2010-03-15March 15, 2010 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 1)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
March 15, 2010, at 9:00 a.m., in the Lane Auditorium of the County Office Building on McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from March 8, 2010.
PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Ann H. Mallek, Mr. Dennis S.
Rooker, Mr. Duane E. Snow and Mr. Rodney S. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W.
Davis, and Clerk, Ella W. Jordan.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:01 a.m., by the Chair, Ms. Mallek.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: FY 2010-11 County Budget.
Mr. Tucker noted that the Board had completed work sessions on General Government
categories in the budget, and also had a work session the Schools’ budget. This work session will focus
primarily on the Capital Improvements Program. If there is time, the Board can discuss some of the items
which have been added to the list of unfunded items. He said staff just received information on
yesterday’s General Assembly session.
Mr. Bill Letteri, Director of Facilities Management, addressed the Board. He said a large number
of staff members helped to assemble the information that will be presented today. Today he will present
the County Executive’s recommended CIP for FY 2011-15. This recommendation comes to the Board
through the various processes for CIP review – including the Technical Review Team and the CIP
Oversight Committee. Due to the current economic times, it was recommended that they look at existing
balances and programs to determine if there is an opportunity for liquidation and reclassification and
reallocation of those balances. He said his objective today is to receive Board comments and feedback
on the CIP, although formal action is not required today.
Mr. Letteri said one objective today is to receive the Board member’s comments on the
recommended CIP, to weigh in on transferring part of the reserve balance in the CIP to the Undesignated
Fund Balance of the General Fund in order to shore up the County policy of retaining an eight percent
balance in that fund. As per the Board’s request, a number of projects have been suspended pending
this conversation. For projects that are not affected by that, staff hopes those projects can be released so
they can proceed. He said staff will present the adjustments required since the Board last saw the CIP at
the joint work session. At that time it was planned on a 77¢ (equalized tax rate) and subsequently the
Board directed staff to use a 74¢ tax rate. What has emerged is a “maintenance -only” type of CIP
program for the next five years.
Mr. Letteri said the last part of the presentation will look at the categories of projects, prior
appropriations and balances. Staff would like to receive the Board’s final directions on this budget.
Mr. Letteri presented the three major revenue factors that impact the CIP. The first is the gross
transfer to the CIP which is a formula-based transaction each year based on overall revenues. At this
time, the formula is a standard of about 15¢ on the tax dollar adjusted for transportation and ACE and
other items so now it approximates about 11¢ on the dollar. He pointed out that in the last two years
there has been a tremendous decline in that revenue representing about a 32 percent decline. Matched
against that is the amount the County must pay for Debt Service. Over that same time period, the
amount of Debt Service to be paid has risen. Debt Service must be paid before the transfer is made, so
net revenues transferred to the CIP have been quite reduced. The County had been accustomed to head
room of about $10.0 million between what was paid in Debt Service and what was transferred. The only
other factor that helps the CIP is in what are called “other revenues” such as prior year surpluses, interest
earnings, grants, proffers, etc.
Mr. Snow referred to a chart on the screen (Reduced Transfers/Revenues to the CIP) and asked
about the spike in FY ’08-09. Mr. Letteri said that represented about $30.0 million in loan proceeds for
School projects.
Ms. Mallek said since they are now being paid off, that increases the total of Debt Service. Mr.
Letteri said it is now proposed to decline since a lot of projects are being removed from the CIP which
would have been debt financed. That number should continue to decline and hopefully revenues will
increase so that cushion of $10.0 million will be restored.
Mr. Letteri referred to the chart entitled “Reduced Transfers/Revenues to CIP General Fund” and
noted that the General Fund transfer is down 32 percent while Debt Service has risen by about nine
percent. In the last couple of years the net transfer to the CIP has decreased almost 92 percent from
about $10.0 million down to less than $1.0 million. Other Revenues have declined precipitously from
$39.0 million to $8.0 million.
Mr. Letteri said there have been many process changes made in the CIP process over the last
couple of years. It is a much more rigorous type of weighting system that identified goals and objectives.
It is a very objective ranking system. Staff talked about the need to suspend the capital needs
assessment. Typically that would be a part of this presentation. They feel that a long-term look is an
March 15, 2010 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 2)
important part of the CIP process, but this year, given the uncertainty of trying to predict what might
happen in two or three years, they elected not to address that specif ically.
Mr. Letteri said the Board had adopted a set of guiding principles. Maintain public safety as a key
component of Albemarle’s livability; provide and maintain educational facilities and technologies that
enhance teaching and learning; support and enhance Albemarle County’s overall quality of life and
community desirability and livability, including projects that contribute to the arts, education, community
events, outdoor recreation, historic and cultural heritage, and social opportunities; improve and maintain
critical County facilities to a 40-year useful life to improve functionality of buildings and preserve assets;
provide well-located, safe and efficient facilities that offer quality customer service and increase employee
productivity; incorporate environmentally sensitive and energy efficient systems into County facilities; and
respond to technological innovations and incorporate technological rather than spatial solutions when
appropriate; pursue innovative arrangements for financing approaches including, but not limited to,
public/private partnerships; ground lease of County properties in high value areas; leaseback and lease -
purchase options and intergovernmental cooperation; assist departments in preserving and maintaining
the County’s investment in buildings, land, infrastructure and equipment; recommend projects based on a
prioritized ranking system and the effective utilization of available outside funding sources (Federal, State,
other) in addition to appropriate County funding levels; pursue opportunities for collaboration between
General Government and the Schools working together to advance opportunities for different generations
to come together in any publically financed facility; support working with community non-profits (especially
those receiving County funds) to seek opportunities to benefit all County residents by sharing spaces.
Mr. Letteri then summarized the adjustments that had to be made to balance the CIP seen at the
work session to get to the 74¢ tax rate. He said the CIP Oversight Committee, in making their
recommendations, said the County might have to move to a 74¢ scenario and articulated a set of
adjustments they thought would be appropriate. He summarized: Tourism funded projects have been
removed (including ACE), and those funds channeled to support park activities that are consistent with
tourism goals; ACE funding was eliminated except for FY 2010-11 and that will be funded with one-time
transportation dollars; the County and Volunteer apparatus program has been delayed for one year; the
800 MHz radio system installation has been delayed; the CAD system for ECC has been delayed; the
ECC Emergency telephone system has been delayed. All of these were scheduled to come up for
replacement in the next couple of years, but have been pushed out a couple of years. The Police mobile
data computers were delayed; the Police patrol video cameras have been delayed, and that program
reduced. Stormwater program funding was reduced – this program had been funded at $1.0 million a
year until last year when that was reduced to $250,000 – this program funds it at $250,000 but thereafter
it will be reduced to $100,000 a year. The Keene landfill project has been reduced – they felt these
contingency funds could be needed if there were a problem with that closed facility - the site is
consistently monitored.
Mr. Letteri said the recommended FY 2010-11 CIP funds critical maintenance for government
facilities, Parks, Courts, libraries and schools. There are over 150 structures , over 50 acres of roofs, over
3.0 million square feet of facilities, and over 4,000 acres of land – with a conservative estimate of $300.0+
million in assets and facilities. The funds provided in this budget are adequate to maintain the critical
infrastructure at a core level.
Mr. Boyd asked if staff will be looking for properties that are no longer needed and cost money to
maintain. Mr. Letteri said they can do that, but that wasn’t intended to be part of this discussion today.
He said that 1,200 of the 4,000 acres owned by the County are actively managed and used.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that some of that land is parkland. He said that over 1,800 acres of
parkland have been added over the last several years. He agreed that if there is land that will not be
used by the County anytime within the foreseeable future that could be converted to cash for a project
that is felt to the important, the Board might consider doing that. Mr. Tucker said staff has already begun
that process. If some of this land might be used in the long term, it would likely cost a lot more to
purchase in the future.
Mr. Snow suggested this matter be placed on a future agenda for discussion.
Mr. Rooker asked if greenways were counted in the 4,000 acres. Mr. Letteri said “yes .”
