpful
in the public process context. Also, he thinks it is important to distinguish between advocacy groups and
partisan organizations. It is important in bio-diversity conservation efforts that one advocates for certain
things believed to be good yet behave according to scientific standards. Looking at ASAP, they have gone
out of their way to find qualified people to perform this study. Also, ASAP has recognized the complexities
of some of the issues. Many are concerned about air quality, and ASAP’s preliminary look into this
suggests that perhaps population size may not be that tightly connected to air quality. ASAP is not
pushing a particular agenda. Finally, the time separation is a new condition and should not be applied.
The Sierra Club is troubled by the idea that a local government would try to dictate to any non-
governmental organization what matters of public interest it might examine with its own resources.
Mr. Jeff W erner said he was speaking for the Piedmont Environmental Council. He will not offer
suggestions as to which way the Board should vote on this question. W ith the endorsement of Mr.
W illiamson the Board seems willing to participate in pro-growth organizations in this community, so it is
interesting to hear these arguments against participating in an organization that looks at the impact of
growth. W henever he talks to organizations, he always suggests they look at a community’s
comprehensive plan. This Board has participated in the sustainability accords, and one of the adopted
provisions was to strive for a size and distribution of human population that would preserve the vital
resources of the region for future generations. That is not PEC speak, it is not ASAP speak, that came
out of the County’s Comprehensive Plan. He would like to respond to some things said today because he
found them insulting personally and professionally. To have someone suggest that his relationship with
ASAP or Mr. Jack Marshall is the first step at government-mandated population control is ridiculous.
There is no provision in the State Code or Federal Code that would allow the Board to suddenly “shut the
door.” Such fear mongering is inappropriate for this discussion. He served on the Rural Area W ork
Group for a year, on the Mountain Protection Committee for two and one-half years and they came up with
proposals that are yet to be implemented. He thinks everyone intellectually knows that population has
boundaries. There is only so much water and food available. If population exceeds food, population
declines. Intellectually all understand what Mr. Marshall and ASAP are saying. He is a member of the
County’s Fiscal Impact Committee. Mr. Marshall approached him and asked if he would help in an
advisory committee on the fiscal impact side of things. That is all it is, to offer a filter as they look at what
kind of economists to consider. He has tried to be helpful and offer his knowledge where he can, but he
takes issue with any suggestion that he is in this because he has bought into population control.
Mr. Jay W iller, from the Blue Ridge Homebuilders Association, spoke next. His background has
been in technical research and policy and government activities. He said the value of research is in large
part delivered by the quality of the product you get, but also the clarity of the people doing that research.
He said some of the things being talked about in terms of data analysis might be useful to the Board, but
the utility of that work will be more useful publicly in the Board’s discussions if it is done in a way so there
is no question of its objectivity.
Mr. Slutzky said under Item No. 7d, ASAP worded it to say “The purpose is to calculate the
economic costs (or benefits) attributable to population growth.” It does not say to objectively evaluate the
cost and the benefits. His concern is that subtle signals like putting the word “benefits” in parenthetically
will potentially impact how the public receives the objectively of the body of work. That is the kind of
unintended bias that can creep into an economic analysis or a public preference analysis. That is the crux
of why he is advocating strongly that the Board approve only the first three items because he thinks they
provide valuable information.
Ms. Thomas said she likes to play the role of someone who can bring together different ideas and
figure out a way to move forward when there are differences of opinion. If they are starkly different there
is no way to do that. If you think this is a way to get funding for population control, then there is no way
anything she can craft will be able to overcome that. If you think it is tainted because it is being done by
ASAP she will remind all that ASAP suggested that the County do the study. In fact, the Board did not
think there was any funding available. If the Board members think $25,000 is too much to spend, they
should decide what amount they would be willing to support; the study would certainly cost more if done by
the County, so she rejects some of the information given today. Years ago she was making a
presentation to this Board on behalf of the League of W omen Voters and was told by a Board member
that the Board could not listen to the League because they were basically a bunch of faculty wives. She is
slow to suggest that something brought to the Board by a community group is tainted by the fact that the
Board does not agree with all of their goals and it did not handpick who is in that organization. She also
shares the concern about government dictating to a local group. She thinks the Board should have the
right to say what can be done with the County’s $25,000, but she is not sure that right extends into what
they should do with the entire project. The Board can dictate or encourage that ASAP do the first three
steps and report back to the Board before going to Items 4 through 7. It is something she thinks would
bring knowledge to the table that the County does not have now. She was on the Sustainability Council
March 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
when it met every week for a while with a very diverse group of people. That Council tackled some of
these problems, but did not have the basic underlying scientific knowledge or facts to go further. That was
going to be their next step, but Federal funding for sustainability councils ran out and that is where it
ended.
Ms. Thomas said she is in favor of adopting what has been brought to the Board today. She
thinks it will bring value to what the Board will be talking about for a number of years into the future. She
has seen other counties base their comprehensive plan on their ecological footprint. That is the use she
would put this study to. She does not know that an optimal population size adds anything to a value all by
itself. She has been struggling because it appears that the Board is divided, and there is one person who
will never vote for it, and three members who would vote for it the way it is worded now, and two members
who want it put into phases. There is an organization in front of the Board which has not approached their
funding people with the idea of phasing, so they are not sure if that wipes out funding. The County would
actually be getting more than its money’s worth out of the study, therefore, it depends on them getting that
outside money. She asked if someone else had a motion they would like to try.
Mr. Slutzky said he will move that the Board approve the appropriation of the $25,000 to ASAP for
the purpose of completing Items 1, 2 and 3 in their work plan under the condition that the body of work
that has been presented to the Board today be bifurcated into two projects (or two phases of a single
project), that the first three be completed and delivered to the Board as a draft, and the draft be accepted
prior to the beginning of the body of work on Items 4 through 7 in the work plan.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker.
Ms. Thomas asked for reaction as to whether this motion kills the project. If she casts a vote for
this, she wants to know if it is possible, or if it will be impossible.
Mr. Rooker said he would suggest that the Board vote on Mr. Slutzky’s motion. If for some
reason, ASAP finds they cannot phase the work the way it has been discussed, they can come back to the
Board. He thinks there is a clear majority to approve that motion. He thinks they would be able to order
the work in the way the Board has requested. He thinks they have indicated that they are ready to go
ahead with the study without the County’s participation if they have to do that. He thinks it is important that
the Board give them something to work with at this point.
Mr. Boyd asked Ms. Thomas if she would like to see a vote up or down on the project in its totality
first and then as this motion states.
Mr. Rooker said he would like for this motion to be voted on as stated.
Ms. Mallek said she had a question. Since there are different groups of people working on these
two phases, would Mr. Rooker consider telling ASAP they could not start the second phase, but
understand that the presentation of Phase I would be made publicly first, and give the Board and public a
chance to react before the other half were brought forward, but not deny the people working on that to go
forward.
Mr. Slutzky said he is not comfortable doing that.
Ms. Thomas said that would be telling a private group what it shall not do. Could they not even
have committee meetings to discuss who they would have for consultants for the Nos. 4 through 7?
Mr. Slutzky said a committee meeting to discuss something they might do in the future is arguably
different from undertaking the work itself. He is uncomfortable with engaging a consultant and moving
forward with the project. His concern is that the final product the Board is investing in might potentially be
compromised. He is eager to get the first three done. He agrees with the approach to the work described
in the work plan, and the quality of the consultants they propose to engage. But, he has to confront his
constituents and explain how the Board funded ASAP to do this work. He can defend it by saying they
were asked to do an objective scientific inquiry on these three narrow tracks. He is only a little
apprehensive about it because he values the way in which ASAP has approached the work. He is wary of
the Board investing public money to go beyond those first three items.
Ms. Thomas said she understands that, and asked that the motion be read back to the Board.
Mr. Slutzky said his motion is that the Board approve an appropriation of $25,000 to ASAP for the
purposes of undertaking the first three items out of seven articulated in their work plan, but as a condition
of that appropriation the Board requires that ASAP provide it with a draft document that is the completed
study of those first three pieces before ASAP begins to undertake actual work on the remaining four items.
Ms. Thomas said she would like to insert a word – that is, before ASAP formally begins the other
stage (she does not think the Board can tell ASAP what they can do in discussions and committee
meetings because that is more of a gag order than the Board has any right to put on an organization.
“Formally” means they have not actually formed the groups or actually hired the consultants, and so
forth.).
Mr. Rooker interrupted to suggest that instead of using the word “formally” to insert the words
“before they expend funds on the remaining phases of the project.” In that way, ASAP can do all the work
March 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
it wants to do internally without expending funds. His concern is the expenditure of taxpayer money. He
thinks Mr. Slutzky was trying to make sure that the taxpayer money is only spent on the first three items.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks he is more concerned about the tainting of the results of the first
three.
Mr. Slutzky said it is a little bit of both, and they are subtly two different things. He is uncomfort-
able with ASAP doing the study if they chose to do Items 4, 5, 6 and 7 with their own staff as a formal
undertaking and chose not to engage outside consultants to support their efforts. He is concerned that
would compromise the credibility of the study.
Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Slutzky would be willing to have a word like “formally” inserted.
Mr. Slutzky said he is fine with that because he thinks that would be appropriate. He is not
seeking to shackle ASAP’s efforts to continue their mission. He does not want to see a parallel study
being done.
Mr. Dorrier asked what the County would get for $25,000 from the first three items.
Mr. Slutzky said he is expecting a draft report of the efforts articulated in Items 1 through 3. They
will have their consultants and experts do the things that are laid out in Tasks 1, 2 and 3, and they will
issue some kind of a report document that summarizes their findings and it may include some
recommendations, but it will be a body of work that is the result of Items 1, 2, 3 and 4 as described in the
work plan.
Mr. Dorrier asked if ASAP will come back and ask for another $25,000 for Items 4 through 7.
Mr. Slutzky said if they chose to do that they could do so, and the Board could decide that request
on its independent merits. He would probably be disinclined to approve any such request.
Mr. Rooker said given the discussion today he doubts that ASAP would come back and ask for
further funding. W ith the money this Board previously committed to this project, and with the money the
City has committed to it, and with private foundation money, he thinks they have the money to do both
phases of this project. He said there was a motion, and he had seconded same.
Mr. Boyd called for a roll call on the motion; the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: Mr. Boyd.
(Note: The Board approved, by a vote of 5:1 (Boyd), the appropriation of $25,000 to ASAP for the
purpose of undertaking Items 1, 2 and 3, as outlined in ASAP’s work plan, with the condition that ASAP
provide the Board with a draft of the completed study of those three items, for Board acceptance, prior to
ASAP formally undertaking work on the remaining Items 4 through 7 in their work plan.
(Note: The Board recessed at 10:53 a.m., and reconvened at 10:59 a.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Request to set public hearing to allow EMS Revenue Recovery.
Mr. Bryan Elliott, Assistant County Executive, gave a PowerPointe presentation to the Board on
this request to set a public hearing on an EMS ordinance for April 9, 2008. His comments are contained in
the Executive Summary for this matter which is on file in the Clerk’s Office with the permanent records of
the Board of Supervisors, along with a copy of the PowerPointe. He said the Committee which worked on
this program could not come to an agreement about how revenue should be distributed. W hile
negotiations are ongoing, staff would recommend that the Board go forward with a public hearing on this
ordinance.
Mr. Boyd said there are a lot of issues surrounding this matter that he would like to not be a part of
this discussion today.
Mr. Rooker asked if the only decision to be made today is whether to set this ordinance for public
hearing.
Mr. Boyd said that is correct.
Ms. Mallek said in order to be judicious and move forward slowly, she will suggest that the public
hearing be delayed. There was a meeting last W ednesday with all of the stakeholders, and it was their
first meeting since November, 2007. It was the first time that many of them had heard a lot of the
information directly as a group, rather than one on one. She thinks it would be to the Board’s benefit to
have a unified, countywide process move forward eventually. That group needs to meet without having
the pressure of an impending public hearing over its head. New information is coming forward, and the
committee needs to hear that with an open mind.
Mr. Slutzky asked if Mr. Tucker had built into the budget an assumption that the Board will go
forward with this billing. He asked if the public hearing is delayed in deference to Ms. Mallek’s request if
March 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
that will create a fiscal crisis. Mr. Tucker said staff will have to deal with how to fill that financial gap during
the budget work sessions.
Mr. Rooker said there are two things involved. One is adoption of an ordinance, and the other is
distribution of the revenues generated by such a program. Is there a reason why negotiations cannot
continue after adopting an ordinance that enables the County to put the program into place? The
ordinance would just enable a program being put into place; it would not require that the program be put
into place.
Ms. Thomas said she thought the concern of the volunteers went beyond the question of how the
proceeds would be distributed. Many people are concerned about the aspects of the program, and not
just distribution of the proceeds. Is Mr. Elliott saying the volunteers have agreed to the process of billing,
and it is just the distribution of the proceeds that is the question? Mr. Elliott said based on what the study
group published in September, 2007, the only outstanding question in that report had to do with the
revenue distribution. He cannot say what the volunteer squads might say at this time, but to his
knowledge, the keystone issue is how the revenue is dispersed back into the EMS system for the County.
Mr. Rooker said there is a distinction between putting a program into place, and adopting an
ordinance that enables the Board at some point in the future to put the program into place.
Ms. Mallek said she feels that if the Board waits a month to hold the hearing it might value the
public’s opinion more than it has been valued on this question. If the Board went forward with a
countywide collection, it would be financially five times the success rate than if the Board did something
now that endangered that process, and then go forward with a small section financially later.
Mr. Slutzky asked if Ms. Mallek were suggesting that staff bring the same question back to the
Board in a month just to give more time for further discussions by the committee.
Ms. Mallek said “yes.”
Mr. Boyd said he appreciates Mr. Rooker’s comments, because those are his thoughts also. He
does not see that this action should impact the negotiations. He met one time with the Advisory Group
and it was his impression that while there is some question about moving forward, there are other
questions about what it would do to the volunteers and their fundraising efforts. He got the impression
that all volunteer companies are on board with part of it; it is only the distribution issue that is still the
question. He does not think the Board setting a public hearing which is more than a month away would
impact those negotiations. It does not mean the Board would have to implement the program at all. This
has been talked about since 2006, so he thinks the Board should go ahead and set the public hearing.
Ms. Thomas said if the Board holds a public hearing in April and the volunteers still feel the same
way, the Board will probably have a room full of people saying this should not be done. If delaying the
public hearing would get the volunteers to say they are ready to go ahead with this program, she thinks the
Board would be far ahead in the process.
Mr. Elliott said the majority of the members of the work group are the chiefs of the companies.
Last week, they were presented with staff’s recommendation for distribution of the revenues from this
program. In turn, they must go to their respective boards for action, and then bring that information back
to the work group. The idea of delaying the public hearing for a month may not work even if closure were
made on what everyone perceived to be an equitable distribution of the revenue. If the Board held a
public hearing next month, it would have the framework in place. W hen negotiations were completed, the
Board would not have to turn around and hold a public hearing on the ordinance. That is another view of
how this process could proceed.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the group also deals with the presidents and treasurers of the rescue squads.
Mr. Elliott said the representatives on the regional study committee were primarily the chiefs and a
representative of the other boards, but it was not representative of the entire boards.
Mr. Boyd said he does not think setting a public hearing would impact those negotiations. It might
even put emphasis on getting those groups together to make a decision.
Ms. Mallek said she thinks the group that met last W ednesday could be called together again
quickly. Those are the people most affected by the program. They are the people who do the work. The
Board needs to do something in a meaningful way to address their concerns, not just carry on with its own
concerns and expect them to come along, or be told later that a decision had already been made. She
knows that it is a matter of perception, but perception is powerful.
