2008-04-09April 9, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
April 9, 2008, at 2:008 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia; the
regular meeting began at 6:00 p.m. in the Lane Auditorium. The meeting was adjourned from April 2,
2008.
PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Ann H. Mallek, Mr. Dennis S.
Rooker, Mr. David Slutzky and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W . Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W .
Davis, Director of Community Development, Mark Graham, County Planner, V. W ayne Cilimberg, Clerk,
Ella W . Jordan, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Meagan Hoy.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Boyd.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Discussion and Adoption of FY 2008/09 Capital and Operating Budgets.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 3. Discussion and Adoption of Calendar Year 2008 Tax Rates.
Mr. Tucker said that on April 2nd, a public hearing was held on the Board of Supervisors’ proposed
FY 08/09 Operating and Capital Budgets. Today’s discussion relates to both budgets, and Board
members have a proposed resolution in their packets.
Mr. Tucker added that the Board also held a public hearing on the 2008 calendar year tax rates.
The attached resolution to set the 2008 tax year or calendar year tax rates must be approved at the this
meeting in order that the printing and mailing of the tax bills can occur in a timely manner. The proposed
rates are set at $0.71/$100 assessed valuation for real estate, public service and mobile homes for the
2008 tax year and at $4.28 /$100 assessed value for the personal property tax rate, including machinery
and tools.
Mr. Tucker then presented the following work sheet from which the Board can begin its
discussions.
FY 08/09 Budget Adjustments Worksheet
Proposed
Budget
Final Board Action
BEGINNING BOARD RESERVE 300,000 923,072
REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS
EMS Revenue Recovery (1,000,000)
State Revenue Reduction (600,000)
Tax Rate Adjustment (local share) 1,845,908
Subtotal-Revenue Adjustments 245,908 -
Available Revenue for Expenditure Adjustments 545,908 923,072
POTENTIAL EXPENDITURE ADJUSTMENTS
Proposed Reductions
2 Police Officers (232,958)
Pantops Personnel (April 2009 - 12 FF/ALS) (470,000)
Save the Fireworks (10,000)
Subtotal -- Proposed Reductions (712,958) -
Proposed Additions
Registrar Funding Request 19,620
Support for Domestic Violence Coord. 6,000
Sheriff - LiveScan Maintenance 2,373
Enhanced Median Mowing 45,269
Recycling (1/2 year) 75,000
Library - Bookmobile 16,727
Volunteer F/R Incentive Program (1/2 year) 157,000
Piedmont W orkforce Network 13,805
Subtotal -- Proposed Additions 335,794 -
Other Items for Consideration
APS Social W orker (net cost)
Affordable Housing
Restore 1 cent to CIP
Frozen Positions
April 9, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Subtotal -- Other Items - -
(377,164) -
923,072 923,072
Mr. Tuckered noted that the $923,072 would be a Board reserve at the 71 cent tax rate. He
pointed out changes that were made at the Board’s last work session, noting that potential expenditure
adjustments include a proposed reduction from four to two police officers and elimination of Pantops
personnel, and several items of proposed additions – Registrar funding for the Presidential election,
Domestic Violence Coordinator, etc. Several items for consideration, but no funds provided, include the
Adult Protective Services Social W orker, affordable housing, restoration of one cent to the CIP, and
unfreezing of positions. Mr. Tucker emphasized that that’s how the Board ended up with a 71-cent tax
rate that went to public hearing, with a $923,000 reserve.
He said that if the Board wanted to reduce the rate to 70 cents, the Board’s Reserve would drop
down to $323,000; if they wanted to add something back in for funding it would greater reduce the reserve.
Mr. Tucker suggested that the Board go directly to the items of consideration to determine if they want
consider funding any of them.
Mr. Rooker asked if the proposed additions were built into that number. Mr. Tucker said that
everything in the proposed budget is included now. Mr. Rooker said that several items have been
tentatively slated for funding, but he wants to ensure that the Board is not specifying items that commit
them to funding just because they are on the list because they are not finalized. For example, the Board
wanted to find out additional information on the bookmobile item. The Board had indicated that it might
fund the Volunteer Fire and Rescue Incentive Program; there is currently no solid proposal on this
program.
Mr. Tucker suggested taking them off and letting them fall back into the Reserve. During the year
as additional information becomes available, the Board can decide whether to move forward with the item.
Ms. Thomas asked if it is so difficult to change the budget that the item should not even be part of
the list. Mr. Tucker said that from a budget standpoint, it is easier to have it included but if it is determined
that less is needed, that amount would be reduced.
Mr. Rooker asked if it is an advantage to list items the Board is not reasonably certain will be
funded as opposed to leaving a fund balance where it can fund items. Mr. Tucker said the issue is
keeping track of unanticipated items during the year.
Mr. Slutzky suggested that a running list be kept. Mr. Tucker said that can be done.
Ms. Mallek commented that from the standpoint of public confidence, it seems the more
information listing programs the Board supports, the better, so they have an idea of exactly where their
money was going.
Mr. Rooker noted that in a $250.0 million budget, items that come back for expenditure do not get
the same kind of scrutiny as they would if they were not included in the original budget. There are certain
items that the Board will probably have to fund. Also, he would like to fund the Piedmont W orkforce
initiative, but would like to see if there is an alternative to paying for median mowing. He would like to see
if the mowing could be expanded with the use of Jail personnel. He does not think anyone said they
wanted to fund the bookmobile although some said they would like to consider funding. He would like to
have some of these items included on the list to consider going forward if the money is available. He does
not want to necessarily elevate them to the level of certain other items.
Mr. Slutzky suggested having a list of items for possible funding, putting price tags in where
possible, so that the public will know what is slated for funding, and as more information is gathered the
Board can decide to fund items or not.
Mr. Rooker agreed and added that there may be things that come along during the year that take
precedence over the list also.
Mr. Boyd reviewed the existing list with the Board: Registrar funding – supported funding,
Domestic Violence Coordinator – supported funding, Sheriff’s Live Scan Maintenance – supported
funding, Piedmont W orkforce Network – supported funding, and Save the Fireworks – supported funding.
Ms. Thomas said that she opposes the fireworks, but is otherwise supportive of the list. She also
said that the list has usually been generated from Strategic Planning sessions. Freezing positions has an
effect on the public and she would like to talk about those.
Mr. Slutzky said the majority of Board members were not supportive of leaving all the positions
frozen. Mr. Boyd commented that he had no problem with leaving the positions frozen. Mr. Slutzky said
the Board has not discussed how far they want to go into the list to unfreeze any of the positions. He
added that the proposed budget does not unfreeze them.
April 9, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
Mr. Tucker pointed out that the proposed fees offset the cost of the services being provided; taxes
are currently funding those services. The additional amount of fees that will be discussed later in the
meeting is an amount that would equate to about two positions.
Mr. Rooker asked what amount of additional revenue is included in the budget for projected fee
increases.
Mr. Thomas Foley, Assistant County Executive, said that there is about a 20 percent increase in
fees assumed, but there are fewer permits projected so the increase in actual revenue is not great as
shown in the budget. Mr. Graham is going to discuss additional revenue sources to fund those frozen
positions. He added that the Board could basically unfreeze two frozen positions if it approves those fee
increases on the next agenda item.
Mr. Boyd asked if the Board approved the additional positions when it approved the ordinances.
Mr. Foley said that the Board approved staff bringing them back for further deliberation.
Mr. Tucker commented about the procedure staff has set in place for filling positions. It is not
proposed that the positions be frozen for ever. As other positions become vacant they go to the list, and
positions deemed to be the most needed are usually unfrozen and funded first. The Planning positions
have moved to the top of the list.
Mr. Rooker and Mr. Tucker noted that that Department just happened to have an exodus of
employees right when the freeze was implemented.
Mr. Tucker added that staff also evaluates the work load when looking at vacant positions
because of the economy. He said that every time there is a vacancy, the positions in the list are
reevaluated.
Ms. Thomas stated that when the Board met in December, they were informed of 16 frozen
positions over the five years of the plan; with the fee schedule that list might be reduced to 14 frozen
positions. Mr. Tucker said staff is considering funding a Planner and an Engineering Inspector from the
fees. Ms. Thomas emphasized that adopting this budget “leaves some core services unattended,” and
said she would like to unfreeze a couple of the positions. She thinks that is being responsible. She does
not think local government is doing what it should be doing with 14 frozen positions.
Ms. Mallek said she is hearing a lot from business people about the lack of the Engineering
Inspector.
Mr. Tucker noted that the public safety positions are not in the frozen category; they are exempt.
He added that there is usually a one percent to two percent transitional absence in any department. He
said that any savings at the end of the year due to salary lapses goes back into the budget.
Ms. Thomas then read through the list of frozen positions, and she thinks it is a serious list of
services the County is not providing.
Mr. Rooker said that just because a government is down 12 people does not mean it is not
functioning well. He does not know that you draw your conclusion about what is being done or not done
from the number of people, either way. He emphasized that citizen surveys indicate performance levels
more so than staff numbers.
Ms. Thomas replied that the Board must also support the departments’ requests for staff as part
of what they need to operate. The Board continuously asks more of staff, mostly in response to the public,
and the Board should show some support of their needs. She asked if other Board members supported
including a dollar amount beside the frozen positions and removing any of them from the budget.
Mr. Tucker reminded the Board that these fees only cover watershed protection and building, and
all zoning fees, etc. will come to the Board also during the year and should fund additional positions
related to Community Development.
Mr. Rooker said that everyone on the Board has expressed an interest in funding items in ways
other than on the backs of property owners. He is in favor of restoring positions through fees instead of
presuming that it will be accomplished on property taxes.
Mr. Slutzky commented that the Board does want to look for those opportunities, but also does not
want to assume that additional fees will be available to fund the frozen positions.
In response to Ms. Thomas’ reiteration of whether to unfreeze positions, Mr. Rooker stated that he
is not in favor of adding a person just because they are on a list.
Ms. Thomas replied that she is not either, but if the budget is built on positions to be filled that
should be said.
Mr. Dorrier said that there should be some relationship between unfreezing a position and
population increase, and if the population is the same the positions should not need to be increased.
April 9, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
Mr. Slutzky commented that the presumption is that if the positions are actually funded, then the
County would be providing the services that the existing population requires. He added that Mr. Tucker
has already informed the Board that those positions are needed to fulfill needs for the current population.
Mr. Dorrier said that if the workload is getting done, those positions do not need to be filled.
Mr. Slutzky emphasized that there is not enough money to fund the positions, so certain services
will just not be delivered. It does not speak to the core issue that service requirements have facilitated the
need for those employees.
Mr. Boyd asked if everyone was supportive of the 71-cent tax rate, stating that he is not.
Mr. Rooker said that he was talked into supporting the 71-cent rate even though he supports a 70-
cent rate, noting that that provides $900,000 more to the Schools than their best-case scenarios.
Mr. Boyd added that the Schools would also receive a $450,000 “windfall” from the current year.
Mr. Rooker stated that a 70-cent rate is “plenty adequate” He is concerned that things may get
worse from a real property standpoint so it would be unwise to build in an expense level in the budget that
becomes more difficult to deal with next year by hiring more people – local government and/or schools. If
Board members recall from earlier discussions, they will realize that they can do everything they
anticipated they wanted to do in the budget with a 70-cent rate.
Mr. Slutzky commented that he is not necessarily in agreement that 70 cents funds everything.
There is a litany of things that the Board is not doing that he thinks it should be doing at the 71 cent tax
rate, including these 13 frozen positions. There are a list of other unfunded initiatives.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that the test of whether adequate services are being provided – police
officers for example – is not the number of staff but whether the job is being done, and community surveys
show that police are doing an excellent job. He does not necessarily think that the County needs to add
four or five police officers every year. He questions adding two new police officers when there are other
frozen positions. He would like some kind of rationale comparison between the necessities of one job
versus the necessity of another job.
Ms. Mallek and Ms. Thomas mentioned that there have been almost 1,000 citations over a three-
month period not being delivered to people because of the inability of Chief Miller’s staff to cover this.
Ms. Thomas clarified that there is a backlog of 1,000 unserved warrants.
Mr. Rooker said that there are a number of reasons warrants do not get delivered, such as people
leaving the area.
