2001-03-07March 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 7,
2001, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr.
Charles S. Martin (arrived at 9:24 a.m.), Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Clerk, Ella W. Carey, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:03 a.m., by the Chairman, Ms. Thomas.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. There was no one present who
wished to speak this morning.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris to approve Items 5.1
through 5.9, to pull Item 5.9a for discussion later in the meeting, and to accept the remaining items on the
Consent Agenda for information. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. (Note: Conversation
concerning individual items on the Consent Agenda will be shown as part of that item.)
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Perkins (Mr. Perkins voted no to Item 5.4), Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr.
A@
Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
__________
Item 5.1. Authorize County Executive to sign Deeds of Easement (Stormwater Drainage Easement
Dedication - Branchlands Channel, South Fork Soccer Park, 211 Bennington Road and Georgetown
Court).
It was noted in the staffs report that this request is to authorize the County Executive to sign deeds
=
of easement for the County to accept four stormwater, drainage, and/or greenway easements, as outlined
below:
1. Branchlands Channel (Tax Map 61Z, Section 3, Parcel 10A; Section 6, Parcel 4B; and Section 8
Parcel A). This property is located in the Rio District and encompasses three separately owned parcels
along Hillsdale Drive from the Woodlands Day School to the north and the intersection of Hillsdale and
Greenbrier Drives to the south. All of the property owners have offered to dedicate the easements. This
easement is approximately 0.6 acres and consists of an intermittent stream and overgrown trees and
grasses. The Branchlands Property Association owns the majority of land along either side of the Channel.
The Association is requesting that the County take over maintenance of the Channel. Approxi-mately 25
lots in the Branchlands Community are potentially susceptible to flooding if debris and over-grown
vegetation are not regularly removed. The Channel accepts stormwater runoff from a network of regional
stormwater management facilities including Berkmar, Four Seasons, Church Road, Branchlands Forebay
and Basin, as well as the planned Birnham Basin. The County currently has easements covering the
Branchlands Pond and forebay across Hillsdale Drive from the Channel. This whole matrix of storm-water
basins and channels is essential for proper drainage and public safety. In this respect, public oversight and
responsibility for the system is warranted. The Department of Engineering & Public Works is prepared to
undertake maintenance of the Channel as part of an overall maintenance plan for the facilities and
channels in that vicinity.
2. South Fork Soccer Park (Part of Tax Map 46, Parcel 22, Polo Grounds Road). The Board
approved SP-00-048 for the South Fork Soccer Park, located in the Rio District, on September 6, 2000.
Condition #9 of that approval requires the owner to "reserve a 100 foot wide strip of land the length of the
property abutting the northern side of the Rivanna River for the Rivanna Greenway." While the primary
intent of this dedication is for greenway development, County staff has also worked with the applicant
through the plan review process to establish a healthy riparian corridor along the Rivanna River to
standards consistent with the Water Protection Ordinance. As an outcome, part of the site's approved
stormwater management strategy is the dedication of a riparian (stream buffer) easement that will allow for
the stream buffer area to naturalize into a riparian forest, while still allowing for a County greenway and
canoe access, reasonable passive use by the users of the park, and continued archeological research. As
designed, the easement will be co-held by the County and the Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water
Conservation District. This is a creative partnership that will allow the County to develop recreational
opportunities at the site while the District oversees the environmental protection aspects of the deed.
Increasingly, the District has become involved in the promotion and holding of riparian easements, and this
project will provide a high-visibility demonstration of that program. Another provision of the deed allows for
educational workshops on riparian protection to be held at the site. The parties involved have all worked
March 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
cooperatively to draft the deed of easement and see this as a good example of collaborative resource
protection. The Soil & Water District Board of Directors approved co-holding the easement and the deed
language at its January 31, 2001, meeting.
3. 211 Bennington Road (Tax Map 60A, Section 3, Block I, Parcel 12). This parcel is located in the
Jack Jouett District. The property owner has expressed intent to dedicate a permanent drainage easement
to the County for the purpose of a drainage repair project. Since the expansion of Georgetown Road in the
early 1990's, stormwater runoff tends to flood the side and front yard of this parcel. After passing through a
small, meandering channel, water enters a yard drain and an underground 18-inch storm pipe. The
Engineering Department and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) met with the property
owner to discuss possible solutions to the drainage problem. The proposed solution consists of extending a
pipe upstream of the existing yard drain and reshaping the channel to capture the water in a more efficient
manner. VDOT will supply the County with a 25-foot section of 18-inch storm pipe. The County will pay
installation and grading charges associated with this drainage improvement project. The County will also
be responsible for future repairs to the pipe, if needed.
4. Georgetown Court (Tax Map 60A1, Parcels 40A; 40B; 41A; 41B; 42A). These five parcels are
located in the Jack Jouett District and include #57 through #65 Court Place. All five property owners have
expressed intent to dedicate a permanent drainage easement to the County for the purpose of mainte-
nance and repair to the stormwater facility currently located at the rear of each parcel. As part of final site
plan approval for the Georgetown Court Subdivision, the County required the developer to install a
stormwater management basin located at the rear of these parcels. The basin now serves as a regional
stormwater management facility. Runoff to the basin originates from portions of the Subdivision, as well as
the adjacent Barclay Place Apartments. The latter development occurred after the basin was completed.
The owner of Tax Map 60A1, Parcel 40A, requested that the basin be reduced in size, two inlet areas
repaired, and repairs be made to the eroded outlet pipe at the bottom of the basin. If the Board approves
dedication of the drainage easement, then the County will complete the necessary repairs and assume
regular maintenance responsibilities for this basin.
For the Branchlands properties and the South Fork Soccer Park, County staff has worked with the
owners and County Attorney's Office to draft deeds of easement. For the Bennington Road and George-
town Court projects, the owners have agreed to sign the deeds of easement, and the documents will be
drafted upon Board approval.
Staff asks the Board to authorize the County Executive to sign the deeds of easement for the
Branchlands Channel, the South Fork Soccer Park, 211 Bennington Road and Georgetown Court.
(Ms. Thomas said she was impressed with what staff is doing with the stormwater drainage
easements, particularly at the Polo Grounds.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board authorized the County Executive to sign the
deeds of easement for the Branchlands Channel, the South Fork Soccer Park, for 211 Bennington
Road and for Georgetown Court.
__________
Item 5.2. Readopt Resolution Approving the Issuance of Industrial Development Authority Bonds in
an Amount not to Exceed $16,150,000 for The Covenant School, Inc.
(Ms. Thomas said there were people in the audience who would be glad to answer questions about
this item.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution:
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
The Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia ("Authority"),
has considered the application of The Covenant School, Inc. ("School") requesting the
issuance of the Authority's revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $16,150,000
("Bonds"), to be issued at one time or from time to time to assist the School in financing
and refinancing of the following (collectively, "Plan of Financing"): (1) the acquisition,
construction and equipping of a new upper school for grades 7-12 consisting of
approximately 95,000 square feet of classrooms, offices, library, athletic facility and fields
and combined cafeteria/auditorium, together with related utility and infrastructure
improvements, to be built on a new 26-acre campus on Hickory Street near the
intersection of Oak Hill Drive and certain other capital improvements and additions
located at the new campus on Hickory Street, and (2) amounts required for reserves,
capitalized interest and costs of issuance in connection with the Plan of Financing.
On January 5, 2000, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County (the "Board")
approved the Plan of Financing and the issuance of the Bonds upon the recommendation
of the Authority after a public hearing held on December 9, 1999. By Order entered on
April 18, 2000, in Case No. CL 99-8127, the Circuit Court for the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, validated the Plan of Financing and the issuance of the Bonds pursuant to
Virginia Code Section 15.2-2654. On December 7, 2000, as evidenced in Record No.
March 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
001014, the Supreme Court of Virginia dismissed a petition for appeal of such Order.
Accordingly, pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.2-2657, the Order validating the Bonds
is binding and conclusive. On January 9, 2001, the Authority approved the issuance of
Bonds in an amount up to $14,000,000. On January 17, 2001, the Board approved the
action of the Authority taken at its January 9, 2001, meeting.
The Authority held a new public hearing on February 27, 2001, as required by
Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended ("Code"), and Virginia
Code Section 15.2-4906. Section 147(f) of the Code also provides that the govern-
mental unit having jurisdiction over the issuer of private activity bonds and over the area in
which any facility financed with the proceeds of private activity bonds is located must
approve the issuance of the bonds.
The Authority issues its bonds on behalf of Albemarle County, Virginia
("County"); the projects included in the Plan of Financing are to be located in the County;
and the Board constitutes the highest elected governmental unit of the County.
The Authority has recommended that the Board ratify its previous approval and
approve the Plan of Financing and issuance of the Bonds.
A copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds, subject
to the terms to be agreed upon, a certificate of the public hearing and a Fiscal Impact
Statement have been filed with the Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
The Board ratifies in full its approval of January 5, 2000, and January 17, 2001,
in providing the following:
1. The Board approves (i) the Plan of Financing and (ii) the issuance of the
Bonds pursuant thereto by the Authority for the benefit of the School, as required by
Section 147(f) of the Code and Section 15.2-4906 of the Virginia Code.
2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds does not constitute an
endorsement to a prospective purchaser of the Bonds of the creditworthiness of the Plan
of Financing or the School.
3. Pursuant to the limitations contained in Temporary Income Tax Regulations
Section 5f.103-2(f)(1), this resolution shall remain in effect for a period of one year from
the date of its adoption.
4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
__________
Item 5.3. Change Contract for Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers.
It was noted in the staffs report that the Albemarle County Office of Housing currently administers
=
the Section 8 Rental Assistance programs under a number of contracts. The County has Annual Contri-
bution Contracts (ACC) directly with HUD and one with the Virginia Housing Development Authority
(VHDA). The VHDA contract covers a portion of vouchers received by VHDA for the state with 201 of those
vouchers allotted to Albemarle County.
VHDA has, after over a year of study and consultation, determined that decentralizing some of its
administration may be beneficial to the program and to localities particularly those with existing ACCs with
HUD. The method of decentralizing the program is to allow localities to transfer vouchers under VHDA's
ACC to an ACC of their own directly with HUD. Staff is requesting approval of a resolution to make such a
transfer.
Although Albemarle County's portion of VHDA's ACC is 201 vouchers, only 157 vouchers are
under lease. This is due to a moratorium by VHDA on re-issuance of vouchers because of budget
constraints. The moratorium has resulted in a loss of one or two vouchers each month.
Based on average assistance provided per voucher, VHDA has projected Albemarle County's
portion of transfer vouchers will total 153. While this is a loss from the 201 allotted vouchers, no additional
vouchers will be lost.
VHDA currently pays Albemarle County $29.00 per month for administering each voucher. An
ACC with HUD will provide a minimum of $47.40/month per voucher or an annual increase of approxi-
mately $33,000. Additional costs to the County should be minimal, primarily associated with issuing checks
to landlords and tenants. A portion of the increased fees may be used to obtain hardware and software for
producing checks in the office, rather than increasing the workload in Finance. The transfer will not require
additional staffing.
Staff recommends adoption of a resolution based on the transfer - removing existing duplicity in
program administration; assurance of a firm number of vouchers; and increased fees to support program
administration.
March 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
(Ms. Thomas said she does not expect an answer today, but she was appalled at the County losing
about one-quarter of its housing vouchers. She wants to know how the County will be able to make this up.
Mr. Ron White, Director of the Housing Office, said after the County gets a contract with HUD, it is hoped
that a case can be made for additional vouchers. He said that President Bush is proposing that about
30,000 additional vouchers be issued. Each state can go back and ask for a share of those. In the past,
the County has had to rely on VHDA making such requests on behalf of the entire state. By the County
having its own contract with HUD, it should provide the opportunity in the future for the County to make its
own case when vouchers are available.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the resolution which follows:
A RESOLUTION REGARDING THE TRANSFER OF
SECTION 8 ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS CONTRACT
WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD")
has consented or will consent to the transfer of the ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS
CONTRACT(S) dated November 22, 2000, and designated as number(s) VA901; and
WHEREAS, such transfer requires the Transferee to agree to certain conditions;
and
WHEREAS, as Transferee, we desire to agree to the aforesaid conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors agrees that the funds authorized by the transfer will be used for the same
purposes as originally intended; that is, to provide eligible families with the Housing
Choice Vouchers (CFR 24 part 982) and/or Moderate Rehabilitation (Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR 24 part 882); that the same population as originally intended (CFR 24
part 882 and 982) will be served; and that the vouchers will be used in Albemarle County
as originally intended.
__________
Item 5.4. Participation in VDOT Revenue Sharing Program for FY 2001-02.
It was noted in the staffs report that VDOT's Revenue Sharing Program provides an opportunity for
=
the County to receive up to an additional $500,000 for road improvements. The program requires a
dollar-for-dollar match by the County. The result is a total commitment of up to $1.0 million toward
improvements to the local road system. The County's match is allocated in its Capital Improvements
Program (CIP). The Revenue Sharing Program enables the County to better implement the Priority List of
Road Improvements approved by the Board by providing an additional infusion of funds which can
accelerate the planning and construction of road projects on the list. The County has participated in this
program since 1988. However, it must formally request participation in the FY 2001-02 program by March
30, 2001. VDOT has identified in the Six-Year Secondary Road Plan the Old Lynchburg Road spot safety
improvement project (from Route 631 to Route 708) for FY 2001-02 Revenue Sharing funds. It should be
noted that while specific projects are listed in the Six- Year Plan to receive these funds, the Revenue
Sharing Program is flexible and funds can be shifted to other transportation projects in the future as agreed
to by VDOT.
