2001-09-05September 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
September 5, 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. (arrived at 9:08 a.m.), Ms.
Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Charles S. Martin (arrived at 9:05 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, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg, and, Chief of Community Development, David
Benish.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 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.
Ms. Thomas asked members of the Esmont Senior Center in attendance at this meeting to show
their presence by standing (The Clerk counted about 25 people present).
__________
Mr. Walter Johnson said that a few years ago the Planning Commission looked into what methods
could be used to limit traffic in residential areas. They found no satisfactory methods were available. The
other day he was in Alexandria and saw that on one of their main thoroughfares they had installed
provisions to retard speed. The road was posted at 25 mph and was heavily traveled. He contacted their
Traffic Division and received some information on the measures which are called traffic-calming measures
and are identified as speed tables. (Note: Mr. Martin arrived at 9:05 a.m.) He proceeded to describe these
measures. He also got a copy of VDOTs Traffic Calming Guide dated June, 2001, which also identifies
=
this procedure. The estimated cost for these measures is between $2000 and $3000 for each installation.
He handed to the Board the information he had on these measures.
__________
Ms. Meredith Richards, Chairman of the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Festival Committee, was
present. She invited the Board members to the events connected to the Charlottesville/Albemarle twin
communities relationship with the City of Long Beach, Washington, and Pacific County, Washington. She
said that in May, 1998 she traveled to Portland, Oregon, for the first Festival Committee meeting attended
by anyone from this area. At that time, she tried to establish relationships with the National Lewis and Clark
Continual Council which is funded by Congress. (Note: Mr. Dorrier arrived at 9:08 a.m.) She said there
has been an active national planning council for the Lewis and Clark bicentennial for many years.
Charlottesville/Albemarle were late getting into the planning for this event. Long Beach, Washington, is
having a series of commemorations many of which are directed at the relationship of the Lewis and Clark
Expedition to Thomas Jefferson. A delegation of visitors from Pacific County will visit this area soon. She
said a formal budget has been drafted for this event, and the City has been requested to fund $1000. She
is requesting a like amount from the County. She then offered to answer questions.
__________
Mr. David Blount, the Countys legislative liaison, said he wished to mention the process for
=
preparing and developing the Planning Districts Legislative Program for 2002. It will be similar to the
=
process used last year, but the document will be presented in a different way. Given the fact that it is a
funding focus document, given the impasse this past year with the State budget, the likelihood for a
continuing revenue shortfall, and perhaps continued legislative bickering, it has been decided to present
information, facts and data in an informative document rather than just making a laundry list of wishes.
A@
He worked with the Executive Assistant on the Countys items submitted to VACO. He hopes to get a draft
=
program completed by the end of the month so the Board can approve the final program in November.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Presentation: Certificate of Appreciation.
Ms. Thomas expressed to Mr. Rudy Beverly the Boards gratitude for his work as a member of the
=
Architectural Review Board from 1992 until 2001. He honorably served the Board and the citizens of
Albemarle by applying the ARBs guidelines with wisdom, honor and integrity. By using sound reasoning
=
and providing judicious advice on numerous design issues, by promoting and protecting the beauty of
Albemarle Countys entrance corridors. She presented to Mr. Beverly a plaque and said it is a very small
=
token of appreciation, but she hopes it will be displayed with pride.
Ms. Humphris said Mr. Beverly chaired for several years the VIEW (Virginians Involved in
Employment, Not Welfare) Committee for the community. It was a difficult job, but he persevered and
pulled it together. Although there is no plaque for that work, she expressed the Boards sincere thanks for a
=
job well done.
September 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Mr. Martin said Mr. Beverly was one of the first members appointed to the ARB. Recently the first
two members left the ARB. He hates to see that original group leave, but appreciates the time he served.
Over the past nine years, there have been only five or six appeals of an ARB decision brought to the Board
of Supervisors. The ARB was subject of great controversy, so it was a difficult committee to establish. He
appreciates all of Mr. Beverlys work on that committee.
=
Mr. Beverly thanked the Board for its confidence in appointing him to the ARB. He came to the
Board knowing what he wanted to happen along Route 29, but did not really have a good grasp on the
responsibilities of that Board. Now he appreciates the hard work that goes into the planning and
deliberations for what is hoped will happen in the community. He thanked the Board for the opportunity to
serve the community.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman to approve Items 6.1
through 6.9, and to accept the remaining items on the Consent Agenda as information (Note: conversation
concerning individual items will be shown with that item). The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the recorded vote which follows:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item 6.1. SP-2001-017. Merrie Meadows (Sign #69) (deferred from August 15, 2001) (defer until
September 19, 2001).
At the request of staff, by the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved deferring
this petition until its meeting on September 19, 2001.)
__________
Item 6.2. Proclamation recognizing October, 2001 as Disability Awareness Month.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the proclamation.
