2008-04-02April 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on April 2,
2008, at 9:00 a.m., Lane Auditorium, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Ann H. Mallek, Mr. Dennis S.
Rooker, and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W . Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W .
Davis, Clerk, Ella W . Jordan, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Meagan Hoy.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:01 a.m. by the Chairman, Mr. Boyd.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4a. Recognitions: Presentation of Certificates to Albemarle Homeschoolers.
Mr. Boyd reported that two teams from the Albemarle Homeschoolers Network demonstrated their
creativity in two diverse problem-solving categories at the regional “Odyssey of the Mind Tournament” held
in March. Odyssey of the Mind is an international educational program that provides creative problem-
solving opportunities for students from kindergarten through college. The competition theme was solving
problems with earth systems and presenting it in a humorous fashion. The students then bring their
solutions to competitions on the state and W orld level. Thousands of teams from throughout the U.S. and
from about 25 other countries participate in the program. Mr. Boyd said that the solutions presented had
elements of dance, music, theatre, science, art, and excellent scriptwriting abilities. He noted that the
coaches remarked, “it is a sheer joy to see something fantastic emerge out of the differences.” Mr. Boyd
stated that the Homeschoolers will be participating in the state competition on April 5th in Northern Virginia.
Mr. Boyd and the Coach of the team, Mamtha Adiseshan, handed out award certificates, and
recognized the Spontaneously Combusing Chipmunks Team and the Umpa Loompa Doughboys Team:
Allisson Mueller, Athman Adiseshan, David Novotne, Joanna Mueller, Mariah Novotne, Mitra (Mitz)
Germershausen, Mark McPherson, Robert Arthur, and Tara Adiseshan.
_______________
Item 4b. Recognitions: Introduction of Karen Shepard, Executive Director, MACAA.
Ms. Karen Shepherd addressed the Board as the new Executive Director of MACAA, stating that
she is from Omaha, Nebraska where she served as director of a similar agency. Ms. Shepherd noted that
one of the missions of MACAA is to help people out of poverty into economic self-sufficiency, keep
students in school, decrease the dropout rate, and limit the risk of juvenile delinquency. She hopes to
work closely with the County in the future. She mentioned that she was an attorney for Legal Aid in
Nebraska, and a school board member for 18 years.
_______________
Item 4c. Recognitions: Proclamation recognizing April 2008 as Month of the Young Child.
Mr. Boyd recognized April 2008 as the “Month of the Young Child,” in honor of the organizations
that work together to improve the early learning opportunities for young children. He then read the
following proclamation:
“MONTH OF THE YOUNG CHILD” PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, the Central Virginia Association for the Education of Young Children is celebrating the Month
of the Young Child in April, 2008, in conjunction with the Virginia Association for Early
Childhood Education and the National Association for the Education of Young Children; and
WHEREAS, these organizations are working to improve early learning opportunities, which are crucial to
the growth and development of young children and to building better futures for everyone in
Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, all young children and their families across the country and in Albemarle County, Virginia,
deserve access to high-quality early education and care; and
WHEREAS, in recognizing and supporting the people, programs, and policies that are committed to high-
quality early childhood education as the right choice for children;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Kenneth C. Boyd, Chairman, on behalf of the Board of
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, do hereby recognize and proclaim
APRIL, 2008
as the
“MONTH OF THE YOUNG CHILD”
April 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
and encourages all citizens to work toward high-quality early childhood education for all
children in Albemarle County, Virginia.
_______________
Item 4d. Recognitions. Proclamation recognizing April 2008 as Fair Housing Month.
Mr. Boyd recognized April 2008 as “Fair Housing Month,” and presented the following proclama-
tion to Ron W hite, Director of Housing:
FAIR HOUSING MONTH
WHEREAS, April 2008, marks the fortieth anniversary of the passage of the Fair Housing Act of 1968,
which sought to eliminate discrimination in housing opportunities and to affirmatively further
housing choices for all Americans; and
WHEREAS, the ongoing struggle for dignity and housing opportunity for all is not the exclusive province of
the Federal government; and
WHEREAS, vigorous local efforts to combat discrimination can be as effective, if not more so, than
Federal efforts; and
WHEREAS, illegal barriers to equal opportunity in housing, no matter how subtle, diminish the rights of all;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
that in the pursuit of the shared goal and responsibility of providing equal housing
opportunities for all men and women, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, does hereby join in the national celebration by proclaiming
APRIL, 2008
as
FAIR HOUSING MONTH
and encourages all agencies, institutions and individuals, public and private, in Albemarle
County to abide by the letter and the spirit of the Fair Housing law.
Mr. W hite addressed the Board, noting that the Piedmont Housing Alliance has been providing fair
housing counseling and education for the last several years, beginning with a HUD grant several years
ago. Mr. W hite said PHA will be holding a number of education sessions during the month of April. In
May, they will be training the County’s Department of Social Services. Mr. W hite encouraged anyone who
is interested in learning about fair housing to attend one of the sessions.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Thomas said that the TJ Planning District Commission meeting tomorrow night will include a
discussion on homelessness. She also stated that there will be a conference on the topic of homeless-
ness on April 15th from 12:00 to 3:00 at the First Presbyterian Church located downtown. She said that
the recent census came up with 292 countable homeless people as defined by HUD, but this probably
does not capture the entire count of all homeless people in the community.
_______________
Ms. Thomas said that VaCo has put out a call to all local governments to ask the Governor to
restore as much as possible of the $100 million in cuts taken from local government. She suggested this
Board join other local governments in reminding Governor Kaine to not disproportionately make cuts to
local governments.
Mr. Tucker said this refers to the additional $100,000 in cuts from schools and $600,000 in cuts
from local government.
Mr. Rooker commented that almost all the letters the Board sends its’ legislators are not asking
for something positive, but instead trying to avoid an additional something negative from happening to
counties.
It was the consensus of the Board that a letter be sent to Governor Kaine asking that these
cuts be restored.
_______________
Ms. Thomas mentioned that in talking to the Piedmont Rail Coalition, they are quite excited about
some passenger rail prospects, and perhaps it would be worthwhile to have at least a 30-minute report on
rail options.
Mr. Tucker commented that the Virginia Department of Rail and Transportation are scheduled to
make a presentation to the Board in May or June.
April 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
Mr. Rooker noted that there is some reasonable confidence that C’ville Rail will be able to get the
route from Danville to Lynchburg to Charlottesville to D.C. onto New York.
Mr. Boyd commented that there is some local interest to use these same rails for a light rail
system.
Ms. Mallek pointed out that light rail is not allowed to share a rail with freight, but there is a local
group interested in the east-west from W aynesboro to Zions Crossroads. She clarified that the rail can be
used for passengers, but only in a heavy-rail car because of the type of track it is.
Mr. Rooker responded that to use the line for localized traffic, an agreement from the railroad
company that owns the line would be needed and they have not been very open in the past to people just
jumping on the rails and using them for a short haul.
Mr. Slutzky noted that the MPO is considering all options of transit, including light rail, as it
explores a Regional Transit Authority. He does not think that economically it will happen.
_______________
Mr. Rooker asked when the rural area subdivision changes would be coming back to the Board.
Mr. Tucker said he will provide a date by the end of the day.
_______________
Ms. Mallek said she had a number of suggestions from citizens who attended her March town hall
meeting:
• that Local Government will consider undertaking a similar study to the Resource
Utilization Study that was done by the School Division.
• discussion about the burial of asphalt, and
• consider burning of construction debris and tree trimmings in the development areas.
W ith regard to burning of construction debris, Mr. Rooker said he thought staff was going to bring
a report back to the Board, and he would also like to see that information.
Mr. Slutzky said he also had the expectation that the Board was waiting on a staff report.
Mr. Tucker commented that when Board members are interested in pursuing a particular item, it
would be helpful for them to take an action.
Mr. Rooker then offered motion, that staff brings back information (including pros and cons) on
banning the burning of construction debris in the growth area. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Ms. Mallek then offered motion, that staff brings further information to the Board, including
environmental pros and cons on the burial of asphalt. She commented that burying old material creates
problems for future landowners and builders. She added that there is also a huge demand for these types
of materials. She would prefer to take a stronger role than that suggested by staff in an earlier
communication.
Mr. Slutzky noted that there should be discussion of production of new asphalt versus recycling of
old asphalt and he would like that to be part of the dialogue. The staff report should also include
information on why other surrounding jurisdictions decided to do this.
Mr. Rooker added that the economic benefits of reusing those materials have changed over the
last few years.
Ms. Thomas seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
Ms. Thomas commented that every time Board members make a request like this they are
changing a work plan.
_______________
Mr. Boyd commented that he received an invitation to the Armed Forces Parade to be held on
May 10, 2008, 2:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m., at McIntire Park, and he is unable to go. He hopes someone else
can attend.
Mr. Rooker said that he may be able to attend.
_______________
Mr. Boyd provided Board members with a copy of the Economic Indicator Reports from Fairfax
and Loudon Counties, a local report on economic indices in their communities. The County’s Fiscal
April 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
Impact Committee met yesterday and decided to undertake this as a project for Albemarle County. He
asked Board members to let him know if they have anything they want tracked locally regarding the
economy or fiscal data and he will forward it to the Committee.
Mr. Slutzky responded that he would want the study to include those who live in poverty, as that
impacts the local economy.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks it is an excellent idea. He mentioned that yesterday UBS announced
$17 billion in write-offs and the CEO stepped down. W hen he stepped down he stated that “this will
inevitably lead to staff reductions and they expect to see the U.S. banking industry shed about 200,000
jobs in the next 12 to 18 months”. He commented that that is probably the biggest layoff the banking
industry has ever seen in the United States.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Jeff W erner, on behalf of Piedmont Environmental Council, commented in response to earlier
Board comments about rail service. He stated that Norfolk Southern Railroad has not been “telling
anyone what they are doing,” and with the increase in freight rail there are going to be changes at the at-
grade crossings with associated costs for improvement. He suggested that the County take this issue up
with VDoT to see what their plans are for those needs, adding that traffic patterns may change as a result
of bottlenecks in these areas. Mr. W erner reported that the Colorado Car Company takes old passenger
rail cars and motorize them and that is what the train people indicate the County should invest in –
particularly in the east/west corridor.
Mr. W erner stated that he also receives a lot of phone calls about the asphalt situation, and the
County needs to have some type of programmatic response.
Mr. W erner noted that there is a lot of fiscal data available through the Fiscal Impact Committee
and the discussions that take place are very positive.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. W erner to check and see if the PEC has done any work on the
environmental impacts of asphalt burial.
Mr. W erner responded that this issue has been studied, and there does not seem to be anything
decisive from regulator agencies on the matter. He will look at what other counties in the State are doing.
__________
Mr. Paul Grady of the Crozet area addressed the Board, stating that he was “very disturbed”
recently to read the consultant’s current recommendations regarding the Eastern Connector. He said that
his proposed alignment has been virtually built over, adding that there was a connector proposed by Mr.
Huja in the early 1970’s as part of a long-range plan. Mr. Grady said that it was removed from this plan in
the early 1980’s, but there is no documentation as to why. He indicated that he has emailed County staff
about this, but this is the first time he has proposed it on paper.
Mr. Grady explained that his alignment starts opposite State Farm Boulevard on Route 250 East
and hugs the edge of the growth area until it reaches Route 20. He said that the alignment crosses Route
20 at Dorrier Drive – just like Alternative #3 – but then crosses the river diagonally at the “least
objectionable” location – between the Meadow Creek Golf Course and Darden Towe Park to the City’s old
wastewater treatment plant site, hugging the southern edge of the golf course and then traverses a ravine
just south of the Catholic School to East Rio Road. As far as he can determine, it would only require the
purchase of one house. Mr. Grady emphasized that it is not a cheap route or a short one, and the Eastern
Connector should be considered as an extension of Rio Road. The public deserves this road and he
believes that his proposed alignment would take as much as 50 percent of the traffic off the Route 250
Bypass. He asked the Board to remove the “No Build” option from the table and reserve the right-of-way
now.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Consent Agenda. Mr. Rooker moved to approve items 7.1 through 7.7, with
the change in the resolution under Item 7.4, and to accept the remaining items on the Consent Agenda as
information. Mr. Slutzky seconded the motion. (Discussions are included with individual agenda items.)
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item 7.1. Approval of Minutes: December 5, 2007.
Mr. Boyd had read the minutes of December 5, 2007, pages 1-22(end at Item #10) and found
them to be in order with the exception of some typos.
Mr. Rooker had read the minutes of December 5, 2007, pages 22(beginning with Item #10) – end,
and found them to be in order with the exception of some typos.
By the above-recorded vote, the minutes were approved as read.
__________
April 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
Item 7.2. Requested FY 2008 Appropriations.
The Executive Summary states that the Code of Virginia § 15.2-2507 stipulates that any locality
may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year as shown
in the currently adopted budget. However, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the total
expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first publishing a notice of a
meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies to all County
funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
The total of this requested FY 2008 appropriation is $254,300.22. 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 five (5) new FY 2008 appropriations as follows:
• One (1) appropriation (#2008055) distributing $79,000.00 in salary contingencies to departments
based on current salary projections;
• One (1) appropriation (#2008056) providing $32,631.21 from the General Fund Balance to the
Voter Registrar’s Office to fund unanticipated one-time expenses relating to the November 2007
election and moving of Voter Registration offices to COB 5th Street;
• One (1) appropriation (#2008057) totaling $5,000.00 for a Police Department grant;
• One (1) appropriation (#2008058) totaling $123,633.00 for the second Bright Stars Classroom at
Cale Elementary School; and
• One (1) appropriation (#2008059) in the amount of $93,036.01 for various School donations,
programs, and grants.
Staff recommends the approval of the budget amendment in the amount of $254,300.22 and the
approval of the FY 2008 Appropriations #2008055, #2008056, #2008057, #2008058, and #2008059.
* * * * *
Appropriation #2008055 $ 79,000.00
Revenue Source: Merit and Salary Contingencies $ 79,000.00
The FY2008 budget appropriated merit pool and reclassification contingencies to be distributed to
individual departments after the July 1 merit calculations had been performed and any position
reclassifications were completed. This request allocates $79,000.00 from the contingencies to the
appropriate departments based on actual salary adjustments and anticipated department salary
projections.
Appropriation #2008056 $ 32,631.21
Revenue Source: General Fund Balance $ 32,631.21
The Voter Registration Department moved from its former location at the Virginia Division of Motor
Vehicles (DMV) building on Pantops Mountain to the County Office Building – 5th Street in September
2007. This move was necessitated due to a reduction in available space for the department in the DMV
building that significantly reduced the ability of the registrar to conduct in-person absentee voting. As a
result of the move, $31,444.41 in one-time expenses associated with moving and equipping the new
offices at COB 5th Street were incurred. This amount is proposed to be funded from the General Fund
Balance.
As a result of an event scheduled at the John Paul Jones Arena on the day of the November 2007
election, a special notice was mailed to all registered voters in the U-Hall voter precinct advising of
anticipated heavy traffic around the polling place. The mailing resulted in $1,186.80 in additional,
unanticipated one-time expense for the Voter Registration Department. This amount is proposed to be
funded from the General Fund Balance.
Appropriation #2008057 $ 5,000.00
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue $ 5,000.00
The Department of Criminal Justice Services has awarded the Albemarle County Police Department a
grant in the amount of $5,000.00. This grant will be used to purchase new ballistic vests for two members
of the Police Department’s Tactical Team as well as a ballistic shield for use by the team. There is no
local match.
Appropriation #2008058 $123,633.00
Revenue Source: State Revenue $84,500.00
General Fund Balance 32,085.00
School Division 7,048.00
The Albemarle County Department of Social Services has received a grant award from the Virginia
Department of Education’s Pre-School Pilot Initiative for FY 2008. This initiative, which enabled a second
Bright Stars classroom at Cale Elementary, was detailed to the Board on June 13, 2007. At that time, the
April 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
grant award was anticipated to be $80,312.00 and required an anticipated $32,000.00 match from local
government funds. The Board approved the use of FY 06/07 expenditure savings (which is now part of
the General Fund Balance) to fund the anticipated local match. The grant was subsequently awarded and
provides $84,500.00 in grant funding for this second classroom. The local match totals $39,133.00, of
which $7,048.00 will be provided from the School Division and $32,085.00 from the General Fund
Balance.
Appropriation #2008059 $93,036.01
Revenue Source: Local Revenue (Donations) $ 7,800.00
Federal Revenue 28,948.56
School Special Revenue
Fund Balances 56,287.45
At its meeting on February 28, 2008, the School Board approved the following appropriation requests:
• Monticello High School received a donation in the amount of $1,000.00 from the State Farm
Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. The donor has requested that this contribution be used
on the Monticello High School newspaper “The Hoofprint”.
• Cale Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $1,000.00 from the W al-Mart
Stores, Inc. This contribution will be used for additional tutoring for the at-risk students at Cale
Elementary.
At its meeting on March 13, 2008, the School Board approved the following appropriation requests:
• The GE Volunteers Foundation has awarded W oodbrook Elementary School a grant in the
amount of $300.00. These funds will be used towards the purchase of the Brandchild SOL W eb-
Achiever Software. This software allows each student to collect pre-test and post-test data to
monitor their individual success in learning. The software will be used within W oodbrook’s two
after-school intervention programs.
• The Freas Foundation has awarded Carrie Finnegan, Orchestra Director for Albemarle High, Jack
Jouett Middle and Sutherland Middle Schools, with a grant in the amount of $5,000.00. These
grant funds will be used towards the purchase of two cellos and one bass for each school’s
orchestra.
• The State Farm Companies Foundation has awarded Hollymead Elementary with a grant in the
amount of $500.00. These grant funds will be used to purchase additional instructional supplies
for various classrooms.
• Various Miscellaneous Grants have an unexpended fund balance from FY06/07. Holders of these
grants have been encouraged to expend these balances. This request reappropriates $35,543.19
in available fund balance for use in FY07/08.
• Title III is a federally funded program designed to improve student learning by states and districts
as part of a comprehensive approach to close the achievement gap especially between children
who are limited English proficient and their peers. There is a fund balance retained by the state in
the amount of $15,799.79 from FY06/07 and may be reappropriated for FY07/08. The funds will
be used to pay salaries, benefits and purchase educational materials.
• “Families in Crisis” is funded under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Assistance
Improvement Act, Title X, Part C of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The program is
designed to identify students eligible under the Act and provide support services needed to assure
their continued success in school. There is a fund balance retained by the state from FY06/07 in
the amount of $13,148.77 which may be used for FY07/08. Also, there is a local fund balance of
$11,886.23 which may be reappropriated for FY07/08. The funds will be used to provide
additional services, including tutoring for the increasing number of homeless students living in the
Albemarle County school district or being forced to move out of the district because of
circumstances beyond their control. The fund may also be used for emergency needs to include
purchasing and delivering items such as food, water, propane, and other items, and temporary
after school fees to assure that students remain in a safe environment if needed.