Staff recommends that the County participate in the Revenue Sharing Program, requesting a total
of $500,000 (to be matched with available County CIP funds) for the Old Lynchburg Road (Route 631) spot
safety improvement project and that the Board authorize the Chairman to sign a letter notifying VDOT of its
intent to participate in the program.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board authorized the Chairman to sign a letter
notifying VDOT of its intent to participate in the Revenue Sharing Program, requesting a total of
$500,000 (to be matched with available County CIP funds) for the Old Lynchburg Road (Route 631)
spot safety improvement project.
__________
Item 5.5. SP-2000-64. David Weber (Triton PCS CVR347D) (deferred from February 14, 2001).
The applicant, through his attorney, has requested a further deferral to March 21, 2001. This will
provide additional time for Triton to continue investigating various options for treatment of the ground
equipment associated with the proposed wireless telecommunications facility.
By the recorded vote set out above, this request was approved.
__________
Item 5.6. Appropriation: Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) Traffic Safety Grant
A101-15-57015, $1500 (Form #20050).
It was noted in the staffs report that traffic activity continues to increase in the County of Albemarle.
=
March 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
The DMV recognizes this problem and has funded grants using Federal pass-through moneys to increase
traffic enforcement through selective enforcement assignments employing officers working overtime. This
mini-grant commenced November 24, 2000, and extended through December 31, 2000. The total grant is
$1500.00. There is no local match. Staff recommends approval of Appropriation #20050 in the amount of
$1500.00.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of
Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20050
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR HOLIDAY TRAFFIC SAFETY
GRANT
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1535 31013 120000 OVERTIME$1,394.00
1 1535 31013 210000 FICA106.00
TOTAL $1,500.00
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 1535 33000 330011 FEDERAL DMV GRANT$1,500.00
TOTAL$1,500.00
__________
Item 5.7. Appropriation: Criminal Records Systems Improvement Grant 01-B3557, $12,000 (Form
#20051).
It was noted in the staffs report that this grant renewal request involves expanding the capabilities
=
of the Police Records Management System (RMS). The funding requested is for equipment, data file
conversion, and training. Installation will be handled by County Information Services personnel. The
equipment, data conversion and training, combined with previously acquired software and document
imaging and scanning equipment will greatly extend the capability to generate reports from the Police RMS.
The Police Department will be able to scan and store case files, incident reports, accident reports, photos,
diagrams, and other printed matter to be incorporated into the RMS. Training will be provided by OSSI,
provider of the Pistol 2000 RMS program. The equipment will be funded by a $9000.00 Federal grant and
local match of $3000.00. The local match will be funded from current operations and does not require
additional funds. Staff recommends approval of Appropriation #20051 in the amount of $12,000.00.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of
Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20051
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORDS
GRANT
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1526 31013 550402 TRAINING$2,500.00
1 1526 31013 800700 ADP EQUIPMENT7,500.00
1 1526 31013 800711 SOFTWARE2,000.00
TOTAL $12,000.00
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 1526 33000 330001 FEDERAL GRANT$9,000.00
2 1526 51000 512004 TRANSFER FROM G/F$3,000.00
TOTAL$12,000.00
__________
Item 5.8. Appropriation: Education, $3000 (Form #20052).
It was noted in the staffs report that at its meeting on December 14, 2000, the School Board
=
approved the following appropriations:
Monticello High School: A donation was received from Matthew and May Blundin in the amount of
March 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
$1800.00 to be used to purchase football equipment.
English as a Second Language Class: Albemarle County Adult Basic Education provides tuition
classes tailored to the individualized needs of the clients of private companies, institutions and agencies
when needed to supplement existing classes. Additional revenue in the amount of $200.00 was received
from the City of Charlottesville Department of Social Services and $1000.00 from students for tuition fees
for the English as a Second Language class.
Staff recommends that the Board approve the appropriations totaling $3000.00 as detailed on
Appropriation #20052.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of
Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20052
FUND: SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: PURCHASE OF FOOTBALL EQUIPMENT AND
ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE CLASSES
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 2304 61105 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES$1,800.00
1 3116 63348 132100 TEACHER WAGES1,114.72
1 3116 63348 210000 FICA85.28
TOTAL$3,000.00
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 2000 18100 181109 DONATION$1,800.00
2 3116 16000 161206 TUITION-ADULT ED1,200.00
TOTAL$3,000.00
__________
Item 5.9. Appropriation: Education, $187,050 (Form #20053).
It was noted in the staffs report that at its meeting on January 11, 2001, the School Board
=
approved the following appropriations:
Crozet Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $1300.00 from the Crozet School
PTO. This donation will be used to help cover expenses incurred with the Artist in Residency Program.
Lacrosse Field Donation: The Albemarle County Lacrosse Boosters Association is coordinating the
renovation of the lacrosse field on Lamb's Road. The Charlottesville-Albemarle Foundation has made a
donation in the amount of $5000.00. This donation will be used to help pay expenses incurred for the
renovation of the lacrosse field.
Sutherland Middle School received a donation in the amount of $750.00 from Grace Community
Church. This donation will be used to purchase books, miscellaneous supplies for teachers, clinic supplies
and to replace classroom equipment.
Re-appropriation of School Board Reserve and Fund Balance: Utilize $180,000.00 from the Fund
Balance and $20,000.00 from the non-recurring Reserve to offset steep and unforeseen increases in the
cost of fuel for both buses and heating. Utilize $27,500.00 from the recurring Reserve to fund an additional
Support Analyst, effective January 3, 2001. Utilize $26,600.00 from the recurring Reserve for an additional
1.15 FTE of English as a Second Language staffing effective January 3, 2001. Utilize $28,000.00 from the
recurring Reserve to hire a Coordinator for Testing and Guidance to assist Dr. Kevin Hughes, effective
January 15, 2001.
Staff recommends that the Board approve the appropriations totaling $187,050.00, as detailed on
Appropriation #20053.
As requested by the staff, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation by
the recorded vote set out above:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20053
FUND: SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: VARIOUS SCHOOL PROGRAMS
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
March 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
1 2203 61101 301210 CONTRACT SERVICES$1,300.00
1 2433 62420 331200 REPAIR & MAINT5,000.00
1 2255 61101 601200 BOOKS & SUBSCRIPTIONS200.00
1 2255 61101 580000 MISC. EXPENSES150.00
1 2255 62220 600400 CLINIC SUPPLIES200.00
1 2255 61101 800100 REPAIR/REPLACE-EQUIP200.00
1 2410 60100 999981 SCHOOL BOARD RESERVE(102,100.00)
1 2432 62320 600800 VEHICLE/EQUIP-FUEL160,000.00
1 2433 62420 510800 HEATING SERVICES40,000.00
1 2115 62190 114300 SALARIES-OTHER TECH21,877.00
1 2115 62190 210000 FICA1,674.00
1 2115 62190 221000 VRS2,827.00
1 2115 62190 231000 HEALTH INS917.00
1 2115 62190 232000 DENTAL INS30.00
1 2115 62190 241000 VRS GROUP LIFE175.00
1 2100 61112 112100 SALARIES-TEACHER21,062.00
1 2100 61112 210000 FICA1,611.00
1 2100 61112 221000 VRS2,721.00
1 2100 61112 231000 HEALTH INS1,000.00
1 2100 61112 232000 DENTAL INS38.00
1 2100 61112 241000 VRS GROUP LIFE168.00
1 2111 61311 111400 SALARIES-OTHER MANAG22,290.00
1 2111 61311 210000 FICA1,705.00
1 2111 61311 221000 VRS2,880.00
1 2111 61311 231000 HEALTH INS917.00
1 2111 61311 232000 DENTAL INS30.00
1 2111 61311 241000 VRS GROUP LIFE178.00
TOTAL$187,050.00
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 2000 18100 181109 DONATION$7,050.00
2 2000 51000 510100 APPROP-FUND BALANCE180,000.00
TOTAL$187,050.00
__________
Item 5.9a. Resolution: 2000-2002 State Budget.
Ms. Thomas asked that this item be pulled and discussed in detail at the end of the meeting.
___________
Item 5.10. Perennial Stream, Report.
It was noted in the staffs report that the Planning Commission held a work session on January 30,
=
2001, on the topic of how to define perennial streams in the Water Protection Ordinance (WPO) and other
County policy documents. Prior to the work session, several Commissioners had expressed concern about
which streams are considered perennial for purposes of the WPO, and the accuracy of the method
currently employed. In particular, this was a topic of discussion during the review of several recent site
plans, including the Baker-Butler Elementary School and Home Depot.
In response to the Commission's requested work session, staff from the Department of Engineering
& Public Works prepared a report that provides background on the subject, offers alternative means to
define perennial streams, and discusses implications of changing the definition for the Land Use Plan and
the Neighborhood Model. The report also addresses enabling code for defining perennial streams and the
relationship between stream designations and stormwater master planning for the Development Areas.
During the work session, the Commission discussed the various alternatives outlined in the report
and the implications of changing the definition. In summary, both Commissioners and staff gained a
broader appreciation of the dimensions and complexities of the subject, and the importance of this topic for
the Development Areas. Several of the Commissioners expressed support for the County's proposed
stormwater master planning process, which would identify stream protection zones in the Development
Areas based on stream values, rather than a determination of whether a stream is perennial or intermittent.
The Commission, as a whole, did not recommend a specific course of action, but did specifically
recommend that the report be shared with the Board of Supervisors.
(Ms. Humphris asked if the Board will have a further discussion of this report. Ms. Thomas said the
report was so good and so comprehensive that the Planning Commission did not give any guidance. She
asked what staff wanted the Board to do. Mr. Bowerman said it was a great report but had no action
agenda. Mr. Tucker suggested scheduling a time for this item to be on the agenda for discussion.
Mr. Davis said there are a couple of issues which are related to this report. There was a resolution
of intent adopted by the Commission to start looking at critical slopes provisions. When that comes to the
Board, that would be a good time to have all of this discussed at one time.
Ms. Thomas said there was also a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Stormwater Master Plan
which she assumes has gone out and been accepted. Mr. Stephen Bowler said the RFP went out and a bid
March 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
from a consulting firm in Northern Virginia has been accepted; staff is in the midst of negotiating a scope of
work with that firm. He said the Stormwater Master Plan will include surveying and studying streams in the
Development Areas.)
The report was provided for information purposes only.
__________
Item 5.11. Notice of actions taken by the Albemarle County Planning Commission on February 13,
2001, re: Resolution of Intent to Change Section 4.2, Critical Slopes Regulations in the Zoning Ordinance;
and Resolution of Intent to Change Section 4.2, Area Regulations, of the Zoning Ordinance; and,
Resolution of Intent to Amend Numerous Sections of the Zoning Ordinance to bring them into conformity
with the County's Personal Wireless Service Facility Policy.
It was noted that over the last several years, it has become apparent that the Zoning Ordinance
language dealing with the protection of critical slopes does not adequately separate the preservation needs
for the Rural Areas from the grading needs in the Development Areas. Waivers of the critical slopes
standards are requested for incidental and significant slopes alike. Protection of significant slopes is
prevented with the by-right ability to disturb critical slopes with roads, utilities and stormwater facilities.
A@
Standards for on-site grading of slopes exist only in the Countys Erosion and Sediment Control regulations
=
that do not take into consideration many safety and compatibility issues as well as the long-term ownership
and maintenance needs of the Countys property owners. Staff recommends approval of a Resolution of
=
Intent to amend portions of Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance and sections related to disturbance of
critical slopes.
This notice was received for information only.
__________
Item 5.12. Notice of VDOT Design Public Hearing on Route 20/Scottsville Road, replacement of
Carters Bridge (Project: 0020-002-126,PE101,PE102).
A letter dated February 15, 2001, from Robert H. Connock, Jr., District Construction Engineer,
stated that a combined design public hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 27, 2001, between 5:00 p.m.
and 7:00 p.m. in the Walton Middle School. Preliminary plans call for replacement of the existing Carters
Bridge on Route 20 (Scottsville Road) over the Hardware River. Proposed construction will include the
construction of the necessary roadway approaches and will extend from 0.14 mile south of the Hardware
River to 0.11 mile north of the Hardware River. This letter was received for information only.
(Mr. Dorrier asked if 5:00 p.m. is the best time to have a public hearing. Mr. Bryan said they can try
to change that time if the published time is not satisfactory. Mr. Dorrier said most hearings are heard
between 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. Ms. Humphris said it is easier to catch people going home from work.
Mr. Perkins said it is not really a public hearing, but an informational meeting.)
__________
Item 5.13. Abstract of Votes cast in the County of Albemarle, Virginia, at the November 7, 2000,
General Election, was received for information and is set out in full detail in this minute book.
__________
Item 5.14. Second Quarter Report for JAUNT services in Albemarle County for FY 2001, was
received for information.
(Ms. Humphris said she was confused by the format of this report. Mr. Tucker said he believes the
chart is set up to compare the actual number of trips in the first quarter of 2000, against the estimated
number of trips for the first quarter of 2001; it is not clear.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Transportation Matters.
Mr. Jim Bryan, Resident Engineer, was present. He said there was a meeting yesterday with
planners for the Free State Road connector. He said it was a productive meeting. Mr. Bowerman asked if
the Board will get a report on Free State Road today. Mr. Bryan said no. He said the comments from the
A@
public hearing were analyzed and will be part of the report when it is given.
__________
Mr. Bryan said that tomorrow they will look at Catterton Road so it can be added to the Six-Year
Secondary Road Plan.