(Ms. Thomas said that about ten days ago she was going door-to-door speaking to constituents,
and came upon a family with a disabled child. She learned from these people the problems faced by
families in this community. She then read the Proclamation into the record and presented same to Ms.
Billie Campbell, Executive Director, Regional Disability Services Board. Mr. Dorrier inquired as to the plans
for the month of October. Ms. Campbell said the primary event will be held at the County Office Building on
October 16 from 10:00 to 11:30 a.m. in the Auditorium. It will be an expansion of the Charlottesville Area
Employment Network which meets every month. At that meeting, the Disability Services Board will present
an Employer of the Year Award, and there will be speakers from the Business Leadership Network about
recognizing businesses who are friendly to people with disabilities. The Board members will be getting an
invitation to those activities.)
DISABILITY AWARENESS MONTH
WHEREAS, every year since 1945 the President of the United States has
proclaimed a National Observance in October to promote the employment of individuals
with disabilities; and
WHEREAS, nearly one in five Americans have some type of disability, making
people with disabilities the nation's largest minority; and
WHEREAS, our community needs to harness the potential of all of its citizens so
that our economy can continue to grow and our labor force can meet the challenges on
the horizon; and
WHEREAS, we recognize that disability is a natural part of the human experience
and affirm that disability in no way should limit a person's ability to make choices, pursue
meaningful careers, or participate fully in all aspects of life; and
WHEREAS, all of us have benefited from the achievements and contributions of
people with disabilities; and
WHEREAS, attitudinal barriers can hinder people with disabilities from realizing
their full potential; and
WHEREAS, education and public awareness are the most powerful tools for
increasing sensitivity and achieving full integration and inclusion of people with disabilities
into all aspects of life;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Sally H. Thomas, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle
Board of County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim
October, 2001 as
September 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
DISABILITY AWARENESS MONTH
in the County of Albemarle and call this observance to the attention of all our citizens.
__________
Item 6.3. Proclamation recognizing October 6, 2001 as Albemarle County Farm Tour Day.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the proclamation.
(Ms. Thomas read the following proclamation into the record and presented same to Ms. Marcia
Joseph and Mr. Chris Anderson. Ms. Joseph showed to the Board a map outlining the farm tour and
explained what will be seen.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the values of the properties which have had permanent easements placed on
them have changed. Ms. Joseph said there has been a lot of research into that question, and it has been
found that the values do not go down. It actually makes properties in the area more valuable. Mr. Dorrier
said a lot of people think these properties decrease in value when this is done. Ms. Joseph said it makes
the value stable, but development rights are lost.)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY FARM TOUR DAY
OCTOBER 6, 2001
WHEREAS,the Comprehensive Plan gives highest priority to agriculture and forestry as
a land use in the Rural Area; and
WHEREAS,the citizens of Albemarle County in the 1994 Albemarle County Planning
Needs Survey rated "preserving natural resources and open space" and
"preserving farmland and forested land" as the fourth and fifth most
important goals out of a series of twenty-five broad goals for the future;
and
WHEREAS,Albemarle County is among the top 27 counties in Virginia for market
value of agricultural products sold; and
WHEREAS,it is the land resource which provides the true value of agriculture and
forestry to this community, with related benefits of open space for cleaner
air, watershed protection, and wildlife habitat, scenic, rural and historic
landscapes which encourage tourism; and quality of life for all residents;
and
WHEREAS,maintaining agriculture and forestry also enables the County to grow at a
measured and deliberate pace, and to better plan for services; and
WHEREAS,the loss of the agricultural and forestal resource base would permanently
damage the County's economic base and natural environment; and
WHEREAS,the Agricultural and Forestal Industries Support Committee recommended
that educational programs be developed for the public, such as:
improving both the County officials' and the general public's
$
understanding of agriculture;
promoting appreciation of the rural area by the community, and
$
emphasizing the importance of agricultural and forestal lands to them;
supporting agricultural education in the classroom, and implementing
$
a farm day for school children; and
implementing an educational tour of County farms for the general
$
public, County officials and decision-making staff; and
WHEREAS,the future of agriculture and forestry in Albemarle County depends on the
actions of the farm and forest owners, but also on the support of elected
officials and other citizens;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Sally H. Thomas, Chairman, on behalf of the
Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim
October 6, 2001 as
ALBEMARLE COUNTY FARM TOUR DAY
and commend the Albemarle Farm Bureau and the Piedmont
Environmental Council for helping to educate the citizens about the
importance of farming to our community.
__________
Item 6.4. Burning Daylight Farm Road, Name Change Request.