• Various Shannon Foundation Grants have an unexpended fund balance from FY06/07. Holders
of these grants have been encouraged to expend these balances. This request reappropriates
$8,858.03 in available fund balance for use in FY07/08.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the budget amendment in the amount of
$254,300.22 and the approved the following FY 2008 Appropriations #2008055, #2008056,
#2008057, #2008058, and #2008059:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2008055
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
April 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
EXPLANATION: Distribute salary reserve based on salary projections
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 21010 110000 Circuit Court 200.00
1 1000 41110 110000 Facilities Development 45,000.00
1 1000 43001 110000 Gen Svcs-Administration 8,500.00
1 1000 43004 110000 Gen Svcs-Copy Center 1,000.00
1 1000 43005 110000 Storm Water
Management
11,400.00
1 1000 71011 110000 Parks-Administration 1,200.00
1 1000 71012 110000 Parks-Maintenance 200.00
1 1000 71014 110000 Parks-Athletics & Classes 3,900.00
1 1000 71017 110000 Parks-Teen Programs 2,600.00
1 1000 71018 110000 Parks-Greenway Program 500.00
1 1000 82030 110000 Soil & W ater
Conservation
4,500.00
1 1000 950000 999908 Cont-Reclassifications (60,900.00)
1 1000 950000 999977 Compensation Plan
Reserve
(18,100.00)
TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2008056
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: To cover costs associated with the move of the Registrar's Office from
DMV to COB 5th Street and to cover costs associated with a special
mailing for the November 2007 election.
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 13020 390000 Other Purchased Services J 1 487.50
1 1000 13020 520100 Postage J 1 699.30
1 1000 13020 550570 Moving Costs J 1 29,502.78
1 1000 13020 800200 Furniture & Fixtures J 1 1,941.63
2 1000 51000 510100 Appropriation - F/B J 2 32,631.21
1000 0501 Est. Revenue 32,631.21
0701 Appropriation 32,631.21
TOTAL 65,262.42 32,631.21
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2008057
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: DCJS Grant - Police Department
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1515 33000 300001 Federal Revenue J 2 5,000.00
1 1515 31013 800100 Machinery/Equipment J 1 5,000.00
1515 0501 Est. Revenue 5,000.00
0701 Appropriation 5,000.00
April 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
TOTAL 5,000.00 5,000.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2008058
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Virginia Preschool Pilot Initiative - 2nd Bright Stars Classroom at Cale
Elementary for FY 2007/08
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1577 24000 240283 Bright Stars 4 Yr Old Pgm J 2 $84,500.00
2 1577 51000 512001 Trs. Fr.-From School Fund J 2 $7,048.00
2 1577 51000 512004 Trs. Fr.-From General Fund J 2 $32,085.00
1 1577 61152 110000 Salaries - Regular J 1 $42,682.00
1 1577 61152 112100 Salaries - Teacher J 1 $44,796.00
1 1577 61152 210000 FICA J 1 $6,692.00
1 1577 61152 221000 Virginia Retirement System J 1 $8,046.00
1 1577 61152 231000 Health Insurance J 1 $6,153.00
1 1577 61152 232000 Dental Insurance J 1 $227.00
1 1577 61152 240000 VRS Group Life Insurance J 1 $448.00
1 1577 61152 270000 W orker's Compensation J 1 $524.00
1 1577 61152 301200 Contract Services-Other J 1 $7,790.00
1 1577 61152 301210 Contract Services J 1 $400.00
1 1577 61152 310000 Professional Services J 1 $300.00
1 1577 61152 420100 Field Trips J 1 $350.00
1 1577 61152 520100 Postal Services J 1 $25.00
1 1577 61152 520300 Telecommunications J 1 $500.00
1 1577 61152 550100 Travel/Training/Education J 1 $800.00
1 1577 61152 580000 Miscellaneous Expenses J 1 $200.00
1 1577 61152 600100 Office Supplies J 1 $125.00
1 1577 61152 600200 Food Supplies J 1 $500.00
1 1577 61152 600400 Medical & Lab. Supplies J 1 $25.00
1 1577 61152 601200 Books & Subscriptions J 1 $125.00
1 1577 61152 601300 Educ. & Recreation
Supplies
J 1 $1,725.00
1 1577 61152 601700 Copy Expense J 1 $100.00
1 1577 61152 800700 ADP Equipment J 1 $100.00
1 1577 61152 800710 Data Processing Supplies J 1 $1,000.00
1577 0501 Est. Revenue 123,633.00
0701 Appropriation 123,633.00
2 1000 51000 510100 Appropriation - F/B J 2 32,085.00
1 1000 93010 939999 Transfer to Other Funds J 1 32,085.00
1000 0501 Est. Revenue 32,085.00
TOTAL 311,436.00 155,718.00 155,718.00
April 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2008059
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Education Donations, Programs, and Grants School Board Meeting
02/28/2008 and 03/13/2008
SUB LEDGER GENERAL
LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 2000 18100 181109 DONATION J 2 2,000.00
1 2214 61140 112100 SALARY-TEACHER J 1 928.94
1 2214 61140 210000 FICA J 1 71.06
1 2304 61101 601300 INST/REC SUPPLIES J 1 1,000.00
2000 0501 EST. REVENUE 2,000.00
0701 APPROPRIATION 2,000.00
2 3104 18000 181275 REVENUE J 2 300.00
2 3104 18000 189900 REVENUE J 2 5,000.00
2 3104 18000 189900 REVENUE J 2 500.00
2 3104 51000 510100 APP - FUND BALANCE J 2 35,543.19
2 3215 33000 330119 TITLE III GRANT J 2 15,799.79
2 3304 33000 330001 FAMILIES IN CRISIS
GRANT
J 2 13,148.77
2 3304 51000 510100 APP - FUND BALANCE J 2 11,886.23
2 3502 51000 510100 APP - FUND BALANCE J 2 8,858.03
1 3104 60201 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 80.75
1 3104 60203 312500 PROF SERVICES-
INSTRUCTIONAL
J 1 325.00
1 3104 60203 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 500.00
1 3104 60205 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 500.00
1 3104 60205 312500 PROF SERVICES-
INSTRUCTIONAL
J 1 1,150.00
1 3104 60205 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 1,091.02
1 3104 60206 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 18.24
1 3104 60207 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 200.00
1 3104 60209 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 105.29
1 3104 60210 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 1,589.29
1 3104 60212 800711 EDUC-COMPUTER
SOFTWARE
J 1 300.00
1 3104 60212 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 440.32
1 3104 60213 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 4,806.83
1 3104 60215 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 1,051.75
1 3104 60216 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 1,598.61
1 3104 60217 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 5,890.43
1 3104 60251 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 1,138.60
1 3104 60252 312500 PROF SERVICES-
INSTRUCTIONAL
J 1 4,641.77
1 3104 60253 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 5,000.00
1 3104 60253 800700 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 7,000.00
1 3104 60301 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 343.70
1 3104 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 1,063.93
April 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
1 3104 61311 580500 STAFF DEVELOPMENT J 1 2,507.66
1 3215 61101 112100 SALARIES - TEACHER J 1 7,500.00
1 3215 61101 132100 PT/W AGES-TEACHER J 1 2,700.00
1 3215 61101 210000 FICA J 1 780.00
1 3215 61101 221000 VIRGINIA RETIREMENT
SYSTEM
J 1 1,153.00
1 3215 61101 231000 HEALTH INSURANCE J 1 305.00
1 3215 61101 241000 VRS GROUP LIFE
INSURANCE
J 1 104.00
1 3215 61101 601300 EDUCATIONAL
MATERIALS
J 1 3,257.79
1 3304 61101 111400 SALARIES-OTHER
MANAGEMENT
J 1 7,000.00
1 3304 61101 132100 PT/W AGES-TEACHER J 1 9,550.00
1 3304 61101 210000 FICA J 1 1,267.00
1 3304 61101 221000 VIRGINIA RETIREMENT
SYSTEM
J 1 1,100.00
1 3304 61101 231000 HEALTH INSURANCE J 1 300.00
1 3304 61101 241000 VRS GROUP LIFE
INSURANCE
J 1 40.00
1 3304 61101 600200 FOOD J 1 1,000.00
1 3304 61101 601300 EDUC. & REC. J 1 3,578.00
1 3304 61101 601700 COPY SUPPLIES J 1 1,200.00
1 3502 60606 601300 EDUCATIONAL
SUPPLIES
J 1 8,858.03
3104 0501 EST. REVENUE 41,343.19
0701 APPROPRIATION 41,343.19
3215 0501 EST. REVENUE 15,799.79
0701 APPROPRIATION 15,799.79
3304 0501 EST. REVENUE 25,035.00
0701 APPROPRIATION 25,035.00
3502 0501 EST. REVENUE 8,858.03
0701 APPROPRIATION 8,858.03
TOTAL 186,072.02 93,036.01 93,036.01
__________
Item 7.3. Adoption of a Resolution of Intent to update the Economic Development Policy in the
Comprehensive Plan.
The Executive Summary states that the Board held a work session on February 13, 2008 to
review the Economic Development Policy in the Comprehensive Plan and to discuss findings and analysis
from recently updated economic data. Three main issues emerged: 1) lack of light-industrial land; 2)
workforce changes; and 3) diminishing productivity of the rural economy.
The attached Resolution of Intent formally initiates the process to amend the Economic
Development Policy in the Comprehensive Plan and provides direction to the Planning Commission to
specifically address the three issues identified at the Board’s February 13, 2008 work session. To address
the lack of light-industrial land and space, specific options were discussed such as limiting by-right uses in
LI zoning, and adding land in the LI designation and zoning.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution of Intent to initiate the update of
the Economic Development Policy in the Comprehensive Plan.
(Discussion: Mr. Rooker said it is not explicitly in the resolution the concept of limiting some of
the uses presently allowed in LI zoning. If the Board continues to allow LI zoned property to be used for
purposes that have a higher value, it will not find it being used for LI purposes as was envisioned. He
would like that concept included by including another “W hereas” in the resolution that it would be
appropriate to also consider reducing the number of other uses permitted in LI zoned districts. For
April 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
example, as long as the Board allows LI property to be used for Commercial Office, it will end up being
converted to CO because it is a higher value use to an owner.
Mr. Boyd agreed with Mr. Rooker.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the Board could downzone the LI property that is identified and say that it can
only be used for a narrowly defined purpose.
Mr. Rooker indicated that amendment of the Zoning Ordinance would eliminate some of the
permitted uses; another option would be limiting the use of any newly created light industrial property.
Mr. Davis responded that there will need to be analysis of whether it’s possible to legally
downzone LI properties by significantly eliminating uses. The County would have to make this
comprehensive and be able to justify their action. He added that another approach would be to create a
new LI zone.
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning, mentioned that this resolution is oriented towards the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, not zoning text amendments.
Mr. Rooker said that the better approach would be to recognize the need for more LI property, and
that should be created with the intention that it would remain under light industrial use.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks the Board should also look at the fact that a lot of the LI property is not in
the appropriate place for its use because of what surrounds it.
Ms. Mallek commented that there is a lot of commercial use in the LI district and she’s distressed
to learn that redefining that is considered stepping outside the process.
Mr. Davis replied that a text amendment can be considered a downzoning and a number of steps
would need to be taken to do that properly, starting with the Comprehensive Plan. He thinks there are
some other alternatives that can be viewed.
Ms. Thomas noted that for years she has been asking for the contractor’s storage yard definition
in the LI zone be reworded and changed to require a special use permit, so if a zone is changed so that
some uses require a special use permit perhaps that would be acceptable.
Mr. Davis responded that that approach has been successfully undertaken in other locations, and
it would depend on the scope of the permitted uses left in the district.
Ms. Mallek asked what is meant by “the diminished productivity of the rural economy.”
Ms. Thomas commented that there is amazing activity happening in the rural area related to the
“buy local” movement nationwide, and she does not want to go in with a defeatist attitude that there is
some kind of problem.
Mr. Slutzky noted that the CSA partnerships are selling out, which is “a remarkably good sign.”
Ms. Susan Stimart, Business Development Facilitator, pointed out that farm profits have gone
down in the latest agricultural census, and that is where that comment came from.
Ms. Mallek said that the wine industry will likely help turn that around.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that there are some “quirks” in the way the Department of Agriculture
counts certain things, like horses – which are not included.)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Intent to
initiate the update of the Economic Development Policy in the Comprehensive Plan:
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, the Economic Development Policy of the Comprehensive Plan (the “Policy”) sets forth a
number of goals, objectives and strategies for economic development in Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS, recent data has identified the lack of land available for Light Industry uses, the need for
workforce development, and the County’s agricultural economy as three compelling economic trends related
to a number of the Policy’s objectives; and
WHEREAS, in order to address these trends, it is desired to amend the Policy to prioritize strategies
pertaining to increasing available land for local business expansion associated with Light Industry uses;
encouraging and providing workforce development opportunities, with an emphasis on emerging business
segments; and enhancing the economic viability of the rural economy, with an emphasis on those segments
that protect the character of the Rural Areas.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good planning and land use practices, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
adopts a resolution of intent to amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan by amending the Economic
April 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Development Policy as described herein and to make any other changes to the Comprehensive Plan deemed
to be necessary in order to achieve the purposes described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the
Comprehensive Plan amendment proposed by this resolution of intent, and make its recommendations to the
Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date.
__________
Item 7.4. Adoption of a Resolution of Intent for a zoning text amendment to provide a waiver for
athletic facility light pole height.
The Executive Summary states that in the RA, VR, R-1, R-2, R-4 and R-6 zoning districts,
structures cannot exceed 35 feet in height. In the R-10, R-15, and the commercial and industrial zoning
districts, structures cannot exceed 65 feet in height. Zoning Ordinance § 4.10.3 provides exceptions to
the district height limitations for structures such as transmission towers, television and radio towers, flag
poles, steeples and several other classes of structures. Poles for athletic facility lighting are not among
the classes of structures excepted from the district height limitations.
In an official determination dated June 9, 2006, Zoning staff confirmed that poles for athletic
facility lighting do not fall within one of the classes of excepted structures, and that they are subject to the
height limitation allowed in the applicable zoning district. Prior to this determination, the Planning
Commission had approved modifications under Zoning Ordinance § 4.17.5 to allow athletic facility lighting
on poles that exceeded the district height limitations for St. Anne’s Belfield School, W estern Albemarle
High School, Monticello High School and Brownsville Elementary School.
In order to safely light an athletic facility, the lighting system must provide sufficient illumination to
all parts of the field or court and, to do so, the luminaires must be placed high enough over the athletic
facility to provide the illumination. The 35- and 65-foot height limitations in the zoning district regulations
do not, for most all sports, allow the luminaires to be placed high enough over an athletic facility to provide
safe illumination.
In order to assure that athletic facilities are safely illuminated, staff recommends that the Zoning
Ordinance be amended to allow poles for athletic facility lighting to be taller than the height otherwise
allowed in the applicable zoning district. Rather than completely exempting these poles from regulation,
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission be authorized to waive the zoning district’s height
limitation on a case-by-case basis and allow poles to be erected at a height determined to be necessary to
safely illuminate the athletic facility, based on recognized standards of the Illuminating Engineering Society
of North America.
This amendment will reduce staff time that would otherwise be spent reviewing these variances.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached resolution of intent.
(Discussion: Mr. Slutzky said that he would also like to add another tall feature to the discussion
– examining the impact of allowing wind-power generation structures in the County.
Mr. Rooker said that he has had inquiries from homeowners who are interested in putting up a
wind turbine.
Mr. Davis stated that in a residential zone the limit is 30 to 35 feet, and in the agriculture district it
is 60 feet, so they can be used as long as they are determined to be accessory structures.
Mr. Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney, said that Zoning has had one request for
consideration of whether a windmill is an accessory use in a residential district. Based upon existing
circumstances it was determined that it was not an accessory use. He said that staff suggested to the
applicant to submit a zoning text amendment, as other Virginia localities are allowing windmill uses as
accessory to residential.
Mr. Davis added that if the Board wants to discuss use of windmills, they should schedule that as
a separate discussion.
Mr. Slutzky responded that the athletic field and windmill discussions could take place at the same
time.
Ms. Thomas emphasized that sports lighting is exempt from the Dark Skies Ordinance, but since
that was adopted there has been progress with designs and materials that provide adequate lighting and
still meet the ordinance. She would like to change the statement of intent to emphasize to the Planning
Commission that the reasons the Board is doing this is to meet the Dark Skies Ordinance goals and to
safely illuminate the athletic facility.
Mr. Rooker said he would support a change to the proposed Resolution of Intent. He suggested
that the fourth “W hereas” be amended to read: “W hereas, in order to meet the dark skies ordinances and
to assure…” Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion.
Mr. Slutzky asked how this impacted the issue he brought up.
April 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
Mr. Rooker replied that he supports Mr. Slutzky’s thought on wind turbines, but he does not
support holding this up.
Mr. Slutzky said he would like to direct staff to, sooner rather than later, bring the Board a basis
for the discussion of the appropriateness of increasing the structure height to accommodate wind turbine.
Mr. Davis suggested dealing with the Consent Agenda first, then with Mr. Slutzky’s item.)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Intent:
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, current zoning regulations limit the height of poles for athletic facility lighting to the
maximum height allowed for structures in the applicable zoning district; and
WHEREAS, in order to safely light an athletic facility, outdoor luminaries must provide sufficient
illumination to all parts of the field or court and, to do so, the luminaries must be placed high enough over the
athletic facility to provide such illumination; and
WHEREAS, in most if not all zoning districts, the maximum height allowed for structures does not
allow outdoor luminaries to be placed high enough over an athletic facility to provide safe illumination; and
WHEREAS, in order to meet dark skies ordinances and to assure that athletic facilities are safely
illuminated, it is desired to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow poles for athletic facility lighting to be taller
than the height otherwise allowed in the applicable zoning district, provided that the Planning Commission
grants a waiver of the zoning district’s height limitation on a case-by-case basis and authorizes the poles to be
erected at a height determined to be necessary to safely illuminate the athletic facility.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good land development practices, the Board of Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of
intent to amend Zoning Ordinance §§ 4.10.3.2, 4.17.5 and any other regulations of the Zoning Ordinance
deemed appropriate to achieve the purposes described herein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the
zoning text amendment proposed by this resolution of intent, and make its recommendation to the Board
of Supervisors, at the earliest possible date.
__________
Item 7.5. Amendment to Regional Boundary for Solid W aste Panning.