__________
Mr. Perkins said he and Mr. Bowerman attended the meeting at Earlysville for discussion of Route
743 and what can be done to make it safer. One suggestion was made to erect a sign saying the road is
not recommended for trucks from the Rock Store to Route 606 at the Airport. He said Mr. Juan Wade has
a whole list of suggestions. Mr. Tucker said that list will be mailed to the Board members.
Mr. Bowerman said there were a lot of good suggestions given. It was suggested that a sign
denoting the Earlysville Business Park be erected at Route 743 so trucks do not get onto Route 660 by
mistake. Another suggestion was to have a left-turn lane into the Ivy Creek Natural Area.
March 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
__________
Ms. Humphris said there was an article in the newspaper on Sunday about VDOT finishing the
Route 29 Corridor Study. Mr. Joe Springer was quoted as saying From midway in the study on we heard
A
what folks were saying, and our goal in Nelson and Albemarle was to keep the road looking as much like it
does today as possible. People dont consider 29 in that area to be a problem road, and if we can keep it
=
that way, I think we have solved a lot of issues. She said that would lead one to believe that 29 in
@
Albemarle County was going to stay much as it is now. To the contrary, what is planned is to remove the
233 access points on 29 in Albemarle and change that to only seven and have a parallel road. She said
that is a huge change, and the people here have recognized that fact. Mr. Springer went on to say Limiting
A
access in this way would leave many home and business owners stranded and require VDOT to improve
the nearby secondary roads.
@
Ms. Humphris said they are not talking about improving the nearby Secondary Roads. It would be a
whole new road system, changing Route 29 from having every driveway and business access it, to having
them off of it, and some people would have to travel long distances to get onto Route 29. She does not
know why Mr. Springer said keep the road looking much like it does today as possible. That is ridiculous.
A@
Mr. Bryan said he hopes it was said as a result of the public hearing and the comments received.
Ms. Humphris said Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Cilimberg are Albemarles representatives
=
on that study committee. Before the last information meeting was held, the road was to be left as
unchanged as possible. That had everybody soothed and confident, but somewhere along the line that
changed into a limited access highway for trucks. She said the Countys representatives were not even
=
informed of one of the recent Steering Committee meeting and that brings up her question. Since Route 29
was changed from being a parkway-like road to being this extremely limited access road, and there is
supposed to be only one final meeting for the Steering Committee, when will the group meet to approve it?
How can the Board make sure its representatives are notified in time to attend the meeting? Mr. Bryan said
he will try to find that information.
Ms. Thomas said VDOT has a web site and it contains pages dealing with the Route 29 corridor. It
speaks about turning it into Interstate 83. It is hard to put the information on that web page together with
statements about how Albemarle wants to keep it the same as it is and recognize the places where it is a
rural road. The level of trust is not high when the official web page of VDOT talks frankly about turning
Route 29 into an interstate, portions of it will be a spur in North Carolina, and then it would be Interstate 83
up the corridor to states north. That is what the Board is concerned about. The interstate highway system
was developed when there was money to build completely separate roads. Now, the policy is to use
existing roads and upgrade them to interstate highways. That is painful for the people who live on the road
which has been selected to be an interstate.
Ms. Humphris said she found the web site to be very confusing. She is not sure that it is VDOTs
=
official plan being shown on this web site. If you look carefully at the web site, you will see that it belongs to
a man named Robert Johnson who lives in Lynchburg. This man has written letters to the editor in the Daily
Progress promoting the bypass in Charlottesville for the benefit of Lynchburg, and saying that all who
oppose the bypass are ridiculous people. She suggested that VDOT look at the web site because it
purports to be the VDOT official map and has the official I-83 on it. She said it might be VDOTs plan in
=
Richmond that this man has ferreted out, but she does not think it is an official VDOT site. (Note: Mr.
Martin arrived at the meeting at 9:24 a.m.)
___________
Ms. Humphris said she saw the advertisement placed in the newspaper about the MPOs request
=
for applicants for the Regional Transportation Long-Range Planning Advisory Committee needed for the
bicycle, pedestrian, public transit and environmental issues. She does not think Albemarle has advertised
for any applicants for this committee. Ms. Carey said the advertisement will be in next Sundays paper. The
=
cut-off date for applications is March 28.
_______________
Because the person making the presentation under Agenda Item No. 6a had not arrived at the
meeting, the Board went ahead to discuss other items.
Agenda Item No. 10. Calendar Year 2000 - Return of Unbudgeted Tax Revenue.
Mr. Tucker said that on April 19, 2000, the Board directed that the $1.2 million of unbudgeted
revenue be reserved in a separate account until it decided how to address returning the money to the
taxpayers. The Board directed staff to investigate the best way to return the unbudgeted revenue and to
assure that it would be done as soon as possible while minimizing administrative costs. After consultation
with Board members it has been determined that the most effective and expeditious method to address the
Board's desire to return the unbudgeted revenue generated from the first half tax collection in calendar year
2000 is to lower the tax rate in the first half of calendar year 2001 to the original $0.72 rate that the FY 2000
=
budget was based upon.
There are several identifiable advantages to this method:
1) It clearly adjusts first half taxes in 2001 by lowering the tax rate by four cents to offset the
four-cent tax increase collected in the first half of 2000 effectively returning the unbudgeted revenue
collected in June, 2000 by reducing taxes collected in June of 2001;
March 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
2) It separates the 2000 surplus issues from the FY 2002 budget issues so that the FY 2002 tax
==
rate is set based on the County's financial needs in FY 2002;
=
3) It provides additional relief to taxpayers by applying the first half of the year four-cent reduction
to property values based on the 2001 reassessment;
4) There are no significant administrative costs required to implement this method; and
5) It can be implemented quickly by lowering the June, 2001 tax bills.
The only identifiable negative impacts of this method are:
1) It will make the administration of the tax collection process in calendar year 2001 more
complicated; and
2) The FY 2001 revenue reduction will exceed the $1.2 million of unbudgeted revenue
=
now held in a reserve account. It is estimated that the reduction of the tax rate by four cents for the
first half of calendar year 2001 will lower taxes collected by approximately $1.4 million because the
reduction will be based on the 2001 assessed property values which are generally greater than the
2000 assessed property values and would include manufactured homes and public service
properties. The additional $0.2 million will reduce the anticipated FY 2001 Fund Balance that
=
typically is used for necessary end-of-year one-time expenditures or for Debt Service Reserve
purposes.
Mr. Tucker said staff recommends that the Board consider directing staff to take all necessary
steps to implement a split tax rate in calendar year 2001; that the tax rate for the first six months be set at
$0.72 to effectively return the unbudgeted tax revenue from the June, 2000 tax collection.
Ms. Thomas said she appreciates the work staff has done to help the Board work its way through
this. Because there is no precedent, it has not been easy to find the right way to do it. Since her initial
embarrassment, this is what she has wanted to do.
Mr. Bowerman said it is simple and easy to understand. It also allows this issue to be separated
from the upcoming budget discussions.
Mr. Martin said it can also be done quicker.
Ms. Humphris said it is important for people to understand why the Board could not do this before
this time. The fact that the tax books were closed did not allow the Board to do this before. Mr. Tucker said
the Board could not do it last year because the tax rates had already been set. Today, the Board should
direct staff to start the process because there are some administrative and software changes which must be
made so that when someone receives a tax bill they will see how much they are credited based on this
return of revenue.
Ms. Thomas said she has received many telephone calls from people saying the Board should not
return the money. She asked if there is anyway to have someone pay the full amount of their tax bill and
not take advantage of the credit. Mr. Tucker said he will speak with Mr. Breeden about this idea. There
would need to be a change in the software program. Mr. Davis said a few years ago there was an insert
included with the bill which allowed people to make contributions to the County or School Board. It did not
generate many contributions, so it was discontinued. This may be the opportunity to do something like that
again.
Mr. Dorrier asked if staff found any other localities that had a split tax rate for other reasons. Mr.
Tucker said he knew of no others. The provisions are in the Code. Mr. Bowerman said most people
probably have their mortgage company paying their tax, so that would be a real nightmare as a practical
issue. He asked if the staff needs formal action on this item. Mr. Tucker said yes.
A@
Regarding the unbudgeted tax revenue collected in June of 2000, Ms. Humphris offered motion to
direct staff to proceed with developing this alternative in order to set the tax rate for the first six months of
Calendar Year 2001 at $0.72/$100. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman.
Mr. Martin said that although this was a heated and controversial issue in the beginning, he thinks it
is important to thank the Legislators for giving the Board an option it did not have before. He said the
reason the Board is not taking advantage of that legislation is that this option gets the money back to the
taxpayers much quicker and is more cost-effective to the County.
Roll was called at this time, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. FY 2002 Budget Overview.
Mr. Tucker said this year's proposed budget totals $171,800,430 which includes the General Fund,
School Fund and the Schools Self-Sustaining funds. This is a 6.2 percent increase over the FY 2000-01
=
March 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
budget. Also, the Capital Improvement Program which spans FY 2002 to FY 2006 totals approximately
$113.0 million. He said the budget is balanced using the current Personal Property tax rate of $4.28/$100.
The Real Property tax rate for calendar (tax) year 2001 is proposed at $0.75/$100 of assessed value. The
$713,020 resulting from a proposed $0.01 decrease over the 2000 rate is being held in reserve for the
Boards determination. One use of that one cent would be for the opening of the new Baker-Butler
=
Elementary School in the fall of 2002.
Mr. Tucker said basic services are maintained in the proposed budget. Current fiscal planning
policies are maintained. Education and public safety continue to be the top priorities for the provision of
services. Fiscal stability is maintained through an appropriately-funded General Fund Balance.
Mr. Tucker said total revenues for FY 02 increase by $10.1 million, a 6.2 percent increase over the
>
current year, reflecting a significant increase in real property tax due primarily to the biennial assessment
which averaged 12 percent over the two years. State and Federal revenues increased by $6.8 million. The
Board needs to be aware that the increase in these revenues is due mainly to reclassification of personal
property revenue from local to state. He said that personal property taxes actually increased only a couple
of percentage points.
Mr. Tucker said School Division revenues increased by $0.227 million (0.7%) from State and
Federal sources, and by $3.9 million (7.0%) from the General Fund. In addition to that, he is recommend-
ing that $650,000 in one-time, non-recurring revenues be used for additional school buses, for additional
classrooms, and textbooks.
Mr. Tucker said the Revenue Sharing Agreement with the City of Charlottesville provided the City
with an additional $0.390 million for a total payment of $6.5 million. Debt Service is funded for school
construction, renovation, and major maintenance projects at $8.5 million. Community agencies are
proposed to receive an average funding increase of three percent.
Mr. Tucker said the consulting firm of Palmer & Cay was hired to update the Countys Compensa-
=
tion and Benefits package. There was a committee composed of Supervisor members, School Board
members, staff and citizens which recommended that salaries be funded at 100 percent of market with
benefits being funded at 105 percent of market. As part of that salary adjustment, they recommended that
the salary scale, because of market conditions, be moved about 4.5 percent. In addition, some staff
members, based on years of service, will be moved somewhat, and there will be a 3.9 percent pay-for-
performance pool. That is the consultants recommendation based on the World-At-Work for the mid-
=A@
Atlantic and Southeastern Region of the United States. They had a range of 3.3 percent to 4.6 percent for
all these areas. Mr. Tucker said he took the average of that which is 3.9 percent. He said the
Schools had proposed 4.2 percent. He said some localities in the Countys group were contacted and they
=
are in the range of 3.5 to 4.0 percent.
Mr. Tucker said it is hoped that more information about the State budget will be received today. He
said staff is concerned because certain things have not been funded for the schools, state-supported local
employees and constitutional officers. Staff also thinks 599 Funds may also be affected, as well as the
Comprehensive Services Act, Foster Care, and per diem funding for regional jails. Ms. Humphris had
mentioned to him that the Governor may be looking at using some VDOT funds. He said requesting State
agencies to reduce their budgets by 15 percent creates a trickle-down effect and will create an effect on
A@
local services.
Mr. Tucker said the Board members were furnished with a copy of the press packet, but the
A@
Board will receive the entire budget later today. He offered to answer questions.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the fact that the State has not set its budget seriously affects Albemarle
Countys planning. Mr. Tucker said the County is in an awkward position. He does not remember this
=
happening since he has been with Albemarle County and it can have an affect. He thinks the real impact
will occur in the next year. He has been trying to determine where the revenues are coming from to make
up the gap. (Note: Mr. Bowerman left the room at 9:50 a.m.) He said some of the community agencies
may come to the Board and ask the County to help make up the difference in their funding from the State.
That is a slippery slope. Once that type of thing is started, how is it stopped?
A
Ms. Thomas said if the latest pile of money the Governor found was in construction for colleges
and universities, then that also affects the local economy. She asked if there will be three or more work
sessions on the budget. Mr. Tucker said that is true. He thanked Ms. White and the staff on the fourth
floor, who stepped up to the plate and did an excellent job in formulating this budget with fewer people
A@
than normal to do the work.
Mr. Dorrier complimented staff on the format. Mr. Tucker said it has been changed, and he hopes
it is an improvement. (Note: Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting at 9:54 a.m.)
_______________
(At this time, the Board returned to the agenda items as scheduled.)
Agenda Item No. 6a. Transportation Matters: Route 250 East Corridor Study, Presentation by
VDOT.