Mr. Slutzky commented that the County Executive recommended four police officers but scaled it
back to two.
Mr. Rooker said the County Executive recommended four because the Board told him to do that.
Mr. Tucker commented that it is part of the County’s Strategic Plan.
Mr. Boyd said the Strategic Plan is a forecast; you have to remember the realities of what you are
faced with.
Ms. Thomas added that if they are adopting the Strategic Plan with their “fingers crossed behind
their backs” then it should not be done.
Mr. Boyd said the Board has to remember the realities of true economic conditions. There has
been a downturn in the economy. Just because they are in the public, they cannot simply say they have
an unlimited amount of money and reach into the taxpayers’ pockets.
Mr. Slutzky said he has learned from being a businessman for a number of years that you do not
plan your budget based on what you hope will be your revenue stream next year. Each Board member
gets to interpret what staff has proposed for revenue projections. He has repeatedly stated that he thinks
staff is overly optimistic. He thinks the real estate market will be a lot worst than revenue assumptions will
imply. He is concerned that the County will never see this $900,000, yet there are still numerous things
that should be funded.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks staff realizes the revenue picture and has made adjustments several
times during this process.
Ms. Mallek mentioned that her constituents reminded her of a time in the 1970’s when the County
had to borrow money for payroll. It puts the Board in a terrible position if it is too finely tuned and do not
have a reserve.
Mr. Rooker said that also is a good reason for not necessarily including additional items in the
budget until you get to perhaps mid-year and see where your appraisals are.
Mr. Slutzky stated that those items are not new though, they are existing positions.
April 9, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
Ms. Mallek said that she would like to add back in the 6.9 percent increase for Mountainside, as
they leverage money 4:1. This would fully fund their request. The City of Charlottesville has fully funded
their request.
Mr. Boyd commented that the average for agencies was four percent.
Mr. Bryan Elliot, Assistant County Executive, noted that JABA goes through the ABRT process
and most of their programs were rated in the “solid” recommendation; their advocacy and volunteer
services were rated adequate; and the funding recommendation is based on five of the six programs. He
said that the Board and City Council agreed that Mountainside would be level funded, so there was no
recommendation for an increase.
Ms. Mallek said that the City changed its mind and agreed to an increase.
Mr. Elliot stated that to meet that request, the County would need to allocate $1,061.
Mr. Boyd and Mr. Rooker said he thinks they can find that money.
There was no opposition expressed to including the additional funds for Mountainside in the
budget.
Mr. Boyd asked to revisit the tax rate discussion.
Mr. Slutzky said that he supports 71-cents because he is concerned about a decline in the
revenue base, not because he wants to raise taxes. He is looking at it against the expectations that the
Board created with the public and the economy.
Mr. Boyd said he supports a 70 cents tax rate.
Mr. Dorrier said he supports the 70 cents tax rate. He thinks the School budget is tenuous and
they are in the process of taking steps to allow for a more efficient School system. He would like to keep
the rate at 68 cents, but the 70 cents will allow a $300,000 “rainy day” fund.
Mr. Rooker said he would not support a 70 cents tax rate if he did not think it adequately funded
the schools. The Board spent a lot of time with Schools and going through their budget. Referring to
various scenarios previously presented to the Board, he pointed out that that is beyond the 68-cent rate
posed in scenario #1. Scenario #2 was 68 cents plus a penny out of capital; and scenario #3 was 69
cents plus a penny out of capital. Now the discussion is about 70 cents plus a penny out of capital,
funding everything in the last scenario plus $900,000. This clearly goes beyond what the Schools
presented as the best scenario.
Ms. Mallek noted that any further cuts from Richmond would require the Schools to make cuts
during the school year. She would certainly hold the Schools to their statement that they are going
through with another round of implementations from the Bosher study many of which take investment to
happen. The Schools cannot make a lot of these long term savings changes without some investment
along the way. That is in addition to covering future anticipated shortfalls from Richmond.
Mr. Rooker said the Schools did an excellent job of having the Utilization Study done and
immediately attacking items on the list and realizing savings. He is not interested in a budget that does
not adequately support education, but the discussion here is about taking the third scenario and adding
$900,000.
Mr. Brian W heeler, Chairman of the School Board, explained that they created a scenario based
on revenues 70 cents plus the penny on the CIP. It is essentially three cents more than scenario #3. He
noted that items such as school nurses and gifted resource teachers did not make the Schools’ budget, so
it should not be assumed that this budget funds all of the school priorities. He also confirmed that Schools
have taken fuel cost increases into account.
Ms. Thomas said that if the County’s CPI was 2.85 percent and the population growth is just
under one percent, there could be an increase of 3.83 percent, and they are not even coming up to that
with a 71-cent rate – that yields just 3.2 percent. She explained that she has reviewed what has been
done over the last few budget sessions, including a cut of $1.0 million and a cut of revenue going to the
CIP, but “it’s a serious cut” that will keep the Board from following up on master plans and using “pay as
you go” in the future. She also said the Board has cut public safety by over $600,000 by going from four
police to two and changing plans for Pantops. Ms. Thomas said that the impact on General Government
is going to lead her to support a 71-cent rate because the County just won’t be able to provide the public
with those core services. The Board leads people on by suggesting that it is going to do certain things and
then not funding them. She added that the County is picking up $1.7 million in the CIP, the cost for
dealing with septage for the sewage treatment plant.
Mr. Boyd commented that the five-year budget forecast was built on 68 cents in the first year,
going up to 69 in the third year, and going up a penny over the timeframe, so going up to 71 cents is not
cutting the forecast, it is enhancing it.
Mr. Rooker said the country is going through bad economic times. W hen he looks at strategic
initiatives, personally, he thinks the Board needs to stick with objective pay criteria and try to meet it. That
initiative is ongoing and currently being met. The County is maintaining teacher pay in the top quartile of
April 9, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
the competitive market. A lower tax rate still provides market-rate raises. The average homeowner will
essentially pay the same taxes this year as last year with a 70-cent rate as valuations have declined an
average of 2.5 percent for residential properties. He emphasized that it would enable the County to allow
taxpayers to not have to come up with more money to fund government.
Mr. Slutzky asked how much a penny on the tax rate costs the average homeowner in Albemarle
County.
Ms. Thomas said that the average home is $300,000; Mr. Tucker said that that translates into $30
a year.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks during a recession revenues should be increased the absolute
minimum. He supports the 70-cent tax rate which adequately funds the Schools and keeps the rainy-day
fund at about $350,000 as shown in this budget.
Mr. Slutzky asked if property values are anticipated to increase this year. Mr. Tom Foley,
Assistant County Executive, replied that it is anticipated there will be a five percent drop over two years.
Mr. Slutzky said he predicts there would be additional cuts that need to be made mid-year.
Mr. Boyd stated that he is in favor of decreasing expenses instead of raising the tax rate.
Mr. Rooker noted that there would still be more spent on public safety than there was last year.
This budget contemplates continuing to move forward on the Board’s most important initiatives.
Mr. Slutzky said he disagrees.
Ms. Mallek stated that she thinks the 71-cent rate allows for a safety valve to have available for a
resource utilization study for local government and an independent assessment of how the money could
be best used. She is very concerned about being able to have a consistent delivery of services, not an
expanded one, if things go as predicted.
Mr. Slutzky asked how much it would cost to invest in a resource utilization study.
Mr. Tucker explained that staff would be bringing forth in May a proposal of a way to start looking
at the utilization study. A study may cost more than $100,000 because the disciplines in County
government are much more varied than the schools’.
Mr. Rooker said that he would like the Technology Department to be looked at, as it seems to be
large in relation to the number of County employees. He also said that Community Development is the
only department, when compared to other counties around the state, is substantially larger. The County
needs to take a hard look at how the personnel in those departments are being used and whether or not
they are being used most effectively to get the job done. The Board does ask more of its’ Community
Development Department than most counties do, but there are substantially more personnel in the
department than most other counties.
Mr. Slutzky said that he would support a resource utilization study, because of the success of the
Schools’ endeavor and the reality of what the budget might be in the coming year(s). He noted that the
end result might be reevaluating the Comp Plan.
Mr. Rooker commented that right now would be an excellent time for a resource utilization study
because of the frozen positions. He also thinks the study should be done by someone who is not part of
the County system. He added that one of the best times to get a study done is when there are some
frozen positions.
Mr. Slutzky said he does not think $600,000 in Board reserve is enough money.
Ms. Mallek said she also does not think it is enough money in reserve. It does not mean that just
because the money is there the Board needs to spend it, but it does need to be there so the Board can be
prepared for the unexpected.
Mr. Slutzky said the Board is not providing for the possibility that property values may decline
more than 2.5 percent next year.
Mr. Boyd commented that the Board did not provide for that last year, but it survived because
adjustments were made throughout the year.
Mr. Slutzky said the Board has identified a lot of things it would like to fund. For example, Mr.
Dorrier has told IMPACT representatives that he will provide them with $500,000 towards affordable
housing. He does not see any funds for that initiative in this budget.
Mr. Dorrier said he also said he was going to earmark reserve funds for affordable housing.
Ms. Thomas said Board members continue to make demands of staff, but are not providing funds
for those demands.
Mr. Slutzky said that he does not think the funds will be there, and the Board will then have to
figure out how to fund the gap.
April 9, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
Ms. Mallek indicated that she is very much in favor of funding a volunteer incentive program, as it
is a huge savings in the long run. She would like to see funding for that program added to the list for
proposed additions. Board members concurred.
Mr. Rooker said that there is not a hard proposal for that yet, although he strongly supported it
when it came forward.
Mr. Boyd said he also supports the program but he wants to see the proposal before voting any
funds towards the program.
Mr. Slutzky pointed out that Mr. Dorrier had indicated that he wanted to fully fund affordable
housing at $500,000, but there may not be enough in the budget or reserve for that.
Mr. Dorrier said that it is unlikely everything can be done in one year, and he supports using
volunteers whenever possible.
Mr. Rooker expressed concern that while the County does need to perform core government
functions, it is problematic when the employee base outpaces population growth.
Ms. Thomas said that there’s nothing in this budget that suggests that. There was no agreement
to unfreeze any of the positions. She has not heard any wild wish lists. She added that the Board would
likely regret not having the fund balance there.
Mr. Slutzky encouraged the Board to consider looking at the Comp Plan if it is unlikely those items
would not be funded. He does not think it is fair to say we are going to keep control over the expense side
and then keep on the books the promises and the expectations.
Mr. Boyd said that this is not our money, this $30.00 is our taxpayer’s money. He pointed out that
there are people suffering because they are not getting raises and are not responsible for the increased
value of their homes. He thinks that raising the tax rate by two cents is enough of a burden to put the
citizens. Part of the quality of life in this community is allowing the citizens to be economically viable.
Mr. Slutzky said that he wants to minimize the impact on that group, but is also very concerned
about those in the lowest 20 percent below poverty who need help. There was a community organization
that evaluated the needs of that community and brought forward a series of recommendations to help fund
the needs. There is no way the Board is going to be able to fund any of that if it sets the tax rate at 70
cents.
Mr. Boyd commented that that assumes the County is not leveraging money to help those people.
Mr. Slutzky responded that the same could be said for those in the rural area that own a lot of
property. He also pointed out that the staff report on poverty recommended using the 200 percent of
federal poverty levels as the measure locally because of the cost of living, and the Board agreed to that.
Mr. Rooker said that the Board did not take a vote and approve that. The Board did not approve a
definition of poverty at 200 percent of the federal level.
Mr. Slutzky commented that they are not doing well either way though.
Mr. Rooker said the Board is at an impasse; each side seems to be dug into their position. The
Board cannot adopt a rate that is in between.
Mr. W iggans said the Board cannot set the rate at a tenth of a cent. It would require significant
modifications to the billing system that could not get done in the next two weeks. In response to Mr.
Rooker, 70.5 cents would not work.
Mr. Dorrier asked what effect on the budget it would have if gas went to $4 a gallon.
Mr. Tucker said he built in an assumption of a 25 percent increase, and $4 would be a little higher.
Mr. Dorrier said he is concerned about the effect of gas prices on commuters. In terms of the
comments about $30.00, it costs that much for a tank of gas to travel back and forth from Scottsville to
Charlottesville to go to work.
Ms. Mallek agreed, but also noted that it impacts safety personnel, School bus drivers, as well.