Mr. Letteri said a key element of the plan is that it funds mandates and obligations including Ivy
and Keene landfill remediation, joint municipality obligations, leases, and voting machines; reflects no
new funding for capital projects including fire stations, schools, roads, libraries or parks over the next five
years; and, maintenance/replacement projects are primarily debt funded which ordinarily is not the
preferred approach. That is done for the School System because many of their maintenance projects are
very long term in nature, but on the Local Government side there are smaller projects that don’t always
lend themselves to borrowing money over long periods of time.
Mr. Boyd and Mr. Snow asked for an example. Mr. Letteri explained that on the School side,
there might be a mechanical renovation that could cost between $200,000 and $300,000 with a useful life
of 15 years or more years.
Mr. Boyd said he was referring to General Government projects. Mr. Letteri explained that on the
General Government side a lot of the projects are things like carpet replacement which are usually paid
for in cash.
March 15, 2010 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 3)
Mr. Boyd asked if that means there will be borrowing for those types of projects now. Mr. Letteri
responded that to balance this plan with current re venues, some of those funds must be borrowed.
Mr. Rooker said that’s just not a prudent approach. Mr. Letteri said when reallocation and
liquidation of funds is discussed a first priority will be on getting rid of that debt and paying cash for those
items. The second is the transfer to the General Fund.
Mr. Letteri said that is a summary of the CIP as it is recommended today. On the General
Government side, the recommended CIP includes less than $30.0 million over a five -year period, with no
money to be put into community and neighborhood development, transportation, or master planning
implementation, and funding was reduced in almost every category. He will discuss each category later
and explain what is involved
Mr. Letteri reported that Stormwater Management funding is down to a reduced level,
substantially less than the previous four years – and this funding will meet mandated levels, just barely.
The Schools have been reduced to a maintenance-only type operation with some of the funds proposed
to be appropriated including things that are matched up with grants. If the grants “go away”, so will the
projects. He said there is about a 64 percent decline both in FY 2011, and for the whole five-year period
of the CIP generally, It is about a 67 percent reduction from the adopted plan in FY 2011, and about 55
percent for the Schools over the five-year period ($36.0 million).
Mr. Rooker said the current, adopted plan was already reduced. Mr. Letteri said that is correct.
Mr. Boyd said that last year a lot of projects were just put off a year, and then this year they were
deleted entirely. Mr. Letteri said that is the reason the adopted FY 2009-10 budget showed $25.0 million
- a lot of those were the deferred projects that were brought forward, but have now been deleted.
Mr. Rooker said there has been a 97 percent reduction in the capital plan, and he asked if that is
over the two-year period. Mr. Letteri confirmed that it is.
Mr. Letteri said the only thing funded in Administration is $456,000 in the fifth year – there is no
way to know whether the Federal Government will impose a requirement to actually switch out voting
equipment. He said staff thinks it is likely to happen at some point in the future.
Ms. Mallek said the General Assembly did not pass the waiver, so the County is under a burden
from Richmond to do something. After the census she thinks the County will make changes to the
precincts, and she asked if there is money in this plan to do what staff already knows will be requ ired. Mr.
Letteri said a change was made this year by purchasing some laptop computers that could accommodate
the current requirements, but he does not know whether what was passed by the General Assembly will
impose additional requirements.
Mr. Jake Washburn, Registrar, said that the current CIP was at $106,000, for the electronic poll
books, but dropped to about $85,000 – which the County wanted to liquidate. That’s a real concern. He
said that there would need to be voting machines much sooner than 2016, as by 2011 the precinct will
grow after redistricting. He thinks that following the 2011 redistricting, the County will have to add a
minimum of two additional precincts. The dilemma is they are still under the moratorium of purchasing
additional touch screen machines. Mr. Washburn stated that in the summer of 2011 the County would be
faced with the choice of either buying a few optical scan machines to put into a few precincts “to make
do,” or buying one for every precinct. He added that the problem with not putting them in every precinct is
that the public will view not having that option as being unfair. He added that each machine is $7,000 and
there are 30 precincts for a total of $210,000. If they just add a couple of machines for the precincts
running two different machines, they would have to teach Election Officers how to run the different
systems. He asked the Board to reconsider cutting the $85,000.
Mr. Rooker responded that the first priority is to meet mandated legal requirements. Mr. Letteri
added that it’s very hard to know the specifics and timeframes of the requirements. Ms. Mallek
commented that it would be really helpful if the State chose one that counties were allowed to buy.
Mr. Letteri added that making these liquidations is always risky step. Mr. Rooker replied that it’s a
lot more risky when it’s a mandated program, and it’s very likely that there will be some expenditures that
aren’t known yet.
Ms. Mallek commented that it could be triple what the County is putting aside. Mr. Letteri agreed.
Mr. Letteri said that in the area of courts, there are maintenance-type expenses such as carpet,
mechanical replacement, roof repairs, and minor replacements to keep these facilities operational – with
Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court costs split between the County and the City. In the case of the
Old Jail facility, at one time there was quite a bit more money set aside for renovation and restoration of
the building. These monies provide minimal upkeep so the building do es not fall down.
Mr. Thomas asked if the costs were assigned based on population. Mr. Letteri responded that
they are split 50/50 in the case of the Juvenile Court.
Mr. Dorrier asked about the possibility of transferring the Old Jail to the Historical Society. Mr.
Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive, said the decision to transfer the facility to the Historical Society
has not been made yet. Staff will be bringing some additional information back to the Board.
March 15, 2010 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 4)
Mr. Letteri replied that he has met with the Historical Society in some preliminary discussions,
and they agreed to outline their level of interest and capability. Mr. Foley indicated that the Board would
discuss that as a separate issue, emphasizing that the building is in a state of major disrepair.
Mr. Dorrier commented that it could be part of their historical walking tour. Mr. Foley said that
there is a lot of talk left to be done, but the condition of the building will necessitate a very expensive
renovation.
Mr. Snow stated that the building would be eligible for some restoration grants if it belonged to the
Historical Society.
In terms of public safety, Mr. Letteri said the primary dollars are for apparatus replacement. The
plan reflects a delay of one year in the entire program. The Regional Jail Security system is the County’s
portion of the debt service for that restoration and upgrade. Mr. Letteri reported that there are funds in
the CIP for the 800 MHz radio replacements – the handheld units that will continue to need replacement
over time. The CAD and telephone systems for the 911 Center are joint projects with the City and the
University. He said that currently the technology is more than 10 years old, and while vendors are
continuing to support this technology it is likely they will soon no longer support them. It is a matter of
timing as to when these will have to be upgraded.
Ms. Mallek said she is concerned about putting this off for so many years because there are a lot
of parts of the County where the fire and rescue personnel are out of reach now, and without the new
system and the new boosters they were working on, there will be problems. Mr. Letteri commented that
this represents one of staff’s higher priorities when the Board gets to recommendations for reallocations.
Mr. Rooker said the County has a fire and apparatus budget that is larger than what the County
use to allocate to fire and rescue 15 years ago. He expressed concern that apparatus is being replaced,
when the emergency communications system seems to not be up to par. He asked if the CIP Oversight
Committee has looked at whether there needs to be money spent on trucks rather than the ECC
equipment. He asked what the $3.296 million in FT 12/13 represent and is that the amount of money
needed to spend.
Mr. Boyd said that last year the CIP Committee decided on a rating formula. He explained that all
of these items have been filtered through the CIP evaluation process, and the apparatus showed up
higher on the priority list.
Mr. Snow commented that he has visited the fire stations in his area, and they have indicated that
the equipment they have now is sufficient.
Mr. Thomas agreed, stating that he has been told that the equipment is acceptable for the time
being.
Mr. Dan Eggleston, Director of Fire and Rescue, explained that the Department had worked with
their Advisory Board a few years ago to define the fleet size and the replacement criteria for apparatus,
and the CIP reflects the two policies passed by that Board. He emphasized that in order to achieve
significant and meaningful savings in the CIP, the fleet size and replacement criteria should be revisited
with a recommendation returned to this Board.
Mr. Rooker said that this seems like a wise step, even though money is not being approp riated in
this fiscal year for these five-year plan expenditures.
Mr. Boyd stated that he brought up the issue of eq uipment replacement at several Advisory
Committee meetings, but not much attention was given to it at the time.
Mr. Bryan Elliott, Assistant County Executive, commented that mission has to be considered as
well as age, mileage, and hours. He stated that the next phase of the CIP will look at equipment that
wasn’t replaced in the last round.