Mr. Wayne Woodcock, VDOT, said he was present this morning to present the Route 250 East
March 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Corridor Study. He said this is a planning study of the Route 250 corridor beginning at the East Corporate
Limits of Charlottesville (Free Bridge) and ending at the Route 795 intersection approximately 0.3 mile east
of Route 15 at Zion Crossroads. He said all the various modes of traffic were studied and there was a lot of
public involvement in the process. There was an Advisory Committee which met at regular intervals to
discuss findings of the study and assist in developing potential transportation solutions. Because of the
traffic volumes in the corridor, they also looked at land use. The Pantops area has been growing. It has a
lot of multi-use development with commercial activity. There is also commercial activity at Zion Crossroads.
There is the new Fluvanna Womens Correctional Center, increased residential development, and
=
increased travel between the northern and southern parts of the county.
Mr. Woodcock said there is a lot of new development on Pantops, at Glenmore, and at Lake
Monticello, although there is less development in Fluvanna and Louisa counties due to a lack of water and
sewer facilities. They studied accident data, there being 281 accidents in the corridor between 1995 and
1997. The predominant factor in these accidents was driver inattention. They did a preliminary environ-
mental overview for the corridor. He said existing traffic is at 43,000 in the Pantops area, and 3300 in the
Fluvanna County area. It is eight to ten percent peak hour traffic, and five percent trucks. They used the
CATS model to develop future projections. Based on that, they project 86,000 in the Pantops area, and a
low of 4400 in Louisa in the future. From a geometric standpoint, the roadway can be two pieces from the
East Corporate Limits to I-64 where four lanes with good geometrics, horizontal and vertical sight distances
are acceptable. The rest of the corridor out to Route 15 is two-lanes with a fairly good horizontal sight
distance, but some of the vertical sight distance needs improvement.
Mr. Woodcock said they looked at a lot of the multi-modal possibilities in the corridor. One of those
is express bus service all the way through the corridor, then using Route 15 to I-64 to return to
Charlottesville. That would be an express service possibly utilizing JAUNT. This is an initial short-range
recommendation. There is a Park & Ride lot proposed at the I-64 interchange, and another lot at Black Cat
Road (Route 616). For the short-term, they recommended that the fixed-transit route be extended to I-64,
and that the sidewalks from the East Corporate Limits to past State Farm Boulevard be improved.
Mr. Woodcock said for the long-term, they recommend extending the fixed-bus route further,
perhaps using larger buses, depending on how successful the bus route became. The fixed-route would be
extended to Route 22. With both of these, there would be a Park & Ride lot. Pedestrian and bicycle
accommodations would be provided throughout the corridor where possible. In particular, pedestrian
access should be provided up to I-64 or the interchange, and then possibly a multi-use trail from I-64 to
Route 22. There are also two pedestrian overpasses, one near Route 20, and another at State Farm
Boulevard. The Committee felt that pedestrians would need some way to get across Route 250, thus
eliminating the difficulties experienced on Route 29 to date. These are part of the recommendations for all
of the modes, and were put into the proposed system.
Mr. Woodcock said short-range needs from the highway perspective were studied. There are
many improvements already in the process, which are planned for the highway. One recommendation is
for a signal at State Farm Boulevard. That should be accomplished through development. The signal at
the Montessori School is already in place. There was an intersection improvement at Edgehill to provide a
left-turn lane. There is an improvement at Route 22 in conjunction with Luck Stone which has not been
finalized. Another recommendation was that a signal be installed at Route 616 and that has been done, but
there are further intersection improvements needed at that location. The other improvement is to complete
the four-laning of Route 15 from Route 250 to the four-lane piece coming off of the interstate, and to also
improve the intersection at Route 250.
Mr. Woodcock said that Route 250 from the East Corporate Limits to I-64 is recommended to be six
lanes with continuous right-turn lanes, which would have a total of six traffic signals. A single point
interchange is also recommended because of right-of-way restrictions. They know something will have to
be done with the interchange in the future, so they looked at putting in a single-point urban interchange.
From I-64 to Route 22, Route 250 would be six lanes, and from that point to just past Route 15, it would be
a rural four-lane road. He said there is less of a need for the road in Fluvanna County. The improvement
would not be needed until sometime beyond the year 2022. The Committee did think the recommendation
should be retained for planning purposes. He said the long-range improvements are estimated to cost
$112.0 million.
Mr. Martin asked if VDOT is budgeting for mass transportation. Mr. Woodcock said none of what
he is discussing has been budgeted. This is just the very beginning stages of the process. They are only
showing that there is a need.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there will be a traffic light at Shadwell. Mr. Woodcock said it is possible. There
has been concern expressed about that intersection.
Ms. Thomas asked the reason for having bus transportation going in a circle in only one direction.
Mr. Woodcock said the bus could go in both directions depending on transit needs. It was just showing that
I-64 would be used as an expressway.
Ms. Thomas asked in what ways this plan utilizes I-64 other than for return bus trips. She asked
how it will be made easier to utilize I-64 rather than Route 250. Mr. Woodcock said most of the traffic in this
corridor is traffic that has to utilize the corridor since it is being generated in that corridor.
Mr. Perkins asked if this study looked at traffic on Route 53. He said there is traffic backed up on
Route 250 and on Route 53 each morning. He asked if there had been any discussion of improving the
March 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
connecting road between these two routes. Mr. Woodcock said there has been some interest in that, but
this Committee did not discuss such an improvement. That will become more needed as the Village of
Rivanna develops. Most of the focus was in the Route 250 corridor itself.
Ms. Thomas asked how much of the Zion Crossroads traffic was assumed to use I-64 and how
much use Route 250. Mr. Woodcock said traffic was based on the assumptions in the CATS Plan.
Mr. Tucker asked if the consultants had used the population projections of each locality. He
noticed that the Albemarle and Louisa projections were for the year 2010, while Fluvanna had projections
for the year 2025. Mr. Woodcock said these were the latest population projections at the time of the study.
The transportation model they used was for the year 2015 for the entire region. Mr. Tucker said he knows
of people who live in Lake Monticello who use Route 53 to come into town. It is a difficult road all the way to
Route 20 South. The connector between Route 53 and Route 250 (Route 729) may be something to look
at. Mr. Perkins said there are log trucks on Route 53 which is a difficult road when it gets to Monticello
Mountain. Mr. Woodcock said there are no shoulders on Route 53 and that might be something for them to
study.
Mr. Perkins asked if there was a survey taken of cars traveling to Charlottesville to determine
destination points. Mr. Woodcock said there were origin/destination studies done when the model was
developed. That is reflected in the projections in the model.
Mr. Martin said a good amount of traffic takes Route 20 north to Proffit in order to get to the
General Electric facility on Route 29 North. A lot of people from Fluvanna work there.
Mr. Woodcock said they have tried to lay out what will be needed in the future with the hope that it
will assist the County in its planning for the corridor. In the next couple of months, they will put out a final
report. They ask that the Board consider putting the plan into the Countys Comprehensive Plan.
=
Mr. Dorrier asked if the consultants expect that there would be great use of public transportation in
the outlying areas. Mr. Woodcock said they are hopeful it will happen.
Mr. Perkins asked if this proposal has been presented to Fluvanna and Louisa counties. Mr.
Woodcock said it has been presented to Fluvanna County and will be presented to all parties in the next
couple of months.
Mr. Martin said he thinks there will be pressure to four-lane Route 53.
Ms. Thomas said the MPO, through a TEA-21 grant, is working on the Eastern Planning Initiative
(EPI). It is therefore important for Albemarle to consider what that proposal will do, but makes it harder for
them to feel this is the final word on Route 250 East since this other study is looking at land use as well as
transportation and the interaction between the two. This proposal is very good in that it shows one
alternative.
Ms. Humphris wondered how this proposal fits in with the EPI. Mr. Woodcock had mentioned that
when this study is finalized, they will ask that it be incorporated into Albemarles Comprehensive Plan.
=
Somewhere along the line the County will have to figure out how the results of the EPI study fit together with
this proposal. She thinks the County will be in a difficult situation.
Mr. Woodcock said until the 2025 update is done on the chart in the proposal, there will be no
answers to some of those questions. However, the longer it takes to address some of these issues, the
more development occurs and the worse the problems become. There is the attempt to at least preserve
the corridors. Then if the recommendations need to be done, the land is available for that purpose. Not
everything recommended will actually take place. If land use in the future is less than what was considered
in the study, then roadway needs would be less.
Mr. Dorrier asked if it is expected that there will be a large increase in the use of Routes 22/231 to
Orange from the Charlottesville area. Mr. Woodcock said that has not been mentioned in any of the studies
which have taken place thus far. That could show up in the 2025 update of the CATS.
Ms. Thomas thanked Mr. Woodcock for the report.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. School Board Presentation.
Mr. Steve Koleszar was present to make the monthly report. He said the School Board has
approved the application for Murray High School to become a charter school. According to State law, the
County is allowed to have two charter schools, so there is one slot left. There are no applications pending.
CATEC has been looking at it, but they have other complications because of their being a technical
education school.
The School Board has approved the schematic design for the Burley Middle School renovations.
Using the school while the renovations are in progress makes this a tricky project. They moved back the
A@
completion time line about six months, and it has been carefully phased so there should be minimum
disruption. This summer, they will build the new bus loops, and the new parking lots. Next year, they will
build the new classrooms, then move the students into the new classrooms, and renovate the older portions
March 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
of the building. He has been assured that this is workable. In the current bidding climate, no one knows
what kind of bids will be received, however, there are some signs that there is a lessening of inflation in
industrial construction, but it is too early to know.
The last couple of years the School Board has been working to develop a Youth Risk Behavior
Survey. There are now comparisons to the national average, but the way the survey was designed, it only
goes through the 10th grade instead of the 12th. It is tied into the Countys health curriculum. The survey
=
will be redesigned in the future to cover grades 6 - 12, and they will look at adding some human sexuality
questions. One of the ideas of having the survey is not only to meet reporting requirements, but use it to
evaluate and assess instruction. Hopefully, they will be able to tell through the survey whether the School
System is having an impact on many of the children.
Mr. Martin said he overheard two of his children and they were laughing at how they, and their
fellow students, had answered none of the questions on the survey correctly. He hopes they are in the
minority, but doubts it.
Mr. Koleszar said there are some experts in the community who are volunteering their time. Some
of the questions are intentionally asked two or three times in different ways to try and flag people who are
making up answers. They dont know if that will be successful.
=
Mr. Koleszar said that again this year they have to be very aggressive in recruiting for teachers.
The Baker-Butler Redistricting Committee has been meeting since December. There will be a
public input session on Tuesday, March 13. The School Board hopes to have a final redistricting plan by
the end of May.
The School Board has scheduled a joint meeting with the Planning Commission for March 20.
They will discuss how school construction should interface with some of the ideas of DISC.
Mr. Koleszar said the School Board has sent its budget to the County Executive so it will be before
this Board soon. He offered to answer questions.
Mr. Martin said he thinks the Redistricting Committee has been doing a very good job. To date, he
has not received an E-mail or a telephone call from a single parent.
Mr. Koleszar said the School Board has a Long-Range Planning Committee with four-year
appointments. They have become the nucleus, the leader of redistricting. There is a person on the
committee who served on the big redistricting plan committee, and one who served on the Cale Committee.
That kind of continuity is helping the committee stay focused. The School Board consciously decided to
not redistrict more than one level at a time. They are doing elementary schools now. There may need to
be some tweaking as new classroom spaces become available at Jouett and Burley. They want to
maintain the consistency in feeder patterns.
Mr. Dorrier mentioned a school shooting in California yesterday. He said he had talked with his
daughter about the needs for young people. She mentioned that there is no area where young people can
congregate, and she mentioned that it would be good to have a teen club. He wonders if the School Board
has ever looked into the idea. Mr. Koleszar said the School Board has not looked at this idea. They would
be happy to have school facilities used by these students.
Mr. Humphris said the Board supported a teen center for a couple of years through Parks &
Recreation. It was available to both City and County students, but it failed. Ms. Thomas said it was a
transportation issue. Mr. Martin said it was led by the juveniles themselves.
Mr. Koleszar said he thinks those types of activities are best set up in communities. A center might
work in Scottsville, but county-wide there are a lot of transportation problems.
Ms. Thomas said she had received a nice report on the Virginia High School League Theatre
Festival. Albemarle High School was one of only about eight in the State who worked their way up to that
level. Mr. Koleszar said the performing arts programs in the County are very good. Ms. Thomas said she
has been somewhat involved with the music students at Monticello High School who are taking a trip to Italy
in April. It is quite an undertaking.
Mr. Koleszar said the School Board is very proud of the School System. He said they have very
ambitious goals, one is to have all of the schools accredited, eliminating gaps between the minority and the
majority, free/reduced and regular lunches, and they want to improve and increase the number of
advanced opportunities for the best students. He said it will not be easy to get the kind of education system
the School Board wants, but they do have the goals to accomplish it.
Ms. Humphris said she would like to make a comment related to Mr. Dorriers earlier remarks that
=
teens have no place to meet and nothing to do. She said this is what one can expect teens to say. There
are lots of things to do in this community. She said young people have to be creative, look around and take
advantage of everything.
Mr. Martin said the flip side is that he thinks the Board has to always have an open mind about what
government can do to help. The skateboard park would never have happened without government and
private citizens working together. That park has been in place for a little over a year and it is very well
March 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
attended. He does not see that its usage will decline anytime soon. It seems the Board did something right
in that situation.
Mr. Koleszar said the School Board has implemented a county-wide student council. There will be
an on-going method for students to bring concerns directly to the Board. He thinks more input is needed
directly from the students who may have a better understanding of their education needs.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Principles, Criteria and Guidelines for Ecologically Valuable Areas:
Identification and Selection, Presentation by Citizens for Albemarle.