(At 3:44 p.m., Mr. Rooker suggested the Board take a recess. The Board reconvened at
3:58 p.m.)
Mr. Boyd said he had a conversation with the County Executive during the recess. Mr. Tucker
reminded him that just as the tax rate the Board sets today impacts one-half of this year’s budget, the
same situation will occur next year when the budget is set. The Board has the opportunity of impacting
the second one-half of the year’s income. He added that if there is a huge shortfall in April, 2009, it could
be made up because there would be another tax period in the 2009 budget.
Mr. Slutzky suggested taking one-half of one cent and put it in a lockbox set aside only to fund a
deficit due to inadequate revenue stream. If it is not needed, the surplus would be carried over to next
year. That would equate to about $300,000 for local government.
April 9, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mr. Boyd asked about the $450,000 that would go to the Schools. He asked if they would put it in
a lockbox too.
Mr. Davis responded that the Board could appropriate by categories to the School Board but that
would not solve the issue; they could also appropriate less than budgeted in the July appropriation.
Mr. Foley said the Board could take it off the top as with the CIP to create a reserve for
contingencies, which is fairly common in other localities.
Mr. Boyd asked how much money is in the County’s reserves for cashflow.
Mr. Tucker said there is about $13 million in reserves for cashflow right now.
Mr. Boyd asked how much money is unallocated CIP funds.
Mr. Foley said that all CIP monies are allocated to projects over the five-year period. He also
explained that “leftover money” goes into the Capital reserve to fund projects in future years. There is no
extra amount besides the amount projected in the reserve.
Mr. Slutzky emphasized that the purpose of the fund he is recommending is to have it available
only to make up shortfall in revenues. This is a purely reserve fund; the Board would hold it in abeyance
and even give it back to the public or it will get eaten up by the unfortunate economy and the Board would
be glad to have it there.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that if you put the rate at 70 cents, you increase revenues in this current
fiscal year. He said that if taxes have to be raised next year, that can be done, because it allows a safety
net on both sides.
Mr. Tucker explained that if the Board adopted a rate of 71 cents, it would have $400,000 in
reserve and a fund balance of $1.0 million. The amount would be $600,000 if the tax rate was 70 cents.
Mr. Slutzky asked why the fund balance is built into the budget every year. Mr. Tucker responded
that it is for cashflow.
Mr. Boyd said he still cannot support the proposal because it is taking money out of the taxpayer
pockets.
Mr. Rooker added that the County has maintained very prudent and conservative fund balances.
He added that for any business borrowing for payroll is not uncommon, but fortunately the County has not
had to do that.
Ms. Mallek added that there would be a lot of criticisms from citizens if the County had to borrow
money to operate.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks it is a policy decision made on an ongoing basis if the Board feels it needs
some reserves because it does not feel it is doing a good job forecasting revenues.
Mr. Slutzky said he thinks the economy has become more fickle.
Ms. Thomas stated that up to now the area has been relatively insulated to market fluctuations
because of the University, but that dynamic will likely change as the area changes.
Mr. Boyd said he wants to keep the rate at 70 cents.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks the proposal makes a conservative statement that is of value.
Mr. Dorrier said that he is not in favor of the lockbox idea because it takes more money away from
the citizens. The $13.0 million cashflow is a safety net and means that the County will not go broke. He
stated that he wants a 70-cent rate because it could be increased next year. He commented that in his
term on the Board, the monies tend to come in at the end of the year that are not predicted at the
beginning of the year. The cost of gasoline is affecting people’s pockets.
Mr. Boyd mentioned that there was a year where there were two different rates – one in the
beginning of the year and a different one mid-year. In June the rate would be 70 cents and in December
the rate would be 71 cents.
Mr. Slutzky said that would not allow the benefit of putting money in the lockbox if the property
values go down, otherwise it is the same as his proposal.
Mr. Tucker said the change in the assessment would be in June 2009.
Mr. Boyd said that there would be two collection periods with known property values, so 70 cents
could be adopted now with 71 cents adopted later.
Mr. Slutzky said he would not support that because he does not think it allows enough money to
insulate the uncertainty in the revenue side.
April 9, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
Ms. Thomas added that there are other reasons the County may have less money other than
assessed property values. It is not just real estate assessments; there are other things in the economy
that affect the different revenue sources.
Mr. Slutzky said he does not think that staff projected last year that there would be a 44 percent
cut in transportation funding. There are all sorts of things that can creep up. He thinks it makes sense to
put one-half of one cent in a lockbox.
Mr. Boyd asked which Board members support $500,000 for affordable housing this year.
Mr. Slutzky said he supports it. He also thinks the Board should restore some of the frozen
positions and he supports some of the other things on the list that are unfunded.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that a lot of things can happen over the course of the year, and there may
be new projects approved that come to fruition and add to revenues. He cannot support something until he
sees a recommendation and consider whether it is a wise expenditure of public money, and the money is
available for the purpose. He reiterated that if the Board set the tax rate at 70 cents, it will start out with a
$600,000 surplus. The Board can decide to keep that available as a contingency, as a cushion for this
year. They are also projecting a $400,000 surplus next year based on the 70 cent tax rate. To him that is
a reasonable cushion.
Ms. Mallek said if the $600,000 is used for a cushion, it means that it will not be put into the CIP.
W hile going door to door campaigning, she was told over and over why the County isn’t doing
infrastructure before things happen.
Mr. Rooker said, with the exception of transportation, he thinks the County has done a good job of
building the things it puts into the CIP to build.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that in the last community survey, residents were least satisfied with local
government’s efforts to promote development of affordable places to live, to protect and preserve the
County’s rural character, and provide needed infrastructure.
Mr. Tucker noted that if the Board increases the rate at all, about $330,000 would go to the CIP.
Mr. Dorrier also mentioned that NGIC would be bringing 1,000 people into the community in the
next couple years, and the economy may be in an upturn beginning in 2009.
Ms. Thomas said that the facility is slated to bring 2,000 jobs by 2,011. She commented that it
would make more sense to implement a 70-cent tax rate now, and go up to 71-cents later.
Ms. Mallek said that it’s easier to come down than go up.
Mr. Robert W alters pointed out that Finance cannot go the other way this quickly because of the
processing of the bills; that can’t happen in a week and a half. He said that years ago one rate was
adopted and in the subsequent year a tax credit of one cent was given.
Mr. Davis said that the higher rate was shown and a credit was reflected on the bill, so it was “an
odd administrative methodology that they did to show the correct amounts” but it was set that way. He
said that the year following the year of the tax increase, in order to adjust the amount of increase, there
were two tax rates set for the following calendar year.
Ms. Thomas suggested setting it at 70 cents, and then at 71 cents. She added that the one-cent
rebate was “reacting to a very particular bad time.”
Mr. Davis noted that the complication from the billing standpoint is the fact that the tax bill for the
entire year becomes due January 1, so the combined calendar year tax obligation would be based on a
70-cent tax rate for the first half and a 71-cent tax rate for the second half. W hen the bill is generated, the
entire year’s tax rate is shown with the amount due in the first half and second half. That is what causes
the mechanical problem for Information Technology because they have a hard time with their program
showing two different tax rates generating the entire tax bill. He said that earlier they showed the two tax
rates, with the reduction in the first half shown as a credit.
Ms. Thomas suggested making a motion to have Information Technology come back with a
proposal to do the split tax rate.
Mr. Slutzky said he would not support that as a motion.
Ms. Mallek said she prefers the lockbox idea at 71 cents. Ms. Thomas agreed.
Mr. Rooker said that he supports the 70-cent rate, but it does not appear that there are four votes
for that – or for the 71-cent rate. He could support the split tax rate.
Mr. Boyd said he could support the split tax rates because there needs to be a compromise.
Mr. Slutzky said he could not support 70.5 cents given the state of the County’s budget.
Mr. Dorrier stated that he could support 70.5 cents.
April 9, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
Ms. Mallek said that she would support it also, stating that she hopes it allows for enough funds
for the utilization study and to go forward another year with more consensus in the community.
Mr. Davis indicated that in order for the budget to be determined, the Board still has to assume a
tax rate for January 1 to June 30, 2009. He asked if it is the assumption that the tax rate in the second
half of the ‘09 fiscal year is 71 cents. He added that the budget for next year would be built on a 71-cent
tax rate for the second half of calendar year ‘08 and a 71-cent tax rate for the first half of calendar year for
‘09; meaning the Board is effectively deciding a 71-cent tax rate for fiscal year ’09 and keeping the tax rate
for fiscal year ’08 at 70 cents rather than 71 cents.
Mr. Tucker noted that that’s an assumption because the Board would be making a decision in ‘09.
Mr. Rooker said he believes that is the assumption. Mr. Boyd agreed.
At this point, the Board decided to move to the next agenda item, and then return to this
discussion later in the meeting.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Work Session: Community Development Fees – Building Regulations and
W ater Protection Ordinances.
The Executive Summary provided to the Board states that the purpose of this work session is to
receive Board direction on staff recommended fee increases for fees established in the Building
Regulations and W ater Protection ordinances and to establish a policy for future updates. At the
December 5, 2007 Board meeting, staff presented a Community Development Fee Study and a
recommendation for a policy on updating fees in the future. (Attachment A) Given the limited amount of
time for discussion and the complexity, it was not possible for the Board to give specific direction on
revised fees. This executive summary attempts to simplify this by limiting consideration, for now, to only
the fees set forth in these two ordinances and a policy for use in establishing future fee increases.
The discussion is divided into three specific topics: fees in the W ater Protection Ordinance, permit
and inspection fees in the Building Regulations Ordinance, and a policy for future update of fees in both
ordinances.
Fees in the W PO have received more recent attention than fees in other ordinances administered
by Community Development, but have lagged behind cost of services in recent years. To assist the Board
in understanding how Albemarle County fees compare to other localities, staff has provided a fee
comparison in Attachments B and C (on file). This recommendation is for fees that provide close to full
cost recovery while remaining comparable to other localities. As discussed with the Board during
consideration of the recent Rural Areas ordinance amendments and budget process, these proposed fee
increases would provide funding for an additional reviewer/inspector. Staff found the fees comparable to
other localities, but notes every locality appears to have unique characteristics with their fee structure. The
most important fee difference is associated with plan reviews and inspections for plans. (Attachment B:
Fee ID# 69 & 70, on file). Instead of calculating this fee by the acre, staff has recognized that the cost is
better correlated to required reviews and inspections, with a plan renewal fee to address the second year
cost of inspections. It is noted this structure provides an incentive for the developer to complete the
grading activity as quickly as possible, which also reduces the staff effort needed on the site. Finally, it
should be noted this recommendation does not include W ater Protection Ordinance requirements where
the fees are listed in the Subdivision or Zoning Ordinances (e.g. groundwater assessment). Those
proposed fee changes will be addressed at a future date.
A comparison of recommended building fees with those in neighboring localities is provided in
Attachment D (on file), which demonstrates the revised fees are comparable to those localities. Staff
notes there is one significant change to consider. For single family houses, new construction and
additions (Fee ID #107), staff is recommending revising the current fee structure, which currently requires
the owner/contractor to obtain a building permit and numerous sub-permits. Staff is recommending this
be simplified to one permit with all of the costs for the various sub-permits wrapped into one permit. This
is explained in Attachment E (on file). This greatly improves both the permit processing and
understanding of costs for owners/applicants. It also removes an obstacle to online processing of permits,
where the complexity of the sub-permits has made it almost impossible to calculate the fees without a
discussion with the applicant. Staff is interested in expanding this concept to other building permits, but
recognizes permit complexities present unique challenges for many of the situations with commercial
uses. As such, staff is only recommending this approach for single family housing at this time, but will
continue to investigate how it can be done with other building permits. Again, these proposed fees target
fees that provide close to full cost recovery but remain comparable to other localities.
Staff believes the reason fees have failed to keep current is the County has never established a
policy for automatic adjustment of fees associated with the development ordinances. To assure
Community Development administered programs are properly managed, staff believes it is critical to
establish a fee adjustment policy in the future. W hen proposed adjustments to the Subdivision and
Zoning Ordinances are reviewed with the Board in a future work session, a proposed fee adjustment
policy will be reviewed and proposed as well.