Mr. Dorrier said he supports Ms. Mallek one hundred percent. He met with volunteers of the
Scottsville rescue squad and fire department and the perception expressed was that the County was not
communicating with them. Mr. Tucker suggested that a hearing be set on May 14; he thinks it would be
good to have a definite date in mind.
Ms. Mallek said she would like to bring this discussion up again at the April day meeting. That will
challenge the communities to make good use of the month of March. She does not want to say today that
the hearing will be scheduled for May 14. She would like to have a chance for progress to be made.
Mr. Rooker said he does not think a month will make a huge difference.
March 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
Mr. Boyd said the Board will take no action on this request today; it should be included on the
April agenda for further discussion.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Piedmont Virginia Community College (PVCC) Annual Presentation, Dr.
Frank Friedman.
Mr. Boyd asked that the presentation be brief, if possible, since the Board meeting
is running behind schedule.
Dr. Friedman introduced the Chairman of the PVCC Board, Mr. Charles Gross and Albemarle
County member Ms. Donna Plasket. He said the terms of three of the County’s four board members will
expire in June. He asked that the appointment process be started early. In terms of keeping the
presentation short, enrollment keeps going up, and he wishes funding would go up also. He talked with
the Governor yesterday about one of the issues before the General Assembly. This past fall, PVCC had
223 more students than it has ever had in any semester since the college was founded; there were 4674
students. Each semester sets another record as the college serves the community. The portion from
Albemarle keeps going up; Albemarle residents account for about 38 percent of total student enrollment.
Dr. Friedman said a large part of their student population is in dual enrollment with the high
schools. Last semester 400 high school students from Albemarle County took college courses through
PVCC. They took them at no cost to the school system and no cost to their families; the dollar value of
just the fall classes was $125,000 at PVCC’s tuition rate. That value transferred to a university would be
about triple that amount. They are providing a service that helps the students and families in the
community.
Dr. Friedman said as to facilities, thanks to State funding they have completed renovation of the
main academic building. It is a huge improvement. The Library was also renovated with private funds.
They hope to go to bid for the new Science Building next month. That is one of the issues caught up in
the General Assembly right now.
Mr. Rooker asked the location of the new building. Dr. Friedman said as you enter PVCC Drive it
will be on the right-side of the road just before the turn to the Dickenson Building. He mentioned that
PVCC has a wonderful partnership with the Albemarle County School System. Last semester PVCC
offered 13 classes at Albemarle High School at night and three classes at Monticello High School at night.
W ith so many night students, they could not meet the demand for space on campus. This kind of
partnership makes optimal use of facilities funded by the public.
Dr. Friedman said the most important issue he needs to mention is one he has mentioned before,
and it has to do with the Monticello Visitors Center. Monticello is building a new Visitors Center on their
side of Route 20. He thinks they will be vacating the current facility either in this calendar year or early in
2009. That opens up the issue of what happens with the building after that time. PVCC would like to take
possession of that building and the land, including the parking lot, and incorporate it as part of PVCC’s
campus. He said there is a proposal in front of the PVCC Board to make it a W ork Force Development
Center. W hen he gave the figure of 4600 students that was just for the students in credit courses. Every
year there are an additional 2500+ who are in non-credit courses. A lot of that is direct work PVCC does
with businesses. They do direct contract training for which they are paid. The problem is that often they
don’t have the right space to do the training necessary. They could expand what is done for businesses if
it had additional space, and that space was configured properly to do corporate style training.
Dr. Friedman said they would like to turn the visitor’s center into such a facility because they have
trouble accommodating the type of training wanted by employers. If the City and County approved the
transfer of the property to PVCC, they would be ready to move their W ork Force staff and operation into
that building as is. Their intention is to get State funding to renovate and expand the building. The
Governor included a little under $7.0 million in his general obligation bond proposal for that project, but
that proposal has not gone forward through the General Assembly so its fate is uncertain at this time. He
guesses that the earliest they could get the money would be in about four years.
Dr. Friedman said he does not know what process the City and County would use to make this
decision. He made this presentation to the City and received a fairly favorable response. City Council
appointed two councilors to work with the Supervisors on this initiative. He offered to answer questions
regarding this or anything else to do with PVCC.
Mr. Rooker asked what type of retrofitting would be required to make the building usable at its
current size. Dr. Friedman said he does not know specifically. They know what they want, but would need
to bring in an architect for redesign. They have been able to do with what they have, so for the first few
years staff would move into the building as is and make it work. Their intention would be to make a much
larger and more effective facility as soon as the funds were available.
Mr. Rooker asked the optimal time for this decision. Dr. Friedman said it would be helpful if the
County and City could make the decision this spring. If Monticello keeps to its timeframe, as early as
November PVCC could start planning for transition into the facility. They know there must be a decision
about the future of the Convention & Visitor’s Bureau which is also housed in that facility. He does not
know why they would want to remain in the building after the Monticello Center moves out, but he has
made it clear that if they wanted to remain in the building, PVCC would not evict them.
March 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
Mr. Boyd suggested this request be put on the agenda in the near future for discussion, and that
staff furnish a report for the Board. After that information is received, he suggests the Board appoint two
people to work with the City. He thanked Dr. Friedman for his report.
Ms. Mallek said she was appointed to the W ork Force network and she asked if Dr. Friedman is
forming a coalition to carry on with that work. W ill some of those activities be in this new building? Dr.
Friedman said that at one time PVCC operated the One-Stop Center for the Charlottesville region. For
various reasons, they withdrew from that a few years ago. At this time, they have put together a
consortium composed of PVCC, VEC, DRS and the Department of Social Services. This would be
managed by PVCC at the One-Stop Center on Hydraulic Road; this has not yet been approved by the
PVCC Board. He has been asked how the W ork Force Center at PVCC would work with the Hydraulic
Road operation. He said the main thrust of what would be done in the visitor’s center would be the actual
training; the classes, the seminars and the workshops. There is limited space at Hydraulic Road to do
that. They would probably have a satellite operation at the One-Stop Center incorporated in that facility. It
is more convenient for those who live in the southern part of the County.
Mr. Boyd said he and Dr. Friedman met with the Governor yesterday. They were informed that
the whole system will be revamped at the State level and it will be put under the community college
system. Dr. Friedman said there are many details to be worked out on that idea.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Board-to-Board, Monthly Communications Report from School Board,
School Board Chairman.
Mr. Brian W heeler, Chair of the School Board, was present along with Vice-Chair, Diantha
McKeel, and Superintendent, Pam Moran. Referring to School Board’s funding request for FY ’09, at the
Supervisor’s first public hearing on the FY ’09 budget on February 20, the community voiced its support for
public education and the School Board’s request. He then handed to the Board copies of a series of
spreadsheets listing various scenarios for potential reductions in the School Board’s request (see copy of
sheets on file in the Clerk’s Office with the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors). He said it is
important that they get feedback from the Supervisors on their budget request because the School
System must make staffing decisions in March. At a minimum they need information about the CIP
transfer proposed by Mr. Tucker. That would give them some indication of how far to go with reduction of
force issues related to School staff. Usually they would have sent letters today to staff about next year’s
contracts. Human Resources is working with the Schools and will move that as far as possible into
March, but in order for the School Board to make decisions on March 27 on contracts, they need to know
something by the middle of the month.
Mr. Boyd said the Board will be holding a work session on March 12 and will discuss the School
Board’s budget at that time as well as the CIP.
Mr. Rooker said this was a helpful way of presenting the information to the Supervisors. He asked
if within the scenario and the category, everything is prioritized. Mr. W heeler said there are numerous
initiatives and recommendations from the different advisory committees. Even fully funding the School
Board’s request does not fully fund things in the minds of many stakeholders. He said that year after year
they receive recommendations to increase the number of gifted resource teachers to a certain standard,
or increase the number of hours for nurses in the elementary schools. Those requests never even make
it to the table. He thinks the School Board is on track to improve efficiency and effectiveness of
operations; they are making cuts and restructuring the Central Office, they are willing to look at tough
things such as high school schedules and electives. These things will help close the budget gap, but in
the absence of new state or federal resources, they have to look to the Supervisors for adequate funding.
Ms. Thomas said the School Board seems to be less willing to look at redistricting of students to
W alton Middle School than to charge for use of facilities (Scenario 2). Charging for facilities just shifts the
costs to someone else. It usually shifts costs to nonprofits and others who use the schools, whereas
redistricting is something that is totally in their control. Mr. W heeler said they value partnerships with
organizations like PVCC. He said he runs a nonprofit so when he uses one of the schools, he has to rent
the building. Although the nonprofits in the community do valuable things, the School Board is also
running a business. He said this is a policy question and one which the School Board will be discussing.
He said the School Board has not shied away from redistricting; they are willing to do it based on needs.
He said that a number of things on the lists in the scenarios are things they do not want to do as a “knee
jerk” reaction to balance the budget; there will be studies to be sure they make the right decisions. The
recent Utilization Study provided a lot of information to make smarter decisions, but there is a public
process involved and a lot of questions to be addressed.
Ms. Moran said concerning redistricting, if something is tweaked in one area it sometimes causes
problems in another. She thinks the School Board will look at the issue in a “master plan look” at the
entire Division.
Mr. Slutzky said he would like to see a list of all the things the Schools should be doing, but are
not able to do because of funding. Ms. McKeel said there are items the School Board feels it should be
doing, but are not addressing at all as opposed to imposing cuts which indicates that something has been
in place but is being reduced. She said Scenario 1 triggers all of the reduction in force. Reduction in force
goes away with Scenario 2. She said the School Board is asking the Supervisors to partner with it so it
can treat its entire staff responsibly. They ask that the Supervisors make a decision about the CIP funding
issue as quickly as possible.
March 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
Mr. Boyd said the Supervisors have heard that is not the only option the School Board can use to
make up its shortfall.
Mr. Rooker said he looked back over past budgets and noted that when times have been good,
the Supervisors put a lot of extra money into the CIP. This is a particularly lean year. He has been
outspoken against not allocating that additional penny to the CIP. At this time, he is in favor of not
allocating the penny to the CIP and advising the School Board accordingly. Looking back over the past
four or five years, the Supervisors have put into the CIP as much as $8.0 or $9.0 million in extra revenue
because there was a surplus. This year there is no surplus.
Mr. Boyd said he has always been in favor of the penny reduction based on assurances from the
County Executive that it does not impact future CIP planning.
Mr. Slutzky said he has a different point of view. He understands the arguments for reducing the
transfer, but since there is not as much in the CIP as there should be, the Supervisors should not be
reducing the allocation to the CIP because there is a need to fund various other things in the budget. He
does not support taking the penny out.
Ms. Mallek said she would be happy to take the County Executive’s recommendation for this year
in the hope that progress can be made on the other funding issues another year and go ahead and
allocate the penny to the schools.
Mr. Dorrier said he is in favor of shifting funds from the CIP to the Schools to support their needs.
Mr. Slutzky said he really wants to fund the schools, but he does not think that is the only way to
do it.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks the Supervisors should have a work session on the CIP before she
decides about taking that penny away. She has been a strong proponent of not taking the penny away
because something similar was done a few years ago and it took many years to get back to where it was
before.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Albemarle County Service Authority/Rivanna W ater and Sewer Authority
Updates.
Mr. Gary Fern, Executive Director, Albemarle County Service Authority, was present. He said that
recently in Crozet there was a slight problem with discharge piping at the Rivanna W ater and Sewer
Authority pump station. The problem was fixed very quickly and was back running by Sunday afternoon.
It was a temporary fix. They are working on a more permanent solution and in two or three weeks it will
be in place. The ACSA is in the midst of its budget process now. The proposed operating budget along
with suggested rates will be presented to the ACSA Board soon. He offered to answer questions.
Ms. Thomas said she knows Mr. Fern is representing the County in negotiations with the City on
how the costs of major projects will be shared. By law this Board cannot become involved in those
negotiations, but he should let the Board know if it can provide any support.
Mr. Rooker said a constituent asked if one or more of this Board’s members can sit in on a closed
session of the Authority when they are deliberating, or discussing potential contract negotiations with the
City. Mr. Davis said if the Board were invited to attend such a session, not more than two members could
attend.
Ms. Mallek said she thinks it is unusual when the purchasers decide what the price will be. She
finds that to be unique in the economic system. She will be interested to see how this moves forward.
Mr. Tom Frederick, Executive Director, Rivanna W ater & Sewer Authority, was present. He said
the RW SA is also involved in the budget process. Staff introduced a Capital Budget to the RW SA Board
in January and they are anticipating action by the Board on March 24. Regarding capital projects, RW SA
staff has worked with the County’s Community Development Department to be sure their plans
incorporate what the County’s elected officials, as well as City’s elected officials, have proposed in the way
of plans and policies for the growth area. It has slowed down RW SA’s process, but for a constructive
reason. W ith respect to the Meadow Creek Interceptor they are moving into the right-of-way acquisition
stage. They have a final alignment including a couple of sensitive areas. They are working with the
Nature Conversancy on the section of Meadow Creek that will be rebuilt.
Mr. Frederick said RW SA staff proposed an operating budget last month and the rates are being
advertised under a preliminary rate resolution. There will be a public hearing on May 19. As for the
ACSA, the wholesale water rate increase will be slightly less than three percent for next year. For the
sewer rate, the proposed increase is about ten percent. Based on regulations and requirements that
utilities have to follow throughout the nation, in most places utilities have to invest more on the wastewater
side than on the water side. W hat RW SA is going through now is playing catch up. He said the RW SA
has not historically put in enough money or activity to be sure the wastewater collection system was up to
the standards needed.
Mr. Rooker asked about utilization of the sewer system by North Pointe and also by Albemarle
Place. Mr. Fern said ACSA staff met with developers in the North Pointe area. One thing that has to be
March 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
done is to decommission the Camelot Treatment Plant and then have a regional pump station put into
operation. He said they started that process and later this month will be issuing an RFP for engineering
consultants. They have the qualifications for selection of a consultant to begin the design of a regional
pump station which they hope to have in operation by the end of 2009, at which time the Camelot Plant
can be decommissioned. The emphasis now is to get an engineer engaged so they can move forward
with the work.
Mr. Rooker asked if North Pointe cannot hook onto the system until that work is completed. Mr.
Fern said that is correct. It was never intended that North Pointe would use the Camelot Plant.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is capacity in place between North Pointe and the ultimate treatment
plant. Mr. Fern said it would be pumped from North Pointe south into Rivanna’s Interceptors and then to
the Moores Creek STP.
Mr. Rooker asked if the infrastructure between the point where it is pumped back to the treatment
plant is adequate to handle the capacity contemplated. Mr. Frederick said in discussions with the ACSA,
they are proposing to build this system from their regional pump station to connect to the so-called Powell
Creek Interceptor in the southern Forest Lakes area. Their numbers indicate that before the build-out of
North Pointe, the Powell Creek Interceptor will have to be upgraded, but at this time Powell Creek is
running at about 25 percent of capacity, so there is capacity for the early years. Because of the many
demands on the RW SA system, they are timing it so the Powell Creek project comes in time for the
continued growth of North Pointe, but not to be done immediately. From Powell Creek the flow comes into
the Rivanna Interceptor that initially follows the South Fork, and then below the confluence it follows the
Rivanna River itself through Free Bridge and down to the Moores Creek Treatment Plant. That line was
built with a lot of capacity in it. W ith the inflow and infiltration reductions proposed as part of RW SA’s
capital improvement plan, that capacity can be sustained for years.
Mr. Rooker asked if hook-up fees are sufficient to pay capital costs so the capital costs caused by
growth are not added to the user rates. Mr. Fern said that is done as a matter of course.
Mr. Rooker asked about Albemarle Place. Mr. Fern said that recently they discussed with the
developers how their water and sewer systems will work internally before discharging to the RW SA.