Mr. Boyd said another thing the Board has talk ed about, but the volunteers do not like, is fleet
rotation which would greatly increase the fleet, but cannot be done as long as they have different colors.
Mr. Tucker suggested that it comes back as a recommendation from the Board.
Mr. Boyd suggested that the staff also talk to the School system regarding fleet rotation on their
busses and a shift to shorter routes.
Mr. Thomas said that it seems there is adequate equipment in the case of a major emergency,
but there doesn’t seem to be enough personnel and volunteers to man all the trucks. The County has
purchased two trucks in the last year, and the volunteers keep them in great shape.
Mr. Elliott said, if it is the consensus of the Board, staff will look at evaluating the replacement
policy and folding it in with next year’s CIP.
Mr. Boyd suggested bringing back to the Board the weighting criteria the Committee used in
making the decision that the apparatus was more important than the CAD or 800 MHz.
March 15, 2010 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 5)
Mr. Rooker said the question that needs to be addressed is whether the replacement policy is
resulting in more frequent expenditures.
Ms. Mallek pointed out that the equipment is catching up with the land use decisions that were
made, as there are four and five-story buildings out at NGIC and four and five-story buildings under
construction and occupied Crozet that were completely out of reach of the equipment that existed at the
time.
Mr. Thomas said the Board shouldn’t forget the volunteers because they are the most important
aspect of the fire companies, and they are very dedicated. Mr. Dorrier added that the volunteers need to
be included in the decision-making process.
Mr. Foley mentioned that the Advisory Board is part of all decision-making. He added that there
is money left over from the 800 MHz project that would help address some of the dead spots in the
County. This is just replacement of the handhelds.
Mr. Eggleston noted that the re-banding process is a separate project in itself, which is supported
in part by the telecommunications industry. He then asked if it was the Board’s desire to look at the
replacement criteria and reevaluate the fleet size and configuration.
Ms. Mallek asked if the County is ready to go ahead with the 800 MHz if some money were found
or if there is still lots of planning to do.
Mr. Elliott responded that when Mr. Letteri reviews the CIP priorities with the Board, he will have
some recommendations about de-appropriating funds in other areas to move the ECC projects forward.
He added that there are no apparatus expenditures planned for FY11, and this would be a good
opportunity to review the policy for replacement and fold it into FY12 recommendations.
Mr. Foley said that it was determined that the radio replacement could be delayed, as there is
some good solid equipment that doesn’t necessarily have to be replaced immediately. Mr. Eggleston
agreed.
Mr. Letteri then went to the category of Public Works. This category is general maintenance for
General Government facilities, and the other four items represent formal obligations for remediation or the
septic receiving facility that is the County’s share of the debt service on that facility – and the storage
facility lease.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Keene Landfill proposal requires an expenditure of $52,0 00. Mr. Letteri
responded that it is proposed to be a contingency amount funded by the County that would be rolled over
into future years if it is not used. He explained that the remediation is complete, and this is just a
mandate for the monitoring although no major problems are expected.
Mr. Boyd asked if any of the public works projects in FY 10/11 are financed, or if they are paid in
cash. Mr. Letteri replied that the County will pay cash in FY11, and then is proposing to balance the plan
by borrowing the balance for the four-year program.
Mr. Foley emphasized that their top priority in finalizing this for the Board was to move away from
borrowing for maintenance. Staff thinks that’s a bad practice. He added that in the first year staff made
sure they were not borrowing for maintenance so that they would have a chance as they revise and
update the plan to continue to not borrow for maintenance.
Mr. Boyd asked if the County had gone beyond its’ required debt ceiling. Mr. Foley replied, “no”.
Mr. Rooker asked if Moore’s Creek is being financed. Mr. Letteri confirmed that financing for
Moore’s Creek is being paid back over 20 years.
Mr. Letteri reported that there is no funding proposed for the five years in the category of
Community Development – which represents transportation, master planning implementation,
neighborhood improvement programs, street-lighting, sidewalks, etc. He said that the CIP is intended to
be the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan and Board strategies, but there are no funds available
other than some accumulated balances that will be discussed later.
Mr. Rooker said that the situation is problematic when the goal is to attract new people into the
growth areas, based upon additional services being in the growth areas. Not having those things, i.e.,
bicycle lanes, sidewalks, etc., is a disincentive for people to do what they want them to do.
Ms. Mallek noted that if the people at Gray Rock had known it would take 20 years to get a
sidewalk to downtown Crozet, they probably wouldn’t have built there.
Mr. Letteri reported that there are no new projects for Parks, Recreation, and Culture – and the
CIP includes just core maintenance needs.
Mr. Dorrier asked if Biscuit Run was included in here, and whether the County had input into the
process. Mr. Tucker responded that this would be a State process, and when the time comes the County
will likely have input.
March 15, 2010 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 6)
Mr. Rooker pointed out that the State closed down six parks this year and it may be a while
before a new one is opened.
In the category of Libraries, Mr. Letteri stated that the City co-branch Library repair/maintenance
is the County’s share of the obligations on jointly-operated Library facilities, and there are funds in the CIP
for basic repairs to the Scottsville branch.
Mr. Tucker pointed out that the Board would be considering the Library repairs as part of their
discussion on the entire Library system.
Mr. Letteri explained that there was a major renovation project slated for the Central Library, but
that was removed from last year’s CIP – although there are five major heating and cooling systems that
will need to be replaced.
Mr. Boyd asked if the County is paying 58%, same as operating costs. Mr. Letteri said he
believes that is correct. Mr. Elliott added the costs of replacements and refurbishments fall under the
same formula as operating.
Mr. Dorrier asked if someone from the County reviews the process to determine when
maintenance will occur. Mr. Elliott replied “yes”; Mr. Letteri’s office works closely with the City and the
Library.
Ms. Mallek asked if the $476,000 on the “A” list is for the Gordon Avenue Branch and Central
Library. Mr. Letteri said the major mechanical replacements for Central should not be on that; there may
be other small repairs that have to be addressed this year. The Facilities group at the City meets with his
team and annual reviews in detail their proposed maintenance schedule and justifications.
Mr. Snow asked if the Central Library and Gordon Avenue Library are jointly owned. Mr. Davis
said the County jointly owns both of them 50/50 with the City. (He later corrected his response and
advised that the Central Library is jointly owned but that the City owns the Gordon Avenue property.)
Mr. Letteri said Information Technology represents those upgrades for the County server and
various equipment used for operations. These are core maintenance dollars to keep the systems
operating.
Mr. Letteri said the ACE Program has been largely reduced, but it is proposed for a portion of
funding in FY11 from funds transferred from the balance in the Transportation Fund.
Ms. Mallek added that the last four years of this charge is zeroed out.
Mr. Rooker explained to new Board members that this was a program the County was spending
about $1.5 million on, a penny on the tax rate, and it was widely supported by many groups in the
community. He doesn’t recall anyone coming to a public hearing and speaking out against the program.
It is certainly a significant downgrade to be going to a mode where the County no longer has an ACE
Program.
Mr. Boyd stated that this would be an excellent place for revenue-sharing dollars as it benefits the
entire community.
Mr. Rooker said that it should be discussed, but that would still mean th e County would need to
contribute. He added that this also means the County loses the opportunity for State matching funds,
even though this year there likely won’t be any. He expects that in the out years, there will be federal and
state funds available to communities that have these type programs although the County will no longer be
able to take advantage.
Mr. Thomas asked if there have been any discussions with the City about that. Mr. Rooker said it
is something that can be added to the April 24th discussions with the City.
Mr. Letteri reported that stormwater management would be maintained at the prior funding level
of $260,000 for FY11, but would then be reduced to about $100,000 thereafter.
Mr. Letteri said that the School CIP is also primarily a maintenance-only program, and this
represents is a minimum level to keep the facilities at operational levels. It does not make any significant
improvements to any facilities over the five year period. Mr. Letteri said that of the $20.0 million total,
$2.5 million is funded in cash – which staff finds to be a reasonable level given the nature of these
expenditures.
Mr. Snow asked if these were additional funds beyond their submitted budget. Mr. Letteri clarified
that these are capital expenditures, not operational funds.