Historically, the County has seen revenues of approximately $940,000 in fees per year from these
two ordinances. W ith the recommended changes, the fees collected are estimated to increase to
$1,420,000 in a typical year. Under the County Executive’s proposed FY 08-09 budget, it was anticipated
that revised Community Development fees would increase revenues by approximately $260,000 in the
April 9, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
next fiscal year. The fees in this recommendation are estimated to generate an additional $380,000 in the
next fiscal year and $480,000 in a typical year. The additional $120,000 projected increase in funding
from these proposed fee increases would offset the cost of the two currently frozen positions in
Community Development, including the inspector needed to enforce the recently amended Rural Areas
ordinances.
Staff offers the following recommendations: First, they ask that the Board direct staff to bring
forward changes to the W ater Protection Ordinance fees as proposed in Attachment B (on file), with any
other changes the Board determines appropriate. Secondly, they ask that the Board direct staff to bring
forward changes to the Building Regulations Ordinance fees as proposed in Attachment D (on file), with
any other changes the Board determines appropriate.
Mr. Graham said he was present to respond to any questions from Board members.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Rooker, that the Board set for public hearing the proposed
increase in building permit and inspection fees and W ater Protection Ordinance fees.
Mr. Slutzky seconded the motion.
Mr. Boyd said that he has reservations about it, but would vote for it to go to public hearing.
Ms. Mallek said that she had a few questions.
Mr. Graham suggested that the Board send him questions to include in the Executive Summary
that goes with the public hearing information.
Mr. Davis added that if there are fees that the Board feels are too low, they should let staff know
as well.
Ms. Thomas commented that land-disturbing activity is at $320 plus $125 per acre, and the
proposal is to have it $300 plus $100 per acre, and wondered why it went down.
Mr. Graham explained that there has not been an additional fee up to now for the second year
with inspections, and this will change the fee structure to per year until the permit is closed. He said that
the other significant difference is a plan review of $300 per review. If it takes them five submissions the
fee is $1,500.
Ms. Thomas expressed her support of that because it is so demanding on staff.
Mr. Boyd asked if it would be possible to use a fee structure that reflects time and materials.
Mr. Graham responded that there are places that do that but it is more cumbersome in terms of
recordkeeping.
Referring to Attachment D, Ms. Mallek asked if the projected revenue is the total or increase. Mr.
Graham said that is the total. It is taking the figure from the Units column and multiplying by the proposed
new fee amount. The numbers of units are based on an average typical year.
Ms. Thomas said that the fees related to tents might impact rural area users such as churches,
nonprofits and ruritan clubs, etc., more so than other users. She asked if $50 is a reflection of the amount
of work staff has to do.
Mr. Graham agreed, stating that the polo match at King Vineyards uses corporate tents and they
are charged a fee for that. He said that by the time staff has to drive out to a site and inspect a tent, it
becomes costly for staff. He added that there are tents staff does not have to inspect; it depends on the
size of the tent.
Mr. Rooker asked about the estimates included in his report under budget impact.
Mr. Graham explained that the $480,000 is the estimate for a typical year, but with the building
market being slower, the best guess for next fiscal year is about $360,000. He commented that Mr.
Tucker has already built a 20 percent increase in fees in the County budget which is $260,000 accounted
for in revenue. The $120,000 is the additional funding being captured through fees whereas previously it
has been paid through tax support.
Mr. Boyd said that he is not against the fee increases at all, but is not prepared to vote on them
until he hears the public.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that the consultant’s information was very in-depth.
Mr. Rooker added that staff has provided fees from comparable localities.
Mr. Boyd said that he just wants to make sure that enough is being collected, to ensure that staff
is not being taken advantage of by providing services that are similar to what an engineer would provide,
etc.
Ms. Thomas commented that she is really enthusiastic about the unified permit plan.
April 9, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion to take the proposed increase in
fees to public hearing 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. 5. Discussion: Land Use Tax Deferral.
Due to time constraints, this item was rescheduled to the May 14, 2008 agenda.
_______________
(Note: At this time, the Board returned to the discussion on the budget and tax rates.)
Mr. Tucker said IT can probably get the tax bills prepared but the problems are the supplements
and the exonerations which have to be done by hand.
In response to what exonerations are, Mr. Bruce W oodzell, Real Estate Assessor, said
exonerations are bills that are changed. There could an error that was made or some other change due to
an assessment. The bill is exonerated and then supplemented as it is corrected. There also could be a
rollback for people who are in land use. He added that all the bills are hard coded in the computer and the
current software does not allow them to do a split tax credit. Last time when the staff did a split billing, it
began in March.
Mr. Davis added that the budget was built knowing there was going to be a split tax rate.
Mr. Tucker asked Ms. Thomas in the interest of time if it would make a difference to move forward
with the funding of the two frozen positions she mentioned, which cuts the reserve to roughly $320,000.
Mr. Rooker said he would support it.
Ms. Mallek said she would support it more at 71 cent so a $600,000 reserve could be left.
Mr. Boyd said he could support moving those positions back into the budget.
Mr. Tucker said that staff budgeted to start out with the $300,000 reserve, and with adjustments
that has grown if a 71-cent is adopted; it drops down to $300,000 with 70 cents.
Mr. Slutzky asked if there were any revenue deficits that were filled using reserve funds.
Mr. Tucker responded no. He added that there was a $5.5 million shorftfall that was funded
through reductions in expenditures; the shortfall includes Schools.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to see the sales taxes restored to what they were last year.
Mr. Slutzky reiterated his desire to adopt a 71 cent rate and take one-half of one cent into a lock
box.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that at the end of this year, if a 70-cent tax rate is adopted today, there
will be a $300,000 Board reserve plus $600,000 of additional revenue over and above expenditures. That
results in a two-cent increase in the current year. That includes unfreezing two positions.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that the only reason that can be counted for spending is because the
current year’s budget has been cut by $5.0 million.
Mr. Rooker said that in every year there are projections made for revenue and expenses, and they
are rarely exact. He added that there is some financial cushion if a 70-cent rate is adopted, and last year
the approved budget had a $300,000 reserve. Like any business, if during the year you find out the
revenues are not coming in as expected, you have to make adjustments.
Mr. Boyd said he does not think some Board members see the dire need Mr. Slutzky sees to build
another reserve by taking more money out of the taxpayer pockets.
Ms. Thomas said that she feels this is a serious dilemma because the Board will regret going to
the 70 cent tax rate, and moving the two frozen positions is not a responsible thing to do right now. There
is a priority process for dealing with positions. She added that the lockbox is not something she had
thought of before, but it makes a lot of sense.
Ms. Mallek said it has been shown that tax rates can be reduced. She hopes that people will
become more trusting and react to one year at a time with the guidance of the five year Strategic Plan.
Mr. Slutzky commented that there was a much more significant tax increase last year. If the tax
rate is set at 71 cents, it is a very marginal increase in the actual tax burden on the taxpayer.
Ms. Thomas said it is seldom that people are faced with a major revenue tax bill increase. She
noted that the people who own lots of rural land are the ones who see the substantial increases in their
bills. She added that the one penny adds an average of about $30 to a taxpayer’s bill.
April 9, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
Mr. Boyd noted that the Board was at a stalemate and suggested that the Board recess for a
dinner break, and then resume the discussion at 6:00 p.m.
(Note: The Board recessed at 5:35 p.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. The meeting was called back to order at 6:13 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr.
Boyd.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 9. Moment of Silence.
_______________
(Note: At this time, the Board returned to the discussion on the budget and tax rates.)
Mr. Boyd acknowledged that there were a number of individuals present for the public hearings,
but the Board has not finished its’ discussion on the tax rate.
Mr. Slutzky reiterated the idea of putting one-half cent away in a lockbox to fill in a revenue gap,
emphasizing that the unfunded items on the list are also important. He proposed setting the tax rate at 71
cents, but taking an entire penny of that and setting it aside in the event other revenue sources decline
beyond projections. Mr. Slutzky added that if that fund does not have to be tapped into, it would go back
to the taxpayers when the budget is set next year.
Mr. Boyd said he does not support that proposal. He is only willing to go to 70 cents.
Mr. Dorrier agreed with Mr. Boyd, stating that the budget is already going up two cents on a
budget of 68 cents, which is already increasing the budget. There are people on fixed incomes in the
County who are struggling to make ends meet and with $4 a gallon gas coming along, he thinks the
County is going to have some problems.
Mr. Rooker said that he has been in favor of a 70-cent rate. He thinks that is an adequate rate
that fully funds schools, plus $400,000 over and above their last funding request.
Mr. Boyd said he also thinks 70 cents is adequate to meet the needs of the budget.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that the $5.0 million deficit prompted the Administration to make cuts, so
there is not the budget originally anticipated. At 70 cents she does not think that the Board begins to
make that up. It does allow more of a cushion than the 68 cents. She thinks the Board will be sorry come
December at a 70 cent rate. She has put thought into thinking about the County’s core services and how
to fund them, and it seems there is just a difference of opinion as to what defines “core.” She added that
every time this group talks about a new program, they are eager to have it done, and they are not going to
be able to do any new initiatives, let alone replace the frozen positions. Ms. Thomas expressed concern
about freezing positions that make a difference to public service. She appreciates the effort Mr. Slutzky
put forward to create a “lockbox.” Putting one penny into a lockbox would be a compromise on her part
because it would not be putting the money into the operating budget, but instead putting it into a locked
contingency fund.
Ms. Mallek said that her constituents have expressed concern about adequate provision for
Schools and Social Services, and there are people calling for a local government resource utilization
study. She noted that this may help to gain back public confidence and there will be a tremendous debate
over every new initiative. Ms. Mallek commented that she likes Mr. Slutzky’s proposal, and wants to make
sure that the County does not get into a situation where they would have to borrow money for payroll.
Having more reserves is better for getting through the year.
Mr. Boyd pointed out that if a penny was locked up there would be the same amount of money as
with a 70-cent rate. He said that having a $900,000 fund balance would be adequate based on what has
been needed in the past.
Ms. Thomas said that having the lockbox would cut into that $900,000.
Mr. Boyd asked if the “over-funding” of the Schools could be put into reserve.
Mr. Rooker explained that at 70 cents, basically the third level of request from Schools is being
met, plus $900,000. He emphasized that at 70 or 71 cents, the proposal adequately funds Schools -
$900,000 more than the best case scenario they presented at the 70-cent rate.
Mr. Slutzky said that having 71-cents with the penny in a lockbox will ensure a revenue source if
needed, because if it is not there further cuts may need to be made or money may need to be borrowed.
That is a compromise being made by three of the Board members. He reiterated the average cost to the
homeowner is $30 per year.
Mr. Rooker stated that a tax rate must be agreed upon today. He would be willing to have a
penny allocated to a separate budget category not to be spent unless it is needed due to a shortfall in
revenues, not an increase in expenditures. He said that at the end of year if the money is not spent for
that purpose, it should go into the CIP.
April 9, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
Mr. Slutzky said he thinks that is a great idea and he will support it.
Ms. Mallek said that she supports that proposal as the CIP is very important to her constituents.
Ms. Thomas said she can support the compromise.
Mr. Davis noted that there is a resolution in the Board’s package to set the various tax rates, and it
has the 71-cent rate included.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Rooker, that the Board adopt the following Resolution to set the
real estate tax rate at $0.71/$100 assessed valuation for real estate, public service and mobile homes for
the 2008 tax year and at $4.28/$100 assessed value for the personal property tax rate, including
machinery and tools, with the stipulation that one cent of the revenue be set aside in a Revenue Shortfall
Contingency to be spent only in the event that projected revenues are less than budgeted, and if that
proves not to be the case, the one cent go into the CIP Fund at the end of the year.
Mr. Slutzky seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby set the
County Levy for the Calendar Year 2008 for general County purposes at Seventy-One Cents ($0.71) on every
One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of real estate; at Seventy-One Cents ($0.71) on every One Hundred
Dollars of assessed value of manufactured homes; at Seventy-One Cents ($0.71) on every One Hundred
Dollars of assessed value of public service assessments; at Four Dollars and Twenty-Eight Cents ($4.28) on
every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of personal property; and at Four Dollars and Twenty-Eight
Cents ($4.28) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of machinery and tools; and
FURTHER orders that the Director of Finance of Albemarle County assess and collect the taxes
on all taxable real estate and all taxable personal property.