Mr. Rooker asked if capacity issues are involved. Mr. Fern said there are capacity issues with the
Meadow Creek Interceptor, but based on their schedule and the schedule for that interceptor it should
work out fine.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Moores Creek Interceptor upgrade depends on State funding. Mr.
Frederick said the State budget has not been adopted yet, and there has been talk that the General
Assembly will adjourn next week and then be called back into session to deal with budget issues. The
Governor’s latest proposal was to cut $15.0 million from the W ater Quality Improvement Fund for the
Chesapeake Bay for wastewater treatment plants. There is money in the fund now because projects have
not yet advanced to construction, but there are grant commitments which exceed the money in the fund.
Even though the RW SA was one of the early utilities that got a grant agreement, it does not help. They
have been told that everybody who has spent money and deserves reimbursement will receive a check
until the money runs out. In terms of trying to finance a major capital improvements project, it requires
everybody in the state to have two financial plans. Somebody needs to talk with the legislators about this
situation.
Ms. Thomas said the public does not pay attention to mitigation when talking about the long-range
water plan. There are 200 acres of riparian land that will be reconstructed as part of the mitigation when
the water level is raised at Ragged Mountain. She asked if that mitigation has to wait for the raising of the
water level. Mr. Frederick said RW SA is in the early design phase of that now. In Virginia, the mitigation
has to be in place in order to incur the actual impacts. They can be building the dam without necessarily
curing the impacts because the impacts occur when the water is impounded. In order to fill the reservoir,
the mitigation projects have to be in place.
Mr. Boyd thanked Mr. Fern and Mr. Frederick for the updates.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13a. VDOT Monthly Report/Advance Mills Bridge Update.
Mr. Allan Sumpter, VDOT Residency Administrator, asked if any Board members had a question
about the monthly report which was furnished to them in written form.
Ms. Thomas said she would like to thank Mr. Sumpter for the huge sign which has been placed on
Dry Bridge. She said anyone crossing that bridge will know it is going to be closed tomorrow.
__________
Mr. Sumpter gave a PowerPointe presentation outlining the next steps for the Advanced Mills
Bridge project. He said the decision is to have an accelerated permanent bridge project. That can be
done by reducing the scope of the project and building a replacement bridge with modern improvements
to the approaches. This enables VDOT to build a prefabricated truss bridge of legal capacity with two
lanes in the same location. The existing bridge will need to be removed along with the abutments and
piers; new abutments and piers will need to be constructed. Originally when other alternatives for a
permanent bridge were discussed, the scope involved different alignments and road improvements of
about 1000 feet on each side of the bridge.
March 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
Mr. Sumpter then outlined the milestone timelines which are listed in the PowerPointe
presentation (a copy of this presentation is on file in the Clerk’s Office with the permanent records of the
Board of Supervisors).
Mr. Sumpter said VDOT will be working on Durrett Ridge Road between March and June; this
work consists of stabilization of the gravel surface, operations improvements such as guardrails and signs,
and restoration of a small bridge. The work on the roadway itself will be accomplished using State forces.
W hen they start this work they want to be confident the weather will allow them to do the work without
creating too muddy of a mess, and that the tar and gravel can be applied and cured properly.
Ms. Thomas wondered if there is a way to let the public know the small bridge will be closed
before they actually enter on that road. Mr. Sumpter said he will discuss this possibility with the VDOT
traffic engineer. This work will require that the road be closed for a couple of days, so they will coordinate
this with the County School System and other County staff as appropriate. He talked with the bridge
engineer this morning and was told the materials have been ordered.
Mr. Sumpter said to summarize this project, the cost of the bridge is projected at $3.0 million, a
savings of $2.0 million; $400,000 was already allocated to the project in the Secondary Six-Year Plan. He
said the County is not being asked to supplement the project with additional County funds.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the remaining costs are coming from Federal money. Mr. Sumpter said they
are from VDOT’s Federal Bridge Funds allocated at the District level.
Mr. Slutzky asked if for some reason the Federal moneys do not become available if the VDOT
will pay these costs from State moneys until the money can be reimbursed by Federal money or might that
delay the project. Mr. Sumpter said there are technicalities involved in how the money is reimbursed. In
going through this timeline with the Commissioner and the Secretary, VDOT is committed and the funds
will be available for the construction.
Mr. Sumpter said using the truss bridge will maintain the characteristics of the historic district. As
to replacement of the small bridge on Route 641, it is such a small project that they may be able to
accomplish it with a box culvert. VDOT will continue to look at that project. He said VDOT has put
together a team which will meet to make sure everything stays on schedule at the district level. He will
continue to update the Board on this project monthly. There has been a request to hold a community
meeting in order to share information about the project; the homeowners’ association is working to
schedule such a meeting on March 18 at the Mount Zion Baptist Church.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13b. Transportation Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Rooker asked that Mr. Sumpter speak with Mr. Bill Letteri about the Georgetown Road Project
before he leaves the meeting today. He would also like to see an overlay map showing existing easement
information and right-of-way limits.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Closed Meeting. At 12:32 p.m., motion was offered by Ms. Mallek that the
Board adjourn into a closed meeting pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia under
Subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards, committees and commissions; under Subsection (3)
to consider the acquisition of real property necessary for two public safety facilities; under Subsection (7)
to discuss with legal counsel and staff specific matters requiring legal advice relating to an inter-
jurisdictional agreement; and, under Subsection (7) to discuss with legal council and staff specific matters
requiring legal advice relating to a conservation easement.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Certify Closed Meeting. The Board reconvened into open session at 2:17
p.m.
Motion was immediately offered by Ms. Mallek that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to
the best of each Board member’s knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the
open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion
authorizing the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered in the closed meeting.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
_______________
March 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
Agenda Item No. 16. Boards and Commissions: Vacancies/Appointments.
Mr. Slutzky offered motion to:
Appoint Ms. Teri Kent to the Rivanna Solid W aste Authority Citizen’s Advisory Committee, with
said term to expire December 31, 2009.
Appoint Mr. Jason W oodfin to the Natural Heritage Committee, to fill an unexpired term which will
end on September 30, 2009.
Reappoint Mr. Clarence W . Roberts to the Police Department Citizens’ Advisory Committee, with
said term to expire March 5, 2010.
Reappoint Mr. Stephen Smith to the Police Department Citizens’ Advisory Committee, with said
term to expire March 5, 2010.
Appoint Ms. Justine Jackson to the Piedmont W orkforce Network, said term to expire June 30,
2011.
Appoint Ms. Sue Goldman to the Piedmont W orkforce Network, said term to expire June 30,
2009.
Appoint Ms. W anda Kucera as the Scottsville District representative on the Board of Social
Services, with said term to expire December 31, 2011.
Reappoint Mr. Elton Oliver as the Scottsville District representative on the Albemarle County
Industrial Development Authority, with said term to expire January 19, 2012.
Appoint Mr. James E. Colbaugh as the Scottsville District representative on the Albemarle County
Service Authority, with said term to expire December 31, 2011.
Appoint Mr. John Martin as the W hite Hall District representative on the Albemarle County Service
Authority, with said term to expire December 31, 2011.
Reappoint Mr. Clarence Roberts as the Rivanna District representative on the Albemarle County
Service Authority, with said term to expire December 31, 2011.
Appoint Ms. Constance “Owie” Samuels to the Region Ten Community Services Board, to fill an
unexpired term which will end on June 30, 2009.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Six-Year Secondary Road Program, W ork Session.
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning, said the Board held a work session on January 9, 2008, on
the Six-Year Secondary Road Priority List. At that meeting, the Board gave staff general directions toward
a public hearing document which was to focus on unpaved road projects within or directly adjacent to the
Development Areas. Also, the Board wanted to continue to fund the Rural Rustic Road projects that are in
the planning process and get those projects completed. The Board also directed staff to keep the Old Ivy
Road project at the current priority approved in the 2007 Priority List (priority #6), Staff has drafted a
priority list which does all of those things.
Mr. Benish said the Rural Rustic Road Paving Projects currently under development which would
be completed over the next fiscal year are:
• Red Hill School Road – Route 760 from Route 29 to Route 712
• Old Green Mountain Road – Route 722 from Route 6 to Route 723
• Estes Ridge Road – Route 806 from Route 663 to Dead End
• W alnut Level Road – Route 668/765 from Route 810 then to the dead end of Route 765.
Mr. Benish said the amount of funding necessary to complete those projects expends almost all of
the available funds in the next fiscal year. That was based on anticipated allocations prior to the budget
cuts previously mentioned. Completion of those unpaved road projects will not have an impact in the
budget until the following fiscal year because these projects are primarily in the rural area.
Mr. Benish said as to paving projects in the Development Areas, the Board indicated that the
Dickerson Road project should be prioritized over the Rio Mills Road project. Staff has provided
information about the cost implications of the Dickerson Road project. There are two costly bridge projects
which are a part of that project so staff has provided some information about breaking that project into two
parts. Based on funding allocations for the next fiscal year all money will be going to other projects.
Neither of these projects would be moving forward for another year, so the Board has that time in which to
make a final decision on priorities. Staff has set up Dickerson Road as the highest priority.
March 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
Ms. Thomas said she understands a bridge has now been closed on Dickerson Road and there is
another bridge as well. How does that fit into anything being discussed now? Mr. Benish said there are
two bridges, the steel truss bridge over the North Fork Rivanna River and a wood–deck bridge over
Jacobs Run. He said the two bridges were not listed in the improvement projects incorporated into the
cost of the road paving project. They are part of a larger road paving project. He said VDOT staff
recommended that if the Board moves forward with the road paving projects, the bridges be included in
those projects.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks the Board needs more information about Dickerson Road and its
bridges. Mr. Benish said he understands the bridges can be upgraded.
Mr. Sumpter said the Dickerson Road truss bridge is approaching the stage of being on “life
support.” There are some serious issues, primarily with the superstructure and some of its substructure.
From VDOT’s standpoint improvements can be made to get it back up to the weight ton it was prior to its
being dropped as a result of the last inspection. It had an eight-ton weight limit, but that was lowered to
three tons. VDOT plans to do the improvements as quickly as possible with maintenance funding of
approximately $400,000.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the bridge would remain in that state for about two years before being
replaced. Mr. Sumpter said there is no timeframe set for a replacement bridge.
Mr. Slutzky asked about the $7.2 million allocated to the bridge improvement.
Mr. Rooker said that is the cost of the total road improvement, not just the bridge. Mr. Sumpter
said the little bridge is a cost of about $2.0 million. He will clarify that by saying that making improvements
along Dickerson Road – to pave the roadway and reconstruct the two bridges - together is a total of about
$11.0 million. One bridge is listed for a cost of $7.0 million while the other bridge is listed for $2.0 million.
Mr. Slutzky said if that is the case, it is bizarre. W hat is the width proposed for the two
replacement bridges? Mr. Sumpter said there will be two lanes.
Mr. Slutzky asked how many feet are entailed. Mr. Sumpter said there would be 18-foot travel-
ways with shoulders. Most of the bridges now are a standard 24-feet wide after shoulder widths are
added.
Mr. Slutzky said there are millions of dollars associated with this price tag which he does not
understand.
Ms. Mallek said the length of the bridge over the North Fork Rivanna is very long because of
wetlands.
Mr. Slutzky said it is shown at 2400 feet. He said the Route 29 span over that same watercourse
further down the River is only 300 feet, so it cannot be eight times as long as that span. Mr. Sumpter said
there are a lot of hydraulic issues associated with a larger bridge that will need to be addressed.
Mr. Rooker said those bridges will have to be replaced at some point. He wonders whether there
could be a study indicating how valuable Dickerson Road is as a parallel road to Route 29. There is quite
a lot of development that it connects with, so it might be wise if money could be obtained from the Bridge
Fund to get that project done rather than to allocate money to other unpaved roads. Mr. Benish said that
is the direction the Board set at the work session.
Mr. Slutzky said he would prefer that the Rio Mills Road project be deleted from the plan. He
wonders if the Board really wants to go forward with the four rural area roads this year. W ould the Board
be better to move that money over and accelerate the paving of Dickerson in the hopes of finding some
other way of funding the two bridges? Also, he would like to see why those two bridge projects are so
expensive. Mr. Sumpter said he will need to get more information about the cost of the bridges.
Mr. Slutzky asked if right-of-way acquisition is involved. Mr. Sumpter said they are both one-lane
bridges now, so some right-of-way would be needed.
Ms. Thomas asked if there is still the category of funding called “Industrial Access.” This road
runs along the back of the University Research Park. Mr. Sumpter said it is now called Economic
Development funding, but he does not think the road would qualify for those funds because they are
limited to a new access points; the University property has access at another point.
Mr. Slutzky asked if other Board members would be interested in discussing removing those four
rural roads from this plan for this year.
Mr. Boyd said he would like for Mr. Benish to explain the formula again. The Board cannot swap
the money dollar–for-dollar between the two projects. He asked if some of that funding would be lost.
Ms. Thomas said it is an unpaved road project. Mr. Sumpter said that is true. Funding for the
bridges will be available several years out in the plan. There will be a significant period of time before they
can be under construction. From VDOT’s standpoint, he would strongly caution the Board about not
proceeding with roads where commitments have been made for rural rustic projects this year.
March 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
Ms. Thomas asked that Mr. Sumpter explain that reasoning. Mr. Sumpter said the citizens have
been told the projects will be done. There are benefits to VDOT with getting these roads improved so it
can save on maintenance dollars in the long term.
Mr. Slutzky asked if there are public safety issues on these four roads. Mr. Benish said there are
such issues on a number of them.
Mr. Slutzky said it sounds like leaving the four in place makes sense, but the Board should look at
what it wants to do with the next such projects. Mr. Sumpter said to accomplish the Rural Rustic Road
Projects with State forces is probably one-fourth of the cost it would be to do them in the traditional way.
The RRR program is a good way to get the most for the dollar.
Mr. Rooker said on the Dickerson Road project, until bridge money is available, the Board might
consider taking the $2.0 million being putting into the County’s CIP for transportation and use it to pave
that road. It will many years of unpaved road funds to get enough money to do that project. He
mentioned that there is going to be a 44 percent reduction in Secondary Road Funds over the next six
years.
Mr. Sumpter said he wanted to discuss the information received from the Secretary of
Transportation. There was a briefing to the Commonwealth Transportation Board in February about
revenue revisions due to the slowing of the economy, the repeal of the abusive driver fees, etc., and how
that will impact the transportation program and Secondary System funding for the 2009 to 2014 period;
funding will be reduced by 44 percent from the projected allocations that were being used as this plan was
being developed. In the next fiscal year that amounts to a $1.19 million reduction or around $5.0 million
for the entire period.
Mr. Rooker said there was information included in the Board’s packet today concerning the
reductions. It mentions the Culpeper District and lists the current plan for Albemarle at $2.51 million for
FY ’09 and then a reduction of $1.195 million leaving $1.356 million in Secondary Road funds. Mr.
Sumpter said the numbers that VDOT has been using for Albemarle started with $5.0 million in total for
this year for secondary roads. The $2.5 million referred to is the State portion of that plan remembering
that the plan is made up of Federal moneys, etc., so the reduction is from the State portion, and that
impacts the overall road program because it uses those State dollars to match Federal dollars.
Mr. Rooker said the chart is not self-explanatory, so it would be helpful if they explained what is
being presented, and the Board also needs a chart showing net after loss of Federal allocations. Mr.
Sumpter said he is working on getting those. He is supposed to be getting additional details and will pass
them to County staff. He said that laying out all information available it shows the reduction would be a net
44 percent reduction.
Mr. Rooker said that will be less money than what the County got 15 years ago. It looks like the
same thing will be happening in the Primary System also. Mr. Sumpter said the Primary and Urban
System reductions are projected to be 44 percent as well.