Mr. Rooker said that the School pays their share because their CIP funds come off the top –
neither General Government nor Schools get the money that goes to capital projects.
Mr. Snow asked about the administrative technology funds. Dr. Bruce Benson, Assistant
Superintendent for Planning and Operations, explained that those funds are used to buy replacement
equipment – primarily for administrative offices and departments. Dr. Benson said that instructional
technologies pay for classroom computers and equipment, and there is no money in there for FY10 and
March 15, 2010 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 7)
FY11; federal stimulus monies had been earmarked for that purpose, but the State will likely not make
those funds available next year.
Mr. Snow asked what is included in that category. Dr. Benson replied computers, servers,
anything related to administrative technologies.
Ms. Mallek asked if any of these are the result of directions from Richmond. Dr. Benson replied,
“yes”. There are a couple of different places where they get monies for technology purchases in the
School budget. There is also flow through monies from the State.
Mr. Dorrier asked how this fits in with the instructional coaching model.
Dr. Benson responded that that model addresses the deployment of staff to meet an SOQ
requirement for technology support and instructional support – and those are just barely being met at this
point. The state requires that there is one FTE and one technical support person per thousand students
to assist with instructional technology use in classroom.
Mr. Foley said that it seems the State has put that instructional technology money back in. Dr.
Benson said that some of this would be reinstated – possibly $720,000 – but the number is not nailed
down yet. He added that this is done by a purchase and reimbursement request system which is
designed to support the Commonwealth’s online testing initiative . He noted that that is shown as Project
“E” in the Board’s information.
Mr. Foley indicated that the number is around $752,000 at last count. Dr. Benson added that
there is specific kinds of equipment they can purchase and request reimbursement.
Mr. Snow asked what the difference is between this and what’s in the School budget. Dr. Benson
said that Mr. Price explained this in his budget presentation last week. The School Division did have
some concerns about what they thought they would have available in terms of capital monies for
purchase versus where they landing before the General Assembly completed its work. It looks like they
will see a little additional money in terms of the technology grant monies, but they are still concerned
about not having the instructional technology funds available towards being able to use the State’s
stabilization monies that has now been r olled up into basic aid.
Mr. Letteri said that concludes the function area discussion. He thought it would be helpful to
mention that it is a maintenance-only type program.
Mr. Letteri reported that the categories that were highly ranked but not f unded include the Levy
Building renovation, which is intended as a jointly funded facility to house General District Court
operations and perhaps those of the City in a combined way. He added that the City appears to be not
willing to pursue that at this point, so some discussion about its disposition ultimately will have to happen
in the next year or so.
Mr. Boyd asked if that space is needed, as it was originally approached as a temporary stopgap
measure.
Mr. Letteri explained that it was intended for space while the Juvenile Court was renovated, but
now that project is over. He added that they continue to have acute needs in Circuit Court and General
District Court operations in the existing Courthouse that will need to be addressed in some form, and
whether Levy would be an appropriate solution is being studied at this time.
Mr. Foley said that the City is backing away now, as there are new projections for need.
Mr. Letteri stated that at one time there was significant funding to restore the Old Jail, but that is
not on the table now given the budget situation. Renovation will take more than the maintenance dollars
that were programmed. He said that the County is working with the Historical Society on a plan, which
includes a possible transfer of title to them.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that if the decision were not to refurbish the old building, the property
does sit on a very valuable piece of real estate.
Mr. Dorrier compared it to the Hatton Ferry, adding that there are possibilities for other o utside
revenue sources.
Mr. Letteri said that it is a technical discussion at this point, and tax benefits to developers and
others are being considered – but there are also operations concerns such as parking and access that
could affect the Court operations. It’s a complicated question at this point and one of the reasons why the
Board decided to embark on this study was to make sure that they understood what those issues were
before spending any money.
Mr. Foley pointed out that this is one reason why the Board appointed a committee that was
broader than just the Historical Society which was to look at the bigger issue.
Mr. Boyd said that Mr. Rooker’s thought is that the property could be developed by the private
sector, maintaining its historic character but still providing some enumeration for the County.
March 15, 2010 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 8)
Ms. Mallek added that another factor as mentioned is that the facility can’t impact the Court
operations.
Mr. Rooker said that it’s been sitting there on a valuable piece of property for some time, just
deteriorating. It would be helpful for the Board to see a report on the historic nature of the building.
Although the building has a long history, it never appeared to him to be a very architecturally significant
building. It’s been used for a various things over the years and it is a judgment as to whether the building
should be retained as a historic resource or used for some other purpose in relation to the Court system.
Mr. Dorrier stated that if no one is in charge of the building, there is no buy in and it will
deteriorate more. He thinks the County needs to take responsibility for it and make sure it’s not ignored.
Mr. Rooker responded that all those things cost money. He added that he would like to see the
expense shift away from the County into a situation that generates some revenue, otherwise it is just a
deteriorating asset on the backs of the taxpayers.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks they do not need to outsource the expense of the building; it can be
kept in-house. A committee can be formed to come back to the Board every six months and provide an
update.
Mr. Letteri commented that there may be items in his presentation that can be tabled for a more
in-depth future discussion. He then talked about projects that have been eliminate d. In the category of
public safety, all the major projects including fire stations have been eliminated from the program. Mr.
Letteri reported that there are potential agreements with Worrell Enterprises and the University to occupy
the fire stations, and while there are studies to move in that direction there are no construction dollars
programmed to accomplish that. He said that other projects shelved include the Seminole Trail station
upgrade, the training facilities, and the Evidence & Specialty Unit storage. These are all projects that
were previously identified by the Operations. Mr. Letteri stated that other public works items include
window replacements for the County Office Building, some of the recycling centers, and various security
improvements throughout County facilities.
He said that Community Development categories that have been funded at healthy levels in the
past have no new monies programmed for the next five years – although some of those accounts do have
fund balances. Mr. Letteri stated that there was a plan for an intergenerational center with JABA, but it
did not make the funding list. Under Parks and Recreation, he also said that there were improvements
planned for many of the parks in the County system, but all have been eliminated – including the
greenway program, river and lake access improvements, and general park enhancements.
Mr. Boyd commented that there are some greenway programs that are in process that are not
being eliminated. Mr. Letteri said that is correct.
Mr. Letteri reported that the Crozet Library has been suspended, although there has been a very
significant start on the project planning with lots of community input and a schematic design. He said that
the plan now is to do at the very least some site stabilization and perhaps a parking area that would serve
the community in the interim. Mr. Letteri added that there is expansion needed for the Northside Library,
but that is also on hold. The County does have a five year extension on the existing facil ity and will
continue to serve the County at its current capacity.
Mr. Letteri said that the Schools’ major CIP projects – including substantial renovation to the
southern feeder schools – have been replaced with increases in maintenance for FY12 and FY 13, to
keep those facilities functional and operational for the immediate future. The funding does not include
any of the renovations or improvements that are considered important. He stated that there is about
$34.2 million in that category that was not funded.
Mr. Letteri reported that staff believes the critical core maintenance issues are being funded in the
Capital Plan, as well as obligations and mandates. There are no new projects for capital or things
considered necessary for operations and it does delay some critical regional ECC projects. He added
that more debt is included than would be preferred which staff will address in the recommendations.
There is still an undesignated balance in the General Fund side that is less than the goal of eight percent,
and it is hoped that can be addressed in the recommendations.
Mr. Letteri said that concludes the recommended CIP portion of the discussion. No action is
required today. Later in the meeting staff may make some suggestions and ask for directi on to make
some changes to the Plan which it can bring back to the Board in April.
Mr. Letteri reported that the liquidation reallocations are prior appropriations that have been made
over the years, and it is not unusual that capital-type programs take many years to implement. It has
staff’s practice in large capital programs to appropriate in one year the entire budget necessary to do the
projects. He said that it also represents the accumulated balances in transportation accounts, master
planning accounts, and through strong revenues. Mr. Letteri stated that prior to FY09, the County has
been rolling over about $38 million in projects that are ongoing, and much of this has been already
expended or committed in terms of projects. He added that there have also been additional
appropriations of $18 million in FY10, so the budget balance as of July 1 is approximately $57 million.