__________
W ith regard to the budget, Mr. Tucker said staff will have to come back to that because it needs to
make some changes to the resolution.
Ms. Mallek commented that there is more obligation for localities as the federal and state
governments do not hold up their end of the bargain.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Mallek reported that the information sent around as part of the staff report on cell towers and
balloons to mark sites has prompted her to call that item up for input from the public. She is concerned
that there is proper notification to residents as to when balloon tests would be held.
Mr. Tucker said that if that is not being done, he needs to find out why.
__________
Ms. Thomas stated that where W hite Gables and Kenridge Subdivisions come onto Route 250,
VDoT has indicated that the warrants are not met for a signal. This is the location where developers
made parallel roads so everyone could come out at the same entrance or exit from the two subdivisions.
If the warrants are not met and people are forced to only use Kenridge there would be traffic going right
and left across the flow of traffic. She suggested that the County pressure VDoT to at least put a blinking
light there, or the developer’s proffers would be lost or an unsafe situation of using the entrance across
from Birdwood without a light would be created.
Mr. Rooker responded that he is supportive. He does not understand why the site does not
qualify for a light – as VDoT was involved in all of the discussions that included a plan for a light.
Mr. Boyd said he thought it was channeled into a single entrance for that purpose.
Ms. Thomas indicated that the proffer is good for the structure – the arm, light and controls.
Mr. Graham clarified that this is a special use permit condition, not a proffer. The issue is that the
way the condition is written there is a 10-year window from the time the special use permit was approved
for the development to be responsible for the cost of the signal. He added that it is taking longer to
develop than anticipated so the traffic loads are not there to justify the signal at this point. Mr. Graham
said that staff agrees the condition could be used to install the equipment and a blinking signal until it
becomes a red light.
__________
April 9, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
Mr. Boyd asked if anyone can attend the Armed Forces Day Celebration Parade on Saturday, May
10th that honors troops. He will be out of town and cannot present the proclamation which is issued
annually by the City and the County.
Ms. Thomas responded that she could attend. Ms. Mallek said that she could also attend.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
There were none.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Consent Agenda.
Mr. Rooker moved that Item 12.1 on the Consent Agenda be approved and that Items 12.2
through 12.4 be accepted as information. Ms. Thomas seconded the motion. (Discussions on individual
items are included with that agenda item.). 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.
__________
Item 12.1. Crozet Downtown Zoning District - Zoning Map Amendment Resolution of Intent.
The Executive Summary states that the Crozet Master Plan identifies the need for zoning changes
in downtown Crozet in order to fully implement the Plan’s land use recommendations and goal of
economic vitality for downtown Crozet. On March 17, 2008, after numerous Crozet community meetings
and County Planning Commission work sessions, the Board held a work session to discuss the draft
outline of zoning regulations for the new Crozet Downtown Zoning District, as well as the boundaries for
the proposed County-initiated zoning map amendment as recommended by the Planning Commission.
The Board provided feedback to staff regarding the recommendations, and directed staff to draft the
zoning text amendment for the Crozet Downtown Zoning District and to schedule a joint public hearing of
the Board and the Planning Commission to receive public comment on the proposed zoning text
amendment and zoning map amendment.
The Board must adopt a resolution of intent to initiate the recommended comprehensive zoning
map amendment for portions of downtown Crozet. The Resolution of Intent is attached as Attachment A
and a map setting forth the boundaries of the proposed Crozet Downtown Zoning District are attached as
Attachment B (copy on file).
The Fiscal Impact Planners’ analysis concluded that the County-initiated zoning text and zoning
map amendments for the Crozet Downtown Zoning District would have a positive impact to County
revenues over a 20-year time frame in the amount of $11,900,200. The Board received additional budget
impact information as part of its March 17, 2008 staff report.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution of Intent to initiate the zoning
map amendment discussed herein (Attachment A).
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
W HEREAS, the Crozet Master Plan describes downtown Crozet as the historical focal point for
cultural and commercial activities in Crozet and the surrounding areas; and
W HEREAS, one of the findings and recommendations of the Crozet Master Plan is to focus on the
redevelopment and invigoration of the downtown area; and
W HEREAS, the lands within downtown Crozet are currently within various zoning districts, and the
regulations within those districts have been identified as imposing a number of impediments to the
development and redevelopment of downtown Crozet in a manner consistent with the Crozet Master Plan; and
W HEREAS, on September 6, 2006, the Board adopted a resolution of intent to amend the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance to establish a zoning district for downtown Crozet having regulations specifically
designed to be consistent with the Crozet Master Plan, and those regulations are currently being prepared;
and
W HEREAS, after several public work sessions conducted by the Planning Commission and the
Board, and with input from several committees comprised of members of the Crozet community, the
boundaries of the proposed Crozet Downtown Zoning District have been identified; and
W HEREAS, it is desired to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Map to establish the boundaries of
the proposed Crozet Downtown Zoning District.
April 9, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
NOW , THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good zoning practices, the Board of Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of intent to
amend the Albemarle County Zoning Map to establish the boundaries of the Crozet Downtown Zoning District
as depicted as the “Proposed Downtown Zoning District” on the attached map entitled “Crozet Downtown
Zoning * Recommended Boundary,” dated January 2008, prepared by Ty Chambers, Albemarle County GDS.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the
zoning map amendment proposed by this resolution of intent, and make its recommendation to the Board of
Supervisors, at the earliest possible date.
__________
April 9, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
Item 12.2. Former Old Crozet Elementary School Reuse Study, was received as information.
The Executive Summary states that the former Crozet Elementary School was built in 1924 and
was used as a public school until 1990. From 1991 through 2007 the Charlottesville W aldorf School
leased the facility. In 1997 an adaptive reuse study was conducted by UVA engineering graduate
students. A recent review of that study revealed that the information is dated and also lacked citizen input.
More recently, during the process of selecting a site for the Crozet library, several sites were considered
and much discussion was generated between County staff and the Crozet community. Members of the
community expressed their desire to consider the former Crozet Elementary School for other potential
uses. Many felt that the old school has a genuine connection to the history of the community and that the
County has an obligation to examine the feasibility of identifying potential uses for the former school as
part of the overall Crozet revitalization effort.
A staff committee was formed with individuals from the County Executive Office, Community
Development, and General Services to plan a process to engage members of the community to identify
and evaluate potential alternative uses for the elementary school. Crozet residents and staff served on a
committee to select a professional firm to manage a public engagement process in order to create a list of
potential uses for the school and to conduct research and analysis of identified uses. The committee
selected PMA Inc., a planning and engineering firm that has extensive experience in public engagement
and in revitalizing old buildings into useful community facilities. The public engagement process is
underway.
Attachment A (copy on file) details the scope of work for the Reuse Study process and
Attachment B (copy on file) details the charge and role of the Reuse Study Committee consisting of
stakeholders from the Crozet community. The role of the committee is to ensure community engagement
in the process of considering various potential uses for the old school. An updated report to include the
project status and an analysis of each identified use will be provided to the Board for its review and
direction at a future meeting in time to include any approved projects in the 2009-2018 Capital
Improvement Project process.
The cost of the study is $26,980 with an in-house added contingency of 10% for a total project
budget of $29,678.
No Board action is necessary at this time. This Executive Summary is for information only.
(Mr. Boyd asked about where the funds for this study are coming from. Mr. Davis said those
funds ($29,000) are in the General Services budget so it is not additional money.
Mr. Boyd said he does not like building in those contingencies as they are “an invitation to
overspend” without having to come back to the Board.)
__________
Item 12.3 Proffer Management – FY 07/08 Second Quarter Cash Proffer Report, was received
as information.
The Executive Summary states that on January 3, 2007, the Board requested that it be provided a
cash proffer activity report on a quarterly basis. This FY 07/08 Second Quarter Report reflects all cash
proffer activity from October to December of the current fiscal year. For the purposes of this report, cash
proffer activity refers to all cash proffer revenue received or expended and cash proffers accepted in
approved rezonings.
A. Revenue: From October to December of 2007, the County received a total of $54,440.04 in
proffered funds for Capital Improvement Projects. The contributions include $19,354.86 from W ickham
Pond (ZMA 2004-17), and $35,085.18 from Hollymead Town Center Area D (ZMA 2002-02).
B. Expenditure: During this quarter, the County expended $300,000 for homebuyers’ down
payment assistance. The cash was received from North Point (ZMA 2000-09) and proffered for affordable
housing initiatives.
C. Proffered: During this quarter, five rezonings were approved containing a total of
$39,844,473.80 in cash proffers. Of these funds, $19,367,358.80 was proffered for general Capital
Improvement Funds pursuant to the County’s Cash Proffer Policy. Other proffers were received for
specific impacts: $17,671,800 for Roads and Other Transportation Improvements; $30,000.00 for
Stormwater Management; $439,315.00 for Affordable Housing; $550,000.00 for Community & Library;
$911,000 for Parks and Recreation; and $875,000.00 for Fire and Rescue. A more detailed description of
cash proffer activity is provided in Attachment A.
D. Total Obligated Cash Proffers: As of December 2007, the total obligated cash proffer
amount exceeds $49,000,000, assuming proffer density is achieved. Staff is currently calculating required
escalation amounts to provide a more complete update. The update on this total will be provided for the
Board’s review with the cash proffer activity report for the 3rd quarter.
The County continues to see an increase in rezonings that include substantial cash proffers that
will contribute toward the funding for many capital improvement projects necessary to address the impacts
of new development.
April 9, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
This report is provided for informational purposes and no action is required. Staff continues to
welcome Board feedback for ways to improve how this report is constructed.
(Mr. Boyd said that he thought a section on non-cash proffers was also going to be included in the
report.
Mr. Graham replied that staff is still working on that. Along with the non-cash proffers, they also
want to catch the annual adjustments up – which is turning out to be more complicated. Before the policy
was put into place, different plans had different triggers for annual adjustments so staff is having to go
plan by plan to determine where the adjustments get made.
Mr. Boyd stated that it appears some of the affordable housing proffers did not seem to provide
units.
Mr. Graham agreed, stating that it is an “either/or” for housing units or cash and staff just has to
keep track of it.
Mr. Boyd said he appreciates the information; the report is good.
Ms. Mallek said it has been mentioned to her that folks have paid in their proffers but that money
has ended up being used somewhere else for something else.
Mr. Graham explained that the cash proffer is not always specific and deliberately leaves it open
for capital expenditures throughout the County. Staff does track where that money gets spent.
Mr. Rooker clarified that the cash proffers go into a general fund to be used for specified capital
purposes throughout the County.
Mr. Graham added that the proffers are allocated for the purpose upon which they are offered.
Mr. Davis said that cash proffers do not specifically address sidewalks unless they are designated that
way. If the developer makes a specific proffer, in addition to the CIP proffer, to build sidewalks, then the
money would be used for that purpose. Under the current cash proffer policy, there are five large
categories, and generally that goes to fund the CIP. The only limitation is if there is a service district that
is associated with the cash proffer.)
__________
Item 12.4 Status of Alternative Engineering Review Pilot Study, was received as information.
The Executive Summary states that on September 13, 2006, the Board, at the recommendation of
the Development Review Process Task Force, agreed that Community Development staff should conduct
a two year pilot program designed to simplify staff review and approval of final engineering plans
(Attachment A). To address concerns that the pilot program have well-defined criteria, the review
checklist developed for the pilot was made very detailed, with a strict format of plan content and
certification. Additionally, it was agreed that six month updates would be provided to the Board throughout
the pilot program to verify it was working as planned. The pilot program was initiated on the County
website on October 3, 2006. The first six month update was provided on April 4, 2007. This is the third
update, one and a half years since the program’s inception.
This pilot program was originally proposed by staff as a way to improve consistency and reduce
staff workload by reducing the need for numerous resubmissions as applicants sought to meet
requirements. For the development community, this program was seen as a way to reduce costs by
reducing the time required to gain plan approval. As with the previous six month review period, the
development community has shown limited interest in this program. Below is a summary of submissions
under this pilot study:
1st Six Month Period
10/3/2006 – 3/8/2007
2nd Six Month Period
3/9/2007 – 9/5/2007
3rd Six Month Period
9/5/2007- 2/5/2007
Submissions as part of pilot study 3 3 4
Submissions for regular review 241 220 298
In each case, plans have undergone at least 3 revisions with multiple comments and submissions.