In a memorandum dated March 20, 2008, from Rochelle Garwood, Senior Environmental Planner,
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, to Robert W . Tucker, Jr., County Executive, Nelson
County has requested withdrawal from the Thomas Jefferson Solid W aste Planning Region, which also
includes the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, and Greene, the City of Charlottesville, and the Towns of
Scottsville, Columbia, and Standardsville. The request comes as a result of Nelson County’s decision to
join the Region 2000 Services Authority, which will afford the County access to less expensive waste
disposal options. Nelson County has the option to continue participating with other localities in special
waste events or recycling efforts, and has requested to do so, including the Household Hazardous W aste
Events at the Ivy Materials Utilization Facility and the semi-annual meetings of the Solid W aste
Management Plan Committee, which often focus on ways to improve recycling rates.
Section 9 VAC 20-130-220 of the Solid W aste Planning and Recycling Regulations, Amendment
2, states that “The director may amend a solid waste planning unit’s boundary based on an application
from the governing body or bodies of the solid waste planning unit. Along with the application each locality
(within the original region and any locality being added) must submit a letter acknowledging the change in
the boundary.” In order to simplify meeting this requirement for the localities in our region, a form has
been attached that you may sign and return to acknowledge the change.”
(Discussion: Mr. Slutzky pointed out that with the amendment for a regional boundary for solid
waste planning, Nelson County wants to join with Lynchburg instead of Charlottesville. He asked why
Lynchburg is so much cheaper.
Ms. Mallek responded that it is a geographical issue.
Mr. Tucker noted that Nelson works the Lynchburg area as much or more than they do with this
area, and some parts of that county are closer to Lynchburg.
Mr. Boyd asked if there was any fiscal impact in having one less member in the group. Mr.
Tucker responded, “no”.
Ms. Thomas indicated that she and Ms. Mallek had been involved in Planning District Commission
discussions about this, and there isn’t an impact.)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board authorized the County Executive to sign
acknowledgement regarding the change in boundary for the TJ Solid Waste Planning Region.
__________
April 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
Item 7.6. ACE; Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Grant for Easement
Acquisition.
The Executive Summary states that Clayton Farm, a 228.50 acre property adjoining both Route 240
and the Beaver Creek Reservoir near Crozet, is a working farm for which the Board accepted the owner’s offer
to sell an easement under the County’s ACE Program for $1,315,000.00 at its March 5, 2008 meeting. The
County has been awarded a grant of $403,219.75 in state matching funds from the Virginia Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services’ (“VDACS”) Office of Farmland Preservation under a program established
by the General Assembly in 2007 to provide funds for the preservation of working farms and forest lands.
VDACS has requested that the County enter into the Intergovernmental Agreement (the
“Agreement”) as a condition of receiving the grant funding. The key provisions of the Agreement are
summarized below.
The Agreement would obligate VDACS to set aside the grant amount in an account, and reimburse
the County for its reimbursable costs in the purchase of the Clayton Farm easement. For Clayton Farm, the
purchase price will consume all of the reimbursable costs. The Agreement also would require VDACS
concurrence if Clayton Farm was ever converted or diverted from open-space use and entitle VDACS to
reimbursement of its pro rata share of the purchase price if conversion or diversion ever occurred.
Conversion or diversion of land is permitted under the Open-Space Land Act in limited circumstances and
would also require the concurrence of the County and the Public Recreational Facilities Authority, and require
that substitute land of equal or greater value and quality be placed under an open-space easement.
The Agreement would obligate the County to appropriate funds equal to the grant amount for the
purchase of the Clayton Farm easement, apply the grant funds to the purchase of the easement, provide
VDACS with annual progress reports describing the County’s efforts to obtain easements on other working
farms, and its programs for public outreach, stewardship and monitoring, and measuring the effectiveness of
the County’s efforts to bring working farms under easement. The Agreement also requires the County to
maintain sufficient title insurance for the Clayton Farm easement, a standard County practice, to allow
VDACS the opportunity to review easement instruments and the title insurance policy, to receive copies of the
recorded easement instrument, to provide notice to VDACS if the County receives an application to convert
or divert Clayton Farm from its permitted easement uses, and to enforce the terms and conditions of the
deed of easement.
The County’s execution of the Intergovernmental Agreement will allow the County to receiving
$403,219.75 in state funding to apply to the ACE program.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to execute the Agreement on
behalf of the County, provided that it is first approved as to form and content by the County Attorney.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board authorized the County Executive to execute the
following Agreement on behalf of the County, provided that it is first approved as to form and
content by the County Attorney:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
Between
Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
and
Albemarle County
This INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT is entered into this 26th day of February, 2008, in the City of
Richmond, Virginia, between the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (“VDACS”)
and Albemarle County (collectively, “the parties”) to provide mutually advantageous terms for cooperation
between VDACS and Albemarle County to implement VDACS’ contribution of funds during the fiscal year
ending June 30, 2008 in support of Albemarle County’s purchase of agricultural conservation easements.
W HEREAS, the General Assembly, by Chapter 847 of the 2007 Acts of Assembly, has appropriated $4.25
million to VDACS for the establishment of a state fund to match local government purchase of
development rights program funds for the preservation of working farms and forest lands; and,
W HEREAS, § 3.1-18.10 of the Code of Virginia authorizes VDACS’ Office of Farmland Preservation to
develop methods and sources of revenue for allocating funds to localities to purchase agricultural
conservation easements; and,
W HEREAS, for all purposes of this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, the term “agricultural
conservation easement” shall mean a negative easement that has the primary conservation purpose of
preserving working farm and/or forest land; and,
W HEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has enacted an ordinance or passed a resolution
that: authorizes, in accordance with Title 10.1, Chapter 17 of the Code of Virginia (“the Open-Space Land
Act”) and other applicable law, Albemarle County to purchase agricultural conservation easements from
landowners (each hereinafter called “Grantor”); sets forth a clear, consistent, and equitable administrative
process governing such purchases; and outlines the goals and purposes of Albemarle County’s farmland
preservation program; and,
April 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
W HEREAS, Albemarle County has agreed to maintain a public outreach program designed to educate
various stakeholders in Albemarle County —including farmers, landowners, public officials, and the non-
farming public—about Albemarle County’s initiatives to preserve working farms and forest lands; and,
W HEREAS, Albemarle County has agreed to establish a transparent and replicable process for valuation
of agricultural conservation easements; and,
W HEREAS, the purchase of agricultural conservation easements is one component of Albemarle
County’s broader farmland preservation program and,
W HEREAS, Albemarle County has agreed to use a deed of easement that is sufficiently flexible to allow
for future agricultural production in purchases of agricultural conservation easements for which Albemarle
County uses funds contributed to it by VDACS; and,
W HEREAS, Albemarle County has agreed to establish a clear strategy for monitoring and enforcing the
terms of the agricultural conservation easements that Albemarle County purchases; and,
W HEREAS, Albemarle County has agreed to establish a process that Albemarle County will use to
evaluate the effectiveness of its farmland preservation program, including a protocol for making changes
to Albemarle County’s agricultural conservation efforts based on such evaluations; and,
W HEREAS, VDACS, in reliance on the veracity of the foregoing recitals, certifies Albemarle County is
eligible to receive contributions of funds from VDACS in reimbursement for certain costs Albemarle
County incurs in the course of purchasing agricultural conservation easements; and,
W HEREAS, Albemarle County, and the agents and employees of Albemarle County, in the performance
of this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, are acting on behalf of Albemarle County, and not as
officers or employees or agents of the Commonwealth of Virginia;
NOW , THEREFORE, VDACS and Albemarle County agree their respective responsibilities, pursuant to
this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, shall be defined as follows:
1. VDACS Responsibilities
a. VDACS shall, within thirty (30) days of the date of execution of this INTERGOVERN-
MENTAL AGREEMENT, restrict $403,219.75 (hereinafter “the allocation amount’) in an
account, from which VDACS shall withdraw funds only to pay contributions of funds that
Albemarle County is eligible to receive pursuant to this INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AGREEMENT, except that upon the expiration of two (2) years from the date of this
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, or immediately upon Albemarle County’s failure
to perform any of its obligations under the terms of this INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AGREEMENT, VDACS shall have the right to withdraw any funds then remaining in such
account and the right to redirect those funds to other localities that VDACS certifies as
being eligible to receive matching funds and that enter into an intergovernmental
agreement with VDACS to govern the distribution of matching funds for the purchase of
agricultural conservation easements.
b. Upon Albemarle County’s recordation of a deed evidencing Albemarle County’s purchase
of an agricultural conservation easement in the circuit court of the city or county where the
Grantor’s land is located and Albemarle County’s submission to VDACS of a completed
claim for reimbursement, on a form prescribed by VDACS, together with the supporting
documentation required under paragraph 2(e) of this INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AGREEMENT, VDACS shall reimburse Albemarle County fifty percent (50%) of the
reimbursable costs that Albemarle County actually incurred in the course of purchasing
that agricultural conservation easement, limited to that portion of the allocation amount
remaining in the account maintained by VDACS pursuant to paragraph 1(a) of this
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT. VDACS may make alternative arrangements for
the distribution of funds pursuant to this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT,
provided Albemarle County presents a written request for such alternative arrangement to
the Commissioner of VDACS or the Commissioner’s designated agent (referred
collectively hereinafter as “the Grant Manager”) prior to incurring any expense for which
Albemarle County seeks a distribution of funds under the proposed alternative
arrangement.
For purposes of this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, “reimbursable costs”
include:
1. The purchase price of the agricultural conservation easement, at present value,
including any portion that Albemarle County will pay over time pursuant to an
installment purchase agreement;
2. The cost of title insurance;
3. The cost of one appraisal of the land upon which Albemarle County purchases an
agricultural conservation easement;
4. The cost of one survey of the physical boundaries of the land upon which
Albemarle County purchases an agricultural conservation easement, but not the
cost of producing a baseline report of the conditions existing on the land at the
time of the conveyance of the agricultural conservation easement;
April 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
5. Reasonable attorney fees associated with the purchase of an agricultural
conservation easement; and
6. The cost of issuing public hearing notices associated with Albemarle County’s
purchase of an agricultural conservation easement that Albemarle County is
required by law to issue.
c. VDACS shall only be responsible for reimbursing Albemarle County under paragraph 1(b)
of this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT for reimbursable costs that Albemarle
County actually incurs in the course of purchasing an agricultural conservation easement
when Albemarle County acquires, by such purchase, a deed of easement that, at a
minimum, provides:
1. The primary conservation purpose of the easement conveyed by the deed of
easement is the conservation of the land for agricultural and/or forestal uses.
2. The Grantor and Albemarle County agree that the land subject to the agricultural
conservation easement shall not be converted or diverted, as the Open-Space
Land Act employs those terms, until and unless the Grant Manager, with the
concurrence of Albemarle County or an assignee of Albemarle County’s interest
in the agricultural conservation easement, certifies that such conversion or
diversion satisfies the requirements of the Open-Space Land Act.
3. The Grantor and Albemarle County agree that, in the event of an extinguishment
of the restrictions of the agricultural conservation easement that results in the
receipt of monetary proceeds by Albemarle County or an assignee of Albemarle
County’s interest in an agricultural conservation easement in compensation for
the loss of such property interest, VDACS shall be entitled to a share of those
proceeds proportional to VDACS’s contribution toward the total reimbursable cost
of acquiring the agricultural conservation easement.
4. If the Grantor conveys the agricultural conservation easement for less than its fair
market value, the Grantor and Albemarle County mutually acknowledge that
approval of the terms of this Deed of Easement by VDACS and/or its legal
counsel does not constitute a warranty or other representation as to the Grantor’s
qualification for any exemption, deduction, or credit against the Grantor’s liability
for the payment of any taxes under any provision of federal or state law.
5. All mortgagors and other holders of liens on the property subject to the
restrictions contained in the deed of easement have subordinated their respective
liens to the restrictions of the deed of easement acquired by Albemarle County.
All such mortgagors and other holders of liens shall manifest their assent to the
easement’s priority over their respective liens by endorsing the deed of
easement.
2. Albemarle County Responsibilities
a. Albemarle County shall, within thirty (30) days of the date of execution of this
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, appropriate funds equal to the allocation
amount for the purpose of purchasing agricultural conservation easements.
b. Albemarle County shall use matching funds that VDACS contributes to Albemarle County,
pursuant to this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, only for the purpose of
purchasing agricultural conservation easements that are perpetual and that have the
primary conservation purpose of preserving working farm and forest lands.
c. W ithin one (1) year from the date of this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, and for
each subsequent year in which the INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT or a
subsequent agreement is in force, Albemarle County shall submit to VDACS a progress
report that:
1. describes any properties that Albemarle County has identified as prospects for
Albemarle County’s purchase of agricultural conservation easements and the
status of any negotiations for the purchase of such agricultural conservation
easements;
2. estimates the timeframes within which Albemarle County will execute contracts
for any such purchases, close on such purchases, and request reimbursement of
reimbursable costs for those purchases from VDACS;
3. describes the measures Albemarle County has undertaken to develop and/or
maintain a public outreach program designed to educate various stakeholders in
Albemarle County’s community—including farmers, landowners, public officials,
and the non-farming public— about Albemarle County’s agricultural conservation
easement program and other initiatives to preserve working agricultural land;
4. describes the measures Albemarle County has undertaken to develop and/or
maintain a formal plan for stewardship and monitoring of the working agricultural
land on which Albemarle County acquires agricultural conservation easements;
and
5. describes the measures Albemarle County has undertaken to develop and/or
maintain a process that Albemarle County will use to evaluate the effectiveness of
its program, including a protocol for making changes to Albemarle County’s
agricultural conservation efforts based on such evaluations
April 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
d. For any purchase of agricultural conservation easements for which Albemarle County
requests reimbursement from VOACS pursuant to this INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AGREEMENT, Albemarle County shall obtain a policy of title insurance on its purchased
interest that covers at least an amount equal to the amount for which Albemarle County
requests reimbursement from VDACS.
e. Prior to closing on a purchase of an agricultural conservation easement for which
Albemarle County requests reimbursement from VDACS pursuant to this
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, Albemarle County shall submit, for review and
approval by VDACS and its legal counsel, the following documentation:
1. a fully executed contract for the sale of the agricultural conservation easement;
2. any installment purchase agreement;
3. the deed of easement that the Grantor will deliver to Albemarle County at closing;
4. a title insurance commitment for a policy to insure the easement interest under
contract indicating an amount of coverage at least equal to the amount of funds
for which Albemarle County requests reimbursement from VDACS; and
5. an itemized list of all reimbursable costs that Albemarle County has or will, up to
the time of closing, incur in the course of purchasing the agricultural conservation
easement.
Albemarle County shall make whatever changes to the proposed deed of easement
and/or the installment purchase agreement, where applicable, that VDACS and/or its legal
counsel deem necessary to ensure compliance with applicable state law and the
requirements and purposes of this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT.
Albemarle County may fulfill its obligation under this paragraph by submitting accurate
and complete copies of all documents enumerated in this paragraph, provided that
Albemarle County shall deliver or make available the original documents to VDACS for
review at VDACS’ request.
f. Together with any claim for reimbursement pursuant to this INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AGREEMENT that Albemarle County submits to VDACS, Albemarle County shall also
submit the following supporting documentation:
1. a copy of the recorded deed of easement that VDACS and/or its legal counsel
approved prior to closing, showing the locality, deed book, page of recordation,
and purchase price; and
2. copies of invoices, bills of sale, and cancelled checks evidencing Albemarle
County’s incursion of reimbursable costs in the course of purchasing the
agricultural conservation easement; and
3. a copy of any executed installment purchase agreement related to the purchase;
and
4. a copy of any deed of trust related to the purchase.
g. Albemarle County shall provide the Grant Manager immediate written notice of Albemarle
County’s receipt of any application or proposal for the conversion or diversion of the use
of any land upon which Albemarle County or its assignee, where applicable, holds an
agricultural conservation easement, for the purchase of which VDACS contributed funds
pursuant to this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT.
h. Albemarle County, or any assignee of Albemarle County’s interest in an agricultural
conservation easement for which Albemarle County receives a contribution from VDACS
pursuant to this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT shall at all times enforce the
terms of that easement. Albemarle County shall provide the Grant Manager immediate
written notice of any actions, whether at law, inequity, or otherwise, taken by locality to
enforce the terms of the easement or to abate, prevent, or enjoin any violation thereof by
any party. Any failure by Albemarle County or such assignee to perform its enforcement
responsibility shall constitute a breach of this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT,
for which VDACS shall have a remedy by way of a civil action for specific performance of
that enforcement responsibility; or, VDACS shall have the right and authority, at its option,
to demand and receive from Albemarle County a portion of the full market value of the
agricultural conservation easement at the time of the breach in proportion to the amount
VDACS contributed to Albemarle County’s purchase of the agricultural conservation
easement relative to the full market value of the agricultural conservation easement at the
time of the purchase.
i. For any purchase of an agricultural conservation easement for which Albemarle County
requests reimbursement from VDACS pursuant to this INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AGREEMENT, Albemarle County shall derive its valuation of the agricultural conservation
easement according to the valuation methods prescribed by ordinance or resolution.
3. Recertification
This INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT pertains exclusively to VDACS’s contribution of
funds that the General Assembly has appropriated to VDACS for the fiscal years ending June 30,
2007 and June 30, 2008. VDACS shall not contribute other funds in the future to Albemarle
April 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
County except upon VDACS’s recertification of Albemarle County’s eligibility to receive such
funds. VDACS may establish and communicate to Albemarle County certain benchmarks of
program development that VDACS will impose upon Albemarle County as preconditions to
Albemarle County’s recertification for future contributions.
4. Governing Law
This INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT is governed by and shall be interpreted in
accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. In all actions undertaken pursuant to
this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, preferred venue shall be in the City of Richmond,
Virginia, at the option of VDACS.
5. Assignment
Albemarle County shall not assign this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, either in whole or
in part, or any interest in an agricultural conservation easement for the purchase of which VDACS
contributes funds pursuant to this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, without the prior,
written approval of the Grant Manager.
6. Modifications
The parties shall not amend this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, except by their mutual,
written
consent.
7. Severability
In the event that any provision of this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT is unenforceable or
held to be unenforceable, then the parties agree that all other provisions of this
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT have force and effect and shall not be affected thereby.
In witness, whereof, the parties hereto have executed this INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AGREEMENT as of the day and year first written above.
(Signed) Todd P. Haymore 02/26/2008 (Signed) Robert W . Tucker, Jr. .
Todd P. Haymore Date Robert Tucker Date
Commissioner County Executive
Virginia Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services
__________
Item 7.7. Historic Crozet Streetscape Enhancement Project – Phase 2, Authorize the County
Executive to sign Dominion Power Agreement for the relocation of utility lines on Crozet Avenue.