Mr. Rooker asked how transit will be affected. Mr. Sumpter said transit allocations will be reduced
approximately 10 percent.
Mr. Boyd said it would be helpful to the Board in these discussions to know the allocation of
dollars. Mr. Sumpter said funding allocations change every year. They are not final until the CTB adopts
its overall plan, usually in June. VDOT wants the Board to establish its overall priority of these projects
and then they will program the money to try and achieve those priorities.
Mr. Slutzky said even though Bleak House Road is not in the plan it has been placed on the Rural
Rustic Road priority list ahead of projects that are funded because of their traffic counts. He wants to be
sure there is no risk of it being paved based on that without the Board deciding to do so. Mr. Sumpter said
nothing will happen on Bleak House Road until the Board puts it in the plan.
Mr. Rooker said the dollars the Board is allocating this year are based on what it thought the
allocation would be prior to the time the Board got the letter he mentioned earlier.
Mr. Sumpter said he would explain the impact of the allocation based on what he is seeing with
the Board’s current priorities. The Meadow Creek Parkway project is still funded. VDOT is actually
showing a surplus for that project at this time which is good considering some of the issues surrounding
the school property. The estimate was about $25.5 million, and there is about $28.7 million in the bank
now for the project. That is a State-funded project - totally state funds. The Board’s next priority is the
Jarmans Gap Road project which is a Federal matching project. In order for a project to be put out to
advertising it must have full funding by the year in which it is completed, and that is estimated to be FY
2012. Before these draft allocations apply, there will be a surplus for that project based upon the
allocations given. At this time it appears that it will be $1.5 to $2.0 million short and that would have to be
supplemented some other way. He hoped the Board would consider looking at the Revenue-Sharing
Program for that project this year.
Mr. Benish said that next week the Board will be asked to request $2.5 million for the Jarmans
Gap Road project in State Revenue-Sharing funds. If those funds are awarded, that will make up the
difference for this project.
March 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
Mr. Slutzky asked if the County is competing with other jurisdictions for these funds. Does the
County have to put in matching funds? Mr. Benish said that $1.5 million of the $2.5 million is in the match.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the $1.5 million will give a high enough priority to get this project funded. Mr.
Benish said it did last year, but there are complications with the Revenue-Sharing program as well. Mr.
Sumpter said the Revenue-Sharing Program by State Code is set at $15.0 million annually for the entire
State. He has not received any information as to what the level is this year. The County is making an
application for FY ‘08. If talking about finishing the project in FY ‘12, there are still nearly four years in
which to fill in the gaps.
Mr. Rooker said the Revenue-Sharing Program used to the funded on a 50/50 basis, but now the
County must put up $1.5 million to get $1.0 million. Mr. Benish said there is a change pending before the
General Assembly that could reverse priorities. Now, the highest ranking projects are the ones in which
the locality offers more than a dollar-for-dollar match. There is a proposal that the highest priority for
funding be in projects that are administered by a locality, with the second highest being those that provide
additional funding. Mr. Davis said the bill has passed the House and Senate but has not been signed by
the Governor yet. Mr. Benish said the bill will be retroactive to January.
Ms. Mallek asked what that means. Mr. Benish said it means that Albemarle is no longer in the
highest tier of priority. Up until the day Mr. Davis reviewed the Executive Summary the policy was that the
localities that provided more than a dollar-for-dollar match would be in the highest tier for funding. This
new bill has shifted the funds to the second highest tier.
Ms. Mallek asked about the first category. Mr. Benish said it means the locality administers the
construction of projects.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the City of Charlottesville would always be ahead of the County because they
do that. Mr. Davis said the Board could ask for Revenue Sharing Funds and identify a road where the
County would manage the construction. That would place the County in a higher category.
Ms. Thomas said she assumes the State will run out of money before they get to the second tier.
Mr. Benish said that was not true last year; all requests were funded.
Mr. Slutzky asked if under the new bill the County will not have to be responsible for construction
of all roads, but simply have to agree to be responsible for the management of this particular project. Mr.
Benish said that is true.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the Board wanted to make that switch now. Mr. Benish said staff is not
prepared retroactively to do that this year. Jarmans Gap Road is well along the path for construction. It is
the project that needs the funding.
Mr. Sumpter referred to the Jarmans Gap Road project and said even with the 44 percent
reduction applied, there will not be a huge gap. Funding will come to that project from the regular program
over the next three or so years. There will be more opportunities to work on an application to get those
funds applied to this project.
Ms. Thomas asked if road construction will not start until the Board can guarantee the money is in
hand. Mr. Sumpter said in order for a project to be advertised, full funding must be available in the fiscal
year in which the project is completed.
Ms. Thomas asked if that can be done at this point. Mr. Sumpter said for Jarmans Gap Road,
with the cut that is projected, it appears the project will be about $1.0 to $2.0 million short of accomplishing
that.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the Board reallocated funds from the four Rural Rustic Road projects to
Jarmans Gap Road, would that be enough. Mr. Sumpter said in looking to the out-years, the County’s
current program is showing about $500,000 each year to apply toward that. The whole problem does not
have to be resolved in this fiscal year. Mr. Benish said he thinks the shortfall can be captured given the
intervening years. For the purpose of this exercise, the way the projects are prioritized they will get either
secondary funding or CIP funding to insure they are done. There are two-plus additional years which will
allow the County to adjust to the new Revenue-Sharing Program to ensure the County is at the highest
priority. The shortfall of $1.7 million could technically be covered by the transportation fund if necessary.
He thinks the Board may have other uses for that money, but that is a potential reserve which would help
cover that cost.
Mr. Boyd asked if the $1.5 million for the matching fund is already set aside. Mr. Benish said $1.0
million is set aside, and the other $500,000 will come from the CIP Transportation Fund.
Mr. Benish said this is a valuable discussion, but the purpose of this work session is to set
priorities to give staff directions as to how to get the projects implemented. He noted that Dickerson Road
is the highest priority unpaved road project once the projects which are in the planning process are
completed. That is consistent with trying to address the bridge and parallel road paving project. After that
one, the next project would be Rio Mills Road or some other project.
Mr. Boyd said he struggles each year with putting priorities on unobtainable projects. W hen the
Board last discussed Dickerson Road, it found many projects where funds were being accumulated for
projects which probably would never be funded. He thinks it is important to discuss whether Dickerson
Road is obtainable, or whether it will be waiting forever for funding.
March 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
Mr. Rooker said that is why he suggested taking money which has been set aside in the CIP for
transportation and funding that road. The question is whether the County can get the money to do the
bridge component of that project. Mr. Sumpter said as far as Dickerson Road is concerned, the money
will be accumulated and in the bank to construct the roadway portion far in advance of the bridge. Bridge
funds will come from the District, and in looking at all of the bridge allocations throughout the District, that
funding is in the out years.
Ms. Mallek asked if it would be possible to replace the bridge at its current size because of the
traffic using it. Mr. Sumpter said he can look at options for the scope of the project.
Mr. Slutzky said it is on the boundary of a growth area.
Ms. Mallek said it is used by commuter traffic so the road is very directional, which brought up this
question. Mr. Sumpter said looking at the traffic projections for the Advance Mills area and considering
the discussions held with VDOT’s State Bridge Engineer and its State Design Engineer, he does not think
the Department will support any one-lane structure.
Ms. Thomas asked if any State bridge funds ever go to new bridges. New bridges are needed in
the community at a number of key points. For the Fontaine Avenue/Sunset Road connector, the road can
be built on either side, but then there is a bridge needed. Mr. Sumpter said the Meadow Creek Parkway
contains new bridges which are being funded out of regular construction funds. Looking at bridge needs
throughout the entire District, it would be difficult to justify a new bridge and make it a higher priority than a
bridge needing reconstruction.
Mr. Benish said there is the larger question of the County’s program for unpaved roads. Some of
the changes given to staff at the last work session came from the Planning Commission’s
recommendations. Staff has made no specific suggestions as to how to adjust the plan because based
on current funding, there is a little “breathing room” before any reprioritization program for unpaved road
has a financial impact. He said the Planning Commission is accurate in terms of its general consistency
with the plan. The Comprehensive Plan identifies certain things for roads in the rural areas which the
County would want to achieve. There is a significant maintenance issue for VDOT that has not been
discussed with the Board yet. Criteria for deciding what roads are eligible are the possible minimum or
maximum threshold of traffic volumes, location of roads, etc. Should consideration be given to roads with
a traffic count of only one hundred vehicle trips given the limit of funds? Safety is a significant issue.
Current criteria tries to gauge the safety of a roadway by looking at traffic volumes, the width of the
shoulder and the width of the cross-section of the travelway, but they may not be sufficient to determine a
safety issue. Mr. Sumpter said he has been looking into concerns about roads brought to VDOT by the
School System. In locations where there might be a tight curve, VDOT will try to do a spot improvement.
Mr. Benish said the last issue is whether the State will allow the County to not use allocated funds
for unpaved roads. W ould the County be penalized for not doing so?
Ms. Thomas said it will be years before the County would face that situation if Dickerson Road
and Rio Mills Road are included. Mr. Benish said it may be a question of the State determining there is a
road of higher importance than a priority set by the County. There is a possibility that State law would
allow VDOT greater discretion to expend that funding above what the County’s priorities are for unpaved
roads.
Mr. Boyd said in the terms of the Rustic Rural Road program, it is cheaper for the State to do the
RRR program than it is to maintain them as a gravel road. It is a financial situation.
Ms. Thomas said the Board does not talk much about bicycling. Bicyclers in the rural areas write
letters against paving because that speeds up automobile traffic so much the roads become too
dangerous for them to use. It does not fit in the format here, but if the Board is going to think about what
value people find living in the rural area, an increasing number of people want to use their bicycles there.
Mr. Rooker said people who want to use their bicycles should participate in the public information
process.
Ms. Thomas said she always suggests that bicyclers attend the Board’s public hearings, but they
seldom do. As to requests for paving, she has been concerned for years that it only takes one request for
a road to be listed. There could be many people who live on that road who do not want to have the road
paved. She thinks staff should just tell the person requesting the paving that there is no money available,
and until things change drastically in Richmond the road will never get paved. Mr. Benish said staff
actually does say that now.
Mr. Boyd said when people living along Stony Point Pass invited him out to a meeting to show
support for the paving of that road, he said there is no money to do it.
Mr. Benish said the Rural Rustic Road Program is a different from the rest of the priority list. Staff
lets people know that just having the road on the list will not mean the road will be funded. Based on
County policies, regular road paving projects are not considered if any right-of-way is required. Even with
voluntary dedication, there have been projects that did not move forward because of public opposition.
W hat the Board is considering today only starts the process of considering whether a roadway would ever
be funded. For the RRR Program, in the notification process staff tries to ascertain whether there are
concerns about paving. He said this list is just a starting point and does not mean the road will actually be
paved.
March 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
Mr. Boyd said he would like to summarize what is being requested of the Board today. First, staff
wants to know whether the Board wants to continue with the four RRR projects which are already in the
process.
Mr. Rooker said he would favor doing that. He thinks there is plenty of time in which to find the
money for the Dickerson Road paving project. Mr. Sumpter said he will send the Board members a
breakdown of all the issues involved with that project.
Mr. Boyd asked if there are other changes the Board would like to make to the list presented by
staff today.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks it accurately states the Board’s current priorities. He said nothing deep
on the list will get funded, so to discuss the projects would be an exercise in futility.
Mr. Boyd said the Board is still committed to its three primary projects, Meadow Creek Parkway,
Jarmans Gap Road and Georgetown Road.
Mr. Benish said staff will be looking at the larger issue of RRR projects and paving projects for
next year’s review when potentially the priorities will have an impact on funding.
Mr. Boyd asked what the Board should do about the Bleak House Road project since citizens
have expressed concerns about it. Mr. Benish said the request for Bleak House Road was received in
2005 and was placed on the regular road paving list. This past year it was determined it was eligible as a
RRR project and because of its traffic volume was placed high on the RRR list. In moving forward to
complete the RRR projects on the list, confusion was created by not putting it at the bottom of the list.
Ms. Thomas said the first regular paving priority on the list that does not have a “VDOT yes”
beside it is Pounding Creek Road. That is a road with a fairly high traffic count and a road where
landowners are developing their land as fast as they can. She thinks it is a perfect example of a road that
should not be paved because it is a very rural, winding, narrow, but charming road. The reason it is on
this list is because properties along the road are being developed, and those landowners would like to be
able to say it will be a paved road. She thinks it is the opposite of the Board’s Rural Policy to pave a road
like that.
Mr. Boyd asked if just one person calling in can get a road put on this list. Mr. Benish said if there
is a request and it enters on the list, staff prioritizes it relative to other projects in terms of its importance
based on what is perceived as measurements of safety.
Mr. Sumpter asked if Mr. Benish is suggesting that by next year the Board will have discussed the
hierarchical structure before staff presents this list again. This could redistribute the roads which will
never be paved into a different order. Mr. Benish said the Board may want to rethink its goals, the real
cost issues and implications of these requests/projects, and how safety issues are defined.
Mr. Boyd said since he has been a Board member, the Board has already done that one time. Mr.
Sumpter said that for VDOT, Doctors Crossing, Midway Road and Gillums Ridge Road are in its plan now.
But, there will be no funding for them in the next six-year period. It would be the preference of VDOT that
those projects not be shown on its list, but only on the County’s list. VDOT wants its list to only show
projects which are receiving funding.
Mr. Slutzky said he still suggests that Rio Mills Road be moved much further down on the list so
there is no confusion that it will be next in line after Dickerson Road. Hopefully, that road will be closed off
and rendered useless by a bridge on Berkmar Drive. Mr. Sumpter said in the VDOT plan, Rio Mills Road is
listed just below Dickerson Road because it is receiving funding.
Mr. Slutzky asked how it can be receiving funding if there is not enough money for the Dickerson
Road project. Mr. Sumpter said in the past small amounts of money were spread over many projects.
Mr. Slutzky asked how much money is shown for that project. Mr. Sumpter said there is previous
funding for Rio Mills of about $943,000.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks that money should be used for something else now before inflation eats
it up.
Ms. Mallek said the Board recently discussed taking all of the money which had been
accumulated for Rio Mills Road and putting in on Dickerson Road. Mr. Benish said that is true. Mr.
Sumpter said some of that money can be shifted. Under VDOT’s scheme, they were showing that the
road portion of Dickerson Road would be funded in total by FY 2010-11. They would then put the balance
of the unpaved road money on Rio Mills.
Mr. Slutzky said Rio Mills should be moved out of that queue so there is no risk of it showing up
as being funded. To the extent there is over $900,000 parked somewhere for that project, the Board
would rather reallocate that non-money to Dickerson Road.
Mr. Slutzky asked the amount of money set aside for Dickerson Road now. Mr. Sumpter said
there will be funding of $1.0 million. Mr. Benish said he thinks some of the money for Rio Mills is for costs
already incurred by VDOT for design, etc. Mr. Sumpter said there may be some costs there, but it will not
be a large amount.
March 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
Mr. Rooker said it sound like there is enough money now to go ahead with the paving of
Dickerson Road. He thinks it can be paved without doing the bridges. He sees no reason not to go ahead
with the paving. Mr. Sumpter said it will take some administrative work to show that it would not cause a
safety risk. That would have to be looked at and approved before proceeding in that direction.
Mr. Slutzky said after seeing the numbers on what it will cost to address the two bridges, maybe
there would be a way to do the work on the one bridge whose weight limit has been dropped dramatically.
Maybe a repair or replacement could be done with the moneys. Mr. Sumpter said he will look at the
funding between those two projects and how the money might be moved. As far as VDOT’s plan is
concerned, he will remove the projects which are not actually receiving funding.