Mr. Tom Olivier, President of Citizens for Albemarle, was present. He presented to the Board
members a copy of their new publication entitled Principles, Criteria and Guidelines for Ecologically
A
Valuable Areas: Identification and Selection. He then introduced Mr. Mike Erwin, Chair of their Bio-
@
diversity Committee. Mr. Erwin is a conservation biologist by profession. He is employed by the U.S.G.S.
Survey and is attached to the environmental science faculty at the University of Virginia. Also present is Mr.
John Hermsmeier who is also a member of the committee.
Mr. Erwin thanked the Board for allowing him to make this presentation. He also thanked the
Board for voting for and approving a bio-diversity committee. He thinks Albemarle may become a model
for the state in the future. He mentioned a recent article in the Washington Post which talked about the
A@
programmed open space program in Maryland which depends on a dedicated $240.0 million per year in
real estate transfer taxes to preserve and protect open spaces. Over the past 31 years, Maryland has
protected about one-quarter million acres of land. In Virginia, only $6.2 million was spent last year for the
same notion of protecting open space. That $6.2 million is being deleted from the Governors next budget.
=
That sends the message that not much can be expected from the State in either acquiring or protecting
green, or open space. The burden for doing that is on the county level. With the kind of growth being
experienced in Albemarle and the neighboring counties, there is not the financial or planning resources to
put in place an effective program. This area will end up looking like central New Jersey or central Florida,
parts of Long Island, New York, or eastern Maryland.
Mr. Erwin said this is the second publication put out by Citizens for Albemarle. The first was in 1996
and was titled Protecting Our Biological Heritage. It was basically a citizens guide for how to protect
A@=
green spaces. It was intended to introduce the notion of bio-diversity, why it is important to protect, and what
people can do to be more effective. He said this new publication gives a more sophisticated approach. It is
hoped that this will set up some guidelines for the planning committee which will take a long-term
comprehensive land use approach so that natural resources and historic preservation can be preserved in
the County. The document contains some ambitious language. There is the notion of setting aside 20 to
30 percent open space which can be a combination of well-managed forests, farm lands, parks, etc. They
hope this represents an approach the planners can use to set up criteria that are defendable and
quantifiable.
Mr. Erwin said CFA promises a third document which will be Step 2, which is the trickier part of
implementation and management of such areas once they are established. He offered to answer any
questions.
Ms. Humphris said she would like to say how valuable the work is that citizen groups do for the
County. These are things the County does not have the people power to do. She said this could be a
valuable planning tool, and she hopes the Planning staff will use it.
Mr. Erwin said Mr. Olivier has been very effective in this work by sitting down with planning staff and
getting this started. They hope that relationship continues.
Mr. Martin said Mr. Erwin thanked the Board for initiating the committee, but it actually was Mr.
Olivier who pushed the idea hard.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there is any formal way that there can be input from the committee in the
Countys planning process. Mr. Erwin said there are a number of ways they could interact both informally
=
and formally. Once the committee is established at the County level, one or more of the citizen groups
could be part of such a committee and have active involvement in that manner. Also, there could be a
series of task forces set up with, or without, people from the planning committee being a part. The
important part is to keep the lines of communication open to be sure the recommendations they provide fit
with County regulations.
Mr. Olivier said the most immediate opportunity will be the update of the Rural Areas section of the
Comprehensive Plan. He spoke with a member of planning staff last week and was told that work sessions
will begin soon. They also made a request to this Board asking that they be given an opportunity to present
some of their ideas on how the different open space resources interrelate both positive and negative in
terms of their needs.
Mr. Perkins said there are a couple of statements in the report he would like to highlight. One says
The forest under story, especially on sloped land, is primarily dominated by mountain laurel. This is
A@
saying that over 50 percent of the mountain slopes are in mountain laurel. He said that is not true.
Mountain laurel indicates poor site. On the other hand, Albemarle County has some of the best yellow
popular sites on the east coast. (Note: Mr. Bowerman left the room at 10:57 a.m.) He thinks that is a
misstatement. He said that to a forester mountain laurel is kind of a scrub, so he would argue with that
March 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
statement. In another statement, it talks about breeding grounds for threatened or commercial species.
A@
He asked the definition of commercial species. Mr. Erwin said commercial may not be the best term, it
could be game species. Mr. Perkins said he thinks of commercial species as being chickens, cows, etc.
He said there is a correlation between deer and things they eat. Some plants have been lost because of
the deer population. The report makes reference on Page 10 to old field habitats, one of the rarest in the
A
U.S. He asked how an old field habitat can be created when there is first a need for a field. Mr. Olivier
@
said that is an interesting point. He said that quail were relatively rare prior to the clearing of a lot of forest
land. It probably reached a peak at an earlier point in the history of this County when there was rougher
farming on land surfaces. Part of the difficulty facing everybody right now is the question of what state the
rural areas should be in. There is a whole spectrum which ranges from commercial forest areas to farms
or private properties which also contain habitat for flora and fauna, and some areas which might be nature
preserves. The quail is one of the ticklish ones because it is a game species and its number has declined.
Mr. Perkins said there is a mention of clear cutting saying it will cause all of the soil to wash off. He
disagrees with that statement. There are times when a stand of timber needs to be clear cut, and that is the
way to establish the old field conditions.
Mr. Olivier said one of the things the booklet is intended to do is to help identify biological data
independent of people in terms of eco-systems, etc. Then they try to bring in social, economic and other
factors into some sort of orderly process. They recognized that there are a whole series of biological insults
from an economic interest. All of this has to be woven together in some kind of rational and sound way. He
thinks a good process is set out in the booklet, and is something the County needs to bring into its thinking
about open spaces.
Ms. Thomas thanked Mr. Olivier for the book and all the work that went into it.
(Note: The Board recessed at 11:02 a.m., and reconvened at 11:19 a.m. with Mr. Bowerman
returning to the meeting at this time.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Presentation of Easement Maps - Conservation Work in Albemarle County,
Babette Thorpe, Piedmont Environmental Council. (Removed from the agenda)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Court Facilities Presentation (Charlottesville-Albemarle Courts Study, Phase
I, Program Development and Conceptual Design).
Ms. Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive, was present. She said this study began in 1997.
The Courts Study Steering Committee began by looking for space in Court Square driven by the needs of
the Juvenile Court. They did study what will be needed for all court facilities for the next 20 years.
Recommendations were presented to the community in 1999, and they were not well-received at the public
meeting. The Committees membership was then expanded to get a broader perspective from the
=
community. The Committee has held three public forums since 1999. She said that not a great number of
County residents have attended the forums and that has been a disadvantage.
Ms. White said there are four different site scenarios to show the Board today. They are not final
designs, or recommended for funding. She said Mr. Jay Moore from the firm of Moseley Harris &
McClintock will explain the different scenarios. She said there have been a lot of compromises by the
Committee because there is not one single scenario that represents the best solution. All of the
advantages and disadvantages are laid out in the report. They ask that the Board look at the different
scenarios today, ask questions of Mr. Moore, and then recommend that this question go back to a joint staff
committee with representatives from both City Council and the Board of Supervisors to come up with a final
recommendation. The citizens committee is at a point where it can do nothing further until some decisions
are made about cost-sharing, and phasing in of the project. Some of the scenarios lend themselves to
phasing. Phasing will have a tremendous impact on affordability of the project.
Mr. Moore said the purpose of the study involved several tasks. First was to gain an understanding
of the existing court facilities, what they had to offer, their shortcomings, and then to study case load trends
and determine what space requirements would be for the next 20 years. They evaluated potential sites for
the facilities, engaged in public dialogue and developed four viable building scenarios. He said the study
addresses both the Circuit, General District and Juvenile & Domestic Relations (J&DR) courts for both the
City and the County, along with support agencies (Court Services Unit which is juvenile probation, the two
commonwealth attorneys, and the two sheriffs.)
Mr. Moore said caseloads are projected to continue to grow as the population grows. There is the
accumulated caseload growth from the past, and there have been changes in the way courts do business,
particularly as pertains to security. He said the agencies involved in the study currently occupy about
46,000 net square feet, and there is currently a substantial shortage of space. The need in 1998 was
projected to be about 79,000 net square feet. That is projected to grow by the year 2018 by about 107,000
net square feet.
Mr. Moore said court facilities are more than just courtrooms. A significant amount of space is in
support facilities. From a functional standpoint, there are a number of issues which have to be considered.
Clerks need to be in close proximity to the courtrooms in order to operate efficiently. There are holding
cells and other related offices. There are issues of sharing courtrooms for the most efficient use of the
space that is provided. There are issues of securing the buildings and how the way facilities are designs
affects the size of the staff necessary to secure the facilities.
March 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
Mr. Moore said safety and security is a huge component in the design of these facilities. There is
always the potential for violent incidents. There have been threats made against court staff in this locality.
It dictates design considerations such as separate paths of travel within the building for staff, for the public
and for detainees and prisoners. Opposing parties in litigation who may get upset with each other, need to
be separated and a single point of public entry established. This is all needed to protect the hundreds of
people who use the facilities every day, and not just the judges and support staff.
Mr. Moore said there is a large parking component with this study as well. All of these things had to
be factored into the consideration of how these facilities should be provided. In order to do that the
Committee first established what they call guiding principles. These are very general guidelines about how
these scenarios should fulfill the needs identified for court facilities. It was agreed that the new courts
complex must meet the needs of the court system for the next 20 years from a functional standpoint, from a
security standpoint, from the public service standpoint, and it should be accessible and cost-effective.
Within that context several goals were identified. First, the new courts should be located in downtown
Charlottesville. The scale and character of the new court buildings are important and they should be
compatible with surrounding structures in the community. Neighborhood impact was a big concern so it
was agreed that every effort should be made to minimize the negative impact of these facilities on the
neighborhood. The courts should be close to one another. The existing Albemarle County Courthouse
should continue to be used for court purposes, at least for the circuit court because of its history and
significance in the community. Each site does not need to accommodate all the parking needs that were
identified for the project.
As a subset of the guiding principles, there were various issues that had to be considered. It was
concluded that there was no one solution. He said that more than 12 sites were evaluated. The two final
sites selected were: a site on High Street at its intersection with Fourth Street, and a site on Market Street
between Eighth and Ninth Streets. Both of these sites are currently in private hands. The scenarios he will
show today will focus on these two sites.
He said that in each scenario, the City and County Circuit Courts and their clerks would remain in
the current City and County Courthouses. The facilities would need to be renovated in the City Courthouse,
and in some scenarios, the County facilities would also need to be renovated to meet the 20-year needs.
There is the need to address secure parking for the judges, and secure transfer of detainees into the
buildings. In each scenario the City Sheriff would remain in the City Courthouse and the City
Commonwealth's Attorney would remain in City Hall. The variables are the other components: the J&DR
Court, the General District Court, and their clerks, the County Commonwealth's Attorney and the County
Sheriff. With the exception of the County Commonwealths Attorney, all of these offices would be located in
=
new facilities.
The first scenario is that of the location on High Street. All of the facilities would be located in a
single new consolidated building located at the High Street site. There would be a new parking garage next
to it, most of which would be located underground and contain about 180 spaces. He said that in each
scenario there is an expansion proposed to the City Courthouse, so that the 20-year needs of that facility
can be met. In some of the scenarios, there is a proposed addition to the newer wing of the County
Courthouse. There was no consideration of expanding the historic wing. The variable tends to be the rest
of the facilities, and in this first scenario it is the consolidated district courts building fronting on High Street
at its intersection with Fourth Street. This would eventually require the demolition of the existing J&DR
Court building, and would also require the demolition of the historic Jailors residence which is attached to
=
the Old Jail. The Jail itself would remain and the perimeter wall around the Jail. The underground parking
garage would be located behind the Jail and would displace the Community Attention Home to a site which
has not been selected. Some of the parking would be at-grade, but most would be underground. This
concept calls for a separate building for the Court Services Unit. The expansion of the existing County
Courthouse is necessary if the County Commonwealths Attorney is to stay in that facility for the long-term.
=
If the County Commonwealths Attorney moved out to a new facility, the expansion to the County
=
Courthouse would not be necessary.
Another scenario is called the High Street Courtyard Concept and it proposes housing the same
facilities that are in the new building just looked at, in a different configuration in multiple buildings that form
a courtyard around the historic Jail and the Jailors residence. This scenario was developed with the goal of
=
maintaining the historic buildings. It also uses the existing J&DR building. That would be renovated for
continued use by Juvenile Probation so the building would remain in use as court facility. The new building
would almost wrap around the existing Jail forming a courtyard between the Jail, the existing J&DR building,
and the new building. There would be a pedestrian crossing to connect this courtyard with Jackson Park.
The J&DR Courts would be located in the building closest to High Street. The General District courts would
be located in the wing of the building behind the Old Jail. There would also be a smaller building for the
use of the County Sheriff. A tunnel connection between the new building and the existing County
Courthouse would facilitate the secure transfer of prisoners from an intake point in the new facility, under
the street and into the building without adversely impacting the architectural character of the existing County
Courthouse. There would be a new parking deck, which is under consideration by the City, located on the
Market Street site.