The Executive Summary states that the Historic Crozet Streetscape Enhancement project was
envisioned by the Crozet Master Plan as an essential step in achieving the goals for Downtown Crozet,
which includes:
Improving pedestrian connectivity within the Downtown and providing a pedestrian-friendly
environment;
Improving the street corridor for all of its users (including vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles);
Designing the initial portion of the New Main Street so that the New Library can be designed
(includes building this portion of Main St. to provide access to the Library parking);
Aesthetically enhancing this entry way and main thoroughfare of Downtown Crozet with
sidewalks, street lighting, landscaping, street furniture & accessories (bike racks, benches,
etc.);
Providing increased vitality and economic benefit to Downtown business owners; and
Providing environmentally sensitive solutions to stormwater management.
The component of the Streetscape Enhancement Project that is key to the project sequencing is
the removal of the overhead utility lines and poles from the Crozet Avenue corridor prior to the
construction of the streetscape improvements.
Both sides of Crozet Avenue are lined with utility poles with overhead wires running parallel and
across the street corridor. These poles are also located within areas of proposed street improvements or
sidewalks and will need to be buried underground or relocated to parallel streets. Early in the budget and
feasibility process for the Streetscape Enhancement Project it was realized that placing Dominion Power’s
“primary” overhead electric line underground was financially unfeasible. Relocation of this overhead line
to a parallel street, which provided a significant cost savings, was the prudent option. Staff and
Southeastern Consulting have worked with Dominion Power to develop a plan (Attachment A) to relocate
the “primary” line east of Crozet Avenue. This plan begins by relocating the existing CSX Railroad
overhead wire crossing to an existing pole near the entrance to the IGA on Route 240. The new “primary”
line would then traverse Barnes Lumber and extend down High Street using the existing power poles. It
will turn west at Tabor Street and follow the north side of Tabor Street to the existing “primary” line on
Crozet Avenue (south of Jarmans Gap Road). New poles will be necessary along the north side of Tabor
Street and a few trees removed, but this alignment will preserve the wooded area along the south side of
April 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
the street. “Secondary” lines will be extended along existing poles to Carter Street (west side) and the
southern end of the Alley (east side). From these locations, underground electric lines will be extended to
serve the existing buildings.
Dominion Power requires that the County enter into an agreement to reimburse it for the actual
cost of the relocation (Attachment B). The current cost estimate is $307,563.68. The County Attorney
recommends that the proposed agreement be modified to specify that 1) the costs shall not exceed the
estimate; 2) the reimbursable costs be itemized; and 3) no costs be incurred until all necessary
easements have been obtained or the County otherwise directs Dominion Power to proceed.
Dominion Power is requesting that the County be responsible for securing all the easements that
Dominion Power needs for the relocation. Dominion Power has provided the easement documents and
staff has begun discussions with some of the property owners. The County is making a significant
investment into enhancing and vitalizing this entry way into Downtown Crozet and the various stakeholders
have been involved and supportive through the process. Staff is optimistic property owners will agree to
grant the Dominion Power easements. If any property owners refuse to grant the easement, this Project
will have to be reevaluated before it can proceed.
Dominion Power will coordinate the relocation of utilities with the other overhead utility owners
(cable, telephone) within the Crozet Avenue corridor. Each utility company will estimate its cost to follow
the Dominion Power relocation. Agreements for the County to reimburse relocation costs for each of
these utility companies will also be required. These relocation agreements will be brought to the Board at
a later date.
This project is being funded through the Capital Improvements Plan, with partial funding coming
from a VDOT Transportation Enhancement Grant. A line item, budget code and budget estimate of
$600,000 have been specifically assigned to this portion of the project.
Staff requests that the Board of Supervisor authorize the County Executive to sign the Dominion
Power agreement for the relocation of utility lines on Crozet Avenue in a form approved by the County
Attorney.
(Discussion: Mr. Boyd mentioned that there is a $600,000 infrastructure upgrade related to
implementation of the Crozet Master Plan. He wants to make sure the public is aware that the County is
spending money on infrastructure.
Mr. Slutzky asked who made the determination that burying the electric lines is not financially
feasible.
Mr. Jack Kelsey explained that the cost for burying electric lines along Crozet Avenue was
approximately $1.6 million, versus relocating the existing overhead lines at a cost of $600,000.
Mr. Slutzky asked if there is a long term ongoing maintenance utility cost for burying versus
overhead. Mr. Kelsey responded not that he knows.
Ms. Mallek said that she has been told in the past by the utility company that it is $50,000 per pole
to move the line locations.
Mr. Kelsey stated that Dominion Power was not resistant to it “but the cost was pretty exorbitant.”
Mr. Slutzky asked if the County has the ability to require that lines be buried, and the option to
seek alternative bidders to do the work.
Mr. Davis replied that for new development, underground power sources are required, and in this
case the County could request Dominion Power to bury these lines but it would be at their cost – and the
State does regulate the costs to some degree.
Mr. Rooker asked if they had an adequate easement to bury the lines.
Mr. Davis responded that the more delicate issue is if the County can acquire easements on
Dominion Power’s behalf.
Mr. Kelsey noted that the way the right-of-way and existing buildings align on Crozet Avenue,
burying the lines would be within either existing or acquired easements as part of the project.
Mr. Slutzky said he would like some information about other localities’ experience with burying
lines and the associated costs.
Mr. Dorrier stated that Scottsville is burying their lines and it has made a tremendous difference in
the town from the aesthetics standpoint. He added that Culpeper has also buried their lines.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that utilities are interested in burying the lines if the cost can be paid
because their maintenance costs are lower over time.
Mr. Davis said that it was found to be more expensive to do underground utilities in this case.
April 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
Mr. Rooker commented that the issue is not with Dominion, but just the sheer cost of burying
lines. He also emphasized that costs are often site-specific.
Mr. Foley commented that an independent consultant was hired to put together the cost
estimates. This is a $3.9 million project; it would add a 25 percent increase. As staff moves forward with
the capital program, it tries to live within budget.
Mr. Slutzky said staff’s judgment call in this instance makes sense, but beyond this issue, is the
broader question about the relocation of utility lines.
He explained that staff could certainly look into what other projects have cost.
Mr. Tucker said that staff would follow up with Culpeper and Scottsville and bring back that
information.)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board authorized the County Executive to sign the
Dominion Power agreement for the relocation of utility lines on Crozet Avenue in a form approved
by the County Attorney.
__________
Item 7.8. 2007 Digital Government Annual Report, was received as information.
The Executive Summary states that Albemarle County has an active digital government program
encompassing a variety of initiative including an external website, an internal intranet, Amail enews
service and podcasting, among other items. The attached Annual Report provides an overview of activity
related to these initiatives for 2007.
Website Mission Statement:
To create and maintain a dynamic, interactive online government presence that educates and
informs citizens and allows people to conduct business with the County in ways that increase our
accessibility and customer service and improve our operational efficiency.
General statistics provide the best overall picture of website usage. The following statistics show
the year-to-year comparisons of 1) page visits, which indicate the number of times a user accesses the
site and is the most critical indicator of website usage; 2) page views, which indicate the number of hits to
pages on the website; and 3) downloaded files, which indicate how many documents are being
downloaded by website users.
General Statistical Highlights:
• The average number of unique visits to website per day continues to increase significantly
• The average number of pages viewed within the website has decreased, which indicates
that more people are visiting the website but are visiting fewer pages searching for the
information they need, perhaps by making increasing use of bookmarks and shortcuts
General Statistics 2005 2006 2007 % Change
in Past Year
Average Page Visits Per Day** 2,449 3,830 5,294 +38.22%
Average Page Views Per Day* 16,171 25,859 19,627 -24.1%
Total Number of Files Downloaded 1,070,802 1,299,831 1,421,781 +9.38%
Customer Usage Patterns
This data allows us to see when customers are using the website to interact with the County. An
analysis of the data indicates that the website clearly is meeting its primary goal of providing service 24
hour per day, 7 days per week – a true “self-service” opportunity for users.
Customer Usage Highlights:
• W eekend days averaged approximately 4,300 visits per day and weekdays averaged
approximately 5,700 visits per day
• Approximately 40% of the total visits occurred between 5:00 pm and 8:00 am
Most Downloaded Files
The importance of the download statistics is that they reflect the level of productivity that is
occurring on the website – the downloads reflect visits or phone calls that did not have to be made to a
County facility, and copying and mailing time and expense that staff did not have to incur.
Download highlights:
• County codes continue to receive the highest number of downloads
• While total downloads have increased, downloads of many individual files have
decreased because people do not need to repeat downloading state documents like
codes, manuals, etc.
• A total of 5,000 unique documents were downloaded at least once
• 196 unique documents were downloaded at least 1,000 times
April 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
• 55 documents were downloaded at least 2,500 times
• Master plan documents are getting significant downloads
o Crozet—2,102
o Places29—5,101
o Pantops—1,535
A-Mail
A-mail is a service of Albemarle County's Community Relations Office to notify the public about
the services, programs, and events important to residents, visitors, businesses and the greater
community. Users of this service receive meeting notices, announcements and periodic updates on major
events related to the topics they are most interested in.
A-Mail highlights:
• The number of subscribers for all lists increased 67% over the past year
• An average of 8 AMail messages are sent monthly
Podcasting
A podcast is an audio file that is distributed over the Internet for playback on mobile devices and
personal computers. Citizens can download the Board of Supervisors meetings from the Albemarle
County website or can subscribe to the RSS feed for automatic downloading.
Podcast highlights:
• Podcasting downloads have increased 731% in the past 12 months, with downloads
averaging between 900 and 1000 per month for the last 8 months of the year
Staff is engaged in an enhancement project to update website appearance, navigation, and
functionality, including improvements to the searching ability of the site. Staff will provide an update on the
project to the Board for its information and input at a future meeting.
There is no budget impact associated with this Annual Report.
No Board action is necessary at this time. This report is being provided for information only.
(Discussion: Mr. Boyd stated that he has been asked about the delay in podcasts up.
Ms. Lee Catlin, Community Relations Manager, replied that it is a manpower issue. Their goal is
to get them up within 24 hours; the exception has been very lengthy meetings.
Mr. Boyd suggested including in the report, how many times that goal is met.)
__________
Item 7.9. 2007 Annual Report of the Board of Zoning Appeals, was received as information.
In a memorandum dated March 13, 2008 from Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator, it states
that State Code Section 15.2-2308 requires the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) to keep a full public record
of its proceedings and to submit a report of its activities to the governing body. The full 2007 BZA annual
report is attached for your information.
The Board of Zoning Appeals hears variances from the Zoning Ordinance and appeals from
decisions of the Zoning Administrator or other administrative officer. These appeals can include
determinations of zoning violation.
The number of appeals in 2007 increased by 7, from 2 received in 2006 to 9 in 2007. Two
appeals were withdrawn, one was void, one was moot and 4 determinations were affirmed by the Board.
One appeal is still pending from 2007. The Board also took action on one appeal (2005-004) that was
remanded from the Albemarle Circuit Court.
The number of variances in 2007 decreased by 2, from 14 in 2006 to 12 in 2007. Seven
variances were approved, three were denied, one was withdrawn, and one was void. The Board also
took action on three variances that were pending from 2006. The number of variance requests related to
setbacks was higher in 2007 than 2006.
The number of special use permits for off-site signs decreased by 4, from 4 in 2006 to 0 in 2007.
The Board took action on a special use permit that was pending from 2006.
The following court cases are still pending as of December 31, 2007:
1. Paul Begin, et al. v. Board of Zoning Appeals and Planned Parenthood.
2. Scott W . and Caroline F. W atkins v. Board of Zoning Appeals. Appeal of determination of zoning
violation.
____________
NonAgenda. Motion was then offered by Mr. Slutzky that staff prepares an analysis on issues
related to wind turbine height restrictions. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion.
April 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
Mr. Davis clarified that the request would be for staff to study the possibility of adopting a
resolution of intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance to add those structures as accessory structures and to
look at the height restrictions in regard to structures, and to present it to the Planning Commission.
Ms. Mallek commented that she would like to know the potential impacts on bird migration and
other wildlife.
Mr. Rooker said that he would want the Planning Commission to consider this first. In response to
Mr. Boyd’s request for more specifics, Mr. Rooker said that the question is whether this should be allowed
by special use permit, by right, etc. He stated that he is interested in this idea enough to have it forwarded
to the Planning Commission for further exploration.
Mr. Boyd stated that he would like the Board to have a preliminary look at this before it goes to the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Slutzky then amended his motion that staff prepares an analysis on the issues related to wind
turbine and forward to the Planning Commission on whether they will recommend modifying the Zoning
Ordinance. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion.
Mr. Boyd said he would vote against the motion, not because he is opposed to windmills, but he
would like some preliminary information before setting the public off on this long process.
Ms. Thomas noted that this is really an issue of procedure.
Mr. Slutzky said he thinks the Board’s deliberations will be best served by having a thorough
process unfold before it comes to the Board. All of the pros and cons need to be examined before the
Board reviews the issue.
Mr. Dorrier said that another issue to be examined would be whether these are private
enterprises, or public-private partnerships.
Mr. Davis clarified that the motion is for staff to prepare an analysis for consideration in a work
session by the Planning Commission.
Ms. Thomas noted that these miscellaneous requests, while very valuable, are “way beyond” the
scope of staff’s workload right now. She reminded the Board that they agreed to “no new initiatives” for
the next five years without a tax rate increase.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: Mr. Boyd.
________________
(Due to time constraints, the Board decided to go to Agenda Item No. 9 at this time.)
Agenda Item No. 9. Crozet Advisory Council Review.
The following Executive Summary was forwarded to Board members:
In March 2006, the Board of Supervisors created the Crozet Community Advisory Council
(“CCAC”) in accordance with the recommendations of the Crozet Master Plan. The 16-member Council
was appointed by the Board to fulfill the following duties/function:
The Crozet Community Advisory Council (CCAC) is an advisory committee that provides
assistance to County staff and the Board of Supervisors on civic/community issues related to
implementation of the Crozet Master Plan in accordance with established county procedures.
Members will communicate with their constituencies to increase understanding of and support for
successful implementation of the Master Plan. The membership is broad-based to incorporate a
variety of perspectives and ideas and to provide citizens, businesspersons and representatives of
active community groups a chance to be engaged and be heard in a constructive and meaningful
way.
W hen the Council was created, the Board established a two-year pilot period for the CCAC after
which time the Board planned to reexamine the mission and charge of the Council as well as its outcomes
to date. In addition, the Board was to decide the best way for the Council to continue, taking into account
the experiences and recommendations of the CCAC members and staff. The two-year pilot period ended
in March 2008 and information regarding the role and success of the Council is being presented to the
Board for its consideration.
The CCAC has met monthly since its creation in March 2006. The first several meetings
consisted of education and familiarization with County policies and processes and orientation of Council
members to Albemarle County’s planning and development philosophies. The Council selected a
Chairman and Vice Chairman at its fourth meeting and began to address more specific issues related to
Crozet and to master plan implementation. A second slate of officers was elected in 2007 in accordance
with the Council’s operating procedures.
April 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
In November, 2006, the Chairman of the CCAC presented to the Board a report on the Council’s
activities and recommended revising the original list of Action Items to a more manageable List of
Responsibilities, which the Board supported.
A complete list of activities/achievements of the Council during its two-year tenure is attached
(Attachment A-copy on file). Since 2006, the CCAC has served a critical role as a liaison between the
Crozet community and County government as many efforts related to master plan implementation have
gotten underway, including the downtown zoning project, the new library, Phases I and II of the
streetscape project, stormwater management, the W estern Park master plan and the reuse study for the
former Crozet Elementary School, among others. W ith the continuation of these projects, and other major
future initiatives, such as the five-year review of the Crozet Master Plan, the need for this strong and
productive partnership between the Crozet community and the County will continue to exist.
In preparing for the Board’s discussion regarding the CCAC’s future focus and direction, staff
conducted a survey of current CCAC members, a summary of which is attached for the Board’s review
(Attachment B). The survey results indicate areas of consensus among members regarding areas of
strengths and challenges for the Council as well as critical priorities for future focus.
Based on the survey results and several subsequent discussions of CCAC members, staff
recommends the following proposal to the Board for its consideration:
Restructure the membership criteria as follows:
Current members will be given the opportunity to leave the Council now, concluding their
service to the CCAC after a two year term. Those members who want to stay on the
Council to serve a second term will be divided into a group of one year terms and a group
of two year terms to allow for continuity of existing members as new members come on.
Existing members who stay on for a second term of either one or two years would not be
eligible for a third consecutive term but could come back and apply for reappointment
after not being on the Council for a term.
Members will be permitted to serve two consecutive terms, but then must rotate off for at
least one term before they can be reappointed. An exception to the two-term policy could
be made for extenuating circumstances if approved by a two-thirds majority of the CCAC,
but that member would be permitted to serve only one additional two-year term and would
still be required to go through the regular application process with the Board of
Supervisors.
• The Council should be composed of 15 members, with preference given to maintaining a
broad scope of interests and perspectives and involving a variety of organizations and
neighborhoods
Recommended actions:
• All current members should be formally invited to serve another term, and those who want
to step down should indicate that in writing/email
• Once the number of vacancies is determined, the Board should advertise and appoint
new members to get to the desired total of 15 members, keeping in mind the importance
of appointing members who have some familiarity with the Crozet community and the
master plan
• Once the new Council is formed, new members will attend an orientation/Planning 101
training to familiarize them with the Crozet Master Plan and basic land use planning
strategies and policies
• Following the completion of Planning 101, the entire Council will attend an action planning
retreat to identify major priorities and activities for the coming 12 months
• Current members of the Council will continue serving until the new Council is appointed
• County staff will continue to provide support to the Council as outlined in the operating
procedures
Staff believes that the Council has developed as an energetic and involved community group that
serves as a critical partner with County government in examining issues related to implementation of the
Crozet Master Plan. As can be seen by the list of activities underway in the Council’s first two years,
members have been actively engaged in a wide variety of projects that depend on citizen involvement for
their success, including the downtown zoning project, the streetscape project, W estern Park, and the
library. Given the significant number of upcoming implementation issues as well as the five year review of
the Crozet Master Plan scheduled for 2009, staff recommends the continuation of the Council with its
stated mission and charge.
Current CCAC Chairman Mike Marshall will be present on April 2 to respond to any inquiries from
the Board.
No budget impact is anticipated regarding this item.
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors accept the recommendations of the Crozet
Community Advisory Council as outlined above, including membership terms and the development of a 12
month action plan that will be brought back to the Board for its information and review at regular intervals.
__________
April 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
Ms. Catlin reported that three areas of responsibility were looked at during the establishment of
the master planning implementation process: local government, to create the network of infrastructure
and services to support community development; the business community, looking at local economic
diversification and neighborhood development; and community residents who can invigorate an area with
a unique identity. She said that the Council was appointed in March 2006. The Council provides
assistance to County staff and the Board on civic and community issues related to the implementation of
the Crozet Master Plan. Ms. Catlin said that the two-year pilot period ended in March 2008 so they are
back before the Board to discuss progress.