None of the 4 plans have been approved for this six month period.
There have been no public comments on the program this period. The few previous comments
can be seen on the website forum (http://exprevprocess.blogspot.com/).
The Board raised concerns in its previous discussions about compliance with regulations during
inspection and construction in addition to design. Birchwood Place in Crozet is the first approved plan
under the program and the first to reach the construction stage. There has been no measurable
difference in the construction process, nor any plan related issues.
Based on this information, the pilot study has failed in its objective to improve the quality of
submissions and staff plans to end the program now rather than wait until the two year study is complete.
Rather than decreasing the time and effort spent on plan review, the pilot study has increased review
times, created issues with prioritization of reviews and impacted staff moral. Staff has also seen a
detrimental affect on other applicants, whose plans are put aside in favor of those claiming this alternative
engineering review. Staff is now considering whether charging the full cost of review for each submission
April 9, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
can improve plan quality. Staff intends to present this option to the Board as part of future consideration
of ordinance fee changes.
Not estimated. It is noted that the County has not charged separate fees for engineering reviews.
Thus, while it may cost the County more to have a plan receive three or four reviews, no additional fee is
currently paid by the applicant for those reviews. As noted above, whether additional fees should be
charged will be considered with future ordinance fee changes.
No action is needed. As noted in Attachment A, this pilot study is administrative and was initiated
by staff. Assuming the Board expresses no objection to staff ending the study at this time, staff will notify
the development community the pilot program will be discontinued.
*****
Alternative Engineering Review
Pilot Program
Purpose/Outcome: The program’s goal is to require fewer reviews with equal or better plan quality
through use of detailed checklists, while making submitting design professionals more responsible for
quality control of their plans. This effort will also allow County staff to focus more time on preliminary
plans and plats, documentation of processes and training private engineers on County processes, and
field inspections to verify proper construction.
Length of pilot program: 2 years pilot study, with 6 month reports to the Board on number of plans
submitted for the pilot program, number of plans not included in the pilot program, number of plans pulled
from the pilot program due to noted problems, and number of mistakes found in the field. At end of 2 year
pilot program, there will be a decision by the Board on whether to continue the program as part of the plan
review process.
Eligibility for pilot program: Design professionals holding a current Virginia license. (Architects,
Engineers, Landscape Architects, and 3B Surveyors)
Staff’s Obligations with Process:
• Collect data on number of plans using the process, number of plans not using the process,
number of plans pulled from the process for noted problems, and number of problems found in
the field after approval for both plans using the process and those not using the process.
• Prepare and distribute detailed checklists for engineers using the process (as well as those not
using the process)
• Cursory reviews of certified plans to verify work complies with checklists. Plans found to not
comply with checklists may be removed from the pilot program at staff’s discretion.
• Prepare reports to the Board on the pilot program status at six month intervals.
• Staff will assure design professional are notified of eligibility to submit under the pilot program with
approval of preliminary plans or plats. Staff will also provide a list of requirements for final
approval, checklists for final approval, and submittal forms for final approval as part of the
preliminary approval.
Design Professional’s Obligation with Process
• Familiarize themselves with County ordinances, design standards and checklists.
• Submit plans that fully comply with checklists. W henever questions arise as to complying with the
checklist, the design professional will seek guidance from staff and incorporate their
recommendations into submitted plans.
• Assure owner understands improvements must be built as shown on approved plans and
changes from the approved plan must be approved by the County.
Property Owner’s Obligation with Process
• Assure design professional is given adequate time to assure quality of certified plans.
• Construct improvements as shown on the approved plans
How will the program work?
A: Staff will provide certification forms and courtesy checklists at the front desk and through the
department’s web page. Engineers will review their plans against the items on the applicable
certification statement and when they are confident they have addressed all of the items, place
the certification on the plan. W hen a plan is submitted, staff will see if a certification is on the
plan. If so, staff will give the plan a quick check to verify selected items. If staff doesn’t find
significant issues with this check, the plan will be approved. If staff finds significant issues have
not been addressed, the plan will be put in the review queue and receive the normal review in the
order received. In the latter case, the engineer will be notified their plan is receiving the normal
review. W ith this process, the engineer who properly prepares a certified plan can expect
approval in about a week. Conversely, the plan that follows the normal process will receive the
same review as currently done. A resubmitted plan may also use the certification process,
provided the engineering reviewer finds the number and extent of changes is not excessive.
What plans are eligible for this program?
A: Certifications are available for engineering plans associated with final site plans (where a
preliminary plan has been approved), private road plans (where a preliminary plat has been
approved), stormwater management plans, erosion control (grading) plans, and mitigation plans.
April 9, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
What plans are not eligible for this program?
A: Preliminary plans and plats will not be eligible for this program. Public road plans will not be
eligible for this program, as VDOT approval of those plans is necessary. W aiver requests will not
be eligible for this program. Special plans, such as an early grading plan in a planned
development, will be considered on a case by case basis.
What happens if the engineer is uncertain of an ordinance or policy requirement?
A: County staff will still be available to assist designers with any questions they may have prior to
certifying a submission. As many of you already know, the engineering reviewers have a regularly
scheduled time on Thursday afternoons, starting at 2:00pm, when designers and developers can
discuss applications and reviews. Staff does ask that the engineer call and set up an appointment
in advance of the meeting.
What happens if errors are found after approval?
A: Staff will treat errors the same as currently happens when errors are found after approval or we
find the project has not been built to the approved plan. In those cases, staff will review and
determine what corrections are needed to comply with County ordinances. As part of this pilot
program, staff will report all errors and resolutions to the County Board.
What happens if you find the process needs to be changed?
A: As this process is totally administrative, staff can easily modify the program or even abandon the
process if it doesn’t work. If there are major program changes, we will send out a notice similar to
this notice. For minor changes, we anticipate keeping an email list of engineers using this
program and they will be notified of those changes.
(Referring to the Executive Summary, Mr. Slutzky said he is confused because it states that staff
plans to end the pilot study before the two year study is complete. He asked why cancel the pilot program.
Mr. Graham replied that the program has proven to be “totally ineffective.” Staff is seeing plans
submitted that say they meet the criteria but they really do not. For example, the last plan that was
submitted staff made 62 comments on the plan with over 40 noted deficiencies that were directly to things
on the checklist. He explained that some people are seeing this as a way to avoid having their plan
subject to a full review. The program is being abused which is the reason staff is recommending that it be
ended. Staff is concerned that the abuse will accelerate if it is not stopped.
Mr. Slutzky asked what the original objective was.
Mr. Graham explained that the intent was to reduce the Engineering review workload by providing
a detailed checklist with a certification that the plans being submitted would be complete and would not
require as thorough of review. He said that there were some initial successes, but over the last six to nine
months it has gone the opposite direction.
Mr. Slutzky asked if there was a Plan B, or an alternative, to stopping the pilot and reevaluating it
to put in disincentives for the public to abuse it.
Mr. Graham replied that staff is proposing a charge per review, such as the fee adjustments. If
the plan can be approved in one review, the fee is “x”; if it takes two reviews, the fee is two times that
amount, etc. He added that combined with the detailed checklist, it gives an applicant the information
needed to get their plan approved upon submission. They just have to do what is on the checklist.
Mr. Boyd said that he understands not all projects qualified. Mr. Graham said that quite a number
do not qualify – as in the case of ordinance waivers, federal wetlands permits, etc.
Mr. Boyd stated that he thought it was intended to help small projects. Mr. Graham indicated that
it is just not working out that way.
Mr. Boyd asked if it was worth sitting down with some of the leaders from the development
community to try to work through the process. Mr. Boyd suggested charging a penalty for incorrect
submissions. Mr. Davis said a penalty would have to be built into the ordinance and fee structure. Mr.
Graham said currently there is nothing punitive in the ordinance for reviews.
Ms. Mallek asked if there are people who have used the program effectively and could still use it.
Mr. Graham responded that staff’s proposal is to abandon the program entirely, citing concerns of
discrimination of applicants. Trying to come up with a certification for an applicant to qualify was just too
difficult. He acknowledged that staff did not go through each plan to determine eligibility, but simply
offered it to people who were interested in pursuing it.
Mr. Rooker said that staff has spent time on this and has made a recommendation, and that
should be followed.
Ms. Thomas commented that this is a good example of government dropping something when it
is not working.)
_______________
April 9, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
(Note: The public hearings on the next three agenda items were heard concurrently.)
Agenda Item No. 13. Public Hearing: SP-2005-0028. Biscuit Run #2 (Mid) (Signs #3,6&22).
PROPOSAL: Allow stream crossing #2 (Mid), which is currently vacant to have a road crossing. There are
no residential units proposed with special use permit. LOCATION: Tax Map and Parcels 90-5, 90-6D. 981
Old Lynchburg Road, 951 Forest Lodge Lane. Between the east side of Old Lynchburg Road and the west
side of Route 20; adjacent and to the south of the Mill Creek subdivision, adjacent and to the west of the
intersection of Avon Street, Extended and Route 20. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville. (Notice of this
public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on March 24 and March 31, 2008).
__________
Agenda Item No. 14. Public Hearing: SP-2006-001. Biscuit Run #3 (Southern) (Signs #3,6&22).
PROPOSAL: Allow stream crossing #3 (Southern), which is currently vacant to have a road crossing.
There are no residential units proposed with special use permit. LOCATION: Tax Map and Parcel 90-6D.
951 Forest Lodge Lane. Between the east side of Old Lynchburg Road and the west side of Route 20;
adjacent and to the south of the Mill Creek subdivision, adjacent and to the west of the intersection of Avon
Street, Extended and Route 20. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville. (Notice of this public hearing was
advertised in the Daily Progress on March 24 and March 31, 2008).
__________
Agenda Item No. 15. Public Hearing: SP-2006-002. Allow stream crossing #1 (Northern), which is
currently vacant to have a road crossing. There are no residential units proposed with special use permit.
LOCATION: Tax Map and Parcel 90-A-3 and 90-A1-1. Oak Hill Drive. Between the east side of Old
Lynchburg Road and the west side of Route 20; adjacent and to the south of the Mill Creek subdivision,
adjacent and to the west of the intersection of Avon Street, Extended and Route 20. MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT: Scottsville. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on March 24
and March 31, 2008).
Mr. Cilimberg reported that all three special permits are related to the Biscuit Run plan, and would
allow for road crossings in accordance with the approved plan to serve the community and serve as the
connector between Route 20 and Old Lynchburg Road which would be accomplished by a north stream
crossing; another crossing would serve what will become the County park under the applicant’s proffer,
and the other crossing within the development. He pointed out the general floodplain area associated with
streams and crossings in the project. He also indicated the base flood elevation which would be raised by
about an inch on the north crossing, and the second crossing raised an inch as well. Mr. Cilimberg said
these would be span bridges rather than culverts, to span the stream in each case. The greatest increase
is about five inches for the third crossing.
Ms. Thomas asked what would raise the elevation. Mr. Cilimberg said fill activity is raising the
spans a bit.
Ms. Mallek asked about spillway or overflow. Mr. Cilimberg said there is room for the rise of the
water level to spread across the floodway. Mr. Graham explained that typically a spillway is provided
when you cannot convey a hundred-year storm through the structure. This does not require another
spillway.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the flood level is well below the span. He also reported that there is
coordination with FEMA required for the project, as will VDOT approval for the crossings. Mr. Cilimberg
noted that there are necessary water quality permits from federal and state agencies, and mitigation for
stream buffer impacts that will need to be performed as reflected in the conditions. He said that staff did
not find any unfavorable factors and there are no impacts to neighboring properties expected to result
from the permit or significant increase in flood levels will result. Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff and the
Planning Commission recommend approval of each special use permit with nine conditions. The
Commission added additional conditions to specify time period for commencement of the crossings and
VDoT approval. He added that these conditions do not supersede or modify any of the requirements for
the zoning action.
Ms. Thomas asked about the mitigation plan. Mr. Cilimberg explained that condition #5 requires a
plan prior to issuance of grading permits. He does not know the detail of what the crossing will entail and
what buffer mitigation would be needed.