Mr. Letteri explained that this is made up of three categories for projects. Category A are projects that
are underway and committed; Category B are projects that have had a lot of staff work and commitment
to these projects, and Category C are projects that are recommended for reallocation of funds to address
other problems.
March 15, 2010 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 9)
Mr. Snow asked if the $57 million is fully funded as the budget is presently constituted. Mr. Letteri
replied, “yes”. Mr. Snow asked if the Board decides to remove something from that budget, it could be
used for other additional uses from previous discussions. Mr. Letteri said that is correct. He adde d that
these would be one-time funds that could provide a one-time solution, rather than long-term solutions.
Mr. Letteri emphasized that staff would like to look at cash applications rather than supporting more debt.
Mr. Snow asked how much of the budget was funded debt? Mr. Rooker commented that the debt
payments are in the CIP.
Mr. Letteri further explained the specific categories, noting that Category A represents committed
funds that are substantially underway in some form – with most of the funds already expended, purchase
orders issued, and contract negotiations in process. He explained that sources of funds include grants or
restricted funds, sometimes including borrowed funds and commitments to joint municipalities such as the
City or University.
Mr. Thomas asked if the YMCA contribution is committed.
Mr. Davis explained that the County entered into an agreement that funded the YMCA. The
money was appropriated and there was no contingency to not pay that money. He said that it is already
appropriated in this fiscal year.
Mr. Boyd commented that it could always be un-appropriated.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that the YMCA has a right to obtain the funds, noting that when the
decision was made the Board had a different composition. He said that there was a survey done of
general recreational needs in the community, and one of the things that came forward was a
recommendation by Parks and Recreation to satisfy some of the needs in the community for various
indoor recreational services by building two facilities that the County would build and operate, similar to
the YMCA being discussed. Mr. Rooker stated that there was about $30 million of capital potentially in
their expenditures for the County, but there would have been an ongoing operations expense associated
with each of the facilities. He indicated that at the time, he and Mr. Boyd encouraged partnership with
community groups – and the YMCA came forward in discussions with the County and City. Mr. Rooker
said that the original plan was to build it at PVCC, but eventually the site moved to McIntire Park – and
the YMCA has proceeded with their funding over the last four years based upon a commitment by the
County to put $2 million in the project. That commitment is part of the YMCA’s presentation to the
community and the County has appropriated the money. He thinks that at some point unless something
significant changes, you have a moral obligation to go through with the commitment that is made by the
appropriation of funds to a nonprofit that is basing their entire project around those financial
commitments.
Mr. Boyd agreed, but said these are different times, and the Board is sitting here looking at
cutting services such as fire and rescue. The County is cutting $200 million over a five year period and
he is struggling with that money which has not yet been used.
Mr. Dorrier commented that he has been concerned that there will not be enough community use
of the facility.
Mr. Thomas said that he supports the YMCA, was a board member for about 18 years, but is
concerned about other priorities for the County not being funded. He would like to see the funds
uncommitted if possible.
Mr. Letteri indicated that staff has put that item in Category A based on previous Board
discussions and prioritization. He suggested that if there are other items in this category that should take
precedence, the Board could put them on a list for further consideration.
Mr. Dorrier commented that the YMCA project doesn’t qualify as “substantially underway” as the
criteria stipulates.
Mr. Elliott explained that the YMCA has moved through the City’s site plan review process and
the project is close to having bids issued. All indications are that they will be moving forward with
construction this summer. He added that it would take approximately one year to build the new facility.
Mr. Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation said that it would probably take about 18
months, and they are planning to begin construction after the Dogwood Festival.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that it’s important to remember the rationale for going into the project in
the first place, as the Board agreed this was a way to provide “substantial recreational amenities” to
citizens of the County without an ongoing operational expense and just a small percentage of the capital
expense. In his mind this is kind of the ultimate of leveraging County dollars in a way that doesn’t impose
an ongoing operational cost burden to the citizens.
Mr. Mullaney noted that the $2 million was originally put in the CIP a long time ago for an urban
gymnasium somewhere on school property. For that $2 million dollars now, they are getting a $15 million
facility that will last 50 years and serve the needs of County residents with no ongoing operating costs.
Mr. Boyd mentioned that at the time there were fewer options available from the private sector –
such as Four Seasons and ACAC, both providing indoor aquatic services to the community.
March 15, 2010 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 10)
Mr. Dorrier commented that there are about 18 facilities that prov ide these types of services.
Mr. Boyd said that he is big supporter of the YMCA and their programs. He is just concerned that
this will take money away from other priority areas, noting that he was a big proponent of providing
competitive swimming opportunities.
Mr. Snow stated that his problem with funding this now is that it’s happening in the course of
conversations about cutting school funding and closing libraries.
Mr. Rooker said that it would not be a wise move to shift the money over to operating, where it
would be spent one time and then gone.
Mr. Snow said the money could be allocated over a number of years to help alleviate some of the
expected budget shortfall.
Mr. Boyd commented that at this point, the money for the Crozet Library should be put back on
the table or it could go into the reserve fund.
Mr. Davis emphasized that the money for the YMCA is committed by contract in this fiscal year,
and if the Board wants to explore their legal options it should be done in a closed meeting.
Mr. Letteri suggested that there are numerous projects and programs. He suggested proceeding
with his presentation to show the impact of applying their recommended liquidations and reallocations to
the CIP. After they have an understanding of that, the Board can go back and look at individual projects
and categories. They also can put any projects on a list of items for future discussion.
Mr. Letteri then explained that Category B is similar to Category A, but as a formal matter under
Category B, purchase orders have not been issued in whole or in part for some of this money, so some of
it is formally uncommitted. He added that specific uses have been identified, and projects represent
important elements of adopted master planned or community development efforts. Mr. Letteri said that
the funds are also contingencies set aside for various operational expenses or purchases – such as
apparatus repairs, landfills, parks, and master plans – the only difference being that some of the funds
are not formally committed at this point.
Mr. Rooker asked about the “squad replacement” ($798,000) item.
Mr. Elliott explained that squad vehicle is a large piece of apparatus to be replaced, and these
funds were appropriated in FY10. In order to bring this new unit on line, they need to renovate their
building which is also being programmed into the Plan. It now seems likely that the spring of FY11 is a
more realistic timeframe according to fire and rescue. He added that the rescue squad itself is paying for
the building renovation.
Ms. Mallek asked about Ambulance 501 and if it was completed.
Mr. Elliott responded that Ambulance 501 is in Category C. WARS had several units that were on
the apparatus plan and this unit they went out and purchased on their own. They did ask for
approximately $50,000. He added that WARS has asked for liquidation of $128,000 out of a total of
$178,000 under Category C - $50,000 of which is earmarked for a command vehicle. This was
considered by the Board last Fall.
Mr. Letteri said Category C is appropriations staff believes could be reallocated or liquidated in
whole or part. He reported that the other liquidation items include: courthouse funds balance of $29,000
as that project is complete; the Old Jail maintenance – which had $62,000 allocated for wall stabilization
and other immediate restoration needs, but now is recommended for delay until options are pursued with
the Historic Society. Based on comments from Mr. Washburne, the Board may wish to reconsider
liquidating the $85,000 for the voting machine replacement.
Mr. Dorrier commented that the County could do some of that study work themselves on the Old
Jail.
Mr. Letteri responded that there would need to be professional engineers involved, and there are
some historic characteristics to the building that require certain expertise.
Mr. Letteri also reported that the Brush Truck 53 project is where the Crozet station has gone in
and reused their pump equipment and remodeling its chassis, yielding significant savings.
Mr. Thomas said that it is nice to see that reuse.
Ms. Mallek stated that it serves as a model for other companies to follow that track instead of
buying new vehicles.
Mr. Letteri reported that there’s a fairly good chance that there would not need to be money
allocated for four pieces of new apparatus, as previously thought.
Mr. Elliott explained that all four were proposed for debt financing, originally approved by the
Board several years ago. In Summer 2008 the Board took action to re-appropriate the funds and release
March 15, 2010 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 11)
the funds to CARS – and the County has been waiting for word from them as to the status of these pieces
of apparatus.
Mr. Thomas indicated that CARS was supposed to have an answer for the County by today.
Mr. Eggleston mentioned that the ambulances listed here are due to be replaced again soon
because they are on a five year life cycle.