She stated that the Council has accomplished quite a bit during that time, and the Board has a
handout elaborating on those. Ms. Catlin said that the Council has sent a number of resolutions of
support to the Board related to issues of interest to the community; has hosted a number of public
meetings; and has hosted a number of applicant/developer presentations. She stated that they have
staffed a number of project committees – the downtown zoning project, the western park committee, the
old school reuse committee, Crozet Glen, etc. Ms. Catlin said that they have also worked in partnership
with the County to plan community events such as last fall’s town meeting on infrastructure projects.
Ms. Catlin explained that staff did a survey of Council membership, and the recommendations
included restructuring membership criteria such as staggering terms, appointing new members and
keeping the membership to 15, conducting an orientation once the Board appoints new members, having
an action planning retreat to develop twelve month priorities, and continuing County staff support. She
said that staff feels the Council serves a critical purpose in partnership and link to the Crozet community,
and would like the Board to support their plans for membership and structure in the future. Ms. Catlin then
introduced the Chairman, Mr. Mike Marshall. She also commented that several members of the
Committee are present.
Mr. Marshall said that the Council agrees with everything Ms. Catlin reported. The Council has
helped remedy “a big problem” that occurred with the adoption of the Crozet Master Plan and approval of
the Old Trail rezoning vote. Mr. Marshall likened the perception of people in Crozet as it relates to Old
Trail to that of Native Americans and a treaty that had been broken, and the Council has done a lot to
repair that as the members are “credible” to other citizens. There are some levels of concern that issues
not reoccur with the revision of the Crozet Master Plan. He also said that term limits have been suggested
and that continuity remain on the Council.
Ms. Mallek stated that she attended many of these meetings, and wholeheartedly supports the
council’s plans for the future.
Ms. Thomas asked if term limits are necessary.
Mr. Marshall elaborated that the idea of the term limits would ensure that there are new members
brought on, but still experienced members retained, with the idea of a one-third turnover.
Mr. Slutzky said he is weary of term limitations because one of the tasks this Council could do is
advise the County with regard to future advisory councils for other growth areas in terms of what was good
and what was bad.
Mr. Marshall said that the Council would be happy to meet with any other advisory groups.
Ms. Catlin added that they are able to extend terms if people want to; it takes a vote of the Council
and Board approval. It also allows for someone to leave for a term and then come back on.
Mr. Marshall added that one of the biggest challenges in Crozet is having new residents and old
residents understand and respect one another, and the Council makeup is trying to reflect the community
diversity.
Mr. Boyd asked if there will be staff constraints and how much more dollars for consultants will be
needed for this process. Ms. Catlin explained that no consultant money has been spent related to this
group. It has been written into project contracts that consultants for the infrastructure projects need to
meet with this group as a stakeholder group. Staff is an issue. It may be that some of the communities
may not need to meet as intensively as the Crozet group so staff will be taking that into account when
setting them up. She noted that part of the agreed-upon process was to have a Council pertaining to each
master planned area. She then thanked the members of the Crozet Council for their time and
commitment.
Mr. Boyd added the Board’s thanks to the Council.
Motion was then offered by Ms. Mallek to accept the recommendations of the Crozet Community
Advisory Council as outlined above, including membership terms and the development of a 12-month
action plan that will be brought back to the Board for its information and review at regular intervals. Mr.
Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
_________________
April 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing: To solicit input on the County’s Annual Plan for the
administration of the Housing Choice Voucher Program. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 24,
2008)
Mr. Ron W hite reported that each year the Housing Office has to submit a plan to the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development for the implementation of the Housing Choice Voucher
Program. Every five years they have to submit a five-year plan and the annual plan is built off of that five-
year plan. He said that one change being proposed is allowing for up to 20 percent of vouchers to be
considered project-based, the maximum HUD allows. They currently have been working off of a 15
percent cap.
Mr. W hite said Albemarle is a standard performing agency under the program. He noted that the
lease-up rate is the only thing keeping the office from being considered a “high-performing agency,” with
89 to 93 percent being achieved, just below the 95 to 98 percent benchmark required. The lease-up rate
is due to a number of things. He explained that they have been working off a waiting list that was three
years old, so only about one-half the people called in for vouchers were actually showing up – of those
about one-fourth went through the process to lease up. Mr. W hite noted that they opened the waiting list
up in November, closed it in January, and pulled 40 names off of that new waiting list – only 28 of the 40
showed up in the briefing session, but that is a higher percentage than had shown up before. He
mentioned that 21 of the 28 that showed up actually have vouchers and are looking for housing or have
found it.
Mr. Rooker asked about the discrepancy between the need for affordable housing among those
below the 30 percent of AMI and the “lack of response” to the waiting list.
Mr. W hite replied that they had about 680 applicants during a 45-day period, and about 450 of
those meet the preference of living and/or working in Albemarle County. The gap occurs when people just
do not show up. He said that the list is essentially a brand new list, and once people do come in they are
trying to track them.
Ms. Thomas asked if they can share the list of people they call up with other community groups,
such as MACAA, and have them help track the people.
Mr. W hite said they would have to get permission from the applicant to share the information with
any other group. He added that it is their responsibility to maintain a current address and that is the only
way the Housing Office communicates with them, noting that it must be in writing due to HUD guidelines.
They could go knock on doors if they had the manpower to do it.
Mr. Slutzky suggested calling by phone.
Mr. Rooker responded that that should be considered, but it is up to Mr. W hite how to run his
office.
Mr. W hite said that if a letter comes back with a forwarding address, the office re-mails it; if it does
not have an address their name comes off the waiting list.
Mr. Boyd asked if they have an average of 15 percent of nonuse of vouchers on an annual basis.
Mr. W hite said part of the 15 percent is when someone leaves the program at the end of the month, the
voucher is reissued to someone else, and it may take 60 days for that person to lease up. He added that
the vouchers are issued but they are unreleased.
Mr. Rooker commented that the County needs to do whatever it can to try to close the gap.
Mr. W hite said that they currently have 380 vouchers under lease and about 35 vouchers issued
with people looking for housing. That is about 100 percent of their budget authority, but those 35 are not
under lease so the money is not being used. Mr. W hite mentioned that some comments that he receives
are from people who cannot rent because they have bad credit, or they do not want to live in the voucher
neighborhoods. He said that these are housing choice vouchers, so people cannot be forced into
housing; they have a choice where they use the voucher.
Mr. W hite said, the request before the Board today is to hold a public hearing to receive public
input on the County’s plan, to authorize them to submit their plan to HUD and to authorize Mr. Tucker to
execute the certifications. He has received one letter and her comments were associated with having
more housing choice.
Ms. Mallek asked if the shift to Treesdale and The Meadows will come out of existing unassigned
vouchers. Mr. W hite said they will have to manage for normal turnover when they understand that those
projects will come on line. They will not hold back vouchers until that time. He added that project-based
vouchers are used about 100 percent, and they are currently at Park’s Edge and Parkview; people are
usually re-occupying vacant units within 15 days.
At this time the Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Karen Shepherd said she is concerned about the unused vouchers. MACAA sees a lot of
people who needs housing, rental and deposit assistance. They also see homeless people looking for a
place in their Hope House where they have transitional housing. She thinks there are some things
April 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
MACAA can do to assist. She is also a member of the Charlottesville Public Housing Review Team and
will bring this issue up to them.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Rooker to authorize the Office of Housing to submit the FY 08
Annual Plan to HUD and authorize the County Executive to execute the PHA certifications. Ms. Thomas
seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
_________________
Agenda Item No. 10. Request to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA)
Jurisdictional Area to allow “water only” for Tax Map 55B, Parcel 1 (Jeff Sprouse), located on Route 250,
just outside Crozet Community. W hite Hall Dist.
Mr. Benish reported that the applicant – Jeff Sprouse – is requesting a water-only service
designation for a four-acre parcel located on the south side of Route 250 in the Crozet area; it is
designated Rural Area in the Comp Plan and zoned Highway Commercial. He said that the property is
currently in the jurisdictional area and designated for water-only to existing structures, an old two-story
house. Mr. Benish explained that the designation was established in 1983 as part of the CPA to the
jurisdictional area boundaries. Staff has not been able to find in records any specific discussion of this
site. He said that they were done in mass and they were not done in individual requests, and service was
never supplied to the original structure, which has now been removed. Mr. Benish stated that the
applicant now wants service to a new home. W ith the existing structure removed from the property, the
jurisdictional area designation no longer permits service to the property.
Mr. Benish explained that the intent for the designation was to allow service to be provided to
parcels that were already developed or had some agreement for service, and the purpose for adjustments
was to bring boundaries consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan, and growth
management policies. He noted that the property is zoned Highway Commercial but is in the Rural Area,
and policy states that service should not be provided unless the property is adjacent to an existing line and
there is a documented public health or safety issue. Mr. Benish said that this request is not consistent
with a water-only designation as there is no documented health or safety issue that requires a need for
service. He referenced information on the Flowers request in an area west of Georgetown Road in the
rural area, which is the most similar case he could find, and the Board did approve water for the site
because the use was going to be similar with the first action. Mr. Benish said that this case would be
somewhat different given the zoning and size of the property.
Mr. Benish said staff does not recommend this property go to public hearing for consideration of
water-only service. However, if the Board chooses to treat this property in a manner similar to the
Flower’s case, staff has offered an alternative in which service to one house could be permitted. He noted
that the applicant is present to respond to any questions.
Mr. Boyd commented that having service to one dwelling would make this application just like the
Flowers’ property.
Mr. Benish responded that the prior designation was constrained by the existing structure, and the
County could do that for one house but it might be a different type and character. He emphasized that it
could be used commercially under the current provisions.
Ms. Jo Higgins addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant (Jeff Sprouse), stating that in 1980
when the first Comp Plan was established, this parcel was already used for a commercial purpose; it is
never been through any rezoning. She presented a map that showed other properties in the strip that
were given water, and indicated that this used to be a lawnmower repair shop but someone lived in it. Ms.
Higgins said that Mr. Sprouse did get a demolition permit for the property, and he had no idea that the
water use was tied to a structure. She noted that she told him he would have to come back to the Board
to get permission to get the water tap. She stated that the zoning is already there. The restrictive use is
really going to be governed by its septic – there’s only a certain amount of septic that would be available.
In a way withholding the water is a way to restrict potential development, but the septic also restricts it. It
will never be on a sewer service. The property has been zoned for a business use since 1980. Ms.
Higgins also said that the parcel is valued at about $1 million, and the water designation has been in place
for approximately 20 years. She added that the Board could consider just having water allowed for one
structure. Ms. Higgins then presented a map (copy on file) and pointed out all the properties with
jurisdictional designations. There is a mass provision of water service in this area.
Mr. Benish noted that once that house was gone, no other structure next to the property was
allowed – no expansions.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that the point here is this could not have been expanded, and the action
being asked for today is to provide water only to the property – which is zoned Highway Commercial – and
could then service whatever is built there.
Ms. Higgins added that they would like to modify it to say one structure.
April 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
Mr. Rooker replied that that structure could be 100,000 square feet.
Ms. Higgins responded that the restrictive factor would be the septic. They are just asking for one
structure to potentially use the parcel for its intended use with the zoning that is in place. If it is ever
subdivided, the water would still only serve the one structure.
Mr. Rooker noted that there are some significant commercial uses that do not require a lot of
septic.
Mr. Boyd asked if there is any anticipated potential use of the property. Ms. Higgins explained that
Mr. Sprouse has considered a country store scenario, but the restrictive factor will be the septic.
Mr. Slutzky asked if a well can be drilled on the property. Ms. Higgins responded, “yes”
commercial wells can be drilled but it will require more testing and it is more expensive and will have to be
passed on to the customers or business.
Mr. Slutzky said the general intent of the Comp Plan is not the promotion of commercial
development activity in the rural area. He does not think one of the principle goals of the Comp Plan is to
create new commercial options along the highway.
Mr. Benish said that as a general rule, prior authorities had entered into agreements for
arrangements and negotiations for easements for lines, etc., and commitments had been made to
property owners to provide service and water-only was put on these parcels. He mentioned that there is
not an official record of why certain distinctions were made on specific properties.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that one of the most contentious decisions made here was on the lodge
property on a neighboring piece of property about 10 years ago. The request was to have the zoning
changed to Highway Commercial, but the Board agreed it was not appropriate in this area. She also
mentioned that Ms. Flowers’ request for water was granted primarily for sympathetic reasons, with an
assumption by the Board that it would not set a precedent.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that the Flowers property was zoned Rural Area and the use was going to
be limited to the prior use so there was not any potential change in use. Approving a change in the
jurisdictional area here would be contrary to the Comprehensive Plan, which says “only changes to the
jurisdictional area outside the designated development area boundaries in cases where property is
adjacent to existing lines and public safety or health is in danger” and there’s no indication here of any
endangerment to public health or safety. He is not interest in a carte blanche expansion to this parcel. He
said that what is being asked today is to go forward with a hearing for a four-acre parcel, fairly intense,
highway commercial use, where there is no limitation on the potential development of the property that
might result from this jurisdictional change.
Mr. Boyd said that the applicant was willing to put a condition for one house or one structure.
Mr. Rooker responded that staff recommended denial.
Mr. Benish clarified that staff was just providing an option, and the only one they saw as
consistent with Flowers was putting a restriction limiting it to one house on the property.
Mr. Rooker said he does not think extending the boundary for a single house would help this
applicant.
Mr. Benish said the Zoning Administrator can determine what an appropriate use is under a
“house,” as stipulated in the ordinance. Mr. Benish said that staff has not gone further with how to
address that type of proposal in the event the Board would grant the same kind of service the previous
property had.
Mr. Boyd emphasized that the property is zoned Highway Commercial and the applicant bought it
under that scenario.
Mr. Slutzky replied that he can still build under that designation. He does not know that the Board
can allow this designation and make a commercial use activity easier. He is not supportive of going to
public hearing.
Mr. Rooker said it would also enable a more intense commercial development of the parcel.
Mr. Boyd said he disagrees; the property is zoned Highway Commercial and it allows him to build
a business. This is a $1.0 million piece of property that can be improved and used to create some
commercial income for the County. He does not see it as such a terrible thing to do.
Mr. Rooker said it is the level of intensity. He can build a country store and would have plenty of
room for well and septic.
Ms. Mallek said the people who have contacted her are very concerned about the County
encouraging higher commercial use along a scenic-designated road. She thinks that growth area
activities with a hard-line boundary is what protects the people in the rural area from constant creep in all
directions.
April 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
Ms. Mallek then moved that the Board not proceed to public hearing on this request for water-only
service. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
Ms. Thomas commented that she would like to be sure that people understand the designations
and provisions on properties before they purchase them.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 11. Virginia Department of Forestry Annual Report, Nelson J. Shaw, Area
Forester, Serving Albemarle County.
Mr. Nelson Shaw addressed the Board, stating that he came before the Board last year to share
how the DOF goals match the goals of the County as they pertain to forest resources. He said that the
Department’s purpose from inception has been protection of resources from wildfires, but that mission has
changed and expanded. Mr. Shaw said that relating to wildfires, the goal is to protect “life, property, and
the natural resources” in that order. He mentioned that in 2007 there were 43 fires, 69 acres burning with
the largest being 12 acres and the average being 1.6 acres. Mr. Shaw said that this year there have been
17 fires reported totaling 271 acres with the largest being 125 acres and average being 15.9 acres. He
stated that on February 10th there were more fires throughout Virginia than any other recorded time, but
there were no injuries.
Mr. Shaw said that one of the best fire-prevention tools they have is the 4:00 o’clock p.m. burning
law. He reported that they determine cause and origin of fires, and take a special course when arson is
suspected. Mr. Shaw noted that the DOF conducted six Smokey the Bear programs in area elementary
schools. He said that they also work to protect water quality. In 2007 they had 73 logging notifications
and inspections, down from the previous years due to the economy. There were only four law
enforcement actions related to this, no conferences and no special orders. These actions involve issuing
a form 143 which included suggested corrective measures and one failure to notify. The DOF had 351
acres of reforestation of timberland and two projects of shortleaf pine restoration. Mr. Shaw noted that the
best way to ensure water quality is to plant trees, and last year they had seven projects that covered 31
acres – primarily in pasture land.
W ith regard to forest management activities, two tracts of forest were thinned for 229 acres; pre-
commercial thinning involved one tract for 165 acres; crop tree release involved one tract for seven acres
and vegetation control involved eight tracts for 317 acres. He reported that in crop tree release they take
an immature hardwood forest and select individual trees and remove any competition around it so it can
develop a better crown. Mr. Shaw stated that the DOF did 10 formal forestry plans for 1,398 acres, and
did informal plans for 32 tracts for 514 acres. He explained that formal plans evaluate resources and
project that out in years based on the landowners’ objectives; informal plans involve landowners’
questions about the health of their forests and potential for harvesting.
Mr. Slutzky asked if a forestry management plan is required for a landowner to be in an
agricultural forestal district for forestry purposes. Mr. Shaw mentioned that forestry plans are required for
easement, but he is unsure if they are required for agricultural-forestry districts. Mr. Davis pointed out that
they are not.
Ms. Thomas asked about the requirement of a forestry plan for land-use taxation. Mr. Davis
indicated that no formal plan is required, just a certification with the DOF.
Mr. Shaw mentioned that there were visitors from China last year as part of four tours offered
related to forest management, as well as Arbor Day projects done with schools. He added that the County
could participate in the Tree City program if they are interested, as the City of Charlottesville was awarded
“Tree City USA” last year.
Ms. Thomas noted that she appreciates anything that can be done to preserve acres of forest, as
they have served to help protect the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Mr. Shaw presented a potted tree to each Board member to encourage planting.
Ms. Mallek said that the DOF bulldozers on February 10th were essential in preventing the fires
from reaching homes. She also mentioned that the DOF used to use the tower powered by a County
generator for their communications, and now they will need to relocate the tower because that power was
lost on February 10th.
_________________
(NonAgenda. At 11:47 a.m., the Board took a brief recess. The Board reconvened at 11:55
a.m.)
_________________
Agenda Item No. 12. Bright Stars Annual Report.
Bright Stars Coordinator Charity Haines said she was happy to be present to present their 2007
Annual Report. This has been another year of continued expansion, collaboration, and solid
accomplishments. They added a second classroom at Greer Elementary, filled it immediately and still had
April 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
a waiting list. This brought the Bright Stars Program to seven classrooms at six locations in the County.
She referred Board members to page 4 of the report which has a growth chart of the program starting in
1995; they have gone from 16 children to 112 children this year.