It was noted in the staffs report that pursuant to Part I, Section 6(e) of the Albemarle County Road
=
September 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
Naming and Property Numbering Manual, road name change requests may be forwarded to the Board for
approval upon validation that landowners of more than fifty percent of the parcels served by the road in
question have signed a petition in favor of a common road name, and that the proposed road name is
otherwise consistent with other road name guidelines (not a duplicate name, etc.) outlined in the Manual. A
request has been received to change the name of Burning Daylight Farm to C S Farm at the request of the
landowner. The property owner will be responsible for costs associated with new signage. Approval of the
new road name will grant staff the authority to coordinate/implement the above referenced change.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board authorized staff to coordinate the requested
name change of Burning Daylight Farm to C S Farm.
__________
Item 6.5. Installation of "Child at Play" Signs on Wren Court (Route 1595) in Briarwood Subdivision.
It was noted in the staffs report that the residents of Wren Court in the Briarwood Subdivision have
=
petitioned the County to request the Virginia Department of Transportation to install a Child-At-Play sign(s)
on Wren Court (Route 1595). The Briarwood Subdivision is located in the Piney Mountain Development
Area. This request requires a resolution of support from the Board of Supervisors. Staff recommends that
the Board endorse such a resolution.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution approving
the request for Child At Play sign(s)on Wren Court.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the residents of Wren Court are concerned about traffic on their
street and the potential hazard it creates for the numerous children that play in the
subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the residents believe that a "Child At Play" sign would help alleviate
some of their concerns;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby supports the community's requests for VDOT to install the "Child At
Play" sign(s) on Wren Court (Route 1595).
__________
Item 6.6. Resolution to accept roads in Redfields Subdivision, Phase 3B, into the State Secondary
System of Highways.
At the request of the Countys Engineering Department, the Board adopted the following
=
resolution.
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the streets in Redfields Subdivision, Phase 3B, described on the
attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated August 6, 2001, fully incorporated herein by
reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation
has advised the Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the
Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County
Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the roads in
Redfields Subdivision, Phase 3B, as described on the attached Additions Form
SR-5(A) dated August 6, 2001, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to
'
33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted
right-of-way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and
drainage as described on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the
Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1)Redfields Road from the intersection of Route 1281, Swan Ridge Road,
and Route 1280, Devon Spring Court, and Route 1270, Redfields Road
(existing portion) (Station 31+00) end of Phase 3A dedication to the
intersection of Nettle Court and Pebble Hill Court (Station 39+83.25), as
shown on plat recorded 5/26/99 in Deed Book 1819, pages 73-81; and plat
recorded 3/23/01 in Deed Book 2003, pages 627-630, in the Office of the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, with a 50-foot right-of-way
width, for a length of 0.167 mile.
September 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
2)Courtyard Drive from the intersection of Pebble Hill Court (Station 17+25)
edge of right-of-way of Pebble Hill Court, to the cul-de-sac (Station 10+05)
end of cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 5/26/99 in Deed Book 1819,
pages 73-81, in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.136 mile.
3)Courtyard Court from the intersection of Courtyard Drive (Station 10+14)
edge of pavement of Courtyard Drive, to the cul-de-sac (Station 13+25.2)
end of cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 5/26/99 in Deed Book 1819,
pages 73-81, in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.059 mile.
4)Pebble Hill Court from the intersection of Route 1270, Redfields Road
(Station 10+12) edge of pavement of Redfields Road, to the cul-de-sac
(Station 17+87.38) end of cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 5/26/99
in Deed Book 1819, pages 73-81, in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit
Court of Albemarle County, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length
of 0.147 mile.
5)Nettle Court from the intersection of Route 1270, Redfields Road (Station
10+12) edge of pavement of Redfields Road, to the cul-de-sac (Station
13+92.89) end of cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 5/26/99 in Deed
Book 1819, pages 73-81, in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.072
mile.
Total Mileage - 0.58 mile.
__________
Item 6.7. Resolution to accept roads in Still Meadow Subdivision, Phase 2, into the State
Secondary System of Highways.
At the request of the Countys Engineering Department, the Board adopted the following
=
resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the streets in Still Meadow Subdivision, Phase 2, described on the
attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated August 20, 2001, fully incorporated herein by
reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation
has advised the Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the
Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County
Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the roads in Still
Meadow Subdivision, Phase 2, as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A)
dated August 20, 2001, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to
'
33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted
right-of-way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and
drainage as described on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the
Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1)Still Meadow Avenue from the intersection of Route 1351, Still Meadow
Crossing (Station 6+66) to the intersection of Route 1427, Northfields Road,
and Route 1436, Northfields Circle (Station 25+50) as shown on plat
recorded 3/9/00 in Deed Book 1899, pages 731-736; plat recorded 10/6/00
in Deed Book 1961, page 407; and plat recorded 10/19/00 in Deed Book
1962, page 582, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.357 mile.
2)Brownstone Lane from the intersection of Route 1