Mr. Elliott noted that if the Board decides to liquidate these, they could come back through the
apparatus replacement policy for reinstatement, but it is basically holding out debt financing – and
repayment schedules are forecasted with them included.
Mr. Boyd asked what the City contributes to CARS.
Mr. Rooker responded that they don’t contribute anything to operations or capital.
Mr. Elliott said that when considering the Squad 133 item at $300,000, it is a squad vehicle
costing around $750,000 – so the County agreed to fund the $300,000 of the apparatus.
Mr. Snow asked why the City isn’t contributing.
Mr. Rooker replied that they never have, because they donated the site – which they consider
their one-time contribution to CARS.
Mr. Letteri said that a balance of $385,000 has been accumulated to address various street -
lighting concerns, and many of these locations have been identified as priorities. He stated that staff
believes a liquidation of $200,000 would be tolerable, and would still allow for some core needs to be
addressed.
Mr. Dorrier asked how much money is left. Mr. Letteri replied approximately $185,000.
Mr. Rooker commented that those items are expensive. The County is not going to be able to do
a lot with $185,000. He noted that just one single project he looked into was estimated at $200,000 for an
area that had lots of complaints, outdoor drug sales, etc. – but it was never done because of the cost.
Mr. Letteri agreed that the money doesn’t go very far when it comes to lighting projects, as each
light pole can cost $80,000 - $90,000.
Mr. Letteri then reported that the County is under a formal agreement with Moore’s Creek septic
receiving, and they have not quite finished the facility and assembled cost information – but the County
will not be billed until next fiscal year, so this year’s allocation can be liquidated. He explained that the
Records Management system includes funds set aside to revamp the entire program, and he is looking at
utilizing his own staff – along with Information Technology personnel – to reduce the overall cost of
implementing this program.
Mr. Foley noted that this will serve the entire County, and Community Development will be the
first pilot to establish the way they go about doing this to ensure mandates are being met.
Ms. Mallek asked if there are any funds from the State to help with this project. Mr. Foley replied,
“no”, not as part of this project.
Mr. Letteri said that a portion of the regional transportation monies are recommended to be
reduced – by $200,000. He also stated that there is $3.2 million accumulated in local transportation
funds, and staff is recommending a partial reallocation of those funds to support other efforts – leaving
approximately $2.0 million to augment what VDoT might be doing, and critical connections identified in
master planning development.
Mr. Rooker asked if it would delay Jarman’s Gap. Mr. Letteri stated that it would not. Mr. Letteri
also said that there is a $700,000 - $800,000 overage in budget, but that may be offset by a similar
amount leftover from the Meadow Creek Parkway project. There may be the ability to transfer some
funds.
Mr. Letteri reported that part of the road revenue-sharing money is committed for Jarman’s Gap
($1.5 million) and Georgetown Road (totally funded), but there is uncertainty as to whether these funds
will be available in the future for other projects. He said that Mr. Benish has indicated that there will be a
revenue-sharing program next year that the County can participate in, but this would not leave a lot of
funds for the County to work with if they use this balance now.
Mr. Rooker commented that leaving this fund empty is a problem, because the County has taken
advantage of the 50/50 matching fund program with the State for a long time. He thinks it is a mistake if
the program comes back and the County does not have funds in its plan to leverage the State do llars.
Mr. Letteri noted that the renovations to the Auditorium are complete, so those funds can be
liquidated, and the Tourism Visitors’ Center money set aside for the property during the title exchange
was not needed so those funds can be liquidated. H e said that the design funds for the Henley Middle
School renovation – which has been postponed – are no longer needed and thus can be liquidated. Mr.
March 15, 2010 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 12)
Letteri commented that this project was brought in under budget of about $600,000, reflecting in part a
good bidding climate.
He reported that there have been several steps taken already with the Crozet Library, including
purchase of property, engaged architect, an extensive community engagement process, and most of the
funds appropriated are committed or expended. Mr. Letteri said that staff is proposing a liquidation of
about $200,000, including a reduction of the architect’s contract to reflect the fact he will not have to
produce final bid documents at this time. Staff will have to add scope to the architect’s work to allow them
to design an interim solution that provides some parking for community downtown.
Mr. Letteri summarized that the liquidations equate to $5.0 million total – some in cash, and some
of it being debt. He said that by reducing or eliminating the debt-related projects, the question becomes
what is the impact to the CIP, and that impact is in the form of reduced payments on debt service – which
generates an additional $750,000 for the five-year period. Mr. Letteri emphasized that staff is trying to
point out how applying these liquidations will affect the CIP, and what it does to the bottom line reserve
balance – with the goal being to have $2.0 million at the end of the five years.
Mr. Snow commented that the cash goes to the bottom line for an immediate $3.5 million
immediate benefit. Mr. Letteri said that is correct. Mr. Snow said that money could be used for some
other items identified by the Board and can go into reserves.
Mr. Letteri said that is correct. He explained that what’s presented today is one way the Board
could apply these funds, which reflects high priorities, but there are also other ways.
Mr. Foley clarified that these are savings in the Capital Funds, not in the General Fund to add
back for libraries, etc. If the Board wants to move some of that money to the General Fund, it would have
to amend its policy.
Mr. Rooker asked if current interest payment on debt is included in the General Fund operating
expense. Mr. Foley replied that the interest payments on debt service are included in the debt fund –
which is part of the Capital totals, not in the General Fund. Debt service is technically an operating
expense, but it is not budgeted in the General Fund. He added that it is the total debt payment, which
includes principle and interest.
Mr. Letteri stated that the ten percent figure staff uses for debt service is the typical 20-year bond
scenario of five percent, which equates to about ten cents on the dollar.
(Note: At 11:04 a.m., the Board took a recess, and then reconvened at 11:11 a.m.)
Mr. Letteri reviewed recommendations on how the liquidations could be applied, with the first
being the transfer of $1.0 million to the Undesignated Fund Balance in the General Fund – which would
get the County to that eight percent goal, in keeping with Board policy. That keeps the County’s bond
rating, AAA, which clearly is of critical importance. Mr. Letteri said that the second application of the
liquidated funds would be to pay in cash those items that otherwise would be borrowed for, with $2.7
million paying out what was originally slated to be borrowed through year four.
Mr. Snow asked what year the $2.7 million takes the County to. Mr. Letteri replied 2014.
Mr. Rooker asked what would be needed to get through the entire five years. Mr. Letteri said he
would need another $1.3 million.
Mr. Letteri also explained that staff is recommending the critical timing on the ECC projects – both
the CAD and telephone systems – which is the program in place for the University and City, and in which
the County participates. Mr. Letteri concluded that those items mentioned apply the total $4.2 million, and
balances the County’s program so at the end of the five-year period there is a reserve balance and a
nominal capital fund of $2.0 million. No new projects are added, but the financing mechanisms are being
changed. He added that staff has suspended work on a lot of work pending these discussions, and
except for items affected by the liquidations, staff asks that it be authorized to proceed with all other work
in categories A and B. He then presented a slight showing how this application affects the Capital Fund;
the change does not make a difference to the transfer over the five years. It does reduce debt service
obligations which add to a net transfer of $894,659 or 18 percent. It affects other revenues by virtue of
borrowing less money. It would increase the reserve balance to $3.0 million of which $1.0 million would
be transferred to the General Fund, leaving a $2.0 million balance in the CIP. He added that the $2.0
million is the total; not $2.0 million per year.
Mr. Foley reiterated that the $2.0 million has been a target to keep the fluctuation in the CIP; it is
not a new amount.
Ms. Mallek asked if the Crozet Library was able to get $3.0 million or so from federal and other
sources, would this be the source from which the County would get the debt started.
Mr. Letteri replied that this is one-time money and doesn’t provide a stream of revenue.
Mr. Rooker explained that this is a fund balance to try to maintain on the capital side to deal with
the fluctuations on project costs, so it is not really for a new project. Mr. Rooker asked the total cost of
the Crozet Library.