Ms. Haines reported that children in this program have identified risk factors that can affect their
future school performance – illiteracy, limited English proficiency, limited parental education, domestic
violence, child protective service complaints or reports, foster care, poverty, unemployment in the family,
older siblings with documented school troubles, etc. She mentioned that less than 25 percent meet the
minimum kindergarten readiness requirements in the fall, and this year the percentage was 19 percent.
Ms. Haines noted that the teachers and program structure allow children to make substantial progress,
and the family coordinators also contribute to their success. She reported that by Spring of 2007, 71 out
of the 93 children tested on the Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening (PALS) for preschool met or
exceeded the benchmark range for kindergarten readiness. Ms. Haines pointed out that more than 75
percent of children maintain the gains they have made in preschool despite having considerable risk
factors. She emphasized the importance of the family coordinators, stating that they work with families
during and after the Bright Stars year by helping them to identify family needs so that they can access a
whole array of community services that can help them, and also help parents set goals and problem-solve.
Ms. Haines reported that more than 88 percent of parents rate the program as “excellent,” and
rate teacher interactions very high, with an overall 90 percent program satisfaction rate for excellence.
She commended the cooperative effort of Schools and Local Government through Social Services to
make the program a success.
Ms. Mallek and Mr. Boyd praised the Bright Stars program. Mr. Boyd asked if there is a strategy
planned to address the drop-off in the SOL scores.
Ms. Haines replied that they have begun to work closely with the school office of assessment,
noting that there is a steady trending upward after middle school that is not true for other disadvantaged
groups, but they are just starting to look at data and strategize for the future. She explained that the pre-K
PALS, which is only literacy, is used for initial assessments, and they have never had more than 25
percent benchmark achievement with students prior to entering Bright Stars. Ms. Haines said that the
exam includes knowledge of alphabet (upper and lower case), beginning sounds, name writing,
recollecting nursery rhymes, letter sounds, and rhyming words.
Mr. Dorrier mentioned Governor Kaine’s focus on four-year-olds, and asked how many students
she thought was being missed. Ms. Haines said that next year they hope to have those results, explaining
that Albemarle was one of ten pilot sites in the Commonwealth to be selected for the pre-school pilot
grant. She added that they have a number of children who applied for the program with limited English
proficiency, and probably at three of their schools (Agnor-Hurt, Greer and Cale), they could fill a classroom
with these children, but they have to set a cap on the number of students.
Mr. Rooker asked if there were 135 children in the Bright Stars Program. Ms. Haines replied,
“yes”. That would also include children served in community based private settings and at Red Hill.
_________________
Agenda Item No.13a. VDoT Monthly Report/Advance Mills Bridge Update.
__________
Agenda Item No. 13b. Transportation Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Alan Sumpter, Residency Administrator, said that there are certain items not in the report
VDoT is worked on – getting updated cost estimates for Dickerson Road Bridge, etc. – and they would be
updated as they occur.
He reported that everything is still proceeding on schedule with Advance Mills. They are in the
environmental stage with that as the archeological survey has been completed and no findings were
discovered to impact the project. The geologic work is also being completed. He said that the NEPA
document work is underway and is anticipated that may be done earlier than expected. Mr. Sumpter said
that they are working on a public hearing for the last week of June to the week after Fourth of July.
Mr. Sumpter noted that crews have been doing maintenance work on Durrette Ridge Road. They
have done some ditching and replaced some pipes with tar and gravel work scheduled for the next few
weeks. Mr. Sumpter said that the steel is in for the bridge work, and is being galvanized, with the hope
being to get it in without disrupting school traffic.
W ith regards to the monthly report, Mr. Sumpter said that staff is beginning to work on the
pedestrian study. They will be talking with County staff on how to work together to identify some
improvements.
Mr. Benish added that staff is looking at prior studies and previously set priorities with an eye to
compiling a new list that reflects a larger development-area oriented list approach, and the intention of
presenting it sometime in June. He added that approval of the Secondary Plan included a set-aside for
pedestrian improvements, so Mr. Sumpter is focusing on how to use that money.
Mr. Sumpter said VDoT hopes to target some pedestrian signals and signs, crosswalks, out of
that allocation.
April 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
Mr. Benish added that the primary corridors with the greatest accident reports remain the high-
priority areas – Rio Road/Hydraulic and 29 North corridor, Route 250 East in Pantops, and Route 250
W est, a distant third.
Mr. Sumpter added that Route 29 and Route 250 would have to receive separate funding because
the secondary funding can only be used for secondary routes.
Mr. Slutzky said he hopes VDoT and the County can identify the problem areas, prioritize them,
identify solutions to address the problems, and then the Board can tackle the funding.
Regarding the safety improvement project on Route 29 at the post office, Mr. Sumpter said VDoT
hopes to do something within the next couple of weeks.
At the Route 20/Route 53 intersection, VDoT hopes to extend the turn lane back a little ways to
help some of the traffic.
Mr. Sumpter added that School officials have agreed to the crosswalk plan at Cale Elementary,
and that should be installed this month.
Ms. Mallek asked if there will be a flashing light at Cale or just the change on the road. Mr.
Sumpter said there will be some signing, but he is not sure about the flashing light.
Ms. Thomas asked how expensive it is to do a crosswalk like several in the University area, with
lights embedded in the pavement. Mr. Sumpter replied that they cost more than you would think, with
additional expense associated with the utility work – wires, sensors, etc. – about $50,000 to install one.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks they give a sense of false security. They can be seen well at night, but
not as well during the day.
Mr. Sumpter said there is a lot of technology available that he has encouraged his engineers to
look at. They are looking at more than the typical signage.
Ms. Thomas thanked Mr. Sumpter and his staff for their work with the Batesville situation.
Mr. Boyd expressed his dismay that the Meadow Creek Parkway advertising date has been
pushed from the spring to the fall, noting that the City cannot seem to live up to their part in this.
Mr. Sumpter responded that some District staff met with City representatives in the last couple
days and the most encouraging news was that VDoT staff would be presenting a resolution for donated
right-of-way in April or May, which will help get that issue resolved.
Mr. Dorrier suggested VDoT add reflectors along the yellow line on Earlysville Road.
Mr. Sumpter said that he has asked the Regional Office to take an extensive look at stripings as
there were some problems with that in the last year due to transitions from Culpeper to Staunton offices.
Pavement markers are also on his “wish list” of items. There are some ongoing studies for their
specifications in terms of whether they are double sided or single point put in the middle of the center line.
He mentioned Route 53 as an example which was used as a pilot project, but that probably won’t be
allowed to go forward. Proffit Road is another he had on the list to get some pavement markers.
Mr. Slutzky said once the quarry opens there will be about a truck a minute from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m., five days a week, traveling up and down that road. He wonders if that might change the dynamics of
where passing should be allowed on the stretch of road. Ms. Mallek said there is no passing allowed on
that road.
Mr. Sumpter added that it is VDoT’s practice to look at all their passing zones on a regular cycle to
determine if they are appropriate to continue passing.
Ms. Mallek encouraged VDoT to look at installing pavement markings on the two left lanes going
onto Airport Road from Route 29 North, noting that they are barely visible during inclement weather.
Mr. Sumpter said that when you are traveling north on route 29 past Hollymead Center there is a
lane shift where traffic has to move over, and VDoT is reviewing that to determine whether modifications
need to be made.
Ms. Mallek mentioned that a constituent in Advance Mills has suggested detour signs or some
indication for drivers, especially those who are new to the area. Install the detour signs a little further away
from the bridge on all four sides to alert residents.
Mr. Sumpter replied that they are already looking into this, but they have been reluctant to post a
detour route because of work on Durrette Ridge; once that is completed they would sign it as an
alternative route rather than a detour.
Ms. Thomas asked who is responsible for cleanup after an accident. Mr. Sumpter replied that the
towing company is responsible for cleaning up the site. Sometimes VDoT personnel are responsible for
cleanup.
April 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
Ms. Mallek asked if Dickerson Road Bridge evaluation is on schedule for spring repairs. Mr.
Sumpter confirmed that the evaluation stage will determine the proper course for the bridge.
Mr. Rooker asked the projected advertising date for the Meadow Creek Parkway. Mr. Sumpter
said an exact month and date have not been established for Meadowcreek but it would likely be
advertised in the fall. Mr. Sumpter commented that there would only be about a two-month construction
season this year. True construction would not start until the spring.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 15. Closed Session.
At 12:35 p.m., motion was offered by Ms. Mallek that the Board adjourn into closed meeting
pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to
boards, committees and commissions; under Subsection (3) to consider the acquisition of real property
necessary for a public safety facility; under Subsection (7) to discuss with legal counsel and staff specific
matters requiring legal advice relating to two inter-jurisdictional agreements; and under Subsection (7) to
discuss with legal counsel and staff specific matters requiring legal advice relating to the negotiation of an
agreement related to the provision of public safety services.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 16. Certify Closed Session.
At 3:19 p.m., the Board reconvened into open meeting. Motion was offered by Ms. Mallek to
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: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
___________________
Agenda Item No. 17. Appointments.
Mr. Slutzky offered motion to make the following appointments/reappointments:
to appoint Russell Lafferty to the Charlottesville Albemarle Regional Transportation (CHART)
Advisory Committee, with said term to expire on April 3, 2010,
to appoint Jeff Monroe to the Charlottesville Albemarle Regional Transportation (CHART)
Advisory Committee, to fill an unexpired term that will end on April 3, 2011,
to reappoint James Currie to the Charlottesville Albemarle Regional Transportation (CHART)
Advisory Committee, with said term to expire on April 3, 2011,
to appoint David Bruns, Kimberly Higgins and Katya Spicuzza to the Police Department Citizens
Advisory Committee, with said terms to expire March 5, 2010,
to reappoint Steve Murray to the Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee with said
term to expire on April 17, 2012, and
to reappoint John Lowry to the Industrial Development Authority, with said term to expire January
19, 2012.
Mr. Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
_________________
Agenda Item No. 14. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Mallek mentioned that citizens have expressed concern about the need for tennis court lights
at Darden Towe Park.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that the Board is looking at the taller poles and full cutoff lighting. If the
soccer fields at Belvedere are lit, it may change the attitude of people who live close to the Park.
April 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
Mr. Boyd said that there was concern about extended hours of softball playing, not so much the
lights.
Ms. Mallek said that there was not concern expressed to her about that because it has not been
the intent to extend those.
__________
Ms. Thomas stated that she and staff person, Tamara Ambler, would be traveling to Annapolis,
Maryland on Monday. The Chesapeake Bay Commission will likely be requiring total maximum load
requirements for each and every tributary or maybe just the endpoint. She said that the Tributary Strategy
W ork Group 9which consists of EPA and DEQ representatives, and their counterparts from other states)
have been meeting for years and now wants local government to be involved, so four localities including
Albemarle, the Town of Owego, New York, York Township in Pennsylvania, and the City of Seaford,
Delaware, would be meeting. Ms. Ambler is working on a Powerpoint for presentation.
__________________
Recess. At 3:25 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, at this time, the Board
recessed until 6:00 p.m.
__________________
Agenda Item No.18. Call to Order. The meeting was called back to order at 6:03 p.m., by the
Chairman, Mr. Boyd.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 19. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 20. Moment of Silence.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 21. PUBLIC HEARING to receive comments on Recommended Operating and
Capital Budgets for FY 2008/2009, and the Proposed FY 2008 Tax Rates. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on March 23, 2008.)
Mr. Tucker addressed the Board and audience, outlining the changes to the draft budget
presented in March. He said that this revised budget makes up for loss of revenue from EMS revenue
recovery and declining State funds. It adjusts expenditures to reflect the Board’s strategic priorities as
well as providing an increased Board reserve to allow for other adjustments. It continues to incorporate
savings and efficiencies from the recommended budget – four eliminated/reorganized positions and 13
frozen positions, extended length of computer replacement cycle, increased vehicle replacement cycle,
etc. Mr. Tucker commented that this comprehensive review is still underway and additional efficiencies
and savings are anticipated in the future.
Mr. Tucker reported that the operating budget is currently $271.7 million, with the capital budget at
$49.4 million, and revenue-sharing with Charlottesville at $13.6 million for a total of $334.7 million – a $3.2
million increase from the recommended budget. He explained that the total budget represents an
increase of $29 million over the FY08 budget, and of this increase $20 million is attributable to the capital
budget which includes three major school renovation projects – Brownsville Elementary, Greer
Elementary, and Albemarle High School. Mr. Tucker stated that the operating budget increases proposed
for FY09 is 3.2 percent.
He clarified that the EMS revenue recovery funds are removed in the amount of $1.0 million, and
the State continues to reduce allocations to localities – an additional $600,000 since March and an
additional $100,000 for schools – and adjusts the real property tax rate to 71 cents from last year’s 68
cents.
Under the proposed budget, he said, the Schools would receive an additional $2.8 million in new
local tax money for a total increase of $3.7 million, or 3.7 percent over the current fiscal year’s budget. He
said that it also provides an increase in capital transfer of $227,000 as a result of the advertised tax rate
increase in FY09, and there will also be a CIP transfer increase. Mr. Tucker noted that this budget
reduces funding for new police officers from four to two, and removes funding for staffing for the Pantops
Fire Station. He said that the proposed budget does support funding for priorities identified by the Board
during its work sessions that were not funded in the original budget, including additional funding for the
Registrar for the 2008 Presidential Election, support for a joint Domestic Violence Coordinator shared with
Charlottesville, enhanced Entrance Corridor median mowing, expanded recycling services, expanded
service to nursing homes by a Library bookmobile, a Volunteer Fire and Rescue Incentive Program,
Piedmont W orkforce Investment funding, and continuation of the Bright Stars Pilot Program.
Mr. Tucker explained that the proposed budget also allows for $923,000 in the Board’s reserve,
with other items still under consideration: an Adult Protective Services Social W orker, funds for affordable
housing, restoring one cent to the CIP program, restoring frozen positions that cost about $54,000 per
position including benefits, and possibly reducing the advertised tax rate. He indicated that the next step
is public hearings on the FY09 budget and the 2008 tax rate. The Board is scheduled one week from
today to adopt the FY09 operating and capital budgets as well as setting the 2008 tax rate.
The Chairman went over the Board’s rules for receiving comments for public hearings. He then
opened the public hearing.
April 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
Mr. Keith Drake, Chairman of the Albemarle Truth in Taxation Alliance, addressed the Board. He
said that the budget procedure seems to be assuming maximum tax revenues from all sources, including
government enjoying the increase in tax assessments, and then the next step make the claim citizens
demand more high-quality services, and then spend it all and wonder if it was spent wisely. Mr. Drake
said that the Hollymead Fire Station was a 46 percent overrun - $1.8 million – and there has been a $4.0
million investment in Access Albemarle that is still not in operation. He noted that there was a $1.1 million
surplus in the School budget for non-salary operating budget items. A 71-cent rate would amount to a 55
percent increase on citizens over the last four years. ATTA is a proponent of wisely spending taxpayers
money. They take hard looks, ask hard questions and come to hard decisions. Mr. Drake said that his
organization feels the School Division is following a more fiscally conservative approach in finding
efficiencies in transportation, administration, energy, and capacity through redistricting. He added that the
County’s Form 4 - Program and Service Review - might have been an attempt to follow the same
approach, with its goal being to identify a ten percent savings in operating cost, approximately $7.9 million,
but the savings implemented are only about $800,000. The report states that numerous proposals are
unable to be implemented immediately and require additional review. ATTA will be watching to make sure
those additional items are implemented as they make sense. It is the Board’s decision to listen to the
taxpayers, to fully implement the Form 4 savings, to change the raise taxes first mentality, and to affect
positive change to the benefit of all Albemarle County taxpayers, workers and residents.
Mr. Claude Monger said he is a resident of the W hite Hall District. He thinks the Board needs to
lower the tax rate, expressing concern about rising cost of goods for consumers. This is a golden
opportunity for government to say they will help the taxpayers. He hopes to retire next year. Sooner or
later if something is not done about taxes the poor and middle income residents of the County will be
gone; they won’t be able to live here any longer.
Ms. Veronica W ilson, a resident of the County and a member of IMPACT’s Housing Committee,
thanked Board members for their presence and participation in IMPACT’s action meeting on March 10th.
IMPACT also wants to continue to hold up the need for affordable housing in the County. The lack of
affordable housing options creates tremendous stress on families in the County. She knows that this is a
tight budget year, but families are struggling. As elected representatives, Board members need to
address the need in this budget cycle. She asked for the Board’s support of IMPACT’s proposal for
$500,000 for families under 30 percent AMI.
Ms. Jeanette McCarthy, a County resident, a member of IMPACT, and a retired teacher, next
addressed the Board. She shared the story of Johnny Diaz, who attended her school and ended up
moving around a lot with his family, in search of affordable housing. He was a bright child and she
wonders how he would have really done in a secure home environment. Numerous moves and new
schools cause many students to fall behind academically thus jeopardizing their futures. As responsible
citizens we need to do everything we can to help children in our communities succeed. This includes
minimizing the number of families that have to move frequently in search of affordable housing. Last year
in Albemarle County there were more than 300 students that the School system reported as becoming
homeless. Add to this number the more than 200 homeless children in the City, and there are more than
500 young people who potentials are threatened by day to day insecurity. These students are part of the
more than 4,000 low-income families in the area who cannot afford decent housing. IMPACT is asking
the Board to see Johnny and all the other students as it put together this year’s budget. The City and
County are cooperating on the Housing Task Force, working towards concrete solutions to the area’s
affording housing crisis. She encouraged the Board to continue to support solutions for them – such as
matching the $500,000 the City is putting up. Affordable housing is a regional problem that affects
everyone.
Rev. Bruce Beard, representing IMPACT, said he knows the Board is in a difficult position, but he
is concerned about families who cannot afford basic necessities such as housing and end up having to
leave the Charlottesville area. Having a good school is great but if he is a child living in the back of a car,
he is not going to care how good the school is because he will not do so great in that school without basic
needs being met. He urged the Board to not forget about the basic needs of those who need so much
and have so little resources to be able to help themselves. There are many young people from this area
who cannot afford to stay here after finishing school.
Ms. Sidney Giacalone said she is a 7th grade student at Jack Jouett Middle School and
participates in the strings program. She asked the Board to support the strings program in the County
schools, as it is one of the smaller programs compared to band and chorus. Every year the strings
program has grown by approximately 30 students which show that student value and are interested in the
program. Ms. Giacalone said, in District Festival last month, her orchestra along with all orchestras of her
teacher, Ms. Finnegan’s, received all top scores on performance, appearance, and many other categories.
She stated that they received all gold stars in their competition in Boston, Massachusetts. These numbers
show how outstanding the County school orchestras have come to be. She asked the Board to look at the
number of gifted music students who would not be able to take an instrument or class next year, if this
program is cut. She supports the Board’s proposed tax increase and she hopes the Board sees the
benefit of the additional funding towards a quality County school strings program.