Mr. Slutzky asked if he will also be moving the money from the Rio Mills project to Dickerson
Road. Mr. Sumpter said if that is the case, Rio Mills will not be shown in the VDOT plan either.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks work should begin on Dickerson Road as soon as possible before
inflation starts costing a lot.
Mr. Boyd asked that Mr. Sumpter send the Board something showing how much money is
allocated on all these roads. He asked Mr. Benish if he had the information he needs to prepare for the
public hearing. Mr. Benish said staff will prepare a list of the unfunded projects, and move the Bleak
House Road request down on the current priority list. He asked if the Board had a consensus about
moving the Rio Mills Road project.
Mr. Rooker said it is still a project; only the funding is being moved, and it does not show on this
list.
Mr. Slutzky said he would move it down on the project list so the public does not think it is next in
line. Mr. Benish said it is the only other urban project, which is the highest criteria.
Mr. Rooker said the Board has talked about getting unpaved roads in the growth area paved.
Mr. Slutzky said if Rio Mills Road becomes two dead-end roads, which is what will happen if this
plays out, then it would not be on the list.
Mr. Rooker said it will not be funded without the Board voting to do so no matter where it is on the
list. Mr. Benish said it will be left as shown on the list, and then if the Board decides to take action later, it
can do so then.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Rooker suggested the Board send a letter to the local Legislators regarding the elimination of
transportation funding to localities. The Board needs to understand what is going on by distributing the
letter received by the Board to them. It is appalling.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Governor and the Legislature are holding a Special Session to talk about
road funding.
Mr. Rooker said the Board needs to get their constituents to yell and scream because
transportation funding is being eliminated to localities. The Board needs to let its Legislators know it is
outraged, and that it is unacceptable. The Board also needs to send a letter to the Governor.
Mr. Dorrier said VACo is actively working on this matter.
Mr. Boyd said he understands the need for the letters, but feels the Board will become like the
little boy crying wolf. Mr. Tucker said letters help, but when the individual Board members take time to
make telephone calls to the Legislators, it is a bigger help.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks the letters should include examples of what will not be done without
these funds.
__________
Mr. Rooker said if the Board intends to talk about the IMPACT issue, he thinks it should do so
now rather than waiting until late tonight. His general view about this matter has been expressed in the
past. If the other Board members decide to do so, he is willing to attend the meeting as a Board member.
Ms. Thomas said that last year she argued against attending. Although it was awkward, the
IMPACT group held up their end, and did not “boo” at the Board members when most of them filed out of
the meeting. IMPACT has made changes and is trying to accommodate the Board’s concerns. She does
not like the way IMPACT requires a commitment. She asked if any Board member is willing to say they will
commit $500,000 to the Housing Fund given that the Board is just beginning budget work sessions. She
thinks that is a process better suited to some other government where it is expected that public humiliation
will be used in order to get commitments. That does not work in this community. There has never been a
group that felt they had to go to that length to get the Board to take its job seriously. She thinks IMPACT
has tried to accommodate the Board and will allow each member to speak for two minutes. She thinks
the law is standing in the way of the Board members going and speaking for two minutes and saying what
March 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
she just said. She cannot make any commitment at this time. She thinks the Board has to go ahead and
do something in spite of the law; Mr. Davis has said the Board members can attend if it convenes a Board
meeting first.
Mr. Rooker said today’s meeting can be adjourned to that date. Mr. Davis said it just needs to be
a public meeting.
Ms. Thomas said she is basically changing her mind from last year. She thinks the Board should
reconvene this meeting at that time and place.
Mr. Rooker said he has no big objection to doing that. He worries about “the slippery slope”
process because the Board might start getting requests to convene its meetings before various groups.
Ms. Thomas said she agreed with Mr. Rooker last year, but she thinks the IMPACT group is trying
to meet the Board half way.
Mr. Rooker said he has a question which he raised to Mr. Davis and that is whether or not there is
a violation of church and state going on. The last time IMPACT had this meeting the whole first part of it
was religious.
Mr. Boyd said he and Mr. Slutzky did not see that because they had been sequestered.
Mr. Rooker said he also was sequestered, but Ms. Mallek was present.
Ms. Thomas said they have promised that the Board members will not be sequestered.
Mr. Slutzky said he was actually out in front, and he was not comfortable with that issue.
Mr. Rooker said Mr. Davis told him that one prayer is not a big deal, but the first part of the
meeting was virtually all religious. He said the Board would be convening a meeting in a religious setting.
He just wonders if that is advisable.
Mr. Slutzky said he also has thought about that issue. A way to address it would be to have the
Board members sit and when that phase is out of the way and it gets down to the politics of the meeting,
the Board could convene its meeting at that point. Mr. Davis said the Board members just have to be
careful not to endorse or support a religion as part of its governmental structure. There is a lot of gray
area there. To the extent the Board can bifurcate the religious from the political that is what it should do.
Mr. Rooker said the Board could not open its meeting until after that component of the meeting
was over, and then it could adjourn its meeting immediately after its part of the meeting ended.
Mr. Slutzky said he thinks that if the Board members sit without engaging in dialogue it is not in
violation of the open meeting act because it is not engaged in its public role. Mr. Davis said it becomes a
meeting when the Board is there for the purpose of discussing or transacting business. If the Board
members were just attending without participating, there would be no problem with the FOIA Act.
Mr. Slutzky asked about being on the stage without engaging verbally. Mr. Davis said when the
Board puts itself in a position where it is going to be participatory in the meeting, it is in risk of violating the
Act.
Mr. Slutzky said somebody should talk with the IMPACT group and make that issue clear.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Boyd if he will attend the meeting.
Mr. Boyd said he has some of the same reservations he had last year. He questions the rationale
behind asking for an opinion from the Board as opposed to asking for an up or down vote; that part is still
in there. They will still ask for a “yes” or “no” answer to the question of whether it will advocate for
$500,000 and, more specifically, where that $500,000 will come from. He said that is intimidation and is a
tactic which he does not think is good for anybody, religious or not. He said national organizers have
come into the community and done this; everybody has to recognize that.
Ms. Thomas said she will say she cannot make any commitment.
Mr. Rooker said he will say “no.” He supports their agenda. He supports the desire of the
organization to improve conditions for people who are in poverty in the community. He thinks those are
issues which need to be addressed, but just spending $500,000 of taxpayer money without first having a
staff report, or before having a discussion among the Board members, or without looking at the budget
and determining what can or cannot be funded this year is not a commitment he can make at this time.
He will consider it during the budget process.
Mr. Boyd said he has been thinking about abstaining.
Mr. Slutzky said IMPACT may chose to take that as a “no”, but that is their prerogative. His
inclination is to spend his two minutes explaining to them the inherent problem. W hen he met with their
representatives, he mentioned that they have not suggested how the Board can accomplish the
commitment they are requesting. He will say he is personally committed to addressing the 20 percent of
the community that is in poverty, and a $500,000 increase in the budget for affordable housing makes
March 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
sense, and in principle is something he supports. The problem is that it will have to come in the form of an
increase in taxes or a cut of something specific. Absent input from them as to how this can be
accomplished, they are “tying his hands behind his back.”
Mr. Rooker said IMPACT needs to say where the money should come from for the idea they are
advocating. He actually told them last year that they should come in and advocate for an increase in the
tax rate to get that done. They said “no.”
Mr. Slutzky said he will ask them to do that. He did not want the other Board members to be
blind-sided by this, and will say to them that since they have not identified a specific source of these funds,
they must want the tax rate to be increased.
Mr. Dorrier said they know there is moral support for the request, but if the Board cannot fund the
entire School budget, how can it fund affordable housing?
Mr. Rooker said the County is already spending about $1.0 million a year on housing. This would
be in addition to that amount.
Mr. Slutzky said the joint City/County/University Task Force on which he is privileged to sit has
had some interesting and serious conversations about this issue. He thinks there may be some
meaningful recommendations coming from that process that may be supported by the Housing
Committees as well.
Ms. Thomas said IMPACT really wants the Board to set the money aside, wait for that report and
then do whatever is suggested by the report.
Mr. Boyd said he thought IMPACT wanted the money put into the Treesdale project.
Mr. Rooker said that was just an example they gave; if $500,000 was put aside for the next two
years that would lower the rents of the people in the buildings by $200 a month. If that came before the
Board in a concrete proposal, it is certainly something to be considered, but that will not necessarily be a
recommendation of the task force.
Mr. Slutzky said it would be only one of many recommendations and they will all be expensive.
Mr. Boyd said in answer to Mr. Rooker’s question, he will attend the meeting. The Board does not
need to adjourn to March 10 now because it has to adjourn to a budget work session on Monday and can
adjourn from that meeting. Mr. Davis said as a process requirement, the Clerk will need to take minutes
of that meeting.
Mr. Boyd said he discussed that with Ms. Jordan today.
Ms. Thomas asked if one of the Board members could do that since she would not want to make
the Clerk go to that meeting. Mr. Davis said as long as someone takes minutes that would be okay.
Mr. Rooker said the City is also involved. The Board’s meeting will open and take place, then the
City’s part will take place, so perhaps the meeting can be recorded.
Mr. Slutzky asked if someone will podcast that meeting. Mr. Davis said there is no legal
requirement that the minutes do anything other than recognize who is in attendance, and recognize any
motions and votes taken, and contain a general summary of what is discussed.
Mr. Slutzky said if the Board is going to vary from its policy, he will move that the Board choose in
this instance to have abbreviated minutes that simply report the minimum requirements of the Code.
Mr. Rooker said a motion is not needed to do that. Mr. Davis said as long as staff gets the
essence of the discussion that is fine.
Mr. Boyd asked if he should stand and convene the meeting. Mr. Davis said there is no legal
requirement that a meeting be convened. It is whatever the Board is comfortable doing.
Mr. Slutzky said for First Amendment reasons he thinks the Board should convene a meeting.
Mr. Boyd said he will wait until just before the Board is asked a question to do so. Mr. Tucker
reminded Mr. Boyd that when the meeting is closed, the Board will have to adjourn to March 12 at noon for
lunch with the School Board and then a budget work session.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she represents the Board on the Piedmont Sustainable W oods group although
she has never been officially appointed to do so. They are attempting to find a way to help people better
manage their woods so they are profitable for the landowner and provide exotic woods for the
homebuilder.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she serves on the High Growth Coalition. It is involved with the proffer impact
fee issue. Those who contacted their legislator did a good job because this was regarded as something
that was “greased” and it was not. She said it “squeaked” through the Senate and that woke up everyone,
March 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
so it is something that will need to be worked on in the coming year. It was carried over because the
Speaker of the House wrote a letter to each county saying they should only increase proffers by cost-of-
living increases. Also, he said to work with the statewide homebuilder’s association to see if something
can be done so everybody is happier with the proffer system or turn it into an impact fee. She was
recently reminded that proffers were instituted because developers were complaining that they could not
get approvals from local government. It was the developer’s idea to have a proffer system.
Mr. Rooker thanked Ms. Thomas for her work on S.B.768 because she was active in the group
that was ultimately responsible for the bill being put off for a year to give time to get something drafted that
is more palatable.
Ms. Thomas said when the local legislators (Senators) had a chance to vote, they did vote the
way local government would have wanted them to vote so that is nice to report.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the Historic Preservation Committee wants to increase its membership. She
asked that the Board members think of people who have an interest and talent in different aspects of
historic preservation.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the Rivanna River Basin Commission is doing some interesting studies about
what is causing the siltation of Albemarle’s reservoirs and rivers. As an example, a recent study showed
that the scouring of the creek beds is underestimated in all the models that have been put together for the
Chesapeake Bay.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission is hosting a Regional
Housing Conference on March 13, 2008. The conference will bring together different professionals,
developers and advocates to deal with housing issues.
__________
Mr. Boyd said he has received information concerning available dates for this year’s VACo
Regional Courthouse meeting. The Board members will receive information later from the organizers of
the meeting.
__________
Mr. Boyd said he would like to bring up an issue which has been in the press recently, and that is
the City/County Revenue Sharing Agreement and its impact on the County budget this year and in future
years. The article he read gave some of the arguments always used about the Agreement - it is a good
deal because the County would be losing $19.0 million worth of revenues, whereas it will soon be paying
$17.0 million to the City. He said the County is also maintaining roads, paying for the master planning
process, the police, emergency services, schools, etc. for this area, which is a great expense. The County
would not be expending that money if the City had annexed that land area. He read the Agreement
recently and it stated that it was intended to cover some of the social and economic needs of urbanization.
In the last 26 years the County has become urbanized and is having to pay a lot of that cost, but is still
paying the City also. The County has paid in addition to the Revenue Sharing moneys, about $600,000 for
the last eight years to provide assistance with the County’s urban area fire services. The City is asking
that the County put more money into affordable housing. He thinks the Board should approach the City
about renegotiating this contract since he thinks it is unfair to the County given the situation today.
Mr. Boyd said he recognizes that the City would have little interest in sitting in on those
conversations. However, he thinks the Board has some bargaining chips that he would like to mention.
He understands some think the Board that instigated this Agreement was not legally authorized to do so,
that it was not a legal contract for them to get into. That is a theory he has heard. In addition, he said the
Board might consider a technique the City used successfully to bring the Supervisors to the table to talk
about what it felt was a solid contract concerning solid waste, and that was to hold back funding. It took
five years to renegotiate that contract, but it was done. He would not recommend holding back payment
to the City, but he thinks the Board could cap this year’s payment at a potential $10.0 million and hold
back a portion in an effort to bring the City to the table. He would like to get a legal opinion as to whether
that is a legal stance regarding that potential.
Ms. Thomas said the Agreement was voted on by the public.
Mr. Rooker said there was a public referendum on the question. If the Board wants to discuss the
legality of the contract it can be done in closed session rather than bantering around publicly the legalities
of the contract. After that discussion, the Board might decide what is appropriate to do.
Mr. Dorrier said the Agreement states that the money given to the City will be used for
infrastructure needs in the City. He questions whether that money is being spent for infrastructure needs
or for their general budget.
Mr. Rooker said he has read the general description of the purpose of the Agreement, and there
is no requirement that the funds be sequestered in a different account and identified as to the source of
the expenditure. There is no way to make a case that they are using the proceeds for the general
purposes described in the Agreement.
March 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
Mr. Boyd said he thinks legal issues should be discussed in Closed Session. However, it has cost
the County almost $147.0 million over the past 20 years the Agreement has been in place; over the next
eight years that number will double if it just stays constant and does not go up more. This is a huge
expense and he thinks the Board should look at what he considers to be the unfairness of it. That is what
the City told the County during the discussions about the Solid W aste Agreement. They withheld their
payments for five years; he is not advocating that the Board do anything of that extent.
Ms. Thomas said she wishes Mr. Boyd had thought of this about four years ago when the City
started withholding their money; the Board could have withheld an equal amount of money.
Mr. Rooker said the difference is that the City’s obligation was to the Rivanna Solid W aste
Authority. It was up to the RSW A whether or not to bring action to collect that amount. This case is
different in that this is an obligation of the County to the City. He doubts they would sit back and not take
legal action quickly if the Board decided to withhold amounts due under the contract. He thinks the Board
should explore legally what it is required to do under that contract, and the strengths and weaknesses of
the Agreement.
Mr. Boyd said from reading the Agreement it appears to him that the repercussions for not paying
is that they could annex the County, and they cannot do that now by State Code.