March 15, 2010 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 13)
Mr. Letteri stated that the project total was $9.8 million, and the County had originally allocated
$1.8 million, which does not include the expected $1.6 million from the Friends of the Library. He noted
that the projected debt service on the Library project, had it been funded in full, would have been about
$600,000 per year over a five-year period.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that much of the growth in Crozet is occurring in the downtown area, and
the Library project was an important piece of the revitalization of the community there. He emphasized
that if grant money can be obtained, it should be utilized so the project can be done. Mr. Rooker said that
the combination of the favorable bidding climate, potential for grants, and low interest rates is a strong
rationale to move forward. The property has already been acquired and the planning has been done.
Mr. Foley added that the only other thing to consider is the operating impact for the Library, which
is about $150,000.
Mr. Rooker suggested that if it looks like the project is moving forward sooner than later, maybe a
volunteer effort should be pursued for working in the Library.
Ms. Mallek commented that there has to be paid staff to do the official responsibilities, but a lot of
the support work can be done with volunteers.
Mr. Boyd commented that if the County is rethinking its approach to libraries maybe the $3.8
million could be used for a library system in the County.
Mr. Dorrier added that one problem with that is that $600,000 comes back from the State to
purchase books because it is a regional system. He added that the County should look at rewriting the
Library agreement because there should be some support from Buckingham and Fluvanna Counties.
Mr. Letteri summarized that the Board wants the Crozet Library, YMCA, and the voting machines
to be put on a list to be reconsidered, but otherwise to go ahead with projects in Category A and B.
Mr. Snow added that the CARS and Fire Department equipment should also be reevaluated.
Board members indicated that those items fell under Category C, and an answer is expected from
CARS in the near future.
Mr. Boyd said that there also needs to be some consideration given to volunteer rescue squads
that didn’t want to participate in revenue-sharing agreements, as that costs the County about $600,000
per year.
Mr. Foley added that the highway revenue-sharing money should also be on the list for
reconsideration.
Mr. Boyd stated that he had some questions about the $249,000 for “study development” related
to athletic fields, including the Crozet Elementary School.
Mr. Mullaney explained that some of that is for turf, but the remaining is for a baseball and soccer
field at Crozet Elementary.
Mr. Rooker said that seems like an inexpensive way to acquire a lot more field space.
Ms. Mallek asked if the $150,000 is needed to remain for the other two turf fields. Mr. Elliott said
a private donor has made a pledge contingent upon private donations meeting the match. There is a
“soft” commitment of the County that if these funds are raised privately, the donor would provide a match
and the projects would move forward. He believes that the pledge is available through the end of the
calendar year.
Mr. Davis said because the contingency has to be completed within the next fiscal year, he does
not advise removing that money at this time.
Mr. Rooker said this money was actually in the CIP for expansion of lighted playing fields and in
high demand by the community, and this was the least expensive way that the County could provide
additional lighted field recreational time. The turf fields became a less expensive way to provide for that
need.
Mr. Boyd asked about the $250,000 for the Pantops Fire Station, stating that he thought it was
just a minor engineering that needed to be done.
Mr. Letteri said that those funds would include the engagement of a firm to go through the site
plan approval process, which is what’s required to receive the property; that firm would also produce
documents so the County can bid the project. He confirmed that about one-half of that funding is for site
plan and property transfer.
Mr. Letteri explained that in order to understand how this building can be situated on that site,
there is a level of design required to be done to ensure the circulation would work, what improvements
would need to be made, how the area might be graded, etc. That is the reason for the allocation of that
money.
March 15, 2010 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 14)
Mr. Boyd said it seems like a lot of money to just go through that process. He asked if the entire
building would be designed.
Mr. Letteri replied, “no”, it would be more of a conceptual design. The site is extremely
challenging with requirements for fill, very difficult topography and a lot of access issues.
Ms. Mallek commented that sometimes the land the y get presents problems; a similar situation
happened with the Crozet Library site.
Mr. Rooker said they were looking at $1.5 million to $2.0 million to acquire a site, so the $250,000
for site planning seems like a good deal.
Mr. Boyd also commented about the $2.4 million for the Crozet streetscape project, as not much
of it has been spent.
Mr. Letteri responded that this project has been in the works for three years, and a great deal of
effort has gone into the design components of this – including the streetscapes themselves, Main Street,
and 30 or 40 easements required to make this happen. He said that the County has negotiated a contact
with Dominion Power to remove all utilities, and that contract is in place and ready to proceed. Mr. Letteri
stated that they paid for the utility fees that are associated with doing that, so there are a number of things
that are well in progress. The amount of money expended to date is not reflective of the efforts and work
that has gone into the project.
Ms. Mallek stated that this has to come first, and then Main Street, and then the Library. She said
that they are about three or four signatures away from a 30 day start time.
Mr. Boyd noted that there is $1.9 million being moved out of master planning for Places29, which
is a lot larger project than Crozet. It seems the County has been buying a lot of property in Crozet.
Ms. Mallek commented that this money is to wrap it all up because this is where the County is
growing.
Mr. Letteri mentioned that there is about $300,000 in grant funds associated with this project that
are included in that $2.4 million, and he is hopeful that the bidding for this project will come in favorably as
well. He also confirmed that a VDoT grant of $250,000 is also pending, which would further reduce the
appropriation.
Mr. Rooker commented that it’s appropriate to put all these items on the table, but there is a
problem when grant money has been received and the project doesn’t go forward.
Mr. Letteri stated that if they stopped this project, there would be a definite negative impact.
Mr. Dorrier agreed, adding that it comes to a point of no return.
Ms. Mallek added that it would take generations to recover from the “black eyes” if the County
backs out of all the easements it has worked so hard to get.
Mr. Boyd said that he is just concerned that his constituents on Route 29 North are going to be
distressed that there is no money for anything now on Route 29 North – even implementation studies or
master planning.
Mr. Rooker stated that the only way to accomplish that would be to include money in the tax rate
for capital improvements.
Ms. Mallek said that Mr. Rooker’s two cents on the list would do just that.
Mr. Thomas asked if the Woodbrook lagoon project was going on hold.
Mr. Foley replied that it is moving forward, as there are some grants tied to the project.
Ms. Mallek added that there were some smaller stormwater projects that were put on hold.
Mr. Boyd asked about the engineering work on the East Ivy Fire Station, also listed at a cost of
$250,000 like Pantops.
Mr. Letteri explained that like Pantops, there are a number of complicated site issues that will be
part of the negotiations with the University – which is proposing to lease the facility to the County at zero
cost, but with the site and circulation issues addressed. He added that the goal for use of these funds is
to take this project to enough of a design level to understand clearly what the options are for cost, as the
building may be able to be retrofitted in certain ways that will substantially reduce the overall cost of the
project.
Mr. Rooker asked what is happening with the City’s substation on Route 250, as it was
abandoned when they moved to their new facility. That is a flat piece of property, in the growth area, has
water and sewer, etc. That would be a much less expensive site to develop
March 15, 2010 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 15)
Mr. Tucker responded that it is University property, adding that the idea years ago was to build a
joint City-County fire station there, but the City ended up putting a temporary station there.
Mr. Rooker suggested that before the County spends $250,000 on Northridge, it should explore
possible options with the site on Route 250.
Mr. Tucker said there have been no discussions; the City just recently moved forward on the
Fontaine site. He added that even in the long term the County is probably going to have to move its Ivy
station to another location.
Ms. Mallek said that is part of the problem, having to return the site in about ten years.
Mr. Letteri said the commitment from the University would be a minimum of 15 years.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks they need to look at a comparison of the two sites.
Mr. Foley said that the Board had also discussed in the past insurance rates and service areas,
as there is a big break if service is within five minutes of a station.
Mr. Eggleston pointed out that the objective for the East Ivy station is to provide urban services
for the west side of the City area, but also to be close enough to the Ivy area – which is densely
populated. If you move further east it would probably not give that benefit to the people in Ivy.
Mr. Rooker said he still would like to look at the other site because it could be a permanent site as
opposed to a temporary site and is much less physically challenging.
Mr. Boyd asked for clarification between the 504 and 505 funding.
Mr. Elliott explained that the 505 unit is the squad unit that is a function of the apparatus bay
getting retrofitted. The squad wants the County to keep this in the plan, but they would not be going out
for bid until spring 2011. The 504 is a unit that is being rehabbed, similar to the Crozet brush truck. They
are 60 to 90 days away from finalizing that. The County should see some savings from the 231, but this
project is currently ongoing.