Mr. Bowerman asked if under this scenario the Sheriffs Office is different. Mr. Moore said the
=
Sheriff would be located in a separate building on Fourth Street right across the street from the courts. In
this case, the same building expansion is proposed for the County Courthouse in order to keep the
Commonwealths Attorney in that building with the Circuit Court. He said this concept has some
=
advantages from the standpoint of aesthetics, site efficiency in that it utilizes one site for these facilities and
March 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
it offers some flexibility in phasing. The way it is put together with separate wings gives an opportunity to
allow the sequence in which the different pieces would be built. He said there are still concerns about
neighborhood impact. There would be limited parking on the site because most of the site is utilized for
buildings. More than one public entrance would be needed to the court facilities, so that breaks one of the
rules agreed to by doing that. In this case, the Community Attention Home could remain in its present
location. The proposed new parking deck on Market Street could provide an allocation of spaces for the
courts use. That is about four blocks away. In this scenario, expansion of the County Courthouse is
required, and there are some challenges involved in providing secure parking for that Courthouse and
transfer of prisoners to the building.
Mr. Moore said the next scenario is called the High Street/Market Street concept. It utilizes both
sites. The J&DR Court would be located in a new building on High Street. The existing J&DR building
would be renovated for use by the Court Services Unit. The General District Courts, County
Commonwealths Attorney and Sheriff would be located in a new building on the Market Street site. There
=
is a parking deck under consideration for that site which could provide spaces for the courts. In this case,
there would be the same addition to the City Courthouse, but it would not be necessary to expand the
County Courthouse because the Commonwealths Attorney would be moved out of the building. On the
=
back of the new J&DR building would be a one-story wing for secure parking, with a tunnel connection to
the County Courthouse. The Old Jail and Jailors residence could remain, as could the Community
=
Attention Home. The Market Street component would be to construct a new four-story General District
Courts Building at the intersection of Market and Ninth Streets adjacent to a potential parking deck of about
the same height located on the Eighth Street end of that site. The advantages of this proposal as to scale is
that there are separate buildings so they are smaller than a single complex would be. There are some
aesthetic advantages and it offers some phasing flexibility. There are questions of functional efficiency by
having separate buildings.
Mr. Moore said the last scenario is called the Market Street complex. It proposes having all of the
courts facilities on Market Street with the potential of allocating spaces in an adjacent garage for court use.
Both the County Circuit Court and Clerk, and the City Circuit Court and Clerk, and the City Sheriff would
remain at the High Street site. What has been identified as the High Street site would not be used for court
purposes. That means the existing J&DR Court building would be available for some other use. The Old
Jail and the Community Attention Home could remain. The Market Street component would be a four-story
building and all of the General District Courts would be located in that building, as well as the J&DR Court,
the County Commonwealths Attorney, the Court Services Unit, and the County Sheriff. That would be in an
=
L-shaped building which would address the Ninth Street intersection adjacent to a potential parking deck.
This scenario has some advantages from the standpoint of site efficiency. It has advantages from a
neighborhood impact standpoint in that it removes those facilities from the North Downtown neighborhoods,
and puts them closer to the business district. It also has some phasing advantages. It has been mentioned
that it could create a nice civic gateway to downtown by being located on that site. There are concerns
about having separate court locations. Secure parking and detainee transfer at the County Courthouse still
have to be addressed.
Mr. Moore said preliminary budget figures have been developed. These figures are an effort to
represent the total cost for implementing all of the year 2018 needs. The figures range from just under
$50.0 million to $56.0 million total cost. The Committees recommendation is that the Board and City
=
Council direct that a joint committee be formed with representatives of both bodies in order to develop a
consensus about which approach should be adopted. Once that is done, more detailed planning can
proceed.
Mr. Dorrier said the NGIC Building will be owned by the City soon. Was that building ruled out for
this purpose? Mr. Moore said it was discussed at great lengths. There are some functional challenges in
trying to adapt that building, particularly for courtroom use. It was ultimately ruled out because the
conditions placed on the acquisition of that building specified that it be used for economic development
purposes.
Ms. Thomas said the last scenario showed the unsolved issue of safe transfer of detainees, so that
was not included in the price of that scenario. Mr. Moore said that might add some cost to the Market Street
concept. It would not change the order of magnitude cost. It might change the cost by as much as $2.0+
million. The bottom line is that the cost of all scenarios is in the same order of magnitude from a cost
standpoint.
Ms. Thomas said at one of the meetings she attended, one of the judges suggested that the
present space could be used more efficiently. She asked if any of the scenarios considered renovations as
a way of using existing space more efficiently. Mr. Moore said that concern had to do with the City
Courthouse. They met with Judge Hogshire a couple of times and looked at the possibility of dividing the
existing courtroom into two courtrooms. There are a lot of problems in that building, not the least of which
is that the legal community feels it is one of the best courtrooms in the state and would hate to see it
chopped in half for some short-term gain.
Mr. Dorrier asked if it is felt that the Old Jail is so historic that it has to be saved. Mr. Moore said
there is a wide divergence of opinion on that question. Mr. Dorrier asked the opinion of the committee. Mr.
Moore said each of the four scenarios propose that it remain.
Mr. Bowerman asked if any consideration was given to what would happen beyond the 18-year
period. Mr. Moore said it is difficult to predict caseloads and space needs beyond 20 years. One of the
issues that should be considered is what potential longer-term expansion opportunities are available
March 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
through each given scenario.
Mr. Bowerman said it is inconceivable that less space will be needed at the end of the 18 years. He
feels additional space for future needs should be part of the discussion. He asked if any of these
alternatives were evaluated for that possibility. Mr. Moore said it was discussed briefly. There were so
many other issues which were difficult to wrestle with, that he cannot say it was given priority consideration
by the committee.
Mr. Dorrier said the existing Federal Courts Building is a four-story structure. He asked if the model
in these scenarios is comparable in size to that building. Mr. Moore said it is significantly larger from the
overall size of the facilities that are needed. There are also differences in the way the Federal Courts and
the other courts function.
Ms. Thomas asked if the four scenarios were broken down in terms of which is the most popular
from the standpoint of constituents. She said the Market Street site is probably most popular with the
neighbors on High Street. The Courtyard concept is probably most popular with historic preservationists.
Mr. Moore said there is a great deal of data available on that question. Mr. Bill Letteri said the copy of the
entire report gives the information collected by the Institute for Environmental Negotiation. He said it also
depends on who you are talking to.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks a lot of County voters will go back to the very first concept which was
that the courts should all remain together in the City. She asked to hear more about the first principle and
what guided that. Ms. White said when the committee first began its work with the community forums, most
people expressing an opinion (mostly people living in the City) wanted to have the courts remain in
Downtown Charlottesville. Also the legal community, those working with the courts, would like to have the
courts remain downtown. Trying to find a site that would be suitable was the first premise used by the
committee. In looking at the other sites, there was a consensus of committee members to keep the courts
within seven blocks from current court facilities. Also, the County people did not want to move the Circuit
Court. It was said that the County Courthouse is the pillar (center) of Court Square.
Mr. Moore said some functional issues came from that decision. For instance, the County Sheriff
has to secure all of the court facilities, and also does the combined City/County J&DR Court. To have all of
those facilities located in one place facilitates the ability of the Sheriff to secure the facilities. Mr. Martin said
it would be almost impossible to separate the City Juvenile Court from the County Juvenile Court because
they use the same set of clerks and the same Court Services Unit.
Mr. Dorrier mentioned the building proposed on High Street (three-story, 85,000 square feet). He
asked if it is foreseen that there may be a need in 20 years to increase the size of that building, and
additional stories added, or is that possible. Mr. Moore said he would not recommend that because it would
be very disruptive to the ongoing operation of the building for a year or more. Also, there is the question of
what is appropriate as to size and height and scale of a building in that neighborhood.
Mr. Dorrier said he believes that in 20 years there will be the same problem. Mr. Moore said the
way to deal with those kinds of issues would be to have a notion of how to take a combined juvenile and
general district court building and convert it entirely to a juvenile court or entirely to a general district court.
There would then be the same problem in trying to find a new site for the court that vacated that building.
Ms. White said she thinks most of the County members on the committee were in favor of the High
Street complex because it maintains most of the facilities closer to the circuit courts. Mr. Bowerman said if
the first two scenarios were combined with the other two scenarios 20 years from now, that would
seemingly be an escape value as long as there was parking. Mr. Moore agreed, and said it could be done
in the opposite fashion. Ms. White said when the Market Street concept was discussed, what would be
done with the current High Street site was not determined. It was discussed that if the space was not used
now, it could be used for expansion later. Ms. Humphris said the property would have to be bought now
because it wont be available in 20 years. Ms. White said the County owns part of that corner now.
=
Mr. Dorrier said if the infill concept is used, the High Street concept would be first, and then move to
the other sites. Mr. Martin said he agrees.
Mr. Bowerman said it appears to him that the committee explored the whole range of options. Ms.
White said she believes every site in Charlottesville within that seven-block range was looked at.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Frank Ix Building is outside of that seven-block range. Ms. White said they
went as far as Water Street where there were a couple of spots near potential parking garages.
Mr. Martin said he thinks that scenarios 1 and 2 with some modifications in terms of parking and
keeping the Court Services Unit within the building of the J&DR Court, look better in his opinion. Mr. Dorrier
agreed.
Ms. Thomas said she had favored the Market Street concept when she was participating in the
meetings. She said the question before the Board today is whether it recommends that the County
Executives Office form a smaller joint staff committee with representatives from both City Council and the
=
Board of Supervisors to assist the jurisdictions in reaching consensus around one of these concepts. That
is all the Board has to do today. She asked if any Board member wanted to suggest another way of
proceeding.
March 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
Mr. Martin moved that the Board proceed in that manner. Ms. Humphris seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
__________
Mr. Dorrier asked if funding will be split evenly. Ms. White said that will be discussed next. She
also thanked the members of the committee who were present: Ms. Ann Hemingway, Ms. Katie Hobbs, Mr.
Bill Mawyer, Mr. Bill Letteri and Mr. Jim Camblos.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Southside Fire/Rescue Station, Update on Design and Budget.
Mr. Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive, said the Board last discussed this subject in December,
2000 at which time it was given an update on the schedule and budget. Staff had been working with a
committee of volunteers to refine and finalize a design for the project. Additions to the design to meet
community and system-wide needs, the costs related to the construction market, and the time which had
elapsed since the budget was drafted in 1998, had increased the cost of the project, so staff committed
itself to reducing cost by $200,000. Also, a Board member asked if metal building construction had been
considered.
Mr. Foley said that since December, staff, the architects and volunteers from the southside had met
to try and reduce the cost of the facility. He introduced the following people: Mr. Charlie Anson who is
coordinating the whole process with volunteer recruitment, operational issues, as well as the design of the
facility; Mr. Kirk Train with Train & Spencer Architects; and members of the Countys Fire Division staff.
=
He said that based on the recommendations of this committee and through visits to other stations in
the State, a design has been agreed upon. The components which are recommended for inclusion are:
1)A community/training room which can be partitioned to provide two separate
meeting spaces;
2)Separate public restrooms associated with the meeting area to avoid conflict with
emergency response personnel;
3)Living quarters for males and females for both Fire and EMS response;
4)Restroom and shower facilities for males and females;
5)Offices for career and volunteer staff;
6)Two double-deep drive-through apparatus bays (capable of housing six pieces of
apparatus); and
7)An exercise room and protective clothing washing facility that will be utilized by
the system county-wide.
Mr. Foley said the significant changes from the original concept in 1998 are to provide community
space, and, if possible, address some system-wide needs. The clothing washing facility is to cover things
needing special cleaning which would otherwise have to be sent away to have that done.
Mr. Foley said that after reviewing the design, they were able to reduce the cost by $327,000. This
reduction is the result of changing the design from a three-bay to a two-bay station and achieving reductions
in site development and road costs. The staff/volunteer group believes that this solution represents a
fiscally responsible approach, while not eliminating the components vital to the success of the facility. The
committee particularly believes that the two-bay design is one that will be practical, effective, and will meet
the long-term needs of the system.
Mr. Foley said the concept of metal building construction was also evaluated. It was determined by
the architects that there is no appreciable cost savings provided by a pre-engineered metal structure unless
the program for the interior spaces is changed and simplified greatly. In addition, the architects noted that
"Butler" buildings require greater spans before becoming cost-effective. They point out that such systems
greatly restrict the flexibility of arranging interior spaces and affect the structural load on the building.
Without changing the interior design of the facility, there is the potential to reduce the cost of the facility by a
maximum of approximately $4.00 per square foot. That would amount to a potential savings of
approximately $50,000 under the best case scenario. However, to achieve this savings, the aesthetic
impact of a metal building in this area will also need to be considered.
Mr. Foley said that based on extensive review of design alternatives with the volunteers, staff
recommends approval of the original design, with reductions, and the revised budget for the project which is
about $700,000 greater than the original budget. Considering the changes in the construction market
during the three-year period this project has been studied, and with the components which have been
added to the facility, staff does not feel that is an unreasonable increase. He said the budget also shows
how the project will be funded. Money has been set aside over the last several years, so staff anticipates
there will be no need to borrow funds for this facility. Also, this project was originally scheduled to be open
in early Fall 2002, and although it might be a couple of months late in opening, that is still the expected
date. That date is critical as it relates to the City/County fire contract. The call load is increasing, and it is
March 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
expected to continue to increase due to the increase in population in the community, and the difference in
the expectations of the citizens placing calls. He offered to answer questions.
Ms. Thomas said this facility will be located across the road from Monticello High School so why is
money being spent for a meeting room and training room space? Mr. Foley said the original purpose for
that room was for training. They thought it would be good to have it available to the community for
meetings. The architects could look at reducing that space because there are meeting rooms across the
road. Originally, it was felt it was a good area for training, even for other stations. Staff felt it could be made
dual-purpose if the community needed the space.