Ms. Tamara Ambler, Natural Resources Manager, addressed the Board and said that the stream
assessment information included data gathered when all the streams in the development areas were
walked and inventoried and assessed for areas where erosion existed or inadequate buffer vegetation
existed. She said that there is a perennial tributary that comes into Biscuit Run at the southern part of the
project and that area is mostly in pasture. Staff has identified that as a buffer restoration project and the
applicant is proposing to replant the buffer to make that the desired buffer vegetation.
The Chairman then asked the applicant if he had any comments.
Mr. Scott Collins, Engineer for Forest Lodge LLC, addressed the Board and offered to answer
questions.
At this time the Chairman opened the public hearing. No one came forward to speak, so the
public hearing was closed and the matter was placed before the Board.
April 9, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
Motion was then offered by Mr. Dorrier to approve SP-2005-0028 subject to the nine conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. The applicant must obtain a map revision, letter of revision, or letter of amendment as required
from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and copy the County Engineer on all
correspondence;
2. Army Corp of Engineers, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, and other necessary state
and federal agency approvals must be obtained prior to issuance of grading permits for
construction of the new stream crossing and approaches;
3. County approval of road and bridge plans for the crossing to be in accord with the application plan,
as determined by the County Engineer;
4. County approval of a grading and an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance of a
grading permit for construction of the new stream crossing and approaches;
5. County approval of a stream buffer mitigation plan prior to the issuance of a grading permit for
construction of the new stream crossing and approaches;
6. Grading within floodplain shall be confined to the minimum necessary to construct the bridge.
Changes in final design of the bridge, such as use of a longer span, are acceptable if the changes
reduce impacts to the floodplain, in the opinion of the County Engineer;
7. Construction of the new crossing shall commence on or before April 9, 2013, or this special use
permit shall be deemed abandoned and the authority granted hereunder shall thereupon
terminate;
8. VDOT approval shall be required for the stream crossing to ensure that the roads and the bridges
meet VDOT standards; and
9. The approval of this special use permit does not supersede or modify any proffer or provision of
the Code of Development related to ZMA-2005-00017 or any subsequent amendments thereto.
__________
Motion was then by Mr. Dorrier to approve SP-2006-001 subject to the nine conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission. 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.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. The applicant must obtain a map revision, letter of revision, or letter of amendment as required
from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and copy the County Engineer on all
correspondence;
2. Army Corp of Engineers, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, and other necessary state
and federal agency approvals must be obtained prior to issuance of grading permits for
construction of the new stream crossing and approaches;
3. County approval of road and bridge plans for the crossing to be in accord with the application plan,
as determined by the County Engineer;
4. County approval of a grading and an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance of a
grading permit for construction of the new stream crossing and approaches;
5. County approval of a stream buffer mitigation plan prior to the issuance of a grading permit for
construction of the new stream crossing and approaches;
6. Grading within floodplain shall be confined to the minimum necessary to construct the bridge.
Changes in final design of the bridge, such as use of a longer span, are acceptable if the changes
reduce impacts to the floodplain, in the opinion of the County Engineer;
7. Construction of the new crossing shall commence on or before April 9, 2013, or this special use
permit shall be deemed abandoned and the authority granted hereunder shall thereupon
terminate;
8. VDOT approval shall be required for the stream crossing to ensure that the roads and the bridges
meet VDOT standards; and
9. The approval of this special use permit does not supersede or modify any proffer or provision of
the Code of Development related to ZMA-2005-00017 or any subsequent amendments thereto.
__________
Motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier to approve SP-2006-002, subject to the nine conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission. 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
April 9, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. The applicant must obtain a map revision, letter of revision, or letter of amendment as required
from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and copy the County Engineer on all
correspondence;
2. Army Corp of Engineers, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, and other necessary state
and federal agency approvals must be obtained prior to issuance of grading permits for
construction of the new stream crossing and approaches;
3. County approval of road and bridge plans for the crossing to be in accord with the application
plan, as determined by the County Engineer;
4. County approval of a grading and an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance of a
grading permit for construction of the new stream crossing and approaches;
5. County approval of a stream buffer mitigation plan prior to the issuance of a grading permit for
construction of the new stream crossing and approaches;
6. Grading within floodplain shall be confined to the minimum necessary to construct the bridge.
Changes in final design of the bridge, such as use of a longer span, are acceptable if the changes
reduce impacts to the floodplain, in the opinion of the County Engineer;
7. Construction of the new crossing shall commence on or before April 9, 2013, or this special use
permit shall be deemed abandoned and the authority granted hereunder shall thereupon
terminate;
8. VDOT approval shall be required for the stream crossing to ensure that the roads and the bridges
meet VDOT standards; and
9. The approval of this special use permit does not supersede or modify any proffer or provision of
the Code of Development related to ZMA-2005-00017 or any subsequent amendments thereto.
_____________
Agenda Item No. 16. Public Hearing: ZMA-2007-021. Cavalier Mini Storage (Sign #102).
PROPOSAL: Rezone 2.169 acres from RA Rural Areas zoning district which allows agricultural, forestal,
and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre) to HC Highway Commercial zoning district which allows
commercial and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre). PROFFERS:
Yes. LOCATION: North side of Route 250 East and approximately 1/10 mile east of I-64. Tax Map and
Parcel: 78-36. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the
Daily Progress on March 24 and March 31, 2008).
Mr. Cilimberg said this is a request for a rezoning in the rural areas of a little over two acres to
Highway Commercial for a mini-storage facility. There is a proffer that eliminates by-right uses in this
district. He said that the development area boundary runs through the I-64 interchange, and is zoned rural
area; it is adjacent to the hotel property at the interchange across Route 250 from additional commercial
properties. Further east on Route 250 is another commercial property. Mr. Cilimberg stated that there are
other scattered uses along Route 250. This zoning has been in existence for some time, reflecting
development that has occurred over that period of time. He added that the surrounding activities include
rural area uses, and industrial property further east where UPS and other businesses are located. Also
within the vicinity of the proposed development are two easements – the Shadwell conservation easement
given by the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation and one across the Rivanna River given as well. Mr.
Cilimberg noted that the property is in the Monticello Overlay District to the east.
Mr. Cilimberg presented pictures toward the Rivanna River as well as back to Route 250 and the
adjacent property, noting the mixed-use nature of the area – rural and commercial. He said that this
location is inconsistent with the rural areas land use in the Comprehensive Plan and would generate more
traffic than that anticipated for the rural area if it were rezoned. Mr. Cilimberg noted that it is a gateway to
the Southern Albemarle Historic District and there are two important historic properties in the area. He
said that while the proffered elimination of uses narrows down the intent for the site they do not mitigate
the impact of a commercial use in a rural area. Staff and the Planning Commission both recommended
denial, finding that the proposal is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Cilimberg said should the Board choose to approve the rezoning, the approval should be
inclusive of the proffers dated March 27, 2008. Mr. Cilimberg stated that he was asked to confirm receipt
of an email from Jo Higgins, who opposed the request because it was outside of the development area.
Board members indicated that they had received the email.
The applicant’s representative, Mr. John Grady, addressed the Board. Mr. Grady explained that
while the Comprehensive Plan is good it is not a perfect tool and there will be situations requiring special
action from the Board. He said that between the hotel property and the industrial park, there are more
than 26 businesses located in this area. Mr. Grady commented that they are located on the east side of I-
64, and only a small strip has been left for rural area. He said that the applicant is proposing an excellent
use with a mini-storage, and is exploring numerous designs to complement existing nearby structures. He
said that VDoT told them that they were looking at 42,000 vehicle trips per day in the I-64 area, and
30,000 right in front of the property. He does not think that is the kind of traffic you find in the rural areas.
Mr. Grady said that most of the neighbors support the application, but some do not want their
property rezoned. If this property is rezoned, he does not think there will be this mass number of requests
for other rezonings. He noted that rezoning the property would not be inconsistent with the Comprehen-
sive Plan as it would be correcting something that needs to be changed. Mr. Grady stated that they are
looking at a study done four years ago showing 40,000+ vehicles per day. He added that the applicant
has had contact with storage unit businesses, who agree that this is a good location – as the storage unit
facility at Pantops has plans to expand into the Industrial Park. Mr. Grady said that they feel property
owners can use easements to limit development on their property, but that should not restrict other
April 9, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
properties in that district. He added that he is not aware of other potential negative impacts. Mr. Grady
concluded that the Board should rezone this property and not drag it out through a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment process.
Ms. Mallek asked if he has an idea about forestation by the road.
Mr. Grady replied that there is a deceleration lane that goes by the hotel, and VDoT has indicated
that they need to be 50 feet back from the property line.
Ms. Mallek asked if the sign on the stream is on the east side of the lot. Mr. Grady confirmed that
it is. He also said that the basin in front of the property belongs to VDoT. In addition ten feet back beyond
the ridge belongs to VDoT so it is very wide right there.
Mr. Boyd asked about the need for water and sewer on the site. Mr. Grady responded that they
have private well and septic on site, and the Health Department has indicated that what is being planned
may require expansion of septic but there is ample area to do that.
At this time, Mr. Boyd opened the public hearing.
Mr. Ed Bain, also representing the applicant, said the proffer restricting the site to one use is for
the mini-storage. Mr. Bain said that he was in opposition to the application from the church on Route 250
East at the intersection of 22 and 231, but in listening to the Board vote, it exceeds the use needed for this
property. He stated that the uses need to be considered in relation to the applications. He mentioned
Hunter’s Hall which was rezoned to light industrial in 1986 – subsequent to the 1980 downzoning. There
is already adjacent property zoned commercial. Mr. Bain said that Mr. Shields, who owns numerous self-
storage facilities in the Valley, indicates that about 20 percent of the storage there is taken by people from
Charlottesville.
Mr. John Chavan, the applicant, said he and his family have been living in the County for about
ten years. Both he and his wife are registered nurses at UVA. They were born in India, and the last of is
children were born here in the County. Mr. Chavan said that they chose Albemarle because of its rich
heritage, beauty, and opportunity for growth, as well as the people of the area. He has chosen this
particular business because it has the lowest impact on traffic, it utilizes the least of County resources,
and it will be local and consumer-friendly, with a positive tax impact. In addition, Mr. Chavan said that he
wants to own and operate it then pass it onto his children. This business will allow them to raise and
educate their children without being a liability on society. The decision this Board makes today will have a
ripple effect on his family for many years to come.
Ms. Silvia Mills said she has been living in the County for over 30 years. She looked at this site for
its potential storage use. She emphasized that the area is already in mixed-use and there is not a
problem with the rezoning. She supports the request.
Mr. Eugene Kitney, Pastor of the Seventh Day Adventist Church on Jefferson Park Avenue, said
he is present as a friend of Mr. Chavan, who attends the Church. Mr. Kitney emphasized the transient
nature of the area’s population and the need for storage as there is not much available to the students.
He asked the Board to support the request.
Mr. Rodney Thacker said he was present in support of the proposal. He is also a resident of the
County. Mr. Chavan is a very hard-working man and this would provide a future for his family. He asked
for the Board’s approval.
Ms. Margie Kellison said she is a friend of the Chavans. She is a resident of Route 250 East and
asked the Board’s support of the proposed project. She thinks the proposal will make a positive impact on
an area that is sitting unattended.
Mr. Jeff W erner, of the Piedmont Environmental Council, said there is no arguing against the
need here, but this is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan as it is in the rural area. He takes issue
that there is nothing rural about this area, as there is land in conservation easement within the view shed
of Monticello, and the area is anchored to the south by the new historic district and to the north by the
Southwest Mountains rural historic district. There is also a proposal coming for a large sports complex.
He said that there is a process to look at things like this in the context of the big picture – through the
Comprehensive Plan. This is currently a rural area although it may not be to some. He asks that the
Board respect that zoning.
Mr. Bain again addressed the Board. He said that the Comprehensive Plan is a guide, and much
time was spent on the Pantops Master Plan. The Planning Commission discussed this area at length and
debated its use. He asked if this should be held up while that is contemplated. The applicant is not using
public services. The traffic is already there and this is an insignificant increase. Mr. Bain said that this is
still a question of land use, and the church is the generator of traffic in this area, not this proposal. He
asked the Board to look upon this request favorably.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed, and the matter was placed
before the Board.