Mr. Boyd asked about the two sidewalk projects on Ivy Road for $435,000. He understands that
the University of Virginia is interested in some corridor entrance improvements although they are
unsettled.
Mr. Rooker commented that the City has sidewalks almost all the way out to the County line. The
County has built quite a bit of townhouses in that area and the idea was to provide County residents with
some pedestrian accessway in that area. The County has decided wh ether this is a high priority sidewalk
project.
Ms. Mallek said there have been Ivy Road projects in the plan for a long time and some of them
have been eliminated.
Ms. Mallek asked if there are grant opportunities for Hollymead/Powell Creek – as they might be
able to come under the “Safe Routes for School” if neighborhoods and schools get involved.
Mr. Boyd said that the sidewalk fund has about $400,000 earmarked for Ivy Road, and some
additional for roadway landscaping. He added that his comments are not about whether these projects
are not good, but whether it is the right use of money.
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning, said that the Hilltop project is a very old project because
right-of-way hasn’t been obtained from property owners, so the concept here is to move that funding into
a school-related project with available right-of-way. He added that the County is participating in the “Safe
Routes to School” program, and was tentatively awarded a grant for $190,000 near the Crozet
Elementary School. The County has a priority it will be working through. Next year funds will be
requested for Hollymead and the Albemarle High School complex that also includes Greer and Jack
Jouett. Mr. Benish emphasized that the Hilltop project continues to bump up against right-of-way
acquisition, and some of the remaining funds are slated to be assigned to Powell Creek – such as
crosswalks on Ashwood Boulevard and sidewalk connections from north Forest Lakes to the school
complex. There are a number of projects where staff can use this money to improve access to the
schools.
He also explained that the Ivy Road project is a very old initiat ive that dates back to a joint City-
County-University plan to upgrade that corridor, and this is boiling down to sidewalks and bike lanes
along that corridor – with UVA recently expressing interest in improving pedestrian and bicycle access in
this fairly active area that’s considered to be an “entrance corridor” to the University.
Ms. Mallek asked if UVA funds or County funds would be used.
Mr. Benish said there had been discussion that VDoT was interested in using Revenue Sharing
Funds, but County funds are directed towards other projects. Staff has not pursued other grant
opportunities but there are priorities with the UVA for enhancement grants. It is not likely this would be
prioritized high enough. This project has always been in the County’s CIP to provide for more basic
sidewalks and bike lanes.
March 15, 2010 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 16)
Mr. Rooker said this is a way to work with the UVA on implementing their vision for this corridor,
but his concern is that this is another example of money sitting for a long time, but not getting spent
because costs increase and the projects lose momentum. He suggested that the CIP Technical Review
Committee start evaluating projects that are already planned in addition to new projects so that they can
be weeded out if they cannot be executed soon.
Mr. Letteri responded that staff views all CIP projects this way, and a lot of these major
allocations – such as transportation, lighting, and sidewalks – have amassed funding for future years, but
there are often complications that extend project timeframes. He also said that at this point, there is no
additional funding planned for those categories. It is hard to build these funds.
Mr. Tucker emphasized that what really holds this proj ects up is acquisition of right-of-way.
Mr. Boyd asked if they could, for example, shift some of this money over to one of the fire stations
or the library assuming they could deal with the operating costs.
Mr. Foley pointed out that the County is looking more and more at project opportunities.
Mr. Rooker agreed that there has been a better job of project execution in recent years.
Ms. Mallek asked about the sidewalk from the Colonnades to Georgetown Road, as it is a pretty
scary stretch of road to be walking if you are a senior. She asked if there is any hope of getting some
help from the corporation.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that that situation is more acute than the one on Ivy Road.
Mr. Benish said that most of the sidewalk projects listed are ranked by prioritization, and what
staff has tried to do is link to where the private sector has provided links through site plans or proffers .
The one on Barracks Road was an emergency project designated because the bus route changed and
pedestrians had to walk a greater distance.
Mr. Boyd said that the CIP Technical Review Committee should certainly consider these projects,
as Mr. Rooker had suggested.
Mr. Letteri said he has his direction from the Board and will put the items on the list to come back
for further discussion on a future date; Categories A and B will move ahead, except those that have been
questioned, and they will move ahead with the transfer of the $1.0 million to Undesignated Fund Balance
from the Capital Fund to the General Fund.
Mr. Boyd asked to have the Crozet greenways and the planning Main Street-Crozet projects
added to the list of things to be reevaluated.
Mr. Rooker responded that the Crozet greenways are part of the system that Old Trail donated
property for, so the County should be mindful that private landowners contributed.
Mr. Mullaney mentioned that some of the funding for that greenway is for a perimeter trail around
Crozet Park, which was a request of the Crozet Park Long Range Planning Committee.
Mr. Tucker suggested that there be a motion to transfer the $1.0 million to Undesignated Fund
Balance in the General Fund.
Mr. Rooker then moved to authorize the transfer of $1.0 million to the Undesignated Fund
Balance in the General Fund from the Capital Fund. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
Going back to the proposed budget items, Ms. Mallek asked how much the cut to JABA is.
Mr. Elliott replied that it is about $14,000.
Mr. Rooker said that he’d like that to go on the list for reconsideration, but he doesn’t want the
County to take over gaps in funding from state and federal sources.
Mr. Boyd stated that there may be money made up for the gap in the Sheriff’s office.
Mr. Elliott responded that there has been discussion of State reinstatement of funding for
Constitutional officers, but there is potential for funding just being shifted so there would be no net gain
here for the County.
Mr. Foley commented that Wednesday there would be a review of the entire scenario.
Mr. Tucker then summarized the Board’s list. Staff started out with a Board reserve of $106,755,
then added back the Scottsville Community Center rent as a revenue source, as well as revenue from the
schools for Family Support. He said that the Board wanted to add back in VML dues, TJPDC,
Cooperative Extension, Offender Aid and Restoration, Emergency Housing Repair with AHIP, reinstating
March 15, 2010 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 17)
Library funding, Family Support workers, and the Scottsville Community Center. Mr. Tucker indicated that
this would create a shortfall of $423,000 to be made up, and then it was suggested to add two cents onto
the tax rate – a little over $3.0 million – for Capital improvements, which have been gradually eliminated
over the downturn. He said that this would mean the County would have to increase the real estate tax
from $074.2 to $076.2.
Mr. Rooker commented that that’s still less than the equalization rate.
Mr. Tucker said that the equalization rate is at $076.6.
Mr. Rooker said that that rate would keep taxes the same and would provide money for Capital
going forward.
Ms. Mallek commented that since there is a discrepancy between the rental and the operations
for the Scottsville Community Center perhaps hours could be modified. She also has received requests
from seniors in Crozet to save the senior exercise program at the Meadows – some of which is fee
supported.
Mr. Mullaney said that the program costs $5,250 annually. It is a shape-up program for seniors –
with about 10 women at the Meadows using the service three times per week. He added that there is no
fee charged to participate.
Ms. Mallek stated that she thought the program had up to 30 participants, and perhaps they
should be told that it needs to be increased for funding to maintain. She added that some residents from
the community also use the program.
Mr. Rooker asked about the usage at the Scottsville Community Center.
Mr. Mullaney responded that the main activity there is the youth basketball program, which has
105 kids on 10 teams; JABA has a meals program every Wednesday serving 50-60 seniors; Bread of Life
has a monthly food distribution program there serving about 90 families; and there are also about 200
hours of private reservations there over the year. He said that the budget there is about $12,000 in
salaries, $10,000 for heat, $6,000 for electricity, $2,600 for water, and $4,000 for repair and maintenance.
Mr. Rooker added that it seems that a reasonable number of people are being served at that
center.
Mr. Tucker commented that the Board would begin at this point on Wednesday, with the hopes of
wrapping up and advertise for budget public hearing.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 3. From the Board: Matters not listed on the Agenda.
There were none.
________________
Agenda Item No. 4. Adjourn to March 17, 2010, 9:00 a.m., Room 241.
There being no further business, at 12:16 p.m., Mr. Rooker moved that the Board adjourn until
Wednesday, March 17, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 241. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 12/01/2010
Initials: EWJ