Mr. Peter W urzer said the County’s program and service review was a rigorous exercise to
identify a ten percent cost savings by department. The primary directive given to department heads was
to think critically, creatively and innovatively. He said that the review only resulted in $800,000 in savings,
which is about one percent of a $79.0 million operating budget. The savings included $365,000 to extend
replacement cycles for computer and vehicle replacement. To him, that is an obvious savings and should
have been thought about last year. The second was $128,000 eliminating vacant positions in Social
Services which have been vacant for several years because of no State funding. This looks like phantom
April 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
savings. How do we save what we did not spend last year and received no State funds? If it was in the
budget last year, what was the money spent on? That is what needs to be eliminated in order to save the
money. Mr. W urzer said that he does not understand why there were no cost savings in several other
departments. To identify ten percent of the operating budget is $7.9 million. He is concerned about how
far reaching this effort really is and is it being done the right way. W hy has the County refused to release
Form 4 documents that show specific departmental ideas? He thinks the public needs to understand what
kinds of saving ideas are there now. He asked what the Board’s expectations of savings are. If it has no
expectations of savings, there will be none. W hy can’t the County find ways to save like the School
Board?
Ms. Betty Sevechko asked the Board not to raise her tax burden. She is a 22 year resident of the
County and is very concerned with the County’s direction on taxes and spending, noting that since 2000
her burden has increased dramatically – 19.5 percent just last year – and now more increases are
planned. W hen is this insanity going to stop? How do the citizens make the Board understand that the
burden it is placing on the taxpayers is difficult? She was outraged to hear one Board member say the
difference between raising taxes the full 30 percent last year and the 19.5 percent that actually increased
was “equal to a pizza and a beer a month”. It might be a pizza and beer to that person but it means much
more to her. It may be the co-pay on her medicine each month or it may pay her water bill that month.
Everyone has to live within a budget except the budget. She does not think anyone present would expect
an increase in their salary to equal the budget increase. As individuals, they learn to make cuts in their
lifestyle that allow them to live within their budgets. The governments, from local to federal, need to do the
same. There has been little interest by either the Board or County Executive to scrutiny spending
practices in any detail and disciplined manner. She asked the Board to be the advocate for the County
taxpayer it was elected to be and not only hold the tax rate at 68 cents but lower it. Cut spending through
tough budget scrutiny instead of raising taxes.
Mr. Peter Bernhardt said he and his wife have lived in the County for 38 years. He said that
landowners will be forced to sell development rights with a 71-cent tax rate, citing examples of farmers
who have had to sell off parcels to afford their homes. It is impossible to continue living in this County with
these high costs. The projects should be made to fit the budget not the other way around.
Ms. Therese Province said she is a property owner and taxpayer in the County. She is present to
ask the Board to “please raise her tax rate” because County services and schools “maintain and support
property values in the County.” This is the second year in a row that those services and schools have
been put in jeopardy. She believes in risk management. She wants to protect the investment in her
property. Too much is at stake. Look at other places in this country and see what happens when support
services and schools are reduced. Property values go down. Individual homeowners are left upside down
with their mortgages. She does not want to see that here. Do not be “penny wise and pound foolish”.
Ms. Betty Saunders said she is a life long resident of the County and a concerned taxpayer. Until
now she has patiently waited for the Board to increase the level of fiscal responsibility and accountability in
County government, but after seeing her real estate tax assessment increase by 138 percent over the last
six years, with no corresponding increase the level of County services provided to her household, she is
compelled to express her dissatisfaction. In recent months some Board members have made reference
to a tax cut. She said that in 2006 they paid $1,490 and $2,002 in 2007 in real estate taxes. That is hardly
a tax cut. In fact, it is a 34 percent increase in just one year. After doing a lot of research during the last
12 months, it is apparent to her that County government spending has “soared” in the last couple of years
but County growth has not. She thinks that the Board is approving a budget beyond their means that can
only be achieved by increasing the burden on the taxpayer. She believes there should be a correlation
between spending and growth. There should not be a correlation between spending more and taxing
more. She asked if it was fiscally responsible to spend $3.0+ million spent Access Albemarle with nothing
to show for it. She asked about the $7.0+ million on a fire house with extravagant amenities. During this
time of economic slowdown, tax money should be spent on needs instead of wants. Form 4, known as
Program and Service Review, was incorporated into the budget process this time for the first time. She
asked if this was reviewed during the budget process, and what was the outcome. She asked if a
decrease in expenses was shown for each department. Ms. Saunders asked if department heads are
accountable for managing and controlling their expenses, or just spending up to their allocation. She
urged the Board to support the 68-cent tax rate as originally recommended by the County Executive. She
also added that it is time to consider a City-County merger to combine services and provide more
efficiency of government.
Ms. Charlotte Hogue asked why the County feels it needs to spend much more each year,
especially for office space and new personnel. She noted that millions of dollars were spent on a
computer system that was supposed to reduce personnel use, and that hasn’t happened. Ms. Hogue also
expressed concern about spending money on consultant fees and software for a system that is not
available. She asked why huge overruns on projects, like the new firehouse, are not being managed.
W hy are all the libraries, recreational facilities, and school sports not self-sustaining? W hy is the County
giving taxpayer money to special interest groups for studies and festivals? Are the returns not enough to
cover the expenditures? W hat is the benefit to the majority of taxpayers? W hy not impose a freeze on
the current budget and start justifying all expenditures, and cut all unnecessary items and staff? W hy is
no one in County government being held responsible? W hy are the Board and County officials not
concerned about the downward spiral of the economy and the effect it is having on taxpayers? Not all
County citizens are affluent; some are barely making ends meet.
Mr. Charlie Trachtor said President Roosevelt said “repetition does not transform a lie into truth.”
For the first nine year’s of his son’s schooling, he thought the world of the school system. Since his son
entered high school the schools have indicated that they only owe students an “adequate” education.
April 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
There are parents who have asked for help and been turned away. He knows this to be true because he
is one of them. He would pay higher taxes for a world class system, but if the Board raises his taxes, he
wants that system, not the one in the County today. A world class system is one which does not turn its
back on its students, is one which places it teachers over its administrators, is one that can think and act
outside the box, understands that some students learn differently, treats each student with respect, and
tries to help each student overcome any special or unique condition, especially if that student is trying and
asking for help. A world class system does not have administrators rate their success by the amount of
help they deny. It does not protect the administrators whose jobs are redundant while cutting back on
teachers and teacher aides. It does not have parents referring to administrators as “callous”, “arrogant” or
“incompetent”. It does not have administrators who make promises even in writing and then fail to follow
through. It does not use the funds it receives from parent’s taxes to pay for court fees to battle those
same patterns. Until we get a system that is world class, the budget is adequate as it needs to be.
Mr. Tom Strassburg, a resident of Earlysville, spoke about affordable housing and homelessness.
One of the reasons for homelessness is the affordability of rent, specifically rent increases. About one-
third of the homeless in our community have been evicted. He expressed concern that when taxes are
raised on properties those costs are passed onto tenants. Mr. Strassburg encouraged Board members to
look for efficiencies to reduce expenses and obviate the need for a tax increase.
Ms. Amy Gore, a County taxpayer and parent, asked the Board to fully support school funding
with adoption of the 71-cent tax rate. She said that full funding would allow her kids’ school to have a
nurse who is actually there all day. Ms. Gore said that Crozet Elementary School received a Governor’s
Excellence in Education Award and overall she feels that schools are doing a good, cost effective job for
the education they are providing. Virginia is third in the country for advancement placement testing;
Albemarle is 20.59 percent, which is competitive with other counties. She also encouraged the Board to
fully fund law enforcement so that police officers won’t have to work so much overtime.
Mr. Garth Anderson, Chair of the County’s Historic Preservation Committee, thanked the Board for
their support of preservation efforts through the Community Development Department. He emphasized
that there needs to be a commitment to preserve historic structures as well as vernacular architecture,
viewshed, country crossroads, African-American and Monacan resources, and stewardship of all of these.
Loss County cultural resources cannot be replaced. He emphasized that cultural resources are one of the
main reasons people come to visit this community, live here, and invest in the area. A recent study by
Virginia Commonwealth University and the Commonwealth’s Department of Historic Resources
demonstrates that Virginia’s Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit Program is a powerful investment tool in
Virginia. It creates new jobs, increases local revenues, enhances quality of life and reinvests people’s
pride in their communities in a renewed sense of stewardship. This needs to be promoted in Albemarle to
protect resources and garner the economic benefits. They cannot compromise on the preservation of
cultural resources. He asked the Board to keep this effort in the central part of the County’s budget.
Mr. Travis Harris, a County resident, thanked the Board for attending the Nehemiah Action
Assembly on March 10th at University Hall. He emphasized the importance of setting aside $500,000 for
residents who are under the 30 percent AMI level for affordable housing. Board members have the power
to change the lives of County residents.
Mr. Trevon Cook, a rising sophomore at Albemarle High School, said that he has participated in
the African-American Studies Program, “A Raisin in the Sun”. As a member of the production, he has
learned a lot about African-American culture, the struggles of society and how far society has progressed.
If the School Board budget is decreased due to lowering of the tax rate, it will have a significant impact on
elective courses at Albemarle High School, one of which is the African-American Studies Program. This
program provides students with knowledge about their past, present and future, all of which is necessary
for society to know. W ith this knowledge, they can have pride in knowing what the African-American
society has accomplished. He asked that the Board rethink lowering taxes for the sake of the teachers,
but also the students.
Mr. Dale Varga said he has over 30 years of experience in financial management, and with that
experience has used it to look at some aspects of the County’s budget process. He is concerned that
while Mr. Tucker is doing an excellent job in trying to hold the line with the budget that the Board may not
have enough information to make decisions. Mr. Varga explained that the managers use the Program
and Service Review, also known as Form 4, to identify the impacts of a ten percent spending reduction.
The budget process begins in September but the Board does not see Form 4 until late March, after many
decisions have already been made. He encouraged the Board to immediately review Form 4, including all
items that have not been considered for savings. He asked if the budget is being examined closely before
asking for additional tax revenue. He asked that the Board retain the same tax rate as last year.
Ms. Mary Spencer, PTO Co-chair for Meriwether Lewis Elementary and the parent of three
children who go there, thanked the Board for considering the new tax rate, which is three cents higher
than this current fiscal year’s, as it would allow the County to fully fund the education budget for next year.
She said that special projects such as the International Baccalaureate Program would be funded and
Albemarle would be back on track to be a “world class education system,” and County teachers could get
a four percent pay increase and hopefully would stay. Ms. Spencer stated that this would also allow for a
math specialist, a teaching assistant for K-1, and a full-time nurse at Meriwether Lewis Elementary. A
three cent tax increase would level the playing field between Meriwether and other schools, and would
allow all County schools to keep up with the better school systems around the country that are adequately
preparing their students for the 21st Century. She asked the Board to support a 71 cent tax rate.
April 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
Mr. Renfro Manning thanked Board members for attending the recent IMPACT meeting. He was
a School Superintendent in two different states for over 30 years. He commented that education and
affordable housing are inseparably tied together. The people who cannot afford housing tend to move,
and if they are able to stay there they are most likely investing too much of their income in housing so they
cannot send their children prepared to learn or provide proper care. He asked the Board to seriously
consider IMPACT’s funding request.
Ms. Mary Hufford Kegley-Scott said she is a parent of a student at Meriwether Lewis and
President of the Albemarle County Schools Parent Council. She emphasized that strong public schools
equal strong communities, and one cannot succeed without the other. The Parent Council appreciates
the Board’s recognition of this by its advertised tax rate. They also appreciate the Board’s recognition of
the significant needs of the entire community and the inability to adequately provide for these needs with
the current tax rate. The Parent Council joins with community representatives who provide fire, rescue
and safety services to urge the Board to pursue a rate that will meet the needs the community requires.
The advertised rate will provide the School system the opportunity to strive towards their goal of serving as
a world class educational system. The School nurses are not full time in the elementary schools,
therefore if a child has a serious medical problem 30 minutes before school ends, there is no nurse on the
premises to assist. This advertised tax rate will: provide math and literacy specialists in middle and
elementary schools; bring all elementary schools to the Board approved standards for the literacy
specialist; increase teachers’ and students’ access to technology support, such as laptop computers,
smart boards and digital cameras; and allow the School Board to initiate a reserve fund for future potential
shortfalls. The quality of the educational system, as well as the safety of the citizens, the availability of
quality medical care, the value of fire protection, and the presence of a well-educated workforce all
culminate to create the County that we know and love, and that we want to continue to succeed. The
School system is at the core of the process as it develops future citizens who will ultimately serve the
County needs. In response to the question, how much is an education worth; it is priceless. The Parent
Council urges the Board to pursue the advertised tax rate in order to serve the students, future citizens,
with the world class educational system they will require in order to do their future jobs.
Mr. John Baldino said he has discovered that he is a conservative. He wants to conserve air
quality through continued support of land use, conservation easements, open and green space, not
houses, not more asphalt, more public transportation, bike paths, etc. He also said he wants to conserve
water and provide leadership for controlling the water supply which can be in danger if this County
continues to grow at its current rate. Mr. Baldino stated that he supports investment in public safety
through adequate fire and police protection, and reasonable facilities for that. He wants to conserve
leadership in public education. At a cost, we can conserve our way of life. He encouraged the Board to
adopt a conserve tax rate of 71-cent.
Mr. Robert Hogue said the School system is top-heavy and their budget can be cut. The School
system plays politics with their budget cuts by cutting musical classes instead of reducing unnecessary
bureaucracy. There should be rescue squad fees and there could be cut back in the Entrance Corridors.
Mr. Hogue expressed concern about the economy, and the lack of manufacturing jobs. He suggested the
Board pay attention to what is happening with the private sector with loss of pensions and health care
benefits. If the Board cares about all the citizens of the County, it will not vote for a tax rate increase, but
instead reduce the size of County government and make it more efficient.
Mr. Stuart Mills said he is Executive Director of the Northwestern Virginia Health Systems Agency,
a state-mandated nonprofit corporation to provide health planning services for the 32 towns, counties, and
cities of Northwestern Virginia. Also with him is Mr. W illiam Daggett, a member of the local Jefferson
Health Council, and President of the agencies’ Board of Directors. The most important of their mandated
responsibilities is to analyze and make recommendations to the Commissioner of Health on major capital
expenditures throughout the region, projects such as the relocation of Martha Jefferson Hospital, the new
Emily Couric Cancer Center at UVA, the UVA’s Long Term Acute Care Hospital, and the new medical
center expansion. This review and recommendation function is important because it begins with the local
health advisory councils. These are volunteer consumers and healthcare providers from within in the
community who give a grassroots perspective on the impact that these proposals will have on the
community’s healthcare systems. This perspective is vital to their Board of Directors and to the
Commissioner who must approve or deny the proposals, and this perspective will be lost to the process
unless regional health plan agencies survive. W hen Virginia’s health planning legislation was rewritten in
the early 1990’s funding of regional health agencies was to be shared between the State and each
agency’s local jurisdictions with a target rate of 15 cents per capita. Initially most of the jurisdictions
contributed their share but over the years, many of the counties, Albemarle among them, became unable
to help due to various budget crises. Their agency shrunk and they became almost entirely dependent on
State funding to do their work. W ith the State’s current budget crisis that funding is very likely to be
eliminated resulting in their working being an unfunded mandate for FY 2009. Their agency is
accustomed to operating on a shoe-string budget and they are not asking for much help. He said that
they are requesting a small amount – about five cents per citizen – as part of this budget, to help maintain
the area’s quality healthcare system. They know of no other program that serves all of the constituents
equally and at such a low costs. If every county and city does it part, they can continue their mission to
help assure the preservation of their high quality and modestly priced healthcare system, but without that
help the days of rational and transparent planning are numbered, and the fragile local healthcare systems
are at risk.
Mr. W illiam Daggett said the hospital system supports COPN and they do so for the very reasons
cited by Mr. Mills. If they do not maintain a transparent process and this is turned over to a commercial
enterprise, everyone will suffer. The amount of money the agency is asking for each constituency is very
small and they would like the Board’s consideration.
April 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
Mr. Trevor Przyuski said he is a homeowner, parent, and teacher. He is an advocate for the
children in the community. He asked if we can in good conscience take more money away from the
schools so that a couple hundred bucks can be saved a year. He asked if working families can be
expected to pay for the privilege of putting their children on the school bus in the mornings. Do we want to
charge children for the privilege of being on a school’s baseball team or football team to represent their
school and county? He said that in any community that upholds the ideas of equality and fairness, “every
child is our child.” It is not too much to ask that there are enough teachers, textbooks and buses. He
added that we cannot afford to watch any more children slip through the cracks created by overcrowding
and understaffing or graduate any more children into the work world without complete confidence in the
technology.
Ms. Sally Cushing, parent of two children in the County School system, presented a petition of 335
signatures expressing support for full-funding of the School budget. She said that other countries support
their schools in this way, and “there is no pride in being the community with the lowest tax rate.” They
want to be the community with the best schools, strong social services, significant affordable housing and
outstanding parks and recreation. To achieve this goal, we must all contribute to the common wealth.
She has attended these public budget meetings for the past four years and she is annoyed. Each year
Mr. Tucker mentions the County’s survey and each year, the County’s own surveys indicate citizens want
the best schools. The citizens want world class schools. She asked that the Board fully fund the School
Board’s budget request.
Mr. John Cruickshank, speaking on behalf of the Piedmont Sierra Club with about 400 members
in the County, asked the Board to “invest in the future,” when it considers budget priorities. The urgency
of immediate needs often causes us to lose sight of planning for the long-term health and welfare of the
community. They request the Board ensure funding for these important initiatives that will contribute to
the development of a healthy environment. He encouraged the Board to provide full funding for the
Community Development staff positions – Rural Areas planner, new agricultural support position, and staff
support for the Natural Heritage Committee. These positions are necessary for the long term protection of
Albemarle’s open spaces. Mr. Cruickshank thanked the Board for participating in the Cool Counties
program in committing to reduce green house gas emissions, 80 percent by 2050. This can only be
achieved by investment in energy efficiency, building design and other areas that will save money over
time and yield many environmental and health benefits. They also recommend that funds be diverted
from construction of new roads to pedestrian and bicycle paths and public transit. He said that the Sierra
Club supports retaining and training of talented individuals to work with children, an investment that will
pay dividends for years to come. They also support the elimination of harsh pesticides and cleaners from
school buildings which will enhance student performance and provide life-long health benefits. A March
27th Daily Progress article reported an 18.6 percent increase of toxic chemicals into Virginia in 2006, and
releases in the waterways nearly double. Never before has it been so important to remove manmade
toxins from our schools and parks. The Sierra Club believes that investing in our future is an essential
part of a good fiscal responsibility. They support raising the real estate tax rate and permit fees to pay for
the necessary costs of environmental protection, education and public health. They ask the Supervisors
to manage growth more effectively and ensure that developers be required to pay the true costs of their
new projects.