Mr. Slutzky said without getting into the legalities he would like to say that the most significant
problem with the Agreement is that the County does not acknowledge that its effective tax rate is 58 cents
and not 68 cents. Basically the County bought off the City so they would not annex in which case the
County would have had a higher tax rate and also lost revenues. He is not convinced County citizens are
worse off by virtue of this Agreement. Considering the fact that the County operates on a tax rate of 58
cents as opposed to the City which has a tax rate of 90+ cents down from over a $1.00, some true
economic benefit has actually inured to County citizens by virtue of their participation in this Agreement. It
is weird that soon after the Agreement was signed the Legislature changed its mind and put a moratorium
on annexation. He is not sure this was entirely a bad deal for the County. He would like to characterize
the County’s tax rate as being what it is, an effective rate of 58 cents. He would not make the assumption
that it is bad for the citizens economically. Having said that, he would welcome the opportunity to better
understand the legal intricacies of the arrangement, which he thinks the Board should discuss soon in
Closed Session. If, after that discussion, the Board chose to discuss this further, the conversation should
be brought back to the public.
Ms. Thomas said when she was on W INA yesterday morning, somebody called in and talked
about the Revenue Sharing Agreement because it had just been mentioned in the newspaper. They
bluntly asked if County taxpayers receive value for their dollar. She said “yes” and this person said he
would never again vote for her, and the conversation ended. She thinks that because there is a healthy
City in our midst, the County does not recognize how much worse off if could be. However the City uses
their money (she thinks they use it for capital improvements), the County profits from having a healthy city
that does not have a tax rate that is extremely higher than the County’s so it drives people out. It is much
healthier than most cities in the State where the surrounding counties literally “sucking the strength out of
the city.” She was chair of the City/County Cooperation Study Committee that came up with the original
idea, but that was a long time ago.
Mr. Rooker said where the Agreement puts 10 cents on the County’s tax rate, it would put 30
cents on the City’s tax rate. The City would have to raise their tax rate by 30 cents to make up the
revenue. He agrees with what Ms. Thomas has said. It is important that there be a financially healthy
thriving city in the middle of the County. One of the problems the County has is a problem of its own
choosing. That problem is that 70 percent of the land in the County is in its land use program so the
County collects less in taxes on that property than the 10 cents it pays to the City.
Mr. Boyd said he is not saying the County should not contribute to some of the issues mentioned
by Ms. Thomas, and he agrees that it is to the County’s advantage to have the City thrive. The way it is
set up now there is virtually no cap on the agreement (there is a cap, but the County is paying the cap
every year).
Ms. Thomas said the County would be paying more if there were not a cap.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks the Agreement should be developed a different way and based more on
services the City provides for the County. He does not think the City is providing $13.0 million worth of
services to the County now, and it will not be $17.0 million in the future.
Mr. Rooker said the Agreement did not contemplate the City would provide any services for the
County.
Mr. Slutzky said he understands cost burdens are placed on the City by virtue of the County’s
urbanization.
Mr. Boyd asked for an explanation of how that happens.
Mr. Slutzky said a blatant example is when the City spends money on capital projects such as
roads that County citizens drive on as they go to work in the City.
March 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
Mr. Boyd said they get the tax revenues from those businesses, and he does not think the County
needs to supplement that. W ho is supplementing the people from the City who come into the County to
work?
Mr. Slutzky said he thinks that if the choice was that the City annexed the County and hit the
County with its true tax rate, County citizens would be worse off financially.
Mr. Boyd said he wants a study and some actual numbers to find out what it is costing the County
to provide the urban needs of Route 29 North and Pantops at this time.
Mr. Slutzky said he would like to make it clear that this question was put out to a referendum and
the citizens voted on it. Ignoring the legal issues that may or may not exist could unravel it and it is a
commitment the County made to the City and it should be honored.
Mr. Dorrier said everybody is making the assumption that an annexation attempt would have been
successful and would have taken in all of the area the City wanted. He does not think that can be proven
conclusively. This is the second highest agreement in the State between localities. It is more money
being paid by one locality to another than in any other county in the State. One of the things the taxpayers
tell him is that if the County has to pay the ten cents to the City every year, they should have some say
over what they do with the money. They don’t so it is taxation without representation because the Board
does not control what they do with the money. He said an agreement is not forever; even the Constitution
can be amended. He thinks the formula needs to be looked at, and a different formula suggested.
Mr. Rooker said a contract requires that two people agree to it. If the contract is to be amended
both parties have to get a benefit from that amendment or it does not get amended. He wonders if the
Agreement can even be amended without a referendum.
Mr. Davis said “probably not.”
Mr. Rooker said if someone has a creative idea about what the City might substitute for those
payments maybe there is a reason to undertake the exercise.
Mr. Dorrier said the City has a surplus every year, so should it not be used to help the County.
Mr. Rooker said he would suggest that Mr. Dorrier sit down with City Council and have that
conversation and see how open they are to the concept.
Mr. Slutzky said this is not the only point of interaction between Albemarle County and the City of
Charlottesville. They are collaborative on many fronts. Currently, there is an active discussion taking
place about how to create a regional transit authority, the County shares with them the Rivanna Solid
W aste Authority, etc. There is a lot of mutual benefit, and as a result, rather than have this conversation
go on forever, he suggests the Board convene this to a Closed Session to look at any possible legal
issues. He is not all that interested in taking this on because he does not think it is realistic.
Mr. Boyd said that will end the conversation today.
(Note: At 4:13 p.m., the Board recessed.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. The meeting was called back to order at 6:02 p.m. by the Chairman.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 21. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 22. Recognition: Proclamation recognizing Virginia Festival of the Book.
Mr. Boyd read the following proclamation into the record, and then presented same to Ms. Nancy
Damon.
VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK
W HEREAS, Albemarle County is committed to promoting reading, writing, and storytelling
within and outside its borders; and
W HEREAS, our devotion to literacy and our support of literature has attracted over 1,000
writers and tens of thousands of readers to our VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE
BOOK; and
W HEREAS, the VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK celebrates the power of books and
publishing; and
W HEREAS, businesses, cultural and civic organizations, and individuals have contributed
to the ongoing success of the VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK; and
March 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
W HEREAS, the citizens of the County of Albemarle and Virginia, and the world, have
made the VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK the best book festival in the
country;
NOW , THEREFORE, I, Kenneth C. Boyd, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim W ednesday, March 26, 2008
through Sunday, March 30, 2008 as the Fourteenth Annual
VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK
and encourage community members to participate fully in the wide range of
available events and activities.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 23. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Pastor Harold Bare, President of the Hope Community Center, asked the Board to join in
discussions about helping to make a difference in the lives of homeless people in the community.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 24. PUBLIC HEARING to receive comments on the County Executive’s FY
2008-2009 Recommended Budget.
Mr. Boyd noted for the public the Board’s rules for speaking at a hearing before the Board. He
then asked the County Executive to make his presentation.
Mr. Robert Tucker, County Executive, made a PowerPointe presentation. His comments are on
file in the Clerk’s Office with the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors, and can also be heard on
the County’s Podcasting network.
Immediately following that presentation Mr. Boyd opened the hearing and asked the first speaker
to come forward.
Rev. Ricky W hite said he is the Senior Pastor at Union Run Baptist Church in Keswick. He is
requesting that there be a positive response to the request from the IMPACT group that the Board
members attend its meeting on March 10 at University Hall. He said the Board members will be given an
opportunity to voice their thoughts at this rally about affordable housing and health issues, particularly
dental services. They ask that the Board actively participate in the process on March 10 and give its stand
on the issues.
Mr. Boyd said at the Board’s session this afternoon it was decided that the Board would attend
that meeting on March 10.
Mr. Jim Morris said he is a County taxpayer. He said that more than 50 percent of the revenue
that comes into his home goes to various taxes. There are several organizations, including the Board of
Supervisors, which have the opportunity to create obligations that he has to fund. He understands that all
of these ideas and programs are important, but he hopes the Board understands that he has been steadily
moving up on that ladder to were over 50 percent of their income goes to taxes in various forms. W hen
he first came to Albemarle there was a Sheriff’s Office which cost the taxpayers $1.0 million a year.
Tonight he is told that the expenditure for public safety is $28.0 million. He does not believe there has
been that kind of improvement in services. There are a lot of programs in the Police Department, and Ms.
Humphris made him attend the Police Academy so he would understand the department better. He does
not believe the citizens are getting value for their money. Everything that Mr. Tucker showed earlier are
mandates which the Board has voted on in the past including the amount of money given to
Charlottesville. He asked that the Board be cautious with the money it is spending. He thinks the County
is moving steadily in a direction which is bad.
Mr. Dennis McAuliffe said he is a member of the IMPACT group. They think affordable housing
needs in Albemarle County for families who are in the 30 percent of median income range are in a crisis.
There were 700 people on the waiting list for Section 8 vouchers between November, 2007 and January,
2008. Families who make $40,000 a year in Albemarle struggle. He quoted from a report which said that
there are 4300 people in Albemarle that earn under 100 percent of poverty which is about $20,000. At
the Board’s meeting on December 12, 2007, Mr. Ron W hite, Chief of Housing, stated that the biggest
need for affordable housing in the County is for those making less than $30,000 a year. Mr. McAuliffe said
IMPACT would like for there to be more resources to meet the housing needs of the working, poor
families. They ask that the County allocate $500,000 in the FY ‘09 budget to create additional housing
opportunities for families earning under the 30 percent AMI. Now is the time for all to work together to
meet the needs of those families.
Mr. Stanley W oodfolk said he is the pastor of Evergreen Ministries and co-president of IMPACT.
He thanked the Board for saying it will attend the meeting next Monday at U-Hall. He thinks the Board’s
presence at the IMPACT meeting will be significant. He read from a letter his daughter had sent to the
Board.
Mr. W . Rod Gentry said he is a board member of the Piedmont W orkforce Network which has
been supported for a long time by Albemarle County. He is asking that the Board support their request
this year for $13,805. They believe a regional approach to workforce development within Planning District
March 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
10 would serve Albemarle County as part of W orkforce Area 6. He said the Governor was in the
community recently to open the W orkforce Center on Hydraulic Road. It is a step forward to put all of the
resources which are most valuable to the community in one spot. It will provide County citizens with
everything they need to be fully employed in Albemarle County. He said the W orkforce Center, in a
reorganization process, is no longer under VEC but will fall under the community college system, which
they feel is a huge step forward.
Mr. Keith C. Drake said he is chairman of the Albemarle Truth in Taxation Alliance. He said there
has been disinformation put forth about the tax rate. He showed a couple of charts (on file in the Clerk’s
Office with the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors) and explained that in 2005 the tax rate on
real property was 76 cents which was lowered by State law to 61 cents, and then the Board increased the
rate to 74 cents. That was a tax increase of 23.7 percent. The same thing happened in 2007. The
beginning rate was 74 cents which was lowered by State law to 58 cents, and the Board increased that
rate to 68 cents, or a 19.5 percent increase. He said it is not fair to compare rates year after year. There
are different rates because they are based on different assessments. He asked what would have
happened to the tax rate since the year 2000 if there had been no increase in property assessments; that
rate would be $1.51 to generate the same tax revenue. He said being truthful about taxation and
budgeting is the basis for making better use of the citizens’ tax money. The ATTA has worked this year to
identify ways in which the government can operate more efficiently. This organization is not the “low tax
people”, or the “right tax people”, but its demands that the citizen’s tax dollars be spent wisely.
Ms. Amy Gore said she is a parent representative for Crozet Elementary School. She is present
to ask that the Board fully fund the Schools’ budget. In particular, she asks that the Board consider
adopting the transfer of the one cent from the CIP Fund so the Schools will not lose some of their best
teachers to localities that can pay higher salaries. There are certain expenses which despite the best
efforts of the School Board members they have not been able to curtail. There are also expenses related
to mandated programs over which the School board has no control. As a parent, she is not satisfied with
the School budget. She asked that the Board put the tax rate back to what it was before it was lowered
last year. The Schools do not have the resources they need now to do the job they are being asked to do.
Ms. Charlotte Hogue said she is a lifetime resident of the County. She said the Board needs to
use the word “no” more and more when raising the tax rates and approving the spending of the taxpayer’s
money. Not everyone living in the County gets an automatic yearly increase in salary or retirement. Many
people are on fixed incomes. The economy is not good now and will continue to decline. The Board
needs to look at all departments and cut staff and budgets. She said the School System want more
money each year even though the number of students is not increasing proportionately. Do teachers
deserve a higher percentage salary increase than other workers? Do the schools need such a large
administrative staff and classes not essential to learning how to read, write and do basic math? Buildings
with curved walls cost thousands more, but do not contribute to the education of the students. Also, she
thinks parents should pay part of the costs for books, bussing and sports. The Board could make other
cuts by charging year-round fees for use of libraries and recreational facilities such as pools, lakes, parks
and walking trails. Only a small percentage of the taxpayers use such facilities. It should not be hard to
say “no” to the ever increasing wish list the Board receives each year. She said the taxpayers cannot
pass an increase to their income like the County does. It is unfair to those who have spent their entire life
here making the County what it is, and being forced to move out by excessive spending and continuously
rising, double digit tax increases. It is the Board’s duty to make wise decisions.
Mr. Tom Strassburg said the payment of competitive salaries for teachers and the funding of such
social justice programs as affordable housing are all important. He asked if it can be done without putting
the burden on the back of the property taxpayer. He would like to suggest that the Board start to look at
things that will enable them to do that. One example is the Hollymead Fire/Rescue Station. He thinks it
was needed and the other two which were mentioned in the newspaper today will be needed eventually.
He suggested going back to the drawing board and designing firehouses instead of architectural wonders.
It is a beautiful facility, but can the County in these economic times afford that sort of thing at the cost of
teacher salaries and housing for the poor. He showed pictures of the internal features of this facility and
asked about the long-term maintenance costs of such a facility. Originally the budget for that facility was
$3.7 million. It turned out be $5.4 million for the site work and cost of construction, but it did not include
the cost of furniture and equipment. That was another $300,000+. That was a $1.7 million increase over
the original proposal or $333 per square foot. He thinks the County has to do better than that in terms of
net costs. All have to tighten their belts in today’s economy, but it should not be done at the expense of
the more important priorities the Board and County should have.
Mr. Robert Hogue said since the last budget meeting in February more economists are predicting
a recession. Across the United States 10 percent of homeowners owe more on their mortgage than the
value of their home. That is the highest percentage since the Great Depression. Personal savings are at
their lowest rates. Economists are warning that after housing prices, the next problem for the economy is
personal debt. The nation is in financial trouble. W hat happens in the rest of the nation affects those in
Albemarle County. He suggested that parents pay transportation and athletic fees since not everybody in
the County has children attending Albemarle County schools. The budgets for both the local government
and the schools should be checked for benefits versus costs. Tough decisions have to be made about
what to cut.
Ms. Martha Harris showed some charts and referred to school transportation costs. She said it
interests her because it is a $10.0 million item in the budget. It also was identified by the Resource
Utilization Study as a primary area for cost savings since it is almost seven percent of the entire School
budget. Improved efficiency in this area does not have to impact the classroom. The RUS study showed
March 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
that Albemarle has the highest cost per mile compared to comparable localities of similar size. Her point is
that it would be a painless way to put more dollars in the classroom.
Mr. Steven Majewski said he is a professor at the University of Virginia (he made a PowerPointe
presentation). He said a way to look at education spending is the per pupil expense. The RUS showed
that the cost of educating each Albemarle pupil is 15.3 percent above the statewide average. The excess
cost stands out starkly when compared to other peer school divisions. Albemarle’s per pupil cost is higher
than peer school divisions which pay about 10.5 percent below the statewide average. Albemarle County
pays 35 percent more than Roanoke County to educate a K-12 student. He said one might argue that
what matters is value to dollar, so what are the citizens getting for the higher educational cost. He showed
a chart comparing the fraction of students passing the Standards of Learning test. W hen compared to the
statewide median (80.5 percent) passing rate, Albemarle does pretty well, but so do all the other school
divisions in the County’s peer cohort. Among these peers Albemarle falls in the middle of SOL
achievement. If Albemarle is obtaining similar results, what is driving the higher costs paid? He said the
K-12 teachers may be the most valuable educational asset, but their salaries are not the source of inflated
educational costs. Something else in the other 64 percent of the budget is driving the over-expense. He
said the RUS made some suggestions as to other places in the budget where some fat might be trimmed.