Ms. Thomas asked if this building could also be used as an EMS building in the future. Mr. Foley
said it is specifically designed for that purpose. In fact, some areas in the building were separated so that
the EMS staff could be going out to calls and not waking up the fire staff which would be there for other
calls. Ms. Thomas asked if the bays are sufficient for both of those activities. Mr. Foley said the committee
had anticipated that an ambulance would be at that station. There is still discussion to take place between
the chiefs and captains on that subject. The building was specifically designed to have EMS response out
of that facility.
Mr. Martin said he thinks all have done a good job. He understands what Ms. Thomas said about
its location across from a school, but he thinks having meeting spaces in the facility is a good idea. He
thinks it is a great idea that an exercise room was added that can be used by the other firefighters. Also,
adding cleaning of the uniforms and materials on-site is a good idea. Particularly since the cost of the
facility has also been reduced. Mr. Foley said those two ideas came from the volunteers.
Mr. Dorrier asked if reduction of the bays from three to two will compromise the number of vehicles
that can be housed. He is looking into the future, 20 or 30 years from now. Mr. Foley said the amount of
staff required to run out of three, double-deep bays is the issue. Part of the question gets into a volunteer
system, versus a combination system. With career staff on site, they feel they can respond immediately
from the station.
Mr. Mark Spicer, County Fire Official, said the building was designed for growth and expansion. It is
not planned to have six pieces of equipment when the facility first opens, but it will be able to house six
pieces of equipment. Based on what they know now, that part of the County is not projected to grow
enough in the foreseeable future to create a need for more services than the building can provide.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there is a firehouse in Albemarle County now that is comparable to this
proposed facility. Mr. Spicer said it is similar to some of the newer volunteer stations in the County. Mr.
Dorrier asked which building is similar. Mr. Spicer said it will be similar to that of East Rivanna or Crozet,
but there will be different components in this new building.
Mr. Perkins said it is noted that the meeting room will be 795 square feet. He asked if that is
enough room for community functions such as fund-raisers which the volunteer group might hold in that
space. He asked how that space compares with that at East Rivanna or Crozet. Mr. Foley said for the
station itself, they have not anticipated a heavy reliance on fund-raising activities, therefore, it might not
need as much space. This station is a hybrid between a pure volunteer station, and one with career staff.
They felt this was an appropriate size for anything going on in the station.
Mr. Martin said he would move that the Board approve the proposed design and the proposed
budget for the project. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Roll was called, and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Closed Session: Legal and Personnel Matters.
At 12:28 p.m., motion was made by Mr. Bowerman that the Board go into Closed Session
pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to
boards and commissions; and under Subsection (3) to consider the acquisition of property for a public
safety facility. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Certify Closed Session.
At 2:04 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session with Mr. Dorrier being absent at this time.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best
of each Board members 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 session.
March 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Dorrier.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. DISC Report - Overview and Work Process.
Mr. Tucker said staff will provide the Board with an overview of the changes by the Planning
Commission to the Neighborhood Model as reflected in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
The main purpose is to get direction from the Board as to how it wants to proceed prior to that
Comprehensive Plan Amendment. As proposed, the implementation of the Neighborhood Model will
require consideration of some significant policy and regulatory changes in a number of areas, and also
consideration of the Countys role from an investment standpoint. Staff looked at a couple of ideas as to
=
how to proceed. One would be a series of work sessions similar to those held by the Commission. Staff
would suggest that the Board schedule another work session on some of the policy and fiscal matters, and
then the Board can determine if any additional work sessions are needed.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff received good news today. The study as it was recommended by the
Committee received a second place award in the Virginia Chapter of American Planning Association
meritorious awards. He said that after the efforts by all parties it was good to see some recognition of that
effort.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Board has before it now the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment
which contains the major elements that were outlined in the original report distributed to the Board last
spring, including the twelve principles which form the basis of the Neighborhood Model. It reflects some
significant changes made by the Planning Commission from the original document, which include:
1)Removal of the recommended school sizes;
2)Making the separation of schools and recreational playing fields an option rather
than mandating their separation;
3)Removal of the comparative pictures and language between "sprawl" and
"compact" development;
4)Removal of "editorial comments" concerning "good" and "bad" development;
providing more "Comprehensive Plan" type language;
5)Modifying the use of the "transect" to provide opportunities for other master
planning tools;
6)Rewriting the section on Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale;
7)Affirming that a mandatory change is necessary to create a more "urban" rather
than "suburban" design for neighborhoods, but offering a variety of options in
how to create that more "urban" design; and
8)Affirming that there will be a time lag between the adoption of the Neighborhood
Model and the completion of ordinance changes to make all of the options
possible. In the meantime, the Neighborhood Model should be used to the best
of the community's ability to guide a new form of development.
Mr. Cilimberg said it was evident to staff that there is a clear statement that the Neighborhood
Model is the next step in Comprehensive Plan planning for the County. It is defining goals and objectives
which have existed in the Comprehensive Plan for the Development Areas for a long time. In fact, staff has
noted that many of the principles had their origin in the 1996 Land Use Plan and even before that time.
This is not new business, but a new way of doing business. What is being talked about is the next step in
making the Development Areas come to life and perform their function in the overall planning program.
Staff provided for the Board points for discussion, including the 12 principles and a number of points
relevant to those principles. In addition, staff talked about the master planning process, implemen-tation of
the ordinance changes and master plans, and the overall philosophy the document presents. Staff is
prepared at this time to move through the information as the Board desires. He said the Commis-sion
spent a lot of time and went through every section of the original document. He said there is additional
work that must be performed once this document has been approved by the Board. There are ordinance
amendments, policy matters to address, and the Master Plan for the Development Areas neighborhoods.
And, the community waits to see what this planning will provide. He said that in sending this forward to the
Board, the Commission asked that that be kept in mind because of the need to be sure there is a set of
guidelines for new development proposals as presented, and the development community likes to have
some certainty as to how they will be able to work with the County on meeting development guidelines.
Ms. Thomas said she does not personally care to go through everything word-by-word, or section-
by-section. She is impressed with the points of discussion set out in the staffs report. If there are other
=
issues which are not covered in the memo, they could be added. She asked how the Board wished to
proceed.
Mr. Martin said he would not necessarily like to discuss it today. He asked if it would be possible to
do it in a format where citizens could be included as the discussions take place, not a public hearing format,
but a work session where the community and the Board could sit down together and discuss the pros and
cons of the points of discussion.
March 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
Mr. Bowerman asked if there is any reason to suspect that the public hearing comments the
Planning Commission heard would be any different than those received by this Board. Ms. Thomas said
there were only two. Mr. Bowerman said they were positive, and very brief.
Mr. Martin said he thinks the Planning Commission definitely made improvements to the document.
He was in support of the original document so is very much in support of this document. At this time, there
is nothing in the points of discussion which stands out to discuss. However, there might be something the
community has to say that would intrigue him. As far as he is concerned, the document is fine.
Ms. Thomas said she underlined every place it is stated that there need to be regulatory changes.
A@
The document may be good, but regulatory needs to be defined. The other thing she underlined are the
A@
words investments and maintenance. She said there are a lot of those words.
A@A@
Mr. Martin said he is not capable of saying which regulatory changes need to be made. Mr.
Bowerman said the Planning Commission sent the Board three resolutions of intent to begin the process.
Ms. Humphris said she thinks it must be assumed that all the members of the Board have read the
document and have a good understanding of it. She thinks this Board should have at least one major link
work session to cover the points of discussion allowing members of the public who attend to make a
statement. Then, the Board should have one session that sets out the work that has to be done in those
categories. She thinks one major work session with a follow-up work session on the things that are left to
be done would be the way to go.
Mr. Martin said he is saying that at that work session he would like for it to be less formal than
normal meetings in terms of including the public. Ms. Humphris said that is good if the Board can avoid the
problem of going back and forth with the speakers. Mr. Martin said he believes the Chairman can control
that.
Ms. Thomas said some members of DISC appreciated some facilitated meetings that were held.
She was not at any of those meetings, but she wondered if the Board members think there is a need to go
to that format. Mr. Martin said he thinks the Chairman can act as facilitator. Ms. Thomas said she would
like for the Board to come to some decisions during the work sessions as opposed to having separate
meetings.
Ms. Humphris said she sat in on a couple of the Planning Commission meetings where they used a
facilitator. She thinks it might be a big help if there were a person at the table who could keep track of
decisions made by consensus so the Board members would know exactly what had been decided, and who
was supposed to do what.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Board wants to put anything else into the points of discussion. Ms.
Thomas said that is an open question at this moment. (Note: Mr. Dorrier returned to the meeting at 2:25
p.m.)
Mr. Martin said the School Board is supposed to meet with the Planning Commission soon. The
Commission deleted recommended school sizes, and allowing separation of schools and playing fields as
an option rather than it being mandatory. Mr. Bowerman said those are big policy changes. Mr. Martin said
he feels those things will come back to the Board, so it might be possible to have someone from the School
Board present, along with members of DISC, to discuss that issue.
Ms. Thomas asked why there is no section for public facilities. Mr. Martin said he thinks that would
be a good topic for discussion. Mr. Cilimberg said they are actually covered in parts of Open Space,
Neighborhood Centers, and mixture of uses.
Ms. Thomas said she had a question under Neighborhood-friendly Streets and Paths. She asked
what Board of Supervisors action might be needed. It talks about staff working with various agencies, but
she did not see anything being asked of the Board. That was the only one where she saw no public policy-
making body involved. Mr. Martin said the issue would be responsibility for the cost of construction if VDOT
does not pay. Ms. Elaine Echols said the second manual that DISC put together for implementa-tion sets
out a strategy for dealing with VDOT in hopefully changing subdivision street standards. She said the Board
might want to see that because the model needs to be endorsed before getting into that as a strategy. The
Board should see what was envisioned as its first action in endorsing the plan and then how it would work
through it with VDOT.
Mr. Dorrier asked Ms. Echols if she was familiar with the Congress for the New Urbanism. Ms.
Echols said she was. Mr. Cilimberg said staff gets their publication. Mr. Dorrier asked if it is a helpful
organization. Ms. Echols said yes. Mr. Dorrier said the general counsel for the organization is a
A@
Richmond-based attorney with McGuireWoods named Daniel Sloan. He spoke to the Local Government
Attorneys Conference about six months ago. He gave a good overview of the whole movement in new
urbanism and neighborhood models. Mr. Cilimberg said he was actually the sub on legal advice regarding
the document when it was put together by the consultant.
Ms. Thomas said she believes there is a consensus as to how the Board wants to proceed. She is
somewhat concerned about the Boards April schedule. She knows there are people in the community who
=
are very anxious for the Board to get started with the regulatory changes so they can do the general
principles.
March 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
Mr. Bowerman said if he assumed that the Board accepted the document as a whole cloth and
A@
there is a need to implement it, what are the first ten things the Board needs to do legislatively? That would
frame in a concise manner, the changes necessary to accommodate what Ms. Thomas just said. Then the
Board could get down to the most important things immediately. He is suggesting a way to deal with the
document to see how practical it is for these ideas to be translated into legislative changes. Mr. Cilimberg
said Volume II was forwarded to the Board with the original package. The staff can cross reference in that
volume where the process is now. Mr. Bowerman said when the Board gets to the point of discussing
actual ordinance changes it will show the real implications of this proposal. The Board needs to get to that
level to realize the effect of these changes.
Mr. Perkins said he thought it was the job of Mr. Davis to put everything into ordinance form. Ms.
Thomas said the Board has to tell him exactly what to do first. Mr. Tucker said unless the Board wants to
have a work session in the evening, there can be one at the day meeting in April. Then, the next step is to
have a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan amendment. After that, staff will know what is wanted
from a regulatory standpoint. At that time, amendments to the ordinance will be drafted.
Mr. Martin said he does not think this will take very long. If the Board members read Volume II, it is
just a matter of indicating what it wants to do. He does not think there will be a lot of disagreement among
the Board members as to what should be done.
Mr. Dorrier said these are guidelines used in working with the developer in return for proffers and
returns for public benefits, and density. He asked if that is a correct reading of what is proposed. Mr.
Cilimberg said it can happen many different ways such as: the proffer process in a rezoning; a regulatory
change; policy decisions by the Board. He thinks everybody should be aware that this is an evolution. Just
adopting the document does not mean that everything will be built exactly as the document calls for. It was
recognized during the work on this plan that different places have to be treated differently. The rest of
Glenmore will not be changed to fit the ultimate model, whereas there is the Greenfield development where
it is kind of an open slate so more of what the model calls for can be done. He said the target date is 20
years and beyond.
__________
Mr. Bowerman asked how the Comprehensive Plan amendment for Hollymead, and the proposal
that has or has not been submitted for the Sperry Marine property, interact with what the Board is doing on
this proposal. Mr. Cilimberg said the CPA request for the Sperry property was submitted yesterday, but he
has not seen it yet. He thinks that three different CPA requests were submitted yesterday. All of the people
staff has talked with are very familiar with the Neighborhood Model, and have actually been using it as a
point of reference in working on their proposals. In one case, staff has an understanding with the
developer, that in submitting the CPA, he may be asking for zoning text amendment suggestions. He thinks
it is all fitting together. It is the projects that are in the ministerial process now that will not necessarily reflect
the Neighborhood Model. They are coming in under existing ordinances.
Ms. Thomas thanked those in the audience who have been working on this proposal for years. She
said the Board will be discussing it with these people the next time it is discussed.