Ms. Phyllis W hite, a County resident and homeowner, said she has owned her home for ten years
and has seen her assessment rise about 230 percent during that time. As a single person it takes one
month just to pay her property taxes. She said that some residents do not need tax relief for their rural
properties. She has been a 28 year educator and has a Masters in Education. As a person without
children, she resent that she pays thousands of dollars for schools. Ms. W hite said that she questions the
provision of a “free” education, and perhaps there should be a sliding scale for parents who can afford it,
and public-private partnerships for other improvements. She questions the act of tying taxes to property
values and the increased need for property values to increase. She will continue to challenge her tax
assessment. There are many options available to not increasing taxes.
Ms. Dee W inkle spoke in support of the IMPACT goals and the public school system. She moved
to this County for the school system and it is important to her that money be spent wisely. The School
system had undertaken an efficiency study; they are working hard to save pennies. She asked that the
Board not lose sight of the overall numbers. The School system is a high percentage of the County’s
budget. Teacher salaries and in-class people are more than 75 percent of the School’s budget. Even if
the School Division eliminate administrative positions there will not be enough money. She feels the 71
cents tax rate is an investment and she is willing to pay it. There are not opportunities for the children to
play in orchestras or engage in foreign languages outside of the School system. She encouraged the
Board to “hold the line” and use citizens’ “combined ability to pay,” make programs for those who cannot
and “really do the job of the people.”
Mr. Eric Hahn asked the Board to fully fund the School Board’s budget. He is Vice-President of 7th
grade at Henley Middle School. He is before the Board to make sure the student’s rights and concerns
are heard and considered by the Board. He asked the Board to save the strings program, mentioning that
Thomas Jefferson played the violin. His teachers and that of his peers depend on the quality of programs
and teachers the County finds. Good citizens are created by exposure to opportunities. Universities look
for well-rounded quality students. He believes it is the Board’s responsibility to giver every student in the
School system a fair and equal chance at world class educational opportunities and goals. A sound
investment for any community is the support everyone puts behind the educational system.
Mr. Tom Olivier, a resident of the Schuyler area, in the Scottsville District, addressed the Board.
He stated that he is a member of the Executive Committee of the Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club and
supports the Club’s position presented earlier this evening. Speaking as an individual, he said, these are
April 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
increasingly challenging times in which to live, and this is no time for any government at any level to put
environmental protection on hold. Mr. Olivier encouraged the County to unfreeze vacant planning
positions and the agriculture support position. He supports raising the real estate tax rate to 71 cents as
well as raising some permit fees. He also suggested use of funds in the Business Opportunity
Development Fund to unfreeze the agricultural local market development positions. Open space planning
and conservation efforts must be supported as must education and affordable housing. He encouraged
the Board to pursue as many tax relief programs as allowable by the Virginia Code for residents with lower
incomes.
Ms. Susan Luekenbach encouraged Board members to read the letter to the editor “Board Owes
an Apology for Taxes” in the March 25th issue of The Daily Progress. Ms. Luekenbach said that
Supervisors should not be allowed to vote in tax increases just to balance their budget. Taxpayers are not
allowed to vote themselves an increase to balance their individual budgets and Supervisors should be
held to the same standards. The number of increases in the last eight years in the School and local
government is shocking. One example of frivolous spending is the $25,000 that recently went to the
Sustainable group which is a total waste. The Schools are considering $200,000 for an IB Program.
Charlottesville/Albemarle has a high opinion of itself thinking that it needs top of the line amenities. She
suggested the Board get rid of wasteful unnecessary spending before digging into the citizens’ wallets.
Part of the problem is a growing citizenry who feels entitled to government handouts. The other part is
politicians who feel entitled to more and more of her money. Her part of the tax may be a “beer and a
pizza” but it is her “beer and pizza” or whatever else she choose to spend her money on. She encouraged
them to get rid of wants versus needs, and suggested watching “A Global W arming Swindle.” Global
warming is not the problem everybody is making it out to be.
Ms. Nancy Paulson, a County resident and mother of three school-aged children, asked the Board
to raise taxes so that a well-rounded education can be offered to students. Last year’s surplus was an
anomaly and the sweeping tax reductions made by the Board set back the ability to provide necessary
services and appropriate programs in the County. W hen there is a surplus of funds, they should be used
wisely, pay down debt, invest in capital improvements and save for the future because the next year can
bring change. The Board chose the short sighted policy of reducing the property tax rate and this coupled
with the down turn in property values has left the County with inadequate funding for public services and
programs. There are many programs and services that have been placed on the chopping block to
accommodate this reduced funding. Of paramount concern to her is funding of the public School budget.
She emphasized that there is no visible overspending if you visit public schools. The strength of public
education is that it gives every child a chance to have access to knowledge, skills and opportunity. By
short changing the School budget, the Board is limiting access and undermining the strength and appeal
of the County. She asked that the tax rate be increased and fully fund the School Board’s budget.
Ms. Jackie Lombardo, representing Friends and Advocates for Children, Teachers, and Schools,
and the Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club, asked the Board to fully fund public school. She said that
retaining and hiring talented adults to teach children and eliminating toxic chemicals from buildings
including harsh cleaners and all pesticides, has proven to enhance student and teacher performance and
attendance, and will provide protection for life long good health. She thanked the Board for establishing
the Safer Chemical Committee. She also encouraged the Board to adopt formal policies to get rid of
toxins used in schools, through green cleaning policies and safer pesticides. The Sierra Club supports
raising real estate taxes to 71 cents to pay for environmental safety, education and the protection of the
County School children’s health.
Ms. Ashly Kindler, on behalf of the building-level administrators in Albemarle County Schools, said
new expectations are how business is done. It is not good enough to just achieve status quo. She
emphasized the importance of special instructors such as math specialists, literacy specialists, etc. She
said that their goal is to be able to help every child, and whatever tax rate is adopted should be able to
take Schools to that goal.
Ms. Anita Anderson, on behalf of Preservation Piedmont, a nonprofit organization dedicated to
preservation of historic buildings and conservation of the environment. She commented on the
importance of the history that is embedded in historical buildings. She encouraged Board members to
support a budget that allows for preservation and conservation.
Mr. Lou Kramer, of Earlysville, said it is difficult to correct our country at the national level; it needs
to begin at the local level. There should be no need for all these people to be present tonight. He has not
gotten over the 19.5 percent tax increase from last year. The real estate values are getting worse, yet
Board members are talking about increasing the tax rate. There are needs and wants, and the wants will
always outweigh the needs. In support of Schools, it is a shame for parents to have to pay to attend their
child’s school sporting event.
At 8:00 p.m., the Board took a recess and reconvened at 8:12 p.m.
Mr. Dave Paulson said we live in one of the most wonderful places on the face of the earth,
beautiful terrain, great University as a hub, low crime, low unemployment, friendly and educated residents,
and an efficient local government. This argument boils down to about 25 cents a day for a $300,000
house to adequately fund public schools, provide additional support for affordable houses, give reasonable
raises for teachers and government employees, adequately maintain athletic fields, etc. Mr. Paulson
emphasized that the teachers, law enforcement officers, and County employees are not wasting money –
they are working hard to make this community a better place. Nobody’s getting rich on a government
salary. He is a businessman and CFO of a large company. He understands fiscal responsibility. He also
understands that government is not a foreign entity that money is sent to. Local government is “us” and it
April 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
is “us” sharing a very small portion of our income or wealth for the public good. The County’s local
government is efficient. There are tax relief programs available for those older individuals on a fixed
income. This is not a real tax increase but a partial restoration of a previous decrease. This County has
one of the lowest property tax rates in the country and it will still be at 71 cents. Do we want to be known
as the County with the lowest tax rates or do we want to be known as the County that truly values, and is
willing to pay for the best public education system, a strong police and fire department, outstanding parks
and recreation facilities, support for affordable housing, and all the other services that counties provide.
He asked that the Board increase the tax rate to 71 cents and spend it wisely, and continue to make the
County the wonderful place everyone wants to live.
Ms. Anna Freshwater said she has two children in high school. Since March 2003 her property
taxes have increased from $2,450 to $3,125 in 2007, and that amount will go to $3,300 if the 71-cent rate
is passed. Ms. Freshwater said that this represents a doubling in revenue for the County, while overall
growth has been 11 percent and school enrollment has only increased 2.5 percent. She commented that
at Albemarle High School, $500,000 goes to the cost of four assistant principals and an athletic director,
and at lunch there are six 36-inch flat-panel TVs that show cartoons and basketball games at lunch. In
addition to paying real estate taxes, they pay personal property taxes, federal income tax, state taxes,
social security, etc. Albemarle County is the second highest cost-of-living county outside of Northern
Virginia, yet individual salaries/income is not comparable. She asked that money be spent more
judiciously without raising taxes.
Mr. Raymond Klein, a resident of Earlysville, said at some point there is going to be a tax revolt.
He acknowledged that the Board has a challenging job. He suggested that the Board go back and align
the budget with core values and not spend any more money than that. Mr. Klein also said that the School
system has grown too much administratively at the top level, citing the funding of four math specialists for
over $300,000 to “teach teachers how to teach.” He wonders how many assistants is really needed to run
the School system; that money should be spent in the classroom.
The next person who signed up to speak, Mr. W illiam Goodman, was not present.
Mr. Steve Gissendanner said last week’s sniper incident could have been much worse, but the
County got real lucky. The County is still not planning on funding the addition of new officers to meet the
minimum standard for police officers – with expense in this budget for just two officers. The 1.5 per 1,000
staffing standard for police officers is low; Charlottesville is substantially higher. He mentioned several
spending needs of the School system that is being put out to the public as “spend everyone penny before
the end of the year” and is totally untrue. He mentioned that unspent funds are returned to the School’s
Fund Balance. He encouraged the Board to act wisely this year, as their decisions now will affect
decisions in the future.
Ms. Sue Friedman said she is a County resident, property owner, taxpayer, parent without children
in the School system, and business leader. As a businessperson it is very important to her that her
employees have the quality of life, the quality of services, and the quality of education that will cause them
to stay as a valued employee in her organization. She thanked the Board for the tax rate set at 71 cents
and the tax relief programs for those who cannot afford the additional taxes. She thanked Board
members for their leadership for understanding that the County and the people who live here need to
move forward. Ms. Friedman noted that Federal government mandates offer a choice for localities to fund
them or not, and Albemarle can make wise choices about how to use their money. She said that the
County could focus on their competitive edge and increase business taxes and business support to the
County, and that revenue could be increased from 15 percent to 20 percent, or higher, of total income.
That would allow the County the ability to decrease its’ reliance on the residential property tax owners.
Ms. Friedman also emphasized that the Board has an obligation to implement the citizen-developed
strategic plan. She encouraged the Board to vote for a 71 cent tax rate.
Mr. Dave Rogers, Principal of Sutherland Middle School, thanked Board members for looking at
the 71-cent tax rate. He is glad that there is discussion about moving forward with a lot of services and
things that have to do with the County; i.e., recycling, environmental protection, increasing services, police
and safety, and moving forward with the future of education. The School system will continue to look at
more efficient ways to use the funding provided by the Board. He said that students now need more
services and offerings in school to be able to function when they get out, and that is the vision for the
future. He encouraged the Board to continue to implement changes that are well-considered and well-
planned, and innovations that will help the County live up to the vision of a community.
Ms. W ren Olivier, a resident of the southern part of the County, urged the Board to support the
proposed tax rate to 71 cents. For all the reasons previously stated, the funds are needed to support
schools, police and public safety, and to protect the environment. She does not think it is an undue
burden on the majority of people; for those other people look at tax relief efforts. This is about the needs
of the County.
Ms. Virginia Herring, said she agrees with a lot what has been said, but she does not understand
why the property owner has to foot the bill and other revenue sources should be considered. There has
been extreme growth in Crozet and there is a lot more revenue coming in. There are people who have
lived here all their lives and their taxes have increased to the point where they cannot pay them or pay for
the upkeep of their homes. There needs to be other solutions other than taxing the property owner. She
does not understand why any mode of transportation used on the highways cannot be taxed. There are a
large number of bicycles that could be taxed with County stickers just like vehicles. There are motor
scooters that could be required to have a County sticker. She thinks the Board needs to be more creative
and there are other ways to get the needed revenues other than taxing the property owners all the time.
April 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
Mr. Lea Shultz said last year the budget increased by 19 percent. He asked who in this room has
ever had an increase of 19 percent in their salary. He does not care about the rates or the increase in the
appraisals; the only thing he is concerned about is the bill that comes in the mail. He has been a resident
of the County for more than 30 years. He takes care of his property; he is not getting assistance from the
County. He even takes care of his own road. He does not support a tax increase. He does not think the
Board is doing its job or representing the people. The people need better representation. He said that
Form 4 has not even come into play yet.
Ms. Leah Fechtmann thanked Board members or the work that they do and for the proposed 71
cents tax rate. Ms. Fechtmann said that she is an Albemarle High School teacher and a taxpayer. She
hopes this is the last hearing she has to come to defend education in this way. Every year the School
Division is tied up from November to April defending education. There are other School Divisions that do
not have a strong negative anti-tax group operating and they are free to educate. Police officers do not
have to be here tonight because they trust that the Board will do the right thing by them. It is hard to sit
through these meetings and listen to people insult other people. Educators are supposed to do reflective
instruction. Educators should not have to be at these meetings but if they are not then it is assumed that
is not much need for education. She also clarified that student classes raise their own money, and they
decided to buy the televisions for the lunchroom. None of this was taxpayer money, but that is the kind of
misinformation that gets reported.
Mr. Phil Davis said he is here to represent the older people of the County, who worked for 30 or
40 years at $5.00 to $6.00 an hour and now live off of $800.00 to $900.00 per month of Social Security,
and cannot afford to pay the tax rate. The rate should be kept to what it was last year. If Board members
do not agree, they should not have given Mr. Tucker the authority to say it could be. It takes three months
of Social Security to pay his property taxes. He noted that he observes four school busses going to and
from schools each day, but often they are only half-full. That is a useless waste of taxpayer money. He
asked that the Board look at places where you can really save money, not at teacher salaries.
Ms. Cynthia Neff, a resident of the Rivanna District, said she is in favor of the 71 cent tax rate.
She noted that Virginia has the ninth highest per-capita income rate in the country but is 47th in what is
spent in state and local government. Ms. Neff said that the community must decide what kind of place
they want it to be. It is embarrassing that there are not enough police officers and it is embarrassing that
teachers have to fight to protect the education for the children. She does not want her taxes to increases,
but Albemarle County taxpayers have been getting away with a lot when comparing its taxes to taxes in
other localities in Virginia. There are probably five to ten percent of expenses that need to be cut
everyone and/or reviewed, but she is more worried about what is not in the budget than paying taxes. She
thinks we also need to explore more making this a great place to visit by figuring out how to tax tourists.
Ms. Mary Ann Doucette, a resident of the W hite Hall District, said the Board’s job is to provide for
the public’s health, safety and welfare, not to provide for every special interest that comes before them, or
provide for a “private school education with public tax dollars.” The Board needs to consider layoffs and
hiring freezes. Many people who pay their taxes are not getting any kind of increase in their income. Ms.
Doucette said that the Board now has the state authority to levy user impact fees, and she has provided
them with a model ordinance to start out. The Board is wasting money every week that it has not adopted
an impact fee. The Board needs to renegotiate or break the Revenue Sharing Agreement with the City of
Charlottesville. She encouraged the Board to keep the tax rate at 68 cents. Let those who want the
increases make donations to the County for the difference between the 68 cents and 71 cents.
Ms. Dawn Greco, a parent of a second grader at Broadus W ood Elementary, member of the PTO,
and Parent Council representative, addressed the Board. Ms. Greco urged the Board to fully fund the
School Board’s budget request. She supports the 71-cent tax rate so that all School needs are met and
essential County services are supported appropriately. The 71 cent tax rate addresses concerns
expressed by people. She noted that funds are juggled to make schools work, and there are necessary
items that are not funded. She wants her children to have opportunities in the future, i.e., exposure to
foreign languages, arts and humanities. She is committed to improving the schools not just maintaining
the status quo, and it is time for the County to step up and show that public education is a top priority.
Ms. Linda McRaven said she has had five children in the County School system. In 1984, she
and her husband founded the Free Union Country School in response to the split of Meriwether Lewis and
Murray. She too wanted the School system because she had vibrant children that she wanted to be well-
educated. Over the years she saw that the money is spent well in some areas and terribly in other areas.
She asked why the Board does not study the budget line item by line. Ms. McRaven said the most
important place for the children is the classroom which should never be short shifted. The teacher in the
classroom should never be underpaid; the elementary schools should be fully funded. She said that there
should not be $1.0 million spent for school public relations. There is also a place in the budget for the
Black Cat Road stoplight and she does not know why that line item should not be removed. The money
should be spent well for the best education. She asked the Board members to be good stewards of their
money.
Mr. Joshua Lafferty said he is a resident of the City of Charlottesville. He is concerned about the
proposed tax increase. He is not a homeowner; he is a renter. He said that funds should be cut from
some departments and redirected to essential services such as Schools and public safety. The Board
needs to put into place an objective for cutting the entire budget across-the-board. Last year’s tax rate
was not a tax cut; it was a cut in the increase.
Ms. Melissa Brown, a resident of Earlysville, said she is a parent and a teacher. She asked the
Board to leave the tax rate at the publicized 71 cents, not for her own salary but for her children who are
April 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
students at Jack Jouett Elementary School. Ms. Brown said that the teachers are excellent and very
dedicated. W hen she arrives at School every money, there are many teachers already there working.
Right now, as she is speaking, there are still teachers at Albemarle High School working. They do this not
for our own benefit, but for the benefit of the students of this County, for the future of this County. She
asked the Board to fully fund the Schools and the services needed to produce well-educated, well-rounded
and well-informed citizens to continue to make Albemarle a place where people want to come to.
Mr. Stewart H.B. Stevens expressed opposition to increasing the tax rate. He said it would be
nice to have the funds to address all of these concerns, but he does not support this increase. He
encouraged the Board to look into development rights in rural areas that are not assessed for tax
purposes. There are negotiations occurring with private property owners for easements and development
rights that should be taxed at the fair market value.
At this time with no further public speakers coming forward, the Chairman closed the public
hearing.
Mr. Rooker commented that there have been three public hearings with a lot of good input and
now the Board needs to move forward and make their decision.
Mr. Boyd said the Board will be finalizing the budget at its April 9th meeting, and will make a
decision on the tax rate at that time.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 22. Adjourn.
At 9:06 p.m., Mr. Rooker offered motion, seconded by Mr. Slutzky, to adjourn to April 9, 2008,
2:00 p.m. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by
Board
Date: 03/04/2009
Initials: EW J