For example, they noted an overly top heavy organizational chart with a significantly generous number of
administrators. He said the mission and purpose of the Department of Community Engagement has been
called into question by members of the community and the RUS identified this as a place where greater
efficiency can be found. Finally, the study stresses that the School Division must be committed to
removing unqualified employee performance staff who not only cost the County money, but send the
wrong motivational message to those school division staff who are doing their jobs well.
Mr. Peter W urzer said since 2000 real estate taxes have doubled. County operating spending has
increased 76 percent. This is in contrast to an 11 percent increase in population. The next five years do
not look promising; the Schools forecast a budget increase of about $44.0 million. The County’s Five-
Year Financial Plan shows a shortfall of about $13.0 million to that budget. There will be more demands.
Looking at what has happened since last November, the direction of revenues is going the wrong way.
There are two ways to handle this problem. One is to search for more revenues. State finances are not
good; W ashington is in even worse shape. Lastly, the level of real estate tax increases on an historical
basis has been unsustainable. He said another way to approach this problem is to focus on current
spending. He recommended that recommendations of the RUS be quickly and decisively implemented.
He credited the School Board and the Superintendent for having the foresight to have a fresh set of eyes
look at their business. He suggested that local government do the same thing. He thinks each County
department should have a ten percent reduction in spending, and that the public be allowed to debate that
as well. Each department should have measurable objectives. Opportunities with neighboring
communities to combine resources should be explored. Lastly, the financial management systems need
to be upgraded and integrated so everyone in the County has real time information.
Ms. Mary Huffard Kegley Scott said she is president of the County Parent’s Council. She said
strong public schools equal a strong community. One cannot succeed without the other. The School
Board has diligently addressed the budget shortfalls. It is now at the point of cutting core programs and
services to students who will not succeed as they have in the past with these cuts in place. At the heart of
the classroom is the teacher. In February many of these teachers spoke. They said they limit the amount
of trash in their classroom because of a lack of custodial services and empty their own trash cans. They
tape together library tables with duct tape and offer their time after school to students who are struggling
and need extra support. It is disconcerting that some citizens who do not have children in the public
schools currently may consider reducing the quality of education. The proposal to redirect funds from the
Capital Improvement Fund is key now. W ithout funding from the CIP the School Board and the
Superintendent will have to begin staff reductions next week. The last teachers hired would be the first let
go. These teachers are the future of the system. If they are lost now they will not come back later. As a
school volunteer she sees firsthand how the proposed budget cuts will impact children in the classroom.
An increase in class size at any level is a blow. The school bus replacement cycle is already at 13 years.
Since students are transported daily over 12,000 miles, 13 years seems like a long time. Gas prices have
been referenced tonight, but it is an economic reality the School Board cannot control. W ithout the funds,
the education system which is so well regarded to attract businesses and newcomers to the community
will fall below acceptable levels. She asked that the Supervisors fund the School Board’s request for a
CIP transfer, plus $900,000 additional in revenues to keep the schools and community strong.
Ms. Karen Collier said she is president of the PTO at Monticello High School. She has a child at
MHS who is looking for a college to attend. Not having a school counselor available to direct this search
would make a huge impact on his search. She said the counselor works with the student and his family
for four years developing career plans and working with the student on his educational and post-high
school plans, as well as counseling the student when needed. She said a reduction in the number of
school counselors would decrease the number of personal contacts with students. In the School’s 2005-
09 Strategic Plan one of the goals was to be recognized as a W orld-Class educational system. At this
time, the school counseling program is recognized as one of the best in the State. Albemarle County has
been able to implement the national counselor standards for school counseling programs. The current
program allows counselors to better prepare students for successful futures. These counselors are
student advocates who support family education. She supports full funding of school counselor positions
in the high schools.
Ms. Margie Shepherd said she is a teacher and County resident. Having people make a case for
the budget every year is not a great way to operate County government. In other states the School Board
sets its budget and the tax rate is adjusted accordingly. Most of the time, the system here works well, but
every seven-plus years the Supervisors are swayed by a noisy group who want to pick on teachers and
March 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
the poor. To pick on teachers and the poor is wrong. Having the Supervisors cut six cents from the tax
rate last year was also wrong. Now she has heard that these people want to take away VERIP benefits
also. The VERIP retirement plan took the place of the County having to pay for sick days. She has
worked for 36 years and has a year and a half of sick days saved up. Paying for those would save money.
She thinks the Supervisors need to consider what the people of the County want them to support and what
they have set as goals in their own Strategic Plan. She said Goal 1.1 is to work with the School Board to
help them attain a world-class educational system by 2009. She said the Supervisors need to meet their
goals and keep their promises. Albemarle wants to be the best county in Virginia, not the one that attracts
every miser with a grudge. She asked that the Supervisors do the right thing and restore the six cents.
Ms. Martha Fox said she is the PTO president at Henley Middle School. They ask that the
Supervisors support Dr. Moran’s budget and Mr. Tucker’s proposal to transfer a penny from the CIP. She
said a price cannot be put on the children in the County who attend the schools, or on the teachers. This
is something that cannot be measured. The choices of the Supervisors reflect the values of the County
citizens in terms of what they want for the future.
Mr. Tom Twomey said he is a member of the IMPACT group. He has met with each Board
member in their small group meetings. Before IMPACT selected housing as an issue, it was already
recognized that there was a housing crisis in the area. In the last two years, they have learned more
about this crisis. The TJPDC provided them with a “State of Housing” report and Albemarle provided
them with a Poverty Report. They have brought focus on the increasing number of school children
becoming homeless. They know it is urgent to resolve this crisis now. The Charlottesville Housing
Advisory Committee voted unanimously to recommend that City Council provide a dedicated funding
stream to provide for more housing. The joint Charlottesville/Albemarle/University Housing Task Force
has recognized the urgency of creating more safe decent housing for the poorest working families. He
has enjoyed working with the individual Board members and thanked them for agreeing to attend the
IMPACT meeting next week.
Ms. Johanna W oodchild said she is a member of the IMPACT group. She spoke about the affect
of homelessness on children. She said that eventually all will pay for this situation in the form of health
care and prison costs, among other things.
Ms. Peggy Anderson said she is a math teacher at W estern Albemarle High School and asked
that the Supervisors approve the School Board budget. She talked about things being done at W AHS to
deal with major problems in the County. They have students who get to high school and cannot read.
These children come to class and put down their books because they are ashamed. The Schools want to
be a world-class educational system so they need the finances necessary to do that. At W AHS they are
trying to put together a literary program to teach kids to read, and which will teach the teachers to teach
these kids. They need the Supervisors’ help. She has lived in Albemarle for over 20 years; her kids went
through Albemarle County schools. They were honor students and received a wonderful education. She
is a teacher and gets paid pretty good, she is not asking for a raise. She is asking the Supervisors to help
her do the job she is paid to do.
Ms. Anne Geraty said she knows the Supervisors have the thankless job of balancing competing
interests of the citizens in planning for the future. Everyone cannot be made happy, but the Supervisors
have to make a decision about what is right. W hile the decision is difficult, she thinks it is also clear cut.
She thinks the right decision would be to reverse the tax cut that was made last year in reliance on
burgeoning real estate values and affirm the needs of a growing county. This budget crisis would be
different if the County did not already have one of the lowest tax rates in the state. This tax rate is more
designed to serve the undemanding needs of a rural area than the pressing needs of an area that hosts
the best new music venue in the United States among other such distinctions. She said the needs of the
County are so numerous it is difficult to list them all. At present, there is an economic downturn, but it is
not the cause of the present budget crisis. Last year’s tax cut should never have been made. Her plea
tonight is that the Supervisors fund the schools adequately. At the last budget hearing she said she had
spent $180.00 of her own money to buy school supplies for her classroom. It was her choice to do so, but
she does not think it is fair that she should have to defend her job and those of others who work to
educate the children. It is demoralizing. The $180.00 she spent is the exact amount of the annual tax
savings from last year’s tax cut to the owner of a median priced house. Her annual, out-of-pocket
expenses each year to make up for that savings to the taxpayer would fund a trip to the Caribbean. Her
husband views her passion for teaching as an essentially expensive volunteer activity. Considering the
affluence of Albemarle, the Supervisors are saving people the cost of a beer and a pizza while it is asking
many who do more and more getting all children to meet minimum competency levels, as well as
challenging the bright ones, to limp along on salaries that are shrinking in value. Many fear for their jobs,
fear for their retirement funds and spend money out of their own pockets to fund the County’s needs. She
asked that the burden be spread more equitably.
Ms. Mary K. Dobmeier said she is a second year physical education teacher at Henley Middle
School. She also teaches an AVID elective class in one of her planning periods without compensation.
AVID stands for Advancement Via Individual Determination. This program serves the bubble population
that AYP targets. All of these seventh grade students have been promoted from standard to advanced
level classes. They are engaged in a regular curriculum that does not come unsupported. As the AVID
teacher she encourages, supplements and teaches these students the importance of advocating for
themselves and others. However, she is here tonight to advocate for other teachers. Many junior staff
members are looking for positions in other places. Initially, she was excited to teach in Albemarle County.
The commitment to new teacher recruitment, dedication to new teacher wages and retention programs,
all combined to be a powerful influence, but that influence has faded as staffing allocations have been
passed out. The younger, less experienced, motivated and dynamic teachers are being warned that their
March 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
positions may not exist next year. She does not think this is a good way for the County to show that it
values its employees. Hearing in February that you might not have a job in August develops a sense of
panic and urgency. It was the Supervisors that made education a priority, and made a commitment
verbally and financially to retain new teachers. Going back on that commitment will not only continue to
effect current employees but future ones also. She asked that the Supervisors do their part to help the
schools succeed by holding onto the determined teachers that they worked hard to bring here. She asked
that those present in support of students and teachers stand.
Mr. Chris Schoenwalde said he is a County resident, and a “budget hawk.” He respects everyone
who has come tonight to advocate for their individual positions. He came to support the position of the
Truth in Taxation group. The core of its message is that it is not how much you spend but how you spend.
There are efficiencies to be had. The School Division is facing a budget shortfall this year. Improving the
efficiency of the School Division’s transportation system can save $1.5 million. Another way to save would
be to not give the $600,000 talked about to Charlottesville for protection on Pantops, which is in addition to
the $13.0 million they will get as part of protection money against annexation which they can’t do anymore
anyway. He said teachers are the most valuable resource the community has to develop its future. They
need to have the tools necessary in those classrooms, but not at the expense of the property owners in
the County. Not all property owners are wealthy. A lot of people live close to the poverty level. W hat
happened last year was not a tax cut. It was a 20 percent increase in taxes. He asked that the County’s
money be spent wisely, without making the teachers suffer.
Mr. Charlie Trachta said that after the meeting on February 20 he was accused of going over to
the dark side. He will say again that he supports and respects most teachers. He has said this for the last
ten years. His complaint is with high paid administrators who are failing the students. Each child should
be helped to reach their full potential, as written in the School Division’s literature. Instead of helping
students, some administrators say “no.” If a child in a wheelchair were denied assistance there would be
an uproar. If the handicap is not so obvious, but it is still recognized by the State and the Federal
government, as well as AHS, AHS administration would try to deny any help unless legally forced to do so.
The School System says it is world-class, but for the last two years he has found it to be a system that will
use every legal ploy to refuse help if they don’t want to give it. The assistance he requested would not
have cost AHS a dime. It only amounted to understanding that some children learn differently. If he has
gone over to the dark side it is due to the AHS administration telling him to go away and other such things.
Does a world-class system take a child out of a high level class and offer a standard class so they do not
have to deal with an issue which could be taken care of by common sense and understanding. Before the
Supervisors raise the tax, it should have the School Board audit the system to see where they are wasting
funds on top heavy, high-paid administrators who do not do their job. If he is to pay for a world-class
system, that is what he wants, not an adequate one. Cut out the wasted fat and there will be the money
for needed programs and for the teachers.
Ms. Sydney Giacalone said she is a seventh grade student at Jack Jouett Middle School currently
enrolled in the strings program. She came tonight to ask that the Supervisors provide more money to the
School Board so the strings program can remain in Albemarle County schools. Her friends, grandparents,
aunts, uncles and parents are more than willing to pay higher taxes because they feel education is
important including the strings program. She believes it would be a tragic loss to Albemarle County
schools to eliminate the strings program.
Mr. Dave Oberg told a story about his losing weight and the phrase “tighten your belt.” He said
this is relevant because the educational system is a breakfast. If one cuts out breakfast, they will get fat.
On paper, cutting the budget seems like a great idea, but when that is done long-term costs actually
increase. There were complaints about spending $9,000 per student, but no complaints that more than
$20,000 is spent on each inmate each year. Costs per student can be cut, but no one has suggested
cutting that cost per inmate. He said that if the Supervisors cut the School budget it will create more
inmates, so the budget might be cut today, but the decisions being made now will affect the County for the
next 10 to 15 years. In 10 to 15 years when the prison population goes up, there are kids who don’t know
how to get a job, they will look back on today and say “I wish we had had breakfast.”
Ms. Karen Marcus said she is the principal at Crozet Elementary School. She is speaking in
support of the Superintendent’s and School Board’s budget. They have worked countless hours
developing a budget to support their Strategic Plan. That budget is a direct expression of the values of
this community. She would like to comment on some of the affects of a reduced budget. If the K-1 TA
amount is reduced by 15 minutes as proposed, the consequence is that seven children will each have 15
minutes less of individual, one-on-one instruction to help them learn to read more efficiently. If computer
replacement funding is inadequate, the replacement cycle will cause technology to decrease and
compromise the children’s ability to function in a global economy. If intervention prevention funds are
inadequate, the neediest children will not receive the extra time and attention critical to their learning. It
will decrease the County’s ability to meet NCIB goals. Recent knowledge in how children learn is critical
and professional development funds are critical to that effort to keep all school staff current and updated.
In response to comments made earlier, she said the School Board has already begun to implement
reductions in the transportation budget by expanding the replacement cycle for busses. She said only the
Supervisors’ can lessen the impact these budget decisions will have on the children.
Mr. Madison Cummings said he is currently the chair of the Commission on Children and
Families. He said both the Federal and State government have been stingy with funding. He thinks the
schools should continue to move in the direction of a world-class education, and also feels that all the
programs in County government will need money. He urged the Supervisors to consider some
reasonable, justifiable tax increase that makes sense to everybody.
March 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
Ms. Mary Spencer said she is the PTO Co-chair for Meriwether Lewis Elementary School. She
asked that the Supervisors do what they can to fully fund next year’s education budget. The School
System has already been affected by the reduction in last year’s tax rate. If there is a further decrease in
their budget, they would not be able to claim they are a world-class education system. She heard that if
there is no additional funding from Local Government, there could be reductions in kindergarden and first
grade teaching assistants (these are the only classes at MLS that have teaching assistants), increasing
middle and high school class sizes and buying fewer textbooks. Last year the principal at MLS introduced
the idea of initiating an international baccalaureate program at the school. Today, they no longer hold out
any hope of starting such a program in spite of the fact that 196 school systems across the country have
these programs in place, including Fluvanna County. Her real reason for being here tonight is that due to
the increased pupil population at MLS they need full-time music, art and PE teachers, plus an assistant
principal. For next year they have already met their enrollment projections so this mandates that these
positions be increased to full-time status. She asked that the Supervisors fully fund the School System’s
budget.