Ms. Thomas asked about the method of having customers paying by credit card to cut down on
traffic. Mr. Bain said they plan to put that in.
April 9, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
Mr. Slutzky asked staff if the topic came up during the Pantops Master Plan discussion to extend
the growth area boundary east of I-64 along this corridor.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that the Commission debated expansion, but it was not carried any further
than that. The discussion was a general conversation about whether to review further east of the I-64
interchange. He noted that a month ago, the Board did not want to pursue further review for amending the
Plan and extending the boundary – citing lack of desire to introduce more development in that area so that
use of Route 250 would not be intensified. Mr. Cilimberg said that some of that had to do with Board
priorities also, and the proximity of this area to the historic district and conservation district.
Mr. Boyd recalled that this was never included in the boundaries during the master planning
process.
Mr. Slutzky asked about the original growth area boundaries. Mr. Cilimberg said that the
boundaries were there in 1986 based on the 1982 Plan, and were not changed in the 1989 Plan. Zoning
existed outside of those boundaries and most was carry-over from the earliest zoning in the County. He
stated that the County got zoning before it had a Comprehensive Plan, so there is some scattered old
commercial zoning leftover.
Mr. Dorrier asked if highway commercial pertains to just the one site. Mr. Cilimberg confirmed
that the applicant has proffered that down to one use for the mini-storage.
Mr. Dorrier asked the location of the church. Mr. Cilimberg said the location of the church is near
Routes 22 and 250 beyond the quarry.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that there is a big difference between a church and a highway commercial
use. Churches are permitted in the rural areas by special use permit. This proposed use is not allowed in
the rural areas. He also mentioned the Religious Land Use Act that makes it difficult to deny a church.
He does not see the parallels of the church with this application. Mr. Rooker asked staff for other
examples of this type of rezoning. Mr. Cilimberg said he cannot recall any although there have been some
rezonings of non rural area uses in the rural area from commercial to industrial where the existing zoning
was already commercial. Mr. Cilimberg said Hunter’s Hall had some area rezoned into industrial, but in
terms of whole new properties being rezoned to commercial from rural area, he does not recall any.
Mr. Rooker said that the applicant is very worthy but the issue is a land use decision and what is
appropriate to do. He emphasized that it would be a very bad precedent to spot rezone from rural area to
highway commercial without a broader discussion of growth area boundaries. Mr. Rooker said that the
Board has a duty to do what is right in terms of land use.
Mr. Slutzky said the Board had a similar compelling argument for SOCA a couple of months ago.
The Board denied SOCA’s request for rezoning because it was not consistent with rules set for making
that change – uses stipulated in the Comprehensive Plan. He thinks the Board needs to be consistent
with past practices.
Mr. Boyd asked about fiscal impact analysis for this property, stating that it bothers him that there
is a lack of land available for a small business person like this. He added that this is a rampant problem in
the County. Economic development specialists have indicated people are moving away to find sites for
their small businesses. He asked if Monticello weighed in on this request.
Mr. Cilimberg said that Monticello did not submit any comments on this application.
Mr. Slutzky agreed that the land uses on this stretch of road should be reexamined, but an
isolated rural area parcel should not just have its stature changed because someone wants it that way.
Mr. Rooker stated that he does not want to see people buying rural land with the hope they will get
it rezoned for a business.
Mr. Boyd acknowledged that, but expressed concern about the lack of small affordable light
industrial property.
Mr. Cilimberg said that maybe when the Economic Development Policy comes back to the Board
from the Commission, the Board may want to discuss the land use aspects of that. He added that it will
be a while before this could be reviewed from a land use standpoint as the Pantops Plan was just passed
and won’t be reconsidered for another five years. Staff has a list of master plan projects and other work
that needs to get accomplished before adding this to their radar.
Mr. Dorrier said he agrees with Mr. Rooker. He thinks this is a worthy case but the Board would
be stepping outside of the mold to rezone this without some consideration of the Comprehensive Plan. He
thinks that the area does need to be looked at in respect to the other zoning in the area. He added that he
does not think the Planning Commission’s decision should be overturned.
Mr. Dorrier then offered motion to deny ZMA-2007-0021.
Ms. Thomas said that she feels the Board is “being mean” to this applicant, but she has always
worked to protect the Route 250 corridor with votes against the church and other applications. She
mentioned other communities, such as Fredericksburg, where businesses go for miles out every road,
and poor planning has led to vacant businesses. She is proud of what the Board has done for the
April 9, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
community as a whole. Ms. Thomas then seconded the motion and said that she is personally sorry but
feels the motion is the right one.
Roll was then 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.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that one of the policies in the Comprehensive Plan being considered by
the Economic Development Policy evaluation is the interstate interchange policy, which the Board may
want to consider as a separate issue.
Mr. Boyd said that he and Susan Stimart recently attended a Chamber of Commerce meeting,
where they heard concerns expressed from the business community. Also, the Board just went through a
process this afternoon about revenues in the County. He thinks the Economic Policy needs to be moved
to the top of the list. The Board needs to start looking at how to accommodate business uses.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the first work session with the Commission on the Economic Development
Policy is at the end of this month. He thinks there are at least three work sessions planned with the
Commission on the Policy. It will be a couple months after that before it will get forwarded to the Board.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Public Hearing: ZMA 2007-022. Innovative Construction (Sign #103).
PROPOSAL: Rezone .977 acres from HC - Highway Commercial zoning district which allows commercial
and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/acre) to LI - Light Industrial zoning
district which allows industrial, office, and limited commercial uses (no residential use) for contractor's
office and storage yard. PROFFERS: Yes. LOCATION: 1811 Avon Street Extended (Route 742) across
from Reynovia Dr. Tax Map and Parcel: 90-35C. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville. (Notice of this
public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on March 24 and March 31, 2008).
Mr. Cilimberg said that this request is located on Avon Street Extended across from Mill Creek, to
utilize existing buildings that are currently zoned for commercial use and would allow them to be used for
industrial purposes in an area that has industrial service designation under the Comprehensive Plan. He
pointed out existing zoning, including light industrial to the south of the property. Mr. Cilimberg said that
this is an opportunity for a small business to utilize a property within the development area that is
designated for light industrial use. The request is for about an acre to be rezoned from Highway
Commercial to Light Industrial to provide for a site for a contractor’s office and storage yard. He
presented an outline of the site, noting that there would be enhancements to meet Architectural Review
Board concerns – such as fencing that required a waiver to the buffer zone – but essentially they would be
utilizing existing buildings. Mr. Cilimberg reported that they will hook up to water and sewer when their
business expands or water and sewer is brought adjacent to the property. The plan and uses are
proffered, and technical language and revisions to the proffers have been made since the Commission’s
meeting. He said that staff and the Commission recommend approval of the request inclusive of the
proffers dated and signed March 20, 2008 including the plan described as the JV W ebster property dated
April 25, 2005.
Ms. Thomas said that the last time the Board dealt with this type of use, the issue came up of
storage of explosives onsite. She asked if this has been addressed.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that there is nothing in the proffers to restrict that, but it would be under
County and federal regulations. The applicant could speak to any intent.
Mr. Rooker asked what the surrounding uses are.
Mr. Cilimberg said that uses to the south are light industrial, and to the north there are residential,
a school, and church uses. The core residential use is Mill Creek to the west, and it is designated to the
north as urban density.
The Chairman asked the applicant for comments.
Ms. Catherine W omack, an attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Board. She said
that there would not be explosives stored on the site. This is a small contracting company specializing in
concrete forming and finishing. No concrete will be produced or mixed on the site. Ms. W omack said that
this is the only Highway Commercial district in the area. They could have done a special use permit to
allow for the contractor’s office and storage yard or they could have done the rezoning. Because the
Comp Plan calls for industrial service it seemed like the rezoning was the more appropriate choice. She
emphasized that this had been a farm equipment sales, rental, and service company with equipment
storage in the yard so it is a very similar use with equipment storage behind the office building. Any taller
equipment will go on the back of the property because it slopes and would not be visible from the
roadway. Ms. W omack said that there is one main building on the site and that is about 600 square feet
of office space and 1680 square feet of truck bays, as well as other existing nonconforming temporary
structures that are going to be removed except for the 38’ x 20’ frame building which would continue to be
there. She stated that they tried to eliminate from the proffers anything that would seem to be offensive or
too intense for an Entrance Corridor. This contractor is not typical in that customers do not come and go –
employees go directly to the worksite instead of into the office. This use is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, and the request comes to the Board with a recommendation of approval from staff
and the Commission. Ms. W omack asked for Board approval.
April 9, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
Ms. Mallek asked if the storage was for trucks.
Ms. W omack replied that there are some materials for concrete and concrete forming. The
equipment is pick-up trucks, two dump trucks, two skid steer loaders, and one mini-excavator – which are
often offsite.
The Chairman then opened the public hearing. There being no one to come forward to speak, the
public hearing was closed, and the matter was placed before the Board.
Mr. Dorrier moved approval of ZMA-2007-022, inclusive of proffers dated and signed March 20,
2008, including the plan described as the J.V. W ebster Property dated April 25, 2005.
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.
(The proffers are set out in full below:)
_______________
_______________
April 9, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
Agenda Item No. 18. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Tucker provided Board members with a budget resolution which included items discussed
from the worksheet and adding the Revenue Shortfall Contingency. Near the bottom of the resolution is
the one penny that will go into the Revenue Shortfall Contingency and what is left is the Board reserve.
He recommended adoption of the resolution.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to adopt the proposed resolution. Ms. Mallek seconded the
motion.
Mr. Boyd asked if the resolution includes all the items from the Board’s list.
Mr. Tucker confirmed that this includes the Save the Fireworks, Registrar personnel, Domestic
Violence Coordinator, Sheriff life-scan, Piedmont W orkforce Network, Mountainside, along with enhanced
median mowing, recycling to be considered further, and the Fire and Rescue Incentive Program.
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
BUDGET RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia:
1) That the budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2008 is summarized
as follows:
FY 08/09 Adopted
Administration $10,608,896
Judicial 3,887,331
Public Safety 30,323,179
General Services 4,664,740
Human Development (including PVCC)23,962,283
Parks, Recreation, and Culture 6,444,495
Community Development 10,324,699
Refunds/Other 438,500
City/County Revenue Sharing 13,633,950
General Government Capital Projects 15,576,476
Stormwater Improvements 800,000
General Government Debt Service 2,213,822
Education - Capital Projects 32,867,000
Education - Debt Service 13,137,712
Education - School Operations 147,587,033
Education - Self-Sustaining Funds 16,125,489
Revenue Shortfall Contingency 1,614,072
Board Reserves 447,118
TOTAL $334,656,795
2) That the budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2008 as described in
1) above be approved.
___________
(Note: Mr. Rooker left the meeting at 8:08 p.m.)
__________
Ms. Thomas said that on Monday she and Tamara Ambler went to Annapolis to an EPA meeting
to share the perspectives of local government regarding stream and water protection.
__________
Ms. Thomas said that she has received petitions from citizens to not have Red Hill School Road
paved. The policy has been to let everybody know it might be paved but this has been an overwhelmingly
negative response.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the Rural Rustic Road process is for the County to contact all the
landowners along the sections to be paved and share that feedback with the Board.
__________
Ms. Thomas said that someone has taken some aerial footage of the County at night to observe
the concentration of light uses and differences between sites wasting energy and those that do not.
__________
Ms. Thomas mentioned that there is a magazine for cities and counties that talked about a
wastewater treatment plant that looked into turning the plant into a tertiary plant. There was information
April 9, 2008 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
about how to use energy at nighttime so the higher rates are not used. Ms. Thomas asked if Rivanna was
looking into energy-saving measures.
__________
Ms. Mallek reported that there is a “Go Green” Conference for local government officials in
Lynchburg on April 29th.
Mr. Tucker said there are some local government folks attending the conference.
__________
Ms. Thomas said that she has been invited to the Chesapeake Forest Conservation Summit to be
held at the end of May and she would like to go if she can get a scholarship.
__________
Ms. Mallek asked if Mr. Clayton’s approval had been decided in Richmond. Mr. Davis said they
are still waiting for comments.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. Adjourn. At 8:14 p.m., there being no further business to come before the
Board, the meeting was adjourned.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 04/01/2009
Initials: EW J