______________
Agenda Item No. 16. 2001 Redistricting, Discussion of (continued from February 7, 2001).
Mr. Davis said that on February 7, 2001, the Board adopted preliminary guidelines to be used in
preparing the 2001 Redistricting plans for the Board's consideration. Pursuant to the schedule, on February
26 the staff committee conduced a public meeting to receive input on the guidelines and any other issues of
concern to the public. Approximately 15 persons attended that meeting, including representatives of the
Republican and Democratic parties, the League of Women Voters, and C.A.L.A.C.
Mr. Davis said there were only two people at that meeting with prepared comments. The general
issue they addressed was whether there would be a six or seven district plan for consideration. The
minutes of that public meeting were forwarded to the Board. Before the Board today are the preliminary
guidelines previously adopted for both the voting districts, precincts and polling places, and the schedule
which is repeated from the prior meeting. Based on the comments received, the major issue seems to be
whether the Board is interested in proceeding with a six-district and seven-district plan, or a seven-district
plan. This is an opportunity for the Board to hear anyone who would like to speak today to offer additional
comments. Staff recommends that the Board adopt the final guidelines for use in proceeding with the
redistricting process. He understands that Census data is to be released today. It should be in hand soon
and staff will be able to go forward with working on plans for the Boards consideration at its meeting on
=
April 4.
Ms. Thomas said this item was not advertised as a public hearing. Mr. Davis said it is not a public
hearing, but after the Board adopted the schedule last month, staff told those at the public meeting that
there might be time for public comment today, but time would be limited.
Ms. Thomas asked if there was anyone present who would like to speak at this time. No one from
the public rose to speak.
Mr. Dorrier said he did not think there was any overwhelming reason to consider seven members
on the Board of Supervisors. He has only heard it mentioned briefly.
Ms. Humphris said in the statement of the League of Women Voters, one of the reasons they
March 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
advocated this was to assure easy access to the individual supervisor in each district. She said she has
never found anybody who thought they had difficulty in getting access to all the Board members at any time.
It did not seem to be a logical reason for making a change.
Ms. Thomas said she is probably the only one who has been interested in this issue. It goes back
about 12 years when she was a member of a committee which studied the question. She has not sensed
any interest on the part of any other members, or by the public. It is possible for the districts to get bigger
and bigger and the Board members think they are communicating with their constituents well, but in fact the
districts are too big. She thinks there will come a time when the Board members think that is the situation.
Mr. Perkins said in counties like Fairfax with almost 1.0 million people, they are allowed to have
only nine districts total. What is a fair number? He said counties vary greatly in population, and there is a
limit on the number of supervisors. He thinks there is a lot of misunderstanding about tie votes. He does
not think that is a problem. The rules are clear, a tie vote defeats the motion.
Mr. Martin said he is concerned for the Registrar. Since the School Board member from the
Rivanna District and himself are so close to the boundary line on different sites, it will be hard to shrink the
district very much without one of them having to leave office.
Mr. Perkins said one concern he has is with precinct sizes, and the fact that no precinct can have
more than 2500 voters. He knows Crozet exceeds that, but he sees no problem with people getting in and
voting.
Ms. Jackie Harris said that when a precinct is created, they are looking at ideal sizes. They know
there are places where that ideal cannot be realized, but 2500 approaches a manageable size for a
precinct. In an area like Crozet, since it is a large geographical area, as well as having a large voter
population, they are looking at a ten-year span, so they do not want to exceed the 5000 registered voter cap
before the next redistricting in 2011, thus forcing them to split a precinct midway through the cycle.
Ms. Thomas said one of the guidelines is that the decisions made will be good for the next ten
years. Ms. Harris said they hope the decisions made now will carry through a ten-year period, without the
need to create too many new precincts. One other problem is that there has to be a voting machine for
every 750 voters on the list at the polls. When a precinct approaches the 5000 mark, they have to have
facilities large enough to accommodate up to eight voting machines, and for each machine there has to be
room for poll workers.
Mr. Perkins asked who made these rules. Ms. Harris said they are set out in the State Code.
Ms. Humphris then offered motion that the Board adopt the final guidelines and the calendar to be
used in preparing the 2001 Redistricting Plan. The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
__________
Mr. Davis said staff intends to present to the Board either two or three plans in draft form for
consideration on April 3 at its work session.
Mr. Perkins asked if the Board members can get copies of population data as soon as it is
available. Mr. Davis said it may be received today. As soon as staff gets a copy, staff will determine how
many people are in existing districts to give an idea of where boundaries have to be changed.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Appointments.
Ms. Humphris offered motion to:
Appoint Ms. Barbara S. Barrett to the Region Ten Community Services Board to a term which will
run from July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2004, to replace Mr. Arthur B. Brown, Jr.
Appoint Ms. Roxanne White to the Region Ten Community Services Board to a term which will
expire on June 30, 2002. This appointment is to replace Ms. Michelle Sirch-Stasko who had resigned.
Reappoint Mr. John Bunch and Ms. JoAnne Ebersold to the Jefferson Area Bicycle and Walking
Advisory Committee with said terms to run from July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2004.
Reappoint Mr. C. Henry Hinnant to the Workforce Investment Board with said term to run from
June 3, 2001, through June 3, 2004.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
March 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. Approval of Minutes: October 18, November 8(A), December 6 and
December 14, 2000; January 3 and January 10(A), 2001.
Ms. Thomas had read December 6, 2000 (Page 20 at Item #15 to the end), and December 14,
2000, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Dorrier had read October 18, 2000 (Pages 1 - 17 ending at Item #7); November 8(A), 2000;
and, January 10(A), 2001, and found all to be in order.
Ms. Humphris had read January 3, 2001 (Pages 1-25 ending at Item #21) and found them to be in
order with the exception of a typographical error.
Mr. Dorrier offered motion to approve all minutes which had been read. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Martin. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
Ms. Thomas said on the Consent Agenda this morning was Item 5.9a, a Resolution concerning the
2000-2002 State Budget. It was pulled to be discussed at this time after checking with fast breaking news
on the State level. This resolution urges the State leaders to preserve and enhance critical state aid to
localities, specifically in areas set out in the resolution. This includes second year teacher salary and
state-supported local employee salary increases, HB 599 funding, Comprehensive Services Act funding,
transportation and school construction funding, foster care maintenance and adoption payments, and per
diems for local and regional jails. Ms. Thomas said the Board is urging that action be taken so that
localities all over the state can create their budgets in a timely fashion.
Mr. Martin offered motion to adopt the following resolution. The motion was seconded by Ms.
Humphris. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION
2000-2002 STATE BUDGET
WHEREAS, the 2001 General Assembly adjourned on February 24 without
enacting a state budget bill; and
WHEREAS, the budget impasse is centered around the Governor's commitment
to increasing the personal property tax reimbursement level to 70 percent and the
Senate's insistence that the state cannot afford such an increase without cutting essential
services and failing to meet its commitments to local governments; and
WHEREAS, the lack of a budget agreement means that the Appropriations Act
approved by the 2000 General Assembly becomes the budget by default; and
WHEREAS, the 2000 Appropriations Act was built on revenue projections larger
than those now estimated, meaning yet-to-be-determined cuts will have to be made
and/or additional funds would have to be identified by the state to prevent the budget
from being out of balance by $421.0 million; and
WHEREAS, Governor Gilmore has signed Executive Order 74 to bring
appropriations and estimated revenues into balance for the remainder of the biennium;
and
WHEREAS, local governments, meanwhile, remain in limbo about state aid to
localities as they prepare their budgets for FY 02 and as they try to anticipate state
>
funding changes for the remainder of the current fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, the degree of state funding for items critical to local governments,
such as second year teacher salary and state-supported local employee salary
increases, HB 599 funding, Comprehensive Services Act funding, transportation and
school construction funding, foster care maintenance and adoption payments, and per
diems for local and regional jails, remain uncertain or in jeopardy at this time;
WHEREAS, because the legislature adjourned without agreeing on the budget
and the level of state reimbursement to localities for personal property tax relief, some
local governments are confronted with the question of what to do about sending personal
property tax bills.
March 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that State Leaders are urged to
preserve and enhance critical state aid to localities, specifically in the areas noted above,
when approving a budget; and
BE IT RESOLVED FURTHER, that State Leaders act as soon as possible to
approve revisions to the 2000-2002 state budget, so as to not further impede the local
government budgeting process.
__________
Ms. Humphris asked Mr. Tucker what the implications are if the Governor does not call a Special
Session of the General Assembly. Does that mean the budget which is in place stays in place, or can the
Governor still make changes to that budget? Mr. Tucker said this is the second year of the biennial budget
which was adopted last year. The Governor was trying to find the revenues to fill in what were missing, and
he has indicated that he has found those revenues. What is not known is where these revenues came
from. Staff thinks some of the revenues came from the Virginia Retirement System, some from campus
colleges, university buildings, and from the Virginia Department of Transportation. The question is, are any
of those one-time revenues? If these are one-time revenues and are used for recurring expenditures, what
will the State be facing next year?. He has indicated that the budget to be adopted will basically fund
schools, but staff has not seen any figures yet.
Ms. Thomas said Mr. David Blount did some research for the Board on this question. He has said
the Governor has the authority to find someway to balance the budget, however, the scope of this authority
is not clearly known and could result in legal challenges.
Mr. Bowerman said the County has to have a budget because of contracts for schools. He asked
when that budget has to be completed. Mr. Tucker said staff uses April 15 as the final date because that is
the day contracts are mailed to school teachers. One of the big issues for the County is trying to find out
what percentage of the car tax will have to be on County tax bills. He said tax bills have to be mailed
(legally) 14 days prior to June 5. Normally, bills are mailed 30 days before payment is due.
__________
Ms. Humphris said the County has received an award from the National Association of Counties
(NACO). It was presented in Washington, D.C., last Monday, although none of the Board members were
able to attend the ceremony.
__________
Ms. Humphris noted that in the February, 2001 issues of American Cities and Counties magazine,
A@
there was a major story about wetlands, Local Ordinances That Arent All Wet. It gave particular
A=@
coverage to Albemarle County's program of wetland protection, its ordinances, and implementation to
protect the watersheds, etc. The article mentions David Hirschman and it is a nice story, and is well-
deserved recognition.
__________
Ms. Humphris mentioned a new County brochure and complemented staff saying it is a nice
publication.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she attended an all-day work session on planning for developing a community
which is convenient and nice to grow old in. It is something the Board asked JABA to do and they are now
fulfilling that responsibility. It was an impressive all-day meeting, and JABA actually had to turn people
away.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the Board members may know that the Countys Director of Social Services
=
received the Child Advocate Award at the Children, Youth & Family Services breakfast on Tuesday. She
said all are proud of Kathy Ralston.
__________
Mr. Tucker said this morning the agenda had to be moved around in order to accommodate some
latecomers. He went ahead and gave his summary of the 2001-02 Budget at that time. He will repeat that
the budget is proposed at $171.8 million, a 6.2 percent increase over the current year. The Capital
Improvement Program which spans FY 2002 to FY 2006 totals approximately $113.0 million. The budget
>>
is balanced using the current Personal Property tax rate of $4.28/$100. The Real Property tax rate for
calendar (tax) year 2001 is proposed at $0.75/$100 of assessed value. The $713,020 resulting from a
proposed $0.01 decrease over the 2000 rate is being held in reserve for the Boards determination. The
=
Board could reduce the rate, it could fund additional programs, or continue to hold it in reserve because of
the opening of the new Baker-Butler Elementary School in the fall of 2002 due to major start-up costs.
Mr. Tucker said basic services are maintained. Current fiscal planning policies are maintained.
Education and public safety continue to be priorities in this budget. The total increase in revenues for FY
02 is $10.1 million, a 6.2 percent increase, the significant increase being due to real property tax primarily
>
due to the biennial reassessment which averaged 12 percent over the two years. State and Federal
revenues increased by $6.8 million, or 13 percent. That increase is due mainly to the reclassification of
personal property revenues as state revenues rather than local taxes. He said the County is reimbursed
with revenues by the State because of the car tax reduction. If the car tax is taken out, the state revenues
March 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
would increase by one percent.
Mr. Tucker said School Division revenues increased by $0.227 million (0.7%) from State and
Federal sources. The General Fund transfer to the Schools increased by $3.9 million (7.0%). He is
recommending that the Board increase that General Fund transfer by $650,000 in one-time, non-recurring
revenues that could be used for additional school buses, for additional classrooms, and textbooks.
Mr. Tucker said the Revenue Sharing Agreement with the City of Charlottesville increased by about
$0.390 million for a total payment of $6.5 million. Debt Service is at $8.5 million. That is used for school
construction, renovation and major maintenance projects. Most of the community agencies have been
funded with an average increase of three percent.
Mr. Tucker said the consulting firm of Palmer & Cay was hired to update the Countys Compensa-
=
tion and Benefits package. There was a committee composed of Supervisor members, School Board
members, staff and citizens which recommended that compensation meet market at 100 percent, but that
benefits should meet market at 105 percent. In doing that, they recommend that this year the salary scale
be adjusted 4.5 percent, and the performance pool be considered in range from 3.3 percent to 4.6 percent,
or an average of 3.9 percent.
Mr. Tucker said the Board members were furnished with a copy of the press packet. He said the
A@
first hearing on this budget will be conducted next Wednesday, starting work sessions immediately after
that. The final hearing will be on the budget in early April, with adoption of same and setting of the tax rates,
the next week.
____________
Agenda Item No. 21. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 3:02 p.m.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 06/20/2001
Initials: LAB