Ms. Frances Racette said she is a teacher at Monticello High School. She thinks the budget for
the School System should be fully funded even if taxes must be raised. She has talked with many people
who have the following concerns: adequate teacher pay; an increase in class size; and, the possibility of
charging to ride the school busses.
Ms. Denise Karaob said she is speaking for all the children in Albemarle County who could not
attend this meeting tonight and who cannot vote. Every year the County goes over the same ludicrous
budget arguments to give the kids an education that is there right. It is not their fault the County has
increased housing developments without regard to building the needed infrastructure before the housing is
approved. That infrastructure should not be paid for by the schools. She thinks the Schools’ budget
should be directly supported by buildings and developers. If the Supervisors have to make budget cuts in
the future due to over-development they should not pick on the children that do not have a vote. She
asked that the budget be fully funded.
Mr. Rooker interrupted to ask that he make a statement while there are a lot of citizens present.
He said the Supervisors received a notice today from the Commissioner of Transportation that the
Secondary and Primary road funds for Albemarle will be cut by 44 percent for each year for the next six
years. He said the Secondary Road Funds the Supervisors thought they would receive were already less
than they were 10 years ago. During that time, the cost of construction has more than doubled. W hat is
being seen in the transportation budget is something that has also been going on in other areas of the
budget, something called devolution (passing down expenses to the localities). He said the Supervisors
are having to put transportation expenses (formerly paid by the State) on the backs of property taxpayers.
It is wrong, but the Legislature will get away with it if the citizens do not contact them and let them know
that they need to properly fund the areas of budgets they are supposed to fund. For decades in Virginia,
the State has paid for transportation and the localities build and pay for their own schools. He brought this
up because the people present tonight need to contract their legislators and say they need to do
something about this.
Mr. Steve Gissendanner said he is the Albemarle Education Association representative. Some of
the statistics mentioned tonight were interesting. High transportation costs have been mentioned, so in
response to the Resource Utilization Study the School Board froze the bus replacement cycle until they
can study the suggestions in that study. He said Albemarle already keeps busses longer than the State
recommends. Also, for safety reasons, the State does not recommend that cars be used to transport
kids, which was a suggestion of the study. He does not know if there are too many people in Central
Office staff, but the School Board did cut $400,000 from that budget. Someone asked earlier tonight if
there is a need to teach anything other than the basics, reading, math, and science. He would answer
“yes.” Last night there was a report on TV quoting research which says that education in music is very
close to performance in math. He said that what Mr. Rooker said about funding from the State for
transportation is the same thing that is happening with the SOQs. The State is playing “voodoo
economics” and the burden to fund the SOQs is going to be substantially greater next year due to some
“under-the-table” hidden formula changes. He said the decisions the Supervisors make this year will
impact the decisions it is forced to make next year, so those decisions should be made carefully.
Ms. Sue Friedman said she is a resident, a taxpayer, a parent without a child in the schools, but
who cares about her future. She asked if the Supervisors know that real estate values are correlated to
quality public education. She cares about her real estate value continuing to go up, it is her retirement
plan. She said businesses chose and stay in communities that value and fund quality education. Quality
education is not the minimum or the average because it is preparing young people to be leaders in
tomorrow’s global society. Each and everyone will likely need health care in their future and they will want
quality community-based health care. More than one-half of the projected job increases in the next five to
ten years are in the health care field. They require education, training and certification beyond high
school, but not a bachelor’s degree. If the students today are to be prepared to take care of us tomorrow
they must have an above average education. The leaders of tomorrow are sitting in the schools today.
The members of the Supervisors are here today as leaders of the County because of where they were 20
or thirty years ago. She would like to have great leadership 20+ years from now and it will not come from
a mediocre education. There is no stronger value that can be put on the future than education, and that is
up the Supervisors. She came to support them in any way needed to make sure they make the right
decision for her future.
Ms. Barbara Edwards said she is a resident, taxpayer and the principal at Broadus W ood
Elementary school. She has been an administrator in the School System for 10 years. More than one
family has told her they moved to Albemarle without a job because they wanted a better opportunity for
March 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
their child. She said it is the quality of the teacher that makes a difference in classroom performance.
Albemarle needs to maintain the current quality of teaching; in order to move to world-class it needs to be
able to compete in hiring the best and brightest new teachers. Her school was recently recognized by the
Governor for achieving the Virginia Board of Education VIP Excellence Award. This was accomplished by
the hard work of all staff members. Currently, teachers are able to give students individual attention
because of class size. Increasing that class size will not help teachers in maintaining teacher/student
relationships. These relationships are upheld in the County’s current mission statement. She said
kindergarten and first grade TA support is crucial to support for the teachers, the cornerstone of the
educational system. She asked that the Supervisors support the School Board’s proposed budget.
Ms. Amy Morris said she has taught at Broadus W ood Elementary School for eight years. She is
speaking in favor of fully funding the School Board’s budget. She knows that some feel the major
objective of the budget is to lower taxes. Making an investment in public schools and government is not
just an investment in crayons, textbooks, salaries and pencils. It is also an investment in the quality of
care that is received in the emergency room, the response time of the Police Department, the quality of
service received in restaurants, the care with which groceries are bagged at the grocery store, and the
educational opportunity that your children and grandchildren will receive. She asked that the Supervisors
invest in that opportunity.
Ms. Lisa Bowen said she is president of the Virginia L. Murray Elementary School PTO. She and
her husband own and operate a small custom home building business. The housing market is in trouble
now. They have had to make difficult decisions to navigate their way through the last 18 months. They
have moved, sold their vehicles, and let go of long-time employees because production is way down. As
families make difficult financial decisions as the value of their home goes down, and with the price of gas
going up and jobs going away, they don’t need the government sticking their hands deeper in their
pockets. She said the public school system is not the first and only place the Supervisors should look to
cut costs. Children require the highest quality education with the most qualified instructors to compete in a
global economy. Children must be more productive to fund the tax-and-spend cycle the country is in. The
Supervisors have a responsibility not to spend the taxpayers into oblivion and a responsibility to protect the
public education system that is such an asset to the area.
Mr. Tom Olivier said for the past 20 years he and his wife have raised sheep at that farm in the
Scottsville District. As someone with strong connections to Albemarle’s open spaces he is concerned
about the adequacy of the proposed budget. There are four frozen planning positions leaving only two
rural area planners to deal with the planning issues of 400,000 acres of open space. There is evidence
that the current planning shortages are already hampering protection of open spaces. The Rural Areas
Section of the Comprehensive Plan calls for hiring a staff person to help develop local ag-markets. In
2007 funds were finally committed in the budget for this position. However, before the position could be
filled, hiring was frozen. This position needs to be filled. W ith the decline in County revenues, staff
support for the County’s Natural Heritage Committee (of which he is a member) has been reduced to
nearly zero. The chair of this committee sent an e-mail yesterday saying the Committee does not feel it
can be effective without increased staff support. The Natural Resource Chapter of the Comprehensive
Plan was last updated in 1999. Virginia law requires updates every five years. W ork on that chapter was
expected to being again in late 2008, but with revenue reductions it has been delayed further and no one
knows for how long. A lot of things have happened since 1999. W hen looking at this proposed budget,
he sees vital programs being neglected. In retrospect, the decision by the Board last year to reduce the
tax rate was unfortunate. He asked that the real estate rate be set at a level which will unfreeze all of
those vacant planning positions that support education, affordable housing and other critical programs.
Mr. W ayne Martin said he is a father and a systems engineer at the hospital. He came tonight to
advocate for advanced needs for schools. His child attends Murray Elementary and he has a three-year
old who will be following him. He attended a meeting there today for an educational intervention – the
child is in the first grade, but is doing so well he is learning algebra. After being at this meeting tonight, he
has found that no one is talking about getting money for advanced classes, but the stake of education
itself. That is disappointing. He hopes the Supervisors will fully fund all the Schools’ needs. His child is
six. They are working hard at Murray to keep him within his classroom with his peers, but giving him work
that challenges him personally. From time-to-time they put him in classes with fourth or fifth graders using
the same teacher who is teaching that math class, something that can be done within the public schools
that could compete with private schools. He thinks that is something all parents would support. He is
extremely satisfied with Murray Elementary and is shocked that public schools are this good. He hopes
the Supervisors fully fund the Schools’ needs; it is very important.
Ms. Carmen Garcia said she has three children attending the public schools. She finds it hard to
believe she is before the Supervisors again to plead, beg, implore, even pray if necessary, that the
proposed school budget is fully funded. Every year the Supervisors patiently listen to all of the disgruntled,
worried and anxious parents and the educators ask them to support the schools and the children who
represent the future of the community. Although revenues are not as high as expected, it does not justify
compromising the quality of the education the children are receiving. A good education makes a
difference in a child’s life; it is also expensive. She mentioned the numerous volunteers who donate their
time to support the teachers and staff but who also raise funds to supplement programs that otherwise
would not be financed by the school budget. She hopes they can count on the Supervisors’ support.
Ms. Rachel Stonewall said an increase in funds is an increase, not a decrease, it is not a cut.
More money in the County budget this year does not mean cuts are imminent, it means truces need to be
made, and obsolete, ineffective and inefficient programs and administration need to be cut. She said the
School Board is not going to cut teachers, they will find efficiencies in other areas. If everyone really
believes that money equals quality education and brilliant children, then the D.C. students, St. Louis
March 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
students and other similar school districts would be churning out geniuses. They spend an extreme
amount of money on their students, but those students still struggle; money does not equal brilliance.
Money needs to be spent in smart ways by working with the programs that work and cut the ones that do
not work. She asks that the County find ways to spend its money efficiently and do the right things with
the money available. She asked that the School Board and administrators work smarter and more
efficiently. She thinks they can do that because they will get as much money this year as they got last
year.
Ms. Stacy W alker said she is a teacher at Monticello High School. There is one issue with the
budget that is time sensitive. It is the transfer of CIP money into the operating budget. The issue needs to
be dealt with in the next week since if the transfer is approved, the schools will not have to raise
classroom sizes. They need to know now, or a reduction in force will take place soon. If teachers get
their “walking papers” the schools not only lose the physical person, but also all the money and time spent
to train and mentor this person. Albemarle spends approximately $4671 for a new teacher in the system
for basic recruitment costs, participation in the New Teacher Academy, professional development, new
teacher support and basic materials start-up. All of this helps to keep the retention rate high. Saying the
transfer may be made, but a decision will not be made until April, is not good enough. By then, many of
the teachers who have been let go will have found a new position in a different locality. The reason to
approve this money transfer is for the students. In the high schools a .5 increase in class size equates to
an increase of three or four students in important core SOL classes. It bothers her that she has read in the
newspapers that the Board of Supervisors said the Schools budget is spiraling out of control. She listed
examples of things over which the School Board has no control such as the cost of fuel, utilities, and
keeping teacher salaries competitive. She said Albemarle County citizens have said many times that the
schools are number one on their list. The students educated today are the caretakers of tomorrow.
Mr. Steve Koleszar said there was a quote in the Daily Progress today by the Supervisors’
Chairman, Mr. Boyd, who said they have to make a choice between adequate services and fiscal
responsibilities. He does not think there is a choice between adequate services and fiscal responsibilities;
it is a choice between adequate services and a low tax rate. Inadequate services are not fiscally
responsible. If there were a seven-minute response time for emergency services, and people had to
spend hundreds of dollars more for fire insurance, that would not be fiscally responsible. There have been
traffic accidents in the County where tow trucks got to the scene before the police. There is a terrible
deficit in services in this County. In many places, public safety and fire services are inadequate. If the
Southern Connector Road were ever built, it would save him about two miles each day. Twelve miles a
week at 50 cents a mile cost him $6.00 a week or $300.00 a year. That is more than 10 cents on his tax
rate. He thinks the County can afford to have great services. If the County continues to offer inadequate
services to the citizens, they should rightfully be upset.
Ms. Stacie England said she is a citizen and works at Yancey Elementary. Her position is funded
through a Federal Grant Program so her job is not at risk in this budget. She just attended a conference
put on by the State Department of Education where they were shown examples of many school divisions
which are exemplary. One of the speakers said that throwing money at a problem does not always cure it.
However, she will say that if the schools are not funded, many problems will be created. The
superintendent of one of the exemplary examples spoke and said they have improved their scores by 20
percent over the last few years. Their cost per pupil is higher than that in Albemarle. He spoke about the
tax base in that locality and it did not seem to be as good as that in this area. Their free and reduced
lunch rate was lower than that in Albemarle, and to her, the other statistics he showed did not show they
have the same kind of student needs, especially at schools like Yancey Elementary. If the schools are not
funded, and the students do not have enough of a rigorous education with the right kind of relationships
with teachers, etc. there will be more problems in the future, and they will be more difficult to solve.
W ith no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Boyd asked if individual Board members had comments to make at this time.
Mr. Slutzky said a significant number of people stood up when someone said they wanted the
Board to restore the 74-cent tax rate. To the extent that anyone wishes to communicate their views to the
legislators about the 44 percent reduction in the transportation budget and the many other cuts coming to
the County from Richmond, it would be useful to say what should be cut or say that you are willing to pay
increased taxes. He said there seems to be a sentiment in Richmond that the purpose of their being there
is to make sure taxes do not go up. He thinks that is part of the problem being struggled with both locally
and at the State level, plus the Federal level.
Mr. Thomas said it sounds like the Board is whining when it says to go to the State level. It has
become very popular at the Federal and at the State level to push responsibilities down to the local level.
It is something that gets them reelected, so why shouldn’t they do it? Then, it is the Board of Supervisors
that has the public hearing with people saying the real estate tax burden is heavy. The real estate tax is
basically a lousy tax because it does not pay any attention to how much money you made this year, it only
pays attention to what your neighborhood’s housing values were this year. That may not reflect your
family’s situation at all. That is basically what the Board has to depend on to fund the schools and the
other local services. She said the State is trying something this year which will not show up in this year’s
budget. They are trying to change the standards of quality measurement methods. It will squeeze local
government more and more from year to year. The good news is that everyone at the State level seems
to consider education as something worth supporting. The bad news is that they are doing it in a way that
will put more burdens on the local taxpayers. So, if you are sending them a letter or e-mail, remind them
that you are going to watch the way in which they support education and that you will not be favorably
impressed if they end up putting more tax burden on the local taxpayer.
March 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
Mr. Rooker said he understands the proposed change in SOQ funding is that it could cost
Albemarle more than $2.0 million a year in education funds for five years out.
Ms. Mallek thanked everyone for coming and sharing their wishes with the Board. As a new
member on the Board it is important for her to hear directly from the citizens.
Mr. Slutzky said a number of people presented PowerPointe presentations tonight, so he would
personally appreciate getting a copy of them.
Mr. Boyd thanked everyone for coming out tonight. He said it is important for the citizens to
participate in this process. This has been a difficult year for the Board. He thinks the shortfall in the
School Board’s budget has been raised by $1.0 million based on shortfalls at the State level. He asked
the School Board recently how much more can be done locally to make up the shortfall in the State
budget. Every time their numbers go down, or are adjusted, then the School Board is back saying the
Board of Supervisors has to make up that amount. There are competing issues for the Supervisors to
deal with; emergency services, affordable housing, police services, etc. He thinks all the Board members
intend to work someway to fund the School System adequately.
Mr. Rooker said the cost of unfunded Federal and State mandates to the locality last year was
more than $50.0 million of the budget.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 25. Adjourn. At 8:25 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board,
upon motion by Mr. Rooker, the meeting was adjourned to March 10, 2008, at 1:00 p.m. in Room 241.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Slutzky. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
_______________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 10/08/2008
Initials: EWJ