2010-04-07April 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on April 7,
2010, at 9:00 a.m., Lane Auditorium, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Ann H. Mallek, Mr. Dennis S.
Rooker, Mr. Duane E. Snow, and Mr. Rodney S. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W.
Davis, Clerk, Ella W. Jordan, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Meagan Hoy.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:03 a.m., by the Chair, Ms. Mallek.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Recognitions.
Item No. 4a. Proclamation recognizing April 2010 as Fair Housing Month.
Ms. Mallek read the following proclamation and presented to Mr. Ron White, Director of Housing:
FAIR HOUSING MONTH
WHEREAS, April 2010, marks the forty-second anniversary of the passage of the Fair Housing Act of
1968, which sought to eliminate discrimination in housing opportunities and to affirmatively
further housing choices for all Americans; and
WHEREAS, the ongoing struggle for dignity and housing opportunity for all is not the exclusive province of
the Federal government; and
WHEREAS, vigorous local efforts to combat discrimination can be as effective, if not more so, than
Federal efforts; and
WHEREAS, illegal barriers to equal opportunity in housing, no matter how subtle, diminish the rights of all;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
that in the pursuit of the shared goal and responsibility of providing equal housing
opportunities for all men and women, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, does hereby join in the national celebration by proclaiming
APRIL, 2010
as
FAIR HOUSING MONTH
and encourages all agencies, institutions and individuals, public and private, in Albemarle
County to abide by the letter and the spirit of the Fair Housing law.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Mallek asked Board members if they had reviewed the suggested letter from VML about edits
to the County’s letter related to State budget cuts.
Mr. Davis said that the Governor has until April 21st to make any changes in the budget document.
Ms. Mallek said the Board can take this issue back up at the end of the meeting.
__________
Ms. Mallek said that last week she joined Susan Stimart, Mike Harvey, the Lieutenant Governor
and Economic Development and Housing staff at the Hyosung Plant in Scottsville to talk about measures
to help the 106 people displaced by that factory’s closing. She stated that the Company is taking another
month to decide what their plans would be. She was very impressed with Mr. Harvey’s presentation on
the TJPED’s plans and the Small Business Development Center.
Ms. Mallek said she serves on the One-Stop Committee, the multi-agency job assistance and
career services center located on Hydraulic Road. As an update, they are currently focusing on helping
adults work on resumes, apply for jobs, etc.
Mr. Dorrier asked if Lt. Governor Bolling had stated that the Scottsville plant was the “number one
priority” in the State for economic development. Ms. Mallek replied that he did not say that in her
presence, but he did say that the competition for filling that “as is” is very steep throughout the State. The
competition for new businesses is hard right now. She added that the reality may be getting lots of smaller
April 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
employers into that building, rather than one large one. It is also going to be a long process to get
someone in that facility.
__________
Mr. Rooker announced that the Albemarle High School Drama Team won the VHSL AAA State
Theatre Championship, which was held at PVCC in March.
__________
Mr. Rooker said he provided notice to Board members that $550,000 allocated for the 29/H250
project, for the widening of Route 29 from the Hydraulic to the Route 250 Bypass and the additional ramp
at Bestbuy, has been submitted for the design and engineering work for that project. With the other
money in the pipeline, it looks as though the project may get funded and completed within the next few
years.
__________
Ms. Mallek mentioned that one of her neighbors, high school senior Anthony Kostelac, won the
800-meter Indoor Nationals in Boston recently.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Ms. Karen Reifenberger said that she works for Piedmont Housing Alliance and is a Crozet
resident. She thanked the Board for supporting the Fair Housing Month resolution, recognizing the 42nd
anniversary of the Federal Fair Housing Act. Ms. Reifenberger also thanked the Board for their continued
support of fair housing education and outreach. She explained that fair housing provisions stipulate that
families with children should not be denied housing, minorities should be assessed based on credit status
and not race, people with accents should not be held to a higher standard, and people with disabilities
should not be denied access to units just because of a few steps. Ms. Reifenberger stated that the
Federal Fair Housing Act and Virginia Fair Housing law prohibit discrimination in rental, home ownership,
and financing based on someone’s race, color, religion, national origin, gender, family status, disability, or
elderliness. She said that PHA works to raise awareness and promote compliance with these laws. This
month they are hosting an event on April 21st from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. in Lane Auditorium – “Housing
Opportunities for People with Disabilities: Resources, Roadblocks, and Rights.” Ms. Reifenberger said
that they would have a panel discussing housing accessibility modifications, and would also be addressing
housing rights and existing/emerging resources. She added that Bill Fuller of the Virginia Housing
Development Authority would be attending the event. They welcome everyone’s input on how they can
spread the word about fair housing and be more effective in the County.
__________
Ms. Sharon Ackerman said April is also Pet Awareness Month. The “Least Among Us” project –
aims to educate the public about the limitations of current animal care ordinances, and move toward a
place where those can be changed. She said that she hopes that the County Code can be strengthened
to protect dogs, generate revenue, and contain costs. Ms. Ackerman presented packets to the Board,
along with her contact information – noting that the group’s main concerns are tethering and over-
population.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Mallek, seconded by Mr.
Rooker, to approve Items 7.1 (as read) through 7.3 on the consent agenda, and to accept the remaining
items for information. (Discussions on individual items are included with that agenda item.) Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Item No. 7.1. Approval of Minutes: December 2, 2009; and February 3, February 25, and March
10, 2010.
Mr. Boyd said he needed to pull his minutes of February 3, 2010, pages 39 (beginning with Item
#10) – end.
Ms. Mallek had read the minutes of December 2, 2009, pages 1-34 (Item #11), and found them to
be in order.
Mr. Snow had read the minutes of February 3, 2010, pages 1-39 (end at Item #10), and found
them to be in order.
Mr. Thomas had read the minutes of February 25, 2010, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Rooker had read the minutes of March 10, 2010, and found them to be in order.
By the above-recorded vote, the minutes were approved as read. The remaining minutes
were carried forward to the next meeting.
_______________
April 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
Item No. 7.2. Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Ranking Order for FY 2009-10
Applicant Class.
The executive summary states that pursuant to sections A.1-110(G) and A.1-110(H) of the ACE
Ordinance, the Board of Supervisors reviews the list of ranked parcels submitted by the ACE Committee
and identifies on which parcels it desires to acquire conservation easements. Each conservation
easement identified by the Board for purchase is appraised by an independent appraiser chosen by the
County.
Eight (8) applications were submitted for the Round 10 class (FY 2009-2010) by the October 31,
2009 deadline. Four (4) of the applications (Thurman, Rives, Barksdale and Rushia) were re-enrolled
from the previous year because the County has been unable to acquire easements on those properties
due to funding limitations. Staff has evaluated the properties of each of the Round 10 applicants
according to the ACE Ordinance ranking evaluation criteria. These objective criteria include: open space
resources; threat of conversion to developed use; natural, scenic and cultural resources; and County fund
leveraging from outside sources. Based on the results of the evaluation, staff has determined the
eligibility of the properties and has placed them in ranking order (see Attachment A). These results were
presented to the ACE Committee at its March 15, 2010 meeting.
The evaluation of the eight (8) applications from Round 10 has determined that seven (7)
properties scored high enough to be eligible for ACE funding. With $1,152,749.88 of funding available for
this class [$1,008,917.69 from the FY09-10 allocation and carryover funds from FY08-09 and $143,832.19
in grants from the Office of Farmland Preservation ($49,900 in 2009 and $93,932.19 in 2010)] (See
Attachment B), the ACE Committee believes that the County can acquire ACE easements on the two or
three highest ranked properties. Based on the final ranking order and eligibility status of the Round 10
properties, the ACE Committee recommends that the Board authorize staff to order appraisals for the
three (3) highest ranked properties: Lively, Stanerson, and Barksdale. Although the total ACE budget for
FY 2009-10 may be insufficient for purchasing easements on all three properties, the ACE Committee
believes it is prudent to obtain appraisals on more properties than funding will allow in the event that
additional funding becomes available or some higher ranking applicants withdraw their application from
the Program.
The acquisition of easements on the three highest ranked properties would eliminate 36
development rights and result in the protection of the following resources:
546 acres of farm and forest land, of which 256 acres are “prime” farm and forest land
3,386 feet of state road frontage (including 1,740 feet on a major Entrance Corridor)
8,129 feet of protected stream and river frontage (including 4,100 feet on the Rivanna
River – a state scenic river)
7,236 feet of common boundary with other protected lands (including 1,076 feet adjoining
Walnut Creek Park)
140 acres of land lies within the proposed “mountain overlay district”
2 of 3 properties have significant tourism value
3 of 3 properties are productive, working farms
Lively lies within the primary Monticello viewshed
There is no additional request for funding related to this action. The funding for the appraisals
and the purchase of these potential conservation easements would come from both the CIP-Planning-
Conservation budget (line-item #9010-81010-580409) and the CIP-Tourism-Conservation budget (line-
item #9010-72030-580416), a budget previously approved by the Board to fund ACE properties with
“tourism value.” Staff will continue to pursue outside funding sources to supplement the ACE Program
funding. Sources of potential outside funding include the Office of Farmland Preservation, the
Preservation Trust Fund, the Virginia Land Conservation Foundation, and the Farm and Ranchlands
Protection Program.
The ACE Committee and staff recommend that the Board:
1) Approve the final ranking order for Round 10 (FY 2009-10) as shown on Attachment A-
(copy on file);
2) Identify the Lively, Stanerson and Barksdale properties as those on which it desires to
purchase conservation easements; and
3) Authorize staff to order appraisals for the Lively, Stanerson and Barksdale properties.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the final ranking order for Round 10 (FY
2009-10) as shown on Attachment A-(on file in the Clerk’s office); identified the Lively, Stanerson
and Barksdale properties as those on which it desires to purchase conservation easements; and
authorized staff to order appraisals for the Lively, Stanerson and Barksdale properties.
_______________
Item No. 7.3. FY 2010 Budget Amendment and Appropriations.
The executive summary states that Virginia Code § 15.2-2507 provides that any locality may
amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the
currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the
total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first publishing a
April 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies to
all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
The total of the new requested FY 2010 appropriations, itemized below, is $210,827.88. A budget
amendment public hearing is not required because the cumulative appropriations does not exceed one
percent of the currently adopted budget.
This request involves the approval of five (5) FY 2010 appropriations as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2010069) totaling $133,362.00 for various Commission on
Children and Families grants;
One (1) appropriation (#2010070) totaling $15,161.88 for various school programs;
One (1) appropriation (#2010071) totaling $43,105.00 for a Virginia Health Care
Foundation grant for the Department of Social Services; and
One (1) appropriation (#2010072) totaling $19,199.00 for the Internet Crimes Against
Children grant.
One (1) appropriation (#2010075) transferring $100,559.76 to the Byrom Park Project
A description of this request is provided in Attachment A.
Staff recommends approval of the budget amendment in the amount of $210,827.88 and the
approval of Appropriations, #2010069, #2010070, #2010071, #2010072, and #2010075.
* * * *
Attachment A
Appropriation #2010069 $133,362.00
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue $ 16,526.00
State Revenue $ 918.00
Local Revenue $ 918.00
Grant # 10-L3236JB08: The Department of Criminal Justice Services has awarded the Commission on
Children and Families a grant in the amount of $16,526 with a local match of $1,836 for a total
appropriation in the amount of $18,362. This grant will provide training and the implementation of
promoting greater accountability in the juvenile justice system including the increased accountability for
juvenile offenders. Local match monies will be provided by both the County and the City through their
contributions to CCF.
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue $ 50,000.00
Grant # 10-D5194JJ08: The Department of Criminal Justice Services has awarded the Commission on
Children and Families a grant in the amount of $50,000. This grant will provide training and the continued
services of the Family Functional Therapy program. This will include staff training, manuals, and
treatment services for the participants. There is no local match.
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue $ 65,000.00
Grant #10-C5424JJ08 : The Department of Criminal Justice Services has awarded the Commission on
Children and Families a grant in the amount of $65,000 with an “in-kind” match of $32,500. This grant will
provide training and continued services to reduce system involvement of truants and juveniles with other
negative school related behaviors. The “in-kind” match will include staff time, staff training, and training
materials.
Appropriation #2010070 $15,161.88
Revenue Source: Donations $ 15,161.88
February 25, 2010 School Board Meeting Appropriations:
Albemarle High School received donations totaling $6,165.00 from various cash donations made at
Albemarle High School. These donations were made to help fund the installation of a synthetic turf field at
Albemarle High School. The current balance for the FY 09/10 AHS Synthetic Turf Project is $29,871.00
including this donation. The balance from FY 08/09 is $6,866.66 for a grand total of $36,737.66. The high
schools need to raise $325,000.00 in order to receive matching funds from an anonymous donor ,
requiring Albemarle High School to raise an additional $288,262.34 to secure matching funds. The
balance required to secure construction is $650,000.00.
Henley Middle School received a donation in the amount of $2,346.88 from Henley’s Parent and Teacher
Support Organization. This contribution was made to help fund the Enrichment Time before 9 program at
Henley Middle School.
Western Albemarle High School received a donation from Chris and Donna Schuler in the amount of
$6,000.00. This contribution was made to help Western Albemarle High School purchase Lacrosse
uniforms.
April 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
Western Albemarle High School received donations totaling $650.00. John and Karen Rowlingson
donated $500.00 and Elisabeth and Frans de Jong donated $150.00. These donations were made to help
fund the installation of a synthetic turf field at Western Albemarle High School. The current balance for the
FY 09/10 WAHS Synthetic Turf Project is $1,000.00 including this donation. The balance from FY 07/08
was $8,450.00. The balance from FY 08/09 was $10,711.66 for a grand total of $20,161.66. The high
schools need to raise $325,000.00 in order to receive matching funds from an anonymous donor,
requiring Western Albemarle High School to raise an additional $304,838.34 to secure matching funds.
The balance required to secure construction is $650,000.00.
Appropriation #2010071 $43,105.00
Revenue Source: State Revenue $ 43,105.00
The Department of Social Services in partnership with United Way – Thomas Jefferson Area has been
awarded grant funds from the Virginia Health Care Foundation (VHCF) for the implementation of Project
Connect, VHCF's children's health insurance enrollment initiative. This is a 20-month grant beginning
February 1, 2010 through September 30, 2011. This funding will provide an Eligibility Worker position at
UVA Medicaid. This grant is 100% reimbursable.
Appropriation #2010072 $19,199.00
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue $ 19,199.00
The Department of Justice awarded Bedford County a grant to assist in the investigations of Internet
Crimes Against Children. Bedford has designated Albemarle County as being an area district in the fight
against internet crime and has awarded Albemarle County $80,000.00. $60,801 has already been
appropriated in FY 09/10. An additional appropriation of $19,199.00 is needed to fulfill the award. There is
no local match.
Appropriation #2010075 $100,559.76
Revenue Source: Transfer General Govt CIP Fund $100,559.76
This appropriation will transfer a total of $100,559.76 from the River Access Improvement Project and the
Park Enhancement Project to the Byrom Park Project. Funds will be used to establish a 10% Project
contingency and to pay project management and other necessary construction costs. There will be no impact
on the total County budget as a result of this appropriation.
(Mr. Boyd asked about the total cost for the Byrom Park project. He noted that $100,599.76 is
being moved in the CIP for the project.
Mr. Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation, said the County recently received ten bids on
the project. The low bid was $540,820. He said that the County has about $512,000 on hand, not
including an alternative bid item for the upper parking lot, which was dropped. Mr. Mullaney said that the
additional funding is to establish a project contingency and fund some work needed such as fencing,
gates, signage, and a plaque. He noted that the transferred funds are the River Access Funds that were
held for the Byrom Park contingency. The item that ran them over the budget estimates were during site
plan review they had to go from gravel to paving. They have an unconditional rock clause in the contract
and there were also additional stormwater and erosion control measures.
Mr. Boyd asked what the ten percent project contingency was. Mr. Mullaney said the project is
$540,820 and $54,000 is the ten percent. The items he previously mentioned, plus trail connection, are
being done in-house and if they do not need all these funds, they won’t be spent.
Ms. Mallek added that the project originated from a 660-acre donation to the County, and came
with the contingency that this type of work would be done. Mr. Mullaney said that was correct.
Mr. Rooker added that this item was approved long ago in the CIP, and is just now being
appropriated.)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the budget amendment in the amount of
$210,827.88 and approved Appropriations, #2010069, #2010070, #2010071, #2010072, and
#2010075.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2010069
APPROPRIATION DATE 4/7/2010
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Various CCF Grants
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1578 33000 330001 Revenue - Federal J 2 16,526.00
2 1578 24000 240500 Grant Revenue - State J 2 918.00
2 1578 51000 512000 Transfer - Other Funds J 2 918.00
1 1578 53161 312210 Contract Services J 1 18,362.00
April 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
1578 0501 Est. Revenue 18,362.00
0701 Appropriation 18,362.00
2 1580 33000 330001 Revenue - Federal J 2 50,000.00
1 1580 53157 312105 Consulting J 1 50,000.00
1580 0501 EST. REVENUE 50,000.00
0701 APPROPRATION 50,000.00
2 1581 33000 330032 Revenue - DCJS (Federal) J 2 65,000.00
1 1581 53154 110000 Salaries - Regular J 1 39,341.10
1 1581 53154 210000 FICA J 1 3,258.90
1 1581 53154 231000 Health Insurance J 1 6,701.00
1 1581 53154 241000 VRS Group Life Insurance J 1 452.00
1 1581 53154 312700 Prof. Services -
Consultants
J 1 6,000.00
1 1581 53154 550100 Travel/Training J 1 2,000.00
1 1581 53154 580000 Miscellaneous Expenses J 1 5,247.00
1 1581 53154 800330 Computer Equipment J 1 2,000.00
1581 0501 EST. REVENUE 65,000.00
0701 APPROPRATION 65,000.00
TOTAL 266,724.00 133,362.00 133,362.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2010070
APPROPRIATION DATE 3/3/2010
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Education Programs - Board Meeting on February 25, 2010
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 9002 18100 181107 WAHS Donations - Turf
Project
J 2 650.00
1 9002 60302 950245 WAHS Syn Turf Field J 1 650.00
9002 0501 Est. Revenue 650.00
0701 Appropriation 650.00
2 9001 18100 181107 AHS Donations - Turf
Project
J 2 6,165.00
1 9001 60301 950245 AHS Syn Turf Field J 1 6,165.00
9001 0501 Est. Revenue 6,165.00
0701 Appropriation 6,165.00
2 2000 18100 181109 Donations J 2 8,346.88
1 2252 61101 160300 Stipends - Instructional J 1 2,180.10
1 2252 61101 210000 FICA J 1 166.78
1 2302 61105 601100 Uniforms J 1 6,000.00
2000 0501 Est. Revenue 8,346.88
0701 Appropriation 8,346.88
TOTAL 30,323.76 15,161.88 15,161.88
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2010071
APPROPRIATION DATE 4/7/2010
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Virginia Health Care Foundation Grant
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1565 53153 110000 Salaries - Regular J 1 $29,310.00
1 1565 53153 210000 FICA J 1 $2,242.00
1 1565 53153 221000 Virginia Retirement System J 1 $3,969.00
1 1565 53153 231000 Health Insurance J 1 $4,697.00
1 1565 53153 232000 Dental Insurance J 1 $169.00
1 1565 53153 240000 VRS Group Life Insurance J 1 $293.00
1 1565 53153 270000 Worker's Compensation J 1 $190.00
1 1565 53153 520300 Telecommunications J 1 $640.00
1 1565 53153 550100 Travel/Training/Education J 1 $1,545.00
1 1565 53153 800700 ADP Equipment J 1 $50.00
2 1565 24000 240616 VHCF - Project Connect J 2 43,105.00
1565 0501 Est. Revenue 43,105.00
April 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
0701 Appropriation 43,105.00
TOTAL 86,210.00 43,105.00 43,105.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2010072
APPROPRIATION DATE 4/7/2010
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Correction to former ICAC Grant
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1528 33000 330033 DOJ Pass-thru: Bedford
County
J 2 19,199.00
1 1528 31013 120000 Overtime J 1 (3,509.30)
1 1528 31013 210000 FICA J 1 (290.70)
1 1528 31013 550403 Training J 1 (5,801.00)
1 1528 31013 800100 Machinery & Equipment J 1 (11,200.00)
1 1528 39000
0
560010 Contribution - Other
Localities
J 1 40,000.00
1578 0501 Est. Revenue 19,199.00
0701 Appropriation 19,199.00
TOTAL 38,398.00 19,199.00 19,199.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2010075
APPROPRIATION DATE 4/7/2010
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Byrom Park Project
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 9010 72030 950107 River Access Improvement J 1 (45,343.76)
1 9010 72030 800632 Park Enhancements J 1 (55,216.00)
2 9010 72030 950117 Byrom Forest Preserve J 2 100,559.76
TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00
_______________
Item No. 7.4. Copy of letter dated March 5, 2010 from Ronald L. Higgins, Chief of Zoning, to
Julius L. Lively, Jr., re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS – Tax Map 93,
Parcels 53, 53C, 53D, 54 & 54C1 (property of Julius L. Lively) Scottsville Magisterial District, was
received for information.
_______________
Item No. 7.5. Copy of letter dated March 5, 2010 from Francis H. MacCall, Senior Planner, to
Ethel Pugh & Bettie Ann Stanerson, re: LOD-2009-00025 – OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS – Tax Map 56, Parcel 25C (Property of Ethel R Pugh & Bettie Ann
Stanerson) White Hall Magisterial District, was received for information.
_______________
Item No. 7.6. Copy of letter dated March 5, 2010 from Francis H. MacCall, Senior Planner, to
Martin Violette and Margaret Nash, re: LOD-2009-00026 – OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS – Tax Map 71, Parcel 43 (Property of Martin H. Violette or Margaret Nash)
White Hall Magisterial District, was received for information.
_______________
Item No. 7.7. Copy of Comparative Report of Local Government Revenues and Expenditures for
the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2009, in accordance with Section 15.2-2510 of the Code of Virginia, as
prepared by the Commonwealth of Virginia Auditor of Public Accounts, was received for information.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: PROJECT: ZMA 2009-00003 North Hill. PROPOSAL:
Rezone .69 acres from HC Highway Commercial zoning district which allows commercial and service
uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre) to RA Rural Areas which allows
agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots); HC zone
approved by a conditional rezoning ZMA 87-16. PROFFERS: Yes_ No X. EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and
natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/acre in development lots). ENTRANCE
CORRIDOR: Yes X No__. LOCATION: 2042 North Hill/east side of Richmond Rd (Rt 250) at Inn
Dr./approximately 230 ft. south of I 64 eastbound onramp. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07800000003400.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 22 and March 29,
2010.
April 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mr. Cilimberg said that this project is proposed for less than an acre located near the interchange
of I-64 and Route 250 East at Shadwell. The zoning is Commercial, and it was zoned in conjunction with
another parcel in the late 1980s – with stipulations as to how development would occur on the two parcels.
He noted that the adjacent parcel, which is under the same ownership, as well as parcels to the southeast,
are zoned Rural Area. Mr. Cilimberg explained that expansion was associated with what is now the
Comfort Inn Hotel, and the proffers for this particular parcel restricted uses to parking, landscaping,
buffering, and other landscape improvements – the expansion has never been pursued. He said that this
was associated with what was intended to be a convention facility and parking structure, adjacent to the
road that enters the hotel. Mr. Cilimberg stated that this request is to downzone the parcel and remove
the proffers associated with the 1987 zoning map amendment, and as RA district one single-family
residential dwelling could be constructed on the parcel. He noted that if the applicant were to combine this
parcel with an adjacent parcel he owns, an additional residence would not be permitted as there is one
already there, and the two combined are less than the minimum lot size in the RA district.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the applicant’s justification is that this would reduce the real estate tax
obligation for their property – which is now encumbered by proffers approved for that development not
taking place. He said it would allow for the single-family residence to be constructed, and the owners plan
to sell the property. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Comprehensive Plan designates this parcel as Rural
Area, and it also falls under the interstate interchange development section of the Comp Plan – which
states that urban uses at this interchange should be developed on the urban area side only. He added
that the Pantops Master Plan did not incorporate this area into the development areas.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that staff found a favorable factor to be that rezoning to Rural Area is
consistent with the Comp Plan, with the proposed residence being more in keeping with that designation
than the development that could occur under the current zoning. The staff did not find any unfavorable
factors. Mr. Cilimberg said that staff and the Planning Commission (by a 6-1 vote) recommended
approval of the rezoning, and there are no proffers that are deemed necessary. Mr. Cilimberg clarified
that the one vote against was based on concern that it was reversing the possibility of commercial
development in that area, which that Commissioner felt would be important and necessary in the review of
commercial and industrial development opportunities. Mr. Cilimberg said that TMP 78-34 is a very small
parcel, and if it were relieved of its proffers it would still have setback limitations that would likely hinder its
development as an independent commercial site. Mr. Cilimberg added that the applicant could possibly
get variances through the Board of Zoning Appeals for commercial activity.
Mr. Boyd asked about the potential impact of improvements such as dual laning at that I-64
interchange access. Mr. Cilimberg replied that staff is not aware of exactly what would be done there, and
currently only knows about additional width on one of the ramps to create a dual turning lane. In the
longer term, he added, other improvements at the interchange could have an impact – but no such plans
have been developed at this point.
Mr. Boyd mentioned a request for rezoning on an adjacent property, and asked Mr. Cilimberg to
point it out on the map.
Mr. Cilimberg indicated the parcel’s location, and said that he included a summary of what
happened with that particular rezoning – which the Board denied for a number of reasons. He added that
the Board has indicated some interest in revisiting the interchange areas at Shadwell and other locations,
which is part of the economic development industrial development initiatives to be reviewed by the staff.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting last night, considered change of HI
district allowances to bring them into the LI district via special use permit. He said that staff has other
initiatives to bring to the Board addressing those interchange areas – and Shadwell would be part of the
upcoming Comp Plan review and update scheduled to begin this year.
Mr. Boyd commented that it is a very unusual area – with some commercial, Rural Area, and
conservation easements. Mr. Cilimberg agreed that it is a very mixed area in terms of its land use and
status.
Mr. Rooker added that the other issue is traffic. W hen the Pantops and Rivanna Master Plans
were going through there was great concern that the improvem ents planned for that area are not
anywhere near being funded. He said that this particular rezoning – which seems to him to be a matter of
fairness – would not impact the traffic problems there.
Mr. Thomas asked who offered the proffers originally. Mr. Cilimberg responded that this owner
and the adjacent owner jointly requested the rezoning in the 1980s, and offered the proffers together at
that time – as an effort to improve that front and provide for facilities and parking to compliment the hotel.
Mr. Boyd commented that the current frontage seems to be a deterrent to the hotel.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that the original plan was for a convention facility with a parking
structure, landscaping, and fountain and pond, etc. He said that the owners of the hotel are not the same
owners, so they are counting on another owner to utilize what they can under the zoning.
Mr. Thomas asked what the tax rate difference is between RA and Commercial. Mr. Davis
explained that the rate is the same, but the assessed value is what impacts the tax bill.
Ms. Mallek commented that it is a significant difference.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
April 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
The applicant, Ms. Dolores Wallace said that the tax difference is considerable. The taxes are too
much and they cannot do anything with the property. She said that it was her mother’s plan to use the
property for commercial, but that didn’t pan out and now she just wants to be able to pay taxes on the
property. She asked for the Board’s support in their request.
Mr. George Reaves said that he and his sister – Ms. Wallace – own the property and would like to
get some relief from the tax burden currently on this parcel. They hope to one day be able to sell the
property.
Mr. John Chavan, a County resident, said that he understands the financial burden on this
property as he is in the same boat. Mr. Chavan stated that he tried to buy this property, but the asking
price was prohibitive. He said that the owners are the same family, just a different brother – who have
also tried to buy this property to use it for their hotel property, but again were deterred by the price. Mr.
Chavan stated that he would like to keep the property commercial to help the tax base, so that the County
can support itself. He thinks the whole interstate area needs to be rezoned to commercial.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed
before the Board.
Mr. Dorrier moved to approve ZMA-2009-00003, North Hill, to rezone .69 acres from Highway
Commercial to Rural Area zoning. Mr. Snow seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Rooker commented that Mr. Chavan made some good points, but as a standalone property
this parcel cannot be developed commercially, and the applicants already own the adjacent parcel. It
does not seem appropriate to require them to continue paying commercial based taxes indefinitely when
they are using it for residential.
Mr. Snow added that this doesn’t preclude the applicants from coming back later with a plan for
commercial use of the site.
Mr. Boyd said that he was struggling with changing a parcel zoned Commercial, but this is a
unique situation.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. PUBLIC HEARING: Five-Year Plan and Annual Plan for the administration
of the Housing Choice Voucher Program. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 22 and March 29,
2010.)
Mr. Ron White, Director of Housing, summarized the following executive summary that was
forwarded to the Board:
“The Albemarle County Office of Housing (“Office”) is the designated local agency for the
administration of the Housing Choice Voucher Program (“Program”), formerly known as the Section 8
Rental Assistance Program. The Office is considered a part of the executive branch of local government
and not a public housing authority. Although not a housing authority, the Office must comply with U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) requirements for Public Housing Agency (“PHA”)
activities, including the development and implementation of Annual and 5-Year PHA Plans. In accordance
with HUD guidelines as revised in 2008, the Office is required to prepare a 5-Year Plan and FY2010
Annual Plan, make it available for a 45-day public review period, and hold a public hearing. The Plan
must be submitted to HUD, however, because the PHA has fewer than 550 vouchers and is not a troubled
agency, the County’s program does not require HUD approval.
Pursuant to HUD guidelines, the County is authorized to administer a total of 429 vouchers
through its Program. The Program is currently operating at approximately 98% of its authorized budget,
providing assistance to 373 families. Eighty-five of the authorized vouchers have been designated as
project-based vouchers that are designated to specific units rather than individuals as follows:
Park’s Edge Apartments – 24
Park View Apartments on South Pantops – 22
Treesdale Park – 22
Crozet Meadow – 8
The Crossings at Fourth and Preston - 9
HUD regulations allow a PHA to designate a maximum of twenty percent (20%) of authorized
vouchers as project-based; provided that in no case can the amount of funding used for project-based
vouchers exceed twenty percent (20%) of the annual budget from HUD. With the commitments for
Treesdale Park, Crozet Meadows and The Crossings, the Office has designated 20% of its vouchers as
project-based vouchers.
As required by HUD, the proposed 5-Year Plan and FY10 Annual Plan (Attachment A) has been
made available to a Resident Advisory Board (RAB) consisting of families participating in the Program for
review and comment. No comments have been received to date. The Plan’s availability was advertised
April 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
on March 15, 2010 with the 45-day public review period commencing on March 16, 2010 and ending April
30, 2010.
Staff is not proposing any changes in the Annual Housing Choice Voucher Plan for FY 10 from the
previously submitted Annual Plan for FY 09. Any comments received from the public during the comment
period will be noted in the final plan, which will be submitted to HUD at the close of the 45-day public
review period.
There are no additional budget impacts beyond current FY09 and proposed FY10 appropriations
for staffing and operations of the Office of Housing. Administrative fees from HUD cover most of the
operations for this Program.
After the Board receives public comment, staff recommends approval of the attached PHA 5-Year
and Annual Plan (Attachment A). In addition, staff requests that the Board authorize the County Executive
to execute the required PHA Certifications of Compliance and Civil Rights Certification (Attachments B
and C).”
Mr. White added that the average rental assistance has increased significantly from last year –
now at about $587. Of the 429 allocated vouchers in the County, a number that hasn’t changed in 10
years, there is only enough funding for 375 of those. He stated that one of the Housing Office’s goals has
been to maintain a 98% usage of funding, and last year they exceeded 100% because of significant cuts
HUD made in calculating their rents for the second half of the calendar year. Mr. White mentioned that
they had to dip into reserves to cover this program. Another goal is to have 92% of their allocated
vouchers under use; currently 87% of allocated vouchers are under use. Mr. White stated that another
goal is to maximize use of project-based vouchers, as up to 20% of allocations can be reserved for this
purpose. He noted that these vouchers go with units, not with individuals, and they have been maximized
Mr. White said that if one of the projects do not use the vouchers, they will become available again.
Ms. Mallek asked if procedures have been changed to get closer to 98% use of the vouchers. Mr.
White said the 98% is their budget. The other is getting more vouchers issued out of the dollars they have
which is the number that is falling behind.
Mr. Rooker commented that as rental rates increase, the ability to get use of all the vouchers
declines.
Mr. White pointed out that in the past the payment standard has been 110% of the fair market rent
– the maximum allowable range from HUD is 90-110%. He emphasized that his office is having trouble
finding units in the two or three-bedroom size without going to the 110%, and this year they intentionally
left them at the same payment standard as last year.
Ms. Mallek asked if any rural properties are becoming available. Mr. White said that there are a
few properties out in the rural areas – scattered site single-family homes – but transportation is certainly
an issue. They leave it up to the individuals who have vouchers to find their units. He added that his
office guides them to landlords who have asked to be on a list of those with units available, but there are
very few “mom and pop” landlords.
Mr. Rooker asked what the waiting list is now for vouchers. Mr. White responded that the
preference list for Albemarle County is around 180, and it hasn’t been opened for over two years; the total
waiting list – project-based and non-preference – is closer to 700.
Mr. Boyd asked about the status of the Treesdale project. Mr. White replied that over the past few
weeks, his office has been doing some letters of commitment and letters of clarification of County funding.
The owners are working to pull all of their financing together. He wouldn’t be surprised to see ground
being moved in the next couple months.
Mr. Boyd said that he has heard that the owners are trying to purchase additional parcels in order
to expand the project. Mr. White explained that there was some discussion early in the planning with an
adjacent parcel, but he is not sure what the status is now. Mr. Thomas commented that his understanding
is that the purchase of the additional parcel is not going to happen, adding that he has been meeting with
the Village Square neighborhood to keep them up-to-date.
Mr. Rooker asked if the design has stayed the same. Mr. White responded that the final design
ended up being four buildings with 22 units each, which is different from the original plan during rezoning
of three buildings with 30 units each.
At this time, the Chair opened the public hearing. No one came forward to speak, the public
hearing was closed and the matter was placed before the Board.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Rooker to approve the attached PHA 5-year and Annual Plan,
and that the County Executive be authorized to execute the required PHA Certifications of Compliance
and Civil Rights Certifications (Attachments B and C-on file in Clerk’s office). Mr. Thomas seconded the
motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
April 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
PHA 5-Year and Annual Plan U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development Office of Public
and Indian Housing
OMB No. 2577-0226
Expires 4/30/2011
1.0
PHA Information
PHA Name: ______County of Albemarle____________________________ PHA Code: __VA036________
PHA Type: Small High Performing Standard X HCV (Section 8)
PHA Fiscal Year Beginning: (MM/YYYY): _07/2010______
2.0
Inventory (based on ACC units at time of FY beginning in 1.0 above)
Number of PH units: _________________ Number of HCV units: __429________
3.0
Submission Type
X 5-Year and Annual Plan Annual Plan Only 5-Year Plan Only
4.0
PHA Consortia PHA Consortia: (Check box if submitting a joint Plan and complete table below.)
Participating PHAs PHA
Code
Program(s) Included in
the Consortia
Programs Not
in the
Consortia
No. of Units in Each Program
PH HCV
PHA 1:
PHA 2:
PHA 3:
5.0
5-Year Plan. Complete items 5.1 and 5.2 only at 5-Year Plan update.
5.1 Mission. State the PHA’s Mission for serving the needs of low-income, very low-income, and extremely low income
families in the PHA’s jurisdiction for the next five years:
To promote opportunities for all county citizens to secure and maintain safe, decent, accessible, and
affordable housing with emphasis given to those least able to obtain it.
5.2
Goals and Objectives. Identify the PHA’s quantifiable goals and objectives that will enable the PHA to serve the
needs of low-income and very low-income, and extremely low-income families for the next five years. Include a report
on the progress the PHA has made in meeting the goals and objectives described in the previous 5-Year Plan.
Maintaining 98% utilization of budgeting funding serving approximately 92% of allocated vouchers
Maximize use of project-based vouchers to promote projects providing new affordable units including those for the
elderly and the homeless
6.0
PHA Plan Update
(a) Identify all PHA Plan elements that have been revised by the PHA since its last Annual Plan submission: NONE
(b) Identify the specific location(s) where the public may obtain copies of the 5-Year and Annual PHA Plan. For a
complete list of PHA Plan elements, see Section 6.0 of the instructions. Albemarle County Office of Housing
1600 5th Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
7.0
Hope VI, Mixed Finance Modernization or Development, Demolition and/or Disposition, Conversion of Public
Housing, Homeownership Programs, and Project-based Vouchers. Include statements related to these programs
as applicable.
8.0
Capital Improvements. Please complete Parts 8.1 through 8.3, as applicable.
8.1
Capital Fund Program Annual Statement/Performance and Evaluation Report. As part of the PHA 5-Year and
Annual Plan, annually complete and submit the Capital Fund Program Annual Statement/Performance and Evaluation
Report, form HUD-50075.1, for each current and open CFP grant and CFFP financing.
8.2
Capital Fund Program Five-Year Action Plan. As part of the submission of the Annual Plan, PHAs must complete
and submit the Capital Fund Program Five-Year Action Plan, form HUD-50075.2, and subsequent annual updates (on
a rolling basis, e.g., drop current year, and add latest year for a five year period). Large capital items must be included
in the Five-Year Action Plan.
8.3
Capital Fund Financing Program (CFFP).
Check if the PHA proposes to use any portion of its Capital Fund Program (CFP)/Replacement Housing Fa ctor
(RHF) to repay debt incurred to finance capital improvements.
9.0
Housing Needs. Based on information provided by the applicable Consolidated Plan, information provided by HUD,
and other generally available data, make a reasonable effort to identify the housing needs of the low-income, very low-
income, and extremely low-income families who reside in the jurisdiction served by the PHA, including elderly families,
families with disabilities, and households of various races and ethnic groups, and other families who are on the public
housing and Section 8 tenant-based assistance waiting lists. The identification of housing needs must address issues
of affordability, supply, quality, accessibility, size of units, and location.
Affordability of rental units remains fairly stable with minimal vacancy in units considered affordable to low- to
moderate-income households. The high occupancy rate does continue to put some pressure on rents. A concern
going forward, however, is the extent that property owners will face a significant increase in utilities. Quality,
accessibility, size, and location have had and will likely to continue to have little impact in meeting the needs of out
clients. Going forward, increasing the supply of affordable units will be a key in maintaining affordable rents and
meeting the needs of both voucher holders and the general public.
The County’s waiting list currently contains over 900 applicants, with over half of these applying for project-based units
in three developments. Of the 400-plus on the Housing Choice Voucher waiting list, approximately 185 meet the
County’s preference. Although our waiting list is not broken down by categories of age and disability, two of our
project-based sites are restricted to elderly and disabled. Those list have a combined number of applications of
approximately 90.
9.1
Strategy for Addressing Housing Needs. Provide a brief description of the PHA’s strategy for addressing the
housing needs of families in the jurisdiction and on the waiting list in the upcoming year. Note: Small, Section 8 only,
and High Performing PHAs complete only for Annual Plan submission with the 5-Year Plan.
Albemarle County continues to support private development activities that produce and preserve affordable rental units
by providing local contributions and project-based vouchers. The County has continued to provide local support for
developments seeking low income housing tax credits and has applied for and received numerous Community
Development Block Grants to support rehabilitation and new construction of both rental and owner-occupied housing.
These strategies will continue as a part of the County’s adopted Affordable Housing Policy.
April 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
10.0
Additional Information. Describe the following, as well as any additional information HUD has requested.
(a) Progress in Meeting Mission and Goals. Provide a brief statement of the PHA’s progress in meeting the mission
and goals described in the 5-Year Plan. Since 2005, Albemarle County has committed 61 project-based vouchers to
support developments seeking low income housing tax credits. Twenty-two of those vouchers are under lease in an
elderly-only development with 8 others committed to a development under construction and rehabilitation also
restricted to the elderly. Twenty-two are committed to a development scheduled to begin construction this spring which
will provide 2-br and 3-br units for families. Nine are committed to subsidize rents for single, homeless persons in a
proposed single room occupancy development to be built in the City of Charlottesville. The County of Albemarle has
continued to meet criteria to be deemed a “high performing PHA”.
(b) Significant Amendment and Substantial Deviation/Modification. Provide the PHA’s definition of “significant
amendment” and “substantial deviation/modification”
11.0
Required Submission for HUD Field Office Review . In addition to the PHA Plan template (HUD-50075), PHAs
must submit the following documents. Items (a) through (g) may be submitted with signature by mail or electronically
with scanned signatures, but electronic submission is encouraged. Items (h) through (i) must be attached
electronically with the PHA Plan. Note: Faxed copies of these documents will not be accepted by the Field Office.
(a) Form HUD-50077, PHA Certifications of Compliance with the PHA Plans and Related Regulations (which includes
all certifications relating to Civil Rights)
(b) Form HUD-50070, Certification for a Drug-Free Workplace (PHAs receiving CFP grants only)
(c) Form HUD-50071, Certification of Payments to Influence Federal Transactions (PHAs receiving CFP grants only)
(d) Form SF-LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (PHAs receiving CFP grants only)
(e) Form SF-LLL-A, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities Continuation Sheet (PHAs receiving CFP grants only)
(f) Resident Advisory Board (RAB) comments. Comments received from the RAB must be submitted by the PHA as
an attachment to the PHA Plan. PHAs must also include a narrative describing their analysi s of the
recommendations and the decisions made on these recommendations.
(g) Challenged Elements
(h) Form HUD-50075.1, Capital Fund Program Annual Statement/Performance and Evaluation Report (PHAs
receiving CFP grants only)
(i) Form HUD-50075.2, Capital Fund Program Five-Year Action Plan (PHAs receiving CFP grants only)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Set Calendar Year 2010 Tax Levy.
Mr. Tucker said that on March 31st the Board held a public hearing on the proposed FY11 budget
and proposed calendar year 2010 tax rates. He stated that the proposed rates are set at $0.742/$100
assessed valuation for real estate, public service, and mobile homes, and at $4.28/$100 assessed
valuation for personal property, including machinery and tools. Mr. Tucker said that staff recommends
adoption of the resolution to set the proposed calendar year 2010 tax rates.
Mr. Thomas asked if the tax rates for personal property was at $4.28 per $100 last year. Mr.
Tucker responded that the rate has been at that level for about 10 years now.
Mr. Dorrier asked what the status is on the gaps in School funding, which have been discussed as
$800,000.
Mr. Rooker suggested discussing it as the next item, where it is listed on the agenda. The Board
is locked in at the tax rate that it advertised, as far as the high side; although they are not locked in on the
down side.
Mr. Boyd moved to adopt the resolution to set the calendar year 2010 tax rate as presented. Mr.
Snow seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: Mr. Rooker and Ms. Mallek.
RESOLUTION TO SET
CALENDAR YEAR 2010 TAX RATES
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby set the
County Levy for Calendar Year 2010 for general County purposes at Seventy-Four and Two-Tenths Cents
($0.742) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of real estate; at Seventy-Four and Two-Tenths
Cents ($0.742) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of manufactured homes; at Seventy-Four
and Two-Tenths Cents ($0.742) 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.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Adoption of FY 2010/2011 Operating and Capital Budgets.
Mr. Tucker summarized the following executive summary that was forwarded to Board members:
On February 25th, he presented his Recommended FY 10/11 Operating and Capital Budgets to
the Board of Supervisors. On March 3rd, the Board held a public hearing on the Recommended Budget
and then held four public work sessions. On March 17th, the Board authorized the advertising of a
$0.742/$100 real estate tax rate for the 2010 Tax Year. On March 31st, a public hearing was held on the
Board of Supervisors’ Proposed FY 10/11 Operating and Capital Budgets and on the Calendar Year 2010
Tax Rate.
April 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
The FY 10/11 Operating and Capital budgets total $292,417,560. This amount reflects the County
Executive’s Recommended Budget plus changes made during the Board’s work sessions and a final
adjustment to State revenue estimates based on information provided by the State over the past one to
two weeks. Further information regarding this estimate of state revenues is explained in the final bullet
below. The complete changes are summarized below:
Reinstated funding for Virginia Municipal League (VML) membership ($11,000)
Reinstated funding for several agencies
o Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission ($5,415)
o Cooperative Extension ($5,244)
o Offender Aid and Restoration ($8,031)
o Jefferson Area Board of Aging ($14,024)
o Jefferson Madison Regional Library ($158,657)
Reinstated $10,000 for the Emergency Housing Repair program
Reinstated funding in the amount of $188,795 for the Family Support program
Reinstated $36,337 to keep the Scottsville Community Center open
Recognizes additional State funding for the local government and school system. Beyond
additional State revenues for the school system reviewed during the most recent budget
hearing, final General Fund revenue adjustments include $248,837 in additional State
funding identified since the Board’s March 17, 2010 work session. While the County has
still experienced significant loss in State funding, some of the projected losses for
constitutional officers, law enforcement and recordation are not as great as originally
projected based on information received over the past one to two weeks. Staff
recommends that this additional funding be included in the Revenue Shortfall
Contingency, resulting in a total contingency of $1,048,837 rather than the $800,000
previously included. This recommendation is reflected in the attached resolution.
The attached resolution formally approves the FY 10/11 Budget. Attachment A to the Resolution
details the adjustments made to the County Executive’s Recommended Budget.
Mr. Tucker said staff recommends adoption of the attached FY 2010/2011 Budget Resolution
approving the FY 10/11 Operating and Capital Budgets as recommended by the County Executive and
amended by the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Dorrier asked the status of the gaps in funding in the School Board’s budget. Mr. Tucker said
funding for those is not included in this budget unless the Board chooses to use any of these identified
funds. In addition, the Board has received a letter from the School Board regarding use of funds from the
lockbox funds. Local government did utilize its funds from the lock box to cover a shortfall. Approximately
$800,000 is still remaining in the lockbox. It is his understanding that the School Board is requesting
approximately $300,000 of those funds to be used for the incentive retirement plan put in place for next
year.
Mr. Dorrier suggested that one-half of the contingency funding go to the School Board to fill the
gaps in their budget.
Mr. Boyd said that he does not want to address those issues until he gets more current numbers
from the School Board; the Schools have been on spring break. He does not have current information on
their budget information from the State.
Mr. Snow commented that his understanding is that the schools have $3.4 million in one-time
funding that they didn’t want to use for this purpose.
Mr. Dorrier stated that he thinks it is important to support the Schools, and using the rainy day
funds seems like the appropriate course.
Mr. Boyd said he also agrees with supporting the School sytem, but they also have some of their
own rainy day funds. He does not think any action needs to be taken today, and he would like to have
more information about their budget status. Mr. Tucker agreed that it is not necessary to take action
today.
Mr. Rooker noted that those funds are available for the Board to appropriate as they define, and
there should be another meeting with the School Board to get all of the numbers on the table. He said
that the Schools do have one-time money that could be used for a one-year period, but the question is
what happens after this year when they lose $2.5 million of additional composite index funds and whatever
other cuts the State may implement next year. As long as some funds are held in reserve, they have
some cushion available. His main concern was with the tax rate. There needs to be a joint meeting when
all the information is available.
Mr. Tucker confirmed that all of the State funding is still subject to gubernatorial edits.
Ms. Mallek said that mid-year during the last two years, the State has sent word to localities that
they are being cut, and the contingency fund is not enough to protect against those possible cuts.
Mr. Tucker agreed, adding that the County was faced with “a major shortfall” in the current year –
so they tried to bump up a little contingency for the Board.
April 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
Mr. Snow asked if the lockbox fund is a separate issue, adding that he has no problem releasing
that to the Schools as soon as they need it.
Mr. Tucker confirmed that it is a separate fund that the Board put in place last year.
Mr. Boyd reiterated that he would like to have a joint meeting with the School Board to discuss all
these issues. Mr. Rooker and Ms. Mallek agreed.
Mr. Rooker commented that he would vote for the operating and capital budgets, even though he
supported an additional two cents on the tax rate for capital. He thinks it is imprudent to adopt a tax rate
that does not enable the Board to put money into capital over the next five years for any new capital
projects and to borrow money for maintenance or debt service in years four and five. The extra couple of
extra cents would have put the Board in a better position to deal with what we know is coming with respect
to the Education budget in a much more easy way, as next year could possibly be even worse than this
one. He does support the allocation of funds presently in the operating and capital budgets. He thinks the
County Executive’s office and the others that worked on this budget did an excellent job of utilizing
available resources.
Mr. Snow added that the School Board also did an excellent job.
Mr. Dorrier said that the Board did a good job in supporting those who live on fixed incomes and
Social Security. He is fully in favor of the budget. He stated that he has received many letters in this
regard.
Mr. Thomas agreed, adding that he is happy that the rates stayed low. He has also received
numerous positive correspondences regarding the leveling of the tax rate.
Mr. Boyd then moved to adopt the FY 2010/2011 Budget Resolution approving the FY 2010/2011
Operating and Capital Budgets.
Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Ms. Mallek said she has mixed emotions on the budget the
Board is adopting today, due mainly to the tax rate as opposed to the budget. She commented that the
Board has done the best that they can. The budget discussion process this year has showed the rest of
the country that people who disagree on matters of perspective and principle can discuss issues with
courtesy and work together to find common ground and solutions. Ms. Mallek emphasized that White Hall
District residents have demonstrated how wide the diversity of opinion is, noting that her three town hall
meetings in March were well-attended with almost 200 people. She said that one voice supported an
equalized tax rate to support more basic services and prevent further cuts, and one in favor of the current
tax rate and further cuts. The last was split in their views. Many folks have suggestions of improvements
to be made. Many folks have been making those suggestions for years and with the economy feel that
they are now being heard more clearly. Ms. Mallek stated that she has asked everyone who contacted
her regarding taxes whether they could live with the same tax bill as the current year and the huge majority
said that they could. She added that the majority of people who contacted her by email and at meetings
were in favor of greater expenditures to fund the programs they prioritize, and because of that she would
have been representing her district better by voting for an equalized rate. Ms. Mallek added that she does
understand the hardship people feel and the uncertainty for next year. There is no guarantee that things
will go up, that the economy will turn up next year.
Ms. Mallek also stated that the Board has not had the debate on core services in a theoretical
way, and instead backed into the issues several times as we struggled with different cuts to restore to the
budget. She emphasized that in the future the Board needs to provide better guidance to staff, not just a
cap on funds. We cannot fund our needs if we don’t first list what our needs are. We have broken our
own budget policies by putting off building until another, more expensive time – and by directing our
School Board to use one-time monies for operating expenses and program maintenance. She added that
there is also little contingency and no new capital investment. Citizens have clearly said they are happy to
pay for “direct contact employees” – such as teachers, firefighters, police officers, social service workers –
but are less passionate about those in supervisory roles. In an effort to remedy that disconnect, Ms.
Mallek suggested that this Board borrow an idea from Nelson County’s Supervisors – where Board
members meet two by two with School Board members monthly throughout the year in order to gain better
understanding of each other’s problems. She added that many citizens are concerned about the “annual
angst” that goes on, and improvements are needed to bring the community together. Ms. Mallek also
challenged School Board members to become more actively engaged with citizens – by fact-checking,
rumor control, and making the case to the community in the same way the Board does. Neighborhood
associations would welcome their School Board representatives to their meetings just as they welcome
Board members. The broader understanding they can achieve will benefit everyone during the challenges
of budgets and planning for future operations. Ms. Mallek said we must lose this “us and them” attitude,
which has divided us, and the mistrust that our citizens feel – and our citizens demand that we work on
this. She added that she is very appreciative of the work staff and both Boards have done.
Mr. Rooker said that in terms of emails and letters received from the public, his ran about ten to
one to maintain at least the equalized rate; there was also a petition signed by more than 1,000 people
urging the Board to increase the rate to that level, and the public hearing comments ran about five to one.
With no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
April 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
FY 10/11 Adopted
Administration
n
$9,920,979
Judicial
l
3,859,835
Public Safety
Safety
28,917,299
General Services
Services
4,498,959
Human Development (including PVCC) 15,964,585
Parks, Recreation, and Culture 6,059,192
Community Development 6,217,415
City/County Revenue Sharing 18,454,658
Revenue Shortfall Contingency 1,048,837
Refunds/Other
r
860,295
General Government Special Revenue Funds 12,511,387
General Government Capital Projects 2,891,385
Stormwater Improvements 261,250
General Government Debt Service 3,464,460
Education - Capital Projects 4,967,930
Education - Debt Service
Service
13,229,712
Education - School Operations 138,308,070
Education - Self-Sustaining Funds 20,770,940
Board Reserves 210,372
TOTAL $292,417,560
FY 2010/2011
BUDGET RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia:
1) That the budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2010 is made up of the
County Executive’s Recommended Budget document and the amendments made by the Board of Supervisors
as detailed in Attachment A.
2) That the budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2010 is summarized as
follows:
3) That the budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2010 as described in 1)
and 2) above is approved.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS BUDGET
FY 10/11 Recommended
Budget
FY 10/11 Adopted
Budget
General Government Projects 3,587,426
Subtotal, General Government Projects 3,587,426
Storm Water Projects 261,250
Subtotal, Storm Water Projects 261,250
School Division Projects 5,111,930
Subtotal, School Division Projects 5,111,930
Debt Service 16,694,172
Subtotal, Debt Service 16,694,172
FY 10/11 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS BUDGET 25,654,778 25,654,778
SPECIAL REVENUE FUND OPERATIONS
FY 10/11 Recommended
Budget
FY 10/11 Adopted
Budget
Special Revenue Funds 14,109,326
Subtotal, Other Special Revenue Funds 14,109,326
FY 10/11 SPECIAL REVENUE FUND OPERATIONS 14,109,326 14,109,326
SUMMARY OF ALL FUNDS
FY 10/11 Recommended
Budget
FY 10/11 Adopted
Budget
General Fund 212,476,341 213,266,298
School Fund/School Self-Sustaining 166,067,871 164,034,573
Capital and Debt Service Funds 25,654,778 25,654,778
Special Revenue Funds 14,109,326 14,109,326
SUBTOTAL - ALL FUNDS 418,308,316 417,064,975
LESS INTERFUND TRANSFERS (124,457,415)(124,647,415)
TOTAL COUNTY BUDGET - ALL FUNDS 293,850,901 292,417,560 _______________
April 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
Agenda Item No. 12. Presentation: Forestry Presentation, Nelson Shaw.
Mr. Nelson Shaw said that he is the County Forester for Albemarle through the Virginia
Department of Forestry. Mr. Shaw reported that fire protection has been done since 1914, and last year
there were 15 fires totaling 85 acres; and this spring there were only four fires totaling 4.4 acres – with the
largest fire last year occurring on March 3rd in the Lone Oak area, totaling 78 acres. He explained that the
Department tries to determine the cause of a fire, enforces the 4:00 p.m. burning law, and also conducts
fire prevention outreach – through a parade, and the Smokey the Bear school programs. Mr. Shaw said
that they have been doing harvesting protection for 15 to 20 years, and Albemarle ranks 11th in the State
for forestry activity. He stated that there have been 95 timber harvests totaling 3,700 acres since January
2009.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there is reforesting required when timber is cut. Mr. Shaw responded that
there is not a mandatory requirement to do so, but it is often done. He added that some are naturally
reforested, and some lands are select harvested.
Mr. Shaw stated that technicians are required to check each area, and if they notice a water
quality problem it is not an automatic citation – but recommendations are made for reparation; there have
been 11 such recommendations in the last year. He noted that there was one formal complaint and three
failures to notify – as required by Virginia law, a landowner must notify the Department within three
working days for implementation of a harvesting operation.
Mr. Rooker asked what size cut falls into that requirement. Mr. Shaw replied that if the harvesting
is for commercial use, there must be notification. He also stated that clearing land for pastureland does
not require notification, but if the timber is used for lumber there is that requirement.
Mr. Shaw said that the Department conducts Arbor Day activities, and conducted 21 workshops
for children last year. Mr. Shaw stated that they did 15 riparian buffer projects last year for a total of 50
acres and 30,000 linear feet. He reported that they work with volunteers, and the Rivanna Conservation
Day encompassed 14 acres last spring; this fall they did a six-acre planting at the Charlottesville Airport.
Mr. Shaw said that there were 11 formal plans for stewardship enacted last year, and when a
landowner performs those they become certified as forest landowners – with two participating last year.
He explained that there were seven reforestation efforts last spring, totaling 440 acres; this spring there
are 11 tracts for 631 acres. Mr. Shaw stated that there were 19 informal plans for 453 acres, and 15
incentive/cost-sharing plans totaling 898 acres. He explained that vegetation control – both by hand and
aerial application – included five tracts totaling 355 acres. Mr. Shaw also said that thinning has been on
the increase, with 24 tracts done last year for 906 acres. He added that the Department has been working
to control ailanthus, with 85 acres controlled last year. Mr. Shaw said that the department has been
embarking on a new program on the South Fork Rivanna River, which would connect residential parcels to
rural landowners – with field and riparian planting and conservation easements. He added that the City of
Charlottesville had its third year as Tree City U.S.A. last year, and the County could also participate in this.
Ms. Mallek mentioned that there was a big cut that started in Piney Mountain, where the access to
the forestry land was right through Earlysville Forest – and it’s helpful when constituents ask what’s going
on to have DOF experts reassure people. She added that Nelson County has also been involved with a
five-agency summer camp for kids that helps them learn about natural resource management, and they
ran a tree-release seminar with middle schoolers last summer at her farm – where kids learned which
trees to remove and which to keep.
Mr. Thomas asked if the DOF has been monitoring Carters Mountain, where trees are
disappearing on the south end of the mountain near the fire tower. Mr. Shaw responded that he did not
know if monitoring was done on that site.
Mr. Shaw then presented Board members with red bud plants, and DOF calendars.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Presentation: Blue Ridge Committee Annual Report, Phillip James.
Mr. Phil James, Chair of the Blue Ridge Committee, said that he is also represents the Committee
for Shenandoah National Park relations. He reported that the Committee members are Wayne Cilimberg,
Director of Planning – appointed to the Board in 1992 and represented by Principal Planner, Joan
McDowell. Mr. James said that Joe Jones was appointed to the Committee in 2001, and is the Past
President of the Albemarle County Farm Bureau – and also has land adjoining Shenandoah National
Park. Mr. James stated that he was appointed in 2005, and is a local historian and writer with a special
interest in the cultural history of the people who once lived on County lands that now lie inside the Park
borders. He said that today over 14,000 acres of County land lie within the park, reduced from the 25,000
acres originally surveyed in the 1920s for inclusion.
Mr. James stated that the Committee established a website this past year that includes a
statement reflecting the group’s mission: “The Blue Ridge Committee for Shenandoah National Park
relations, established in 1992, exists to provide a two-way conduit for information between Park
management and the counties which surround the Park. The Blue Ridge Committee is comprised of
representatives of the eight Virginia counties which border Shenandoah National Park – Albemarle,
Augusta, Greene, Madison, Page, Rappahannock, Rockingham, and Warren; also, elected state and
federal legislators and park management. Park management decisions today impact surrounding
counties, much as the original land acquisitions did in the 1930s. These include wildlife management
April 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
practices, law enforcement, cross-promotion of tourism, and potential expansion. Likewise, decisions on
the County level can have significant impact on the Park, especially land use issues. By establishing this
Committee, the counties can consider issues related to the Park in a comprehensive and informed
manner, and when consensus is reached communicate with one voice to Park management. Park
management can have an ongoing and regular dialog with its neighbors; legislators can avail themselves
of this opportunity to keep current on the issues, which impact a large number of constituents and a vast
land area.”
Mr. James reported that the Blue Ridge Committee was formed at a time when a number of
tempers were flaring in some of the counties bordering the Park. It was believed at that time that if some
form of serious dialog didn’t take place that bodily harm may be coming to Park personnel. It was a very
tense time. It had become a time where the mentality was us versus them. He explained that it was in
place because of a lack of communication and an underlying spirit of distrust of the state and federal
government that stretched back to the 1920s and eventually condemned by the state and gifted to the
federal government. The Blue Ridge Committee provided a valuable forum that for a number of years
brought together Park personnel and individuals who had issues with the Park. He added that it is still an
opportunity, but in his time there have been very few coming forward with complaints. Mr. James said that
the current focus has been cross-promotion of the Park’s amenities and special events happening in
neighboring counties. He stated that 2011 will mark the 70th anniversary of the Park’s establishment, and
the Committee is working with the Shenandoah National Park Association and Shenandoah National Park
Trust to help promote the year-long observance within each of the counties that form the Park’s
“backyard”.
Ms. Mallek thanked him for his presentation, adding that White Hall is very fortunate to have so
many park properties that are contiguous with the Park – and people are looking forward to being able to
ride their horses through Byrom Park up into the Shenandoah. She also said that she was surprised to
learn during her 2007 campaign how many people felt “that the condemnation of the 1930s had happened
yesterday.” Ms. Mallek stated that the families were burned out by the County Sheriffs because the state
and federal governments wouldn’t do it. She emphasized that this has colored their feelings of distrust
with the government in general, and Mr. Snow’s family was one of those families evicted from their land.
Ms. McDowell noted that her father was one of the first Civilian Conservation Corps camp
members, and they opened that camp in White Hall near Joe Jones’ current home.
_______________
Noting that the Board was ahead of schedule, the Board decided to go into Closed Meeting to
discuss appointments at this time.
At 10:31 a.m., motion was offered by Mr. Thomas that the Board go into Closed Meeting
pursuant to Section 2.2-3.711(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to
boards, committees, and commissions. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
__________
At 11:01 a.m., the Board reconvened into open meeting. Mr. Thomas moved that the Board
certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member’s knowledge, only public business
matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act
and identified in the motion authorizing the closed session were heard, discussed, or considered in the
closed meeting. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
_________________
Agenda Item No. 17a. Boards and Commissions: Vacancies/Appointments.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Snow to make the following appointments/reappointments:
appoint David Shreve to the CHART Committee with said term to expire April 3, 2013.
appoint Mary Gallo, Lucy Goeke, Charles Mitchell, Branda Plantz, and Meg West to the
Crozet Community Advisory Council with said terms to expire March 31, 2012.
appoint John Lowry as the Samuel Miller District Representative to the Equalization
Board with said term to expire December 31, 2010.
appoint Louis J. Lopez III to the Housing Committee to fill an unexpired term to expire
December 31, 2012.
appoint Amber Capron to the Jefferson Area Disability Services Board to fill an unexpired
term to expire on June 30, 2010.
appoint Lloyd Wood to the Police Department Citizens Advisory Committee with said
term to expire March 5, 2012.
appoint Liz Palmer to the Rivanna River Basin Commission to fill an unexpired term to
end on April 30, 2013.
April 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
reappoint Nancy Virginia Bain, Mike Marshall, Jessica Mauzy, Jon Mikalson, William
Schrader, Kelly Strickland, and Tim Tolson to the Crozet Community Advisory Council
with said terms to expire March 31, 2012.
reappoint Clarence Roberts to the Police Department Citizens Advisory Committee with
said term to expire March 5, 2012.
Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14a. Transportation Matters: VDOT Organizational Changes, Jim Utterback,
District Administrator.
Mr. Jim Utterback thanked the Board for allowing him time on the agenda to talk about the
changes coming up at VDoT. He said that last year most counties didn’t really understand the impact of
the cutbacks – but certainly do now. He said that two months ago, most County roads were covered in
heavy snow, adding that this was a historic year for the nine counties in Central Virginia that his district
encompasses. Mr. Utterback noted that the measured amount of snow was 78 inches for Albemarle, as
the County received the brunt of the storms. He stated that most of the VDOT staff during that time period
worked in some form of emergency operations – 12-hour shifts – for all but five days, including six of the
eight weekends as well as Christmas, New Year’s and Super Bowl weekend. He was very proud of the
operators and overall performance of VDOT through those storms. Mr. Utterback added that overall
statewide expenditures for snow total was over $240 million – against an $80 million budget – and within
this district about $4.5 million is budgeted for snow annually, but over $15 million was spent. They have a
challenge in the next couple of months in focusing on repairing potholes and improving roads that were
impacted by the storms, along with grass cutting, etc. VDOT is trying to balance resources and deliver
essential services and looking at projects it can delay in order to meet budget.
Mr. Utterback reported that all VDOT residencies have changed, and with the four in this district
two have been closed – Culpeper and Louisa. He said that a few months ago, the shops that supported
those two residencies were closed. Mr. Utterback stated that many of the programs VDOT manage
throughout the district have been divided into the four counties to the south, and the four counties to the
north – with Albemarle now fitting in with Greene, Louisa, and Fluvanna. He said that the Charlottesville
residency stays in place, but the focus changes to almost exclusively maintenance. Mr. Utterback stated
that the Six Year Secondary Plan and all special projects will now be handled through the district office,
and there is now a position to manage that. All nine counties will be handled the same way for planning
and investment functions through the district office. He said that land development and permitting has
been a big concern, and those would remain district functions but would now be located at Zions
Crossroads to provide a more central location. Mr. Utterback stated that there will be 16 area
headquarters maintained throughout the district, and they will remain intact. He said that overall operators
have been increased in the district by 10 people – for a total of 218 – and they are responsible for the
maintenance projects.
Mr. Utterback stated that 180 office staff positions have been eliminated and a lot of those
functions are being performed out of the residency or district office, adding that now VDOT will have a
statewide 1-800 call center that generates work orders to specific residencies or headquarters. He added
that the residency will still have a local number, but the headquarters will not.
Mr. Rooker asked if the headquarters here answer to Mr. Sumpter. Mr. Utterback responded
“yes”. The three in Louisa will report to Mr. Sumpter also.
Mr. Utterback stated that VDOT made a conscious effort to have each of the new operators
spread out among the local depots. He also said that a year ago, 450 temporary employees statewide
received layoff notices – six in the Culpeper District. Mr. Utterback said that the second wave of cuts
came last summer/fall, due to reductions in the Six Year Plan revenue streams; 640 notices were
delivered statewide – 45 of those in Culpeper, with 25 of them requesting placement and all finding
employment. He stated that the first week of January, 635 termination notices were delivered statewide –
49 of those were in Culpeper, with 25 of them requesting placement; the process of finding them jobs is
happening now and is going well so far. Mr. Utterback noted that in this District, five years ago, there were
705 positions and now there are 442 positions; there were 630 people five years ago and now there are
374; when the other positions are placed the level will be about 400 staff. The agency is doing much,
much more with less people as they go forward.
He reported that much of the layoffs and facilities changes take place at the end of April, and the
new structure will begin at that time. Mr. Utterback said that he hasn’t committed to come to every Board
meeting to talk, but he has committed to two County liaison positions that will serve as single points for
any issues that arise – and they will likely be the ones to address the Board. He stated that the
Preliminary Engineering Manager is the backup for those people, with him (Mr. Utterback) being the point
after that.
Mr. Snow commented that Mr. Sumpter has been very responsive in getting back to the Board on
specific matters, and asked if the liaisons would serve in that capacity. Mr. Utterback said that is the
intent.
April 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. Joel DeNunzio would be in this office. Mr. Utterback said Mr. DeNunzio
would be moving to Zions Crossroads – with his counterpart also being placed there. He said that the
permitting staff statewide took about a 50% cut, driven primarily by the lull in land development.
Mr. Rooker asked who would be at the Zions Crossroads office. Mr. Utterback stated that Mr.
Mark Wood is in charge of that office, but they would probably operate fairly autonomously. Mr. Brent
Sprinkle would remain the head of the Culpeper office. He explained that one of the liaisons, for the south
part of the district, would also be responsible for all planning and programming; the other liaison would be
responsible for all land development and permitting issues.
Mr. Rooker asked for an organizational chart of who answers to whom, along with their names
and contact information. Mr. Utterback said they are working on preparing that.
Ms. Mallek asked if the Board would continue to receive the monthly reports. Mr. Utterback
responded that he would try to continue sending them to the County, but was not sure of the status of the
reports.
Ms. Mallek suggested that Supervisors contact VDOT people by phone or email with concerns so
that they have time to address them.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14b. Transportation Matters: VDOT Monthly Report, Allan Sumpter.
Mr. Sumpter said that his phone and email will always be available to Board members for
requests on gravel roads, potholes, clogged drainage areas, and other maintenance concerns. He will
continue to try to do a quick turnaround when Board members make a request to him.
Mr. Sumpter summarized the monthly report. He said that there have been “lingering effects”
from winter – including gravel roads, soft spots, rutting, downed trees – and VDOT staff will continue to
work on those. Mr. Sumpter said that it would probably take until late spring/early summer to complete
tree removal, and the condition of the gravel roads seems to be improving with warmer, drier weather.
They are working on safety problems as quickly as possible. He stated that VDOT has continued to add
stone to roads and potholes continue to be repaired – with 900 potholes being fixed in this residency
alone.
Mr. Sumpter said that the Hatton Ferry executed agreement has been signed by the
Commissioner, and he is working with Steven Meeks to transfer incidental items such as vests, paddles,
etc. There also needs to be a land use permit issued so that landings can be used on both sides – and
that is expected to be issued within the week.
Mr. Sumpter reported that VDOT continues to work on preliminary engineering relative to right-of-
way acquisitions for Georgetown Road and Jarman’s Gap. Several of the traffic matters are continuing to
be ongoing. They are also pursuing modifications for Hanson Mountain, with traffic engineering looking at
accident data for that area.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14c. Transportation Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Mallek asked for an update on the timetable for the Buck Mountain Road speed study. Mr.
Sumpter replied that VDOT has been collecting data, and it would probably take another six weeks or so
to reach a conclusion.
__________
Mr. Rooker asked for a timeline on right-of-way acquisition for Georgetown Road. Mr. Sumpter
stated that he would contact the staff working on that to provide an update.
__________
Mr. Boyd said that the old Dorrier property on Pantops, now the Didier property, has a sign that
says “Private Driveway,” but there is no curb cut and people keep running up on the sidewalk there. Mr.
Sumpter responded that there are modifications to be made there, and he will check with permit staff to
ensure that it is being addressed.
Mr. Boyd commented that those driveways are only about 10 feet apart. Mr. Sumpter said that
there were supposed to be modifications that have not yet been made.
__________
Mr. Boyd noted that there are some significant potholes on Polo Grounds Road, and a huge
rumble near the west side of the railroad bridge. Mr. Sumpter said that he would look into it.
__________
Mr. Dorrier asked about the status of the Hatton Ferry transfer. Mr. Sumpter reiterated that all the
documents have been signed, and they are now in the process of getting all the vests and paddles to
Steven Meeks and the Historical Society, as well as helping them get their permits. It is now just a matter
of some logistics.
April 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
Mr. Dorrier asked if they are open for the spring/summer. Mr. Sumpter said Mr. Meeks would
have to respond to that. From VDOT’s perspective, there is no holdup to them opening up whenever they
are ready to do so.
Ms. Mallek suggested VDOT representatives consider making a quarterly visit; sending different
people, i.e., bridge person, planning person, etc. That would keep Board members in the loop and help
them to learn what is going on.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Closed Meeting.
At 11:38 a.m., motion was offered by Mr. Thomas, that the Board go into Closed Meeting
pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia, under Subsection (1) to evaluate the performance
of a County Department which requires the discussion of the performance of a specific individual; under
Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding matters requiring legal advice regarding
the negotiation of an interjurisdictional agreement; and under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel
and staff regarding probable litigation arising from an alleged breach of contract.
Mr. Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Certify Closed Meeting.
At 1:35 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was offered by Mr. Thomas to
certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member’s knowledge only public business
matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act
and identified in the motion authorizing the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered in the
closed meeting. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Snow said that in a previous Board meeting, they had discussed the County’s commitment to
the Jefferson Madison Regional Library and someone had suggested reviewing the agreement for
participating in the regional system . He wanted to make sure that the consideration was moving forward.
Mr. Boyd responded that the Board had decided to discuss it during their Strategic Planning
session, which is coming up in the next few months.
Mr. Rooker commented that the Library Board has indicated they would be willing to renegotiate
the agreement as necessary, which means there would need to be negotiating sessions with
representatives from the Board and other boards involved.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks that this Board should meet with the Library Board.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that any such meeting would also need to include representatives from
the City of Charlottesville and all other localities.
Ms. Mallek stated that her preference would be to find out first what the dollar difference would be,
and whether there would be a “meaningful savings.”
Mr. Dorrier agreed that that would be the best course.
Mr. Davis commented that he isn’t sure Mr. Tucker has that discussion programmed for any
specific timetable at this point.
Mr. Tucker said that he has not set aside a specific time for it, as it would be talked about in the
Board’s June strategic planning session.
Ms. Mallek noted that the Library Board has indicated they have already started looking at this.
Mr. Dorrier suggested that Board members go to each Library in their jurisdiction, and get a feel
for how they operate, and then meet with the Library Board.
Mr. Snow said that he would like to examine the cost of going it alone – with Albemarle funding
the libraries in the County only.
April 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
Mr. Rooker mentioned that the library system would lose $600,000 a year, as the Board was told
during recent budget discussions that only regional library systems qualify for that pool of funds. He
agrees that the Board needs to understand the entire financial picture of the options.
Mr. Snow responded that it might be costing the County $1 million to get that $600,000.
__________
Mr. Snow said that he would like the Board to begin looking at the budget for next year, having
recently completed “March Madness”. Mr. Snow added that he would like to see the County begin
working on a needs-based budget. The rate is set and they seem to be working to that budget.
Ms. Mallek said that the budget process began in October, arising from the Board’s strategic plan.
Mr. Tucker commented that this would also be part of the discussion at the June retreat.
Mr. Rooker stated that building a budget from an entirely new standpoint would have significant
impact on staff, and essentially staff would be budgeting on a year-round basis. He thinks the Board
needs to understand the ramifications; sometimes things sound good, but that is about it.
Mr. Snow said that there have been lots of rumors around that are based on very little fact.
Mr. Rooker stated that it is imperative that the Board consider the amount of time imposed on
staff when it comes to budgeting, otherwise the County will end up with a staff that does nothing but work
on the budget. He emphasized that every year there has been a specific, detailed schedule for the
budget, and suggested that the Board review that schedule during their strategic planning process.
Mr. Snow asked about the best way to handle the incoming emails from the public, and wondered
if it would be best to send them to the County Executive’s office.
Mr. Tucker responded that Board members could end up chasing their tails by trying to answer
every request, and the best course may be to pass those requests onto his office.
Mr. Rooker commented that often members of the public send the same email to every Board
member, without indicating they are asking every Supervisor. He said that they also often ignore the
answers and send a letter to the Editor anyway.
Mr. Snow said that he is simply looking for a mechanism for a response, for example – the
County’s W ellness Program, which he has received comments on. Mr. Rooker suggested that he send
that email to Mr. Tucker and Ms. Suyes. Mr. Snow replied that he doesn’t want to just dismiss it, and
would like to have some way to know “truth from fact.”
Mr. Rooker explained that the Board made a decision to pursue the W ellness Program for the
County, in keeping with what many other corporations are doing around the country – as it reduces
insurance premiums. In the County’s case, the County pays all its’ claims; the County pays an
administrator. If you can reduce your claims, then you ultimately reduce your own medical expense. He
indicated that Mr. Boyd has wisely suggested many times the need to evaluate the success of each such
program periodically, and there is often a reason behind why things are being done. Mr. Rooker cautioned
that the Board needs to be careful about restudying everything at random just because an email is sent,
but having Ms. Suyes come in and explain the W ellness Program would be valuable as it hasn’t been
done in a while.
Mr. Boyd mentioned that the example brought up about Hansen Road arose from a constituent
email, and said that he forwarded the information to Mr. Sumpter, who in turn did some investigation and
then responded to him and the constituent with an update.
Mr. Snow commented that perhaps the department will answer to put themselves in the best light,
and it’s possible that the emails might have validity.
Mr. Rooker said that it’s best to ask staff specifically for information prior to responding. He stated
that everyone on the Board has been attuned to periodic testing of programs to ensure that they are a
worthwhile investment.
Ms. Mallek said she stands back a little from anonymous things when people rake you over the
coals and do not allow you to respond to them because they won’t identify themselves.
Mr. Snow commented that there is a “real fear” in County government and Schools over whistle-
blowing because employees are afraid if they speak up they will lose their jobs.
Mr. Rooker responded that it is even worse in private companies.
Mr. Tucker said that he would like to know if any one of them can identify a single employee who
has lost their job by raising concerns.
Ms. Mallek stated that the Board can and will keep those matters confidential, and she sees her
role as connecting people with those who can specifically answer their questions.
April 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
Mr. Tucker said that if it’s an operational issue raised by an employee, it needs to be sent to him.
He will respond and copy the Board member. If it’s a policy issue – such as ordinances or regulations –
then it should be raised with the rest of the Board, with staff providing any needed background
information.
Mr. Rooker noted that an issue came up this budget session regarding “instructional coaches,”
and the best answer is that those decisions are made by the elected School Board. If they have to make
cuts, they have to ultimately make the decisions about where those cuts are going to be made, and still
deliver a quality product.
__________
Mr. Snow commented that Mr. Elliott and his staff did a great job with the display at City Space.
__________
Ms. Mallek asked Board members if they supported the County sending a letter to Governor
McDonnell asking him to veto: redefinition of responsible prisoners, which would mean localities keep
prisoners for two years instead of one; requirement of local governments to pay for benefits provided
under “Line of Duty Act”, which used to be state-funded; and appropriation of a statewide communications
sales and use tax that would effectively eliminate localities’ ability to levy a local communications tax.
Mr. Davis explained that originally the State was going to take some of the money to help balance
the budget. Ultimately they just put it in the budget so that it’s now under the control of the General
Assembly. VACo sees the next step as using the money for purposes other than returning it to local
governments, which was not the deal. He thinks that opposing that with the letter is a good position to
take. He emphasized that it’s a “slippery slope” now to eventually losing that money.
Ms. Mallek mentioned that the last item was the $3.0 billion in SOQ requirements that are being
passed to localities without any supporting funding.
Mr. Tucker indicated that he has already asked the Clerk to draft a letter addressing these items.
It was the consensus of the Board to send the letter.
Note: The following letter was drafted and sent to Governor McDonnell:
“We understand the enormity of the challenges you face this session. It is no easy task to
balance competing needs with very limited resources. Local governments, too, face difficult
challenges not only in the budget for the upcoming year, but for a number of years to come. Several
items in the adopted budget make the jobs of elected officials almost intractable by shifting the cost
for State responsibilities to local governments or by jeopardizing local revenues. This is
unacceptable.
We ask that you veto the following items in HB 29 and HB 30:
1. The redefinition of State-responsible prisoners contained in Item 377 #4c. This
amendment overrides the Code of Virginia and long-standing agreements between the State and
localities. The amendment changes the definition of a State-responsible felon to allow the State to
shift the responsibility for housing more State prisoners to local and regional jails, at the risk of greater
overcrowding. At the same time, the State is scaling back on inmate per diem payments to localities
as well as funding for jail staff, thereby increasing the pressure on local taxes and local taxpayers.
Localities, unlike the State, cannot simply shift the costs to another level of government.
2. The requirement for local governments to pay for benefits provided under the Line of
Duty Act in Item 258#1c. The General Assembly created this program as a State-funded program.
Local governments were not a party to the enactment of this program. It is a violation of trust for the
State to simply shift the costs onto local government when it becomes inconvenient for the State to
maintain its commitment to a program it created.
3. The appropriation of the communication sales and use tax. This tax was the result of
years of negotiation between industry providers and local governments in which local governments
ceded the right to impose communications taxes for a unitary measure. The bottom line is that these
are local taxes which are only collected by the State. These are not State General Fund revenues as
expressed in Item 270.10 #1c in HB 29 and in Item 262 #1c in HB 30. These revenues should not be
used in lieu of State General Fund dollars or for other General Fund purposes.
Finally, we would like to bring to your attention the growing gap between State-mandated
costs imposed through the Standards of Learning and the Standards of Accreditation, and the
resources provided by the Commonwealth under the Standards of Quality. A number of policy
decisions were included by your predecessor and the General Assembly in the budget to eliminate
items from the rebenchmarking process and to change funding formulas. These actions do not
reduce the costs to educate children to pass the Standards of Learning tests. Nor do these actions
reduce the costs for schools to attain accreditation. These actions do nothing more than reduce the
State’s financial commitment to education. Virginia’s schools have made remarkable progress on
meeting accountability standards contained in State regulation, but this progress would not have
occurred without local governments overmatching state SOQ dollars by more than $3.0 billion a year.
Local governments no longer have the resources to continue this massive effort, much less to make
up for the drastic reductions in public education funding. The result will be seen in years to come in an
April 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
increased failure rate on the Standards of Learning tests and on school accreditation standards. We
hope that you will address this increasingly dire situation during your term in office, either by
advocating for more resources for schools, or by encouraging the Board of Education to amend its
regulations to more accurately reflect the resources available.
Thank you for your attention to these important matters. Please let us know what local
governments can do to assist your administration in achieving its laudable goals.”
_______________
Agenda Item No. 23. Adjourn.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 07/07/2010
Initials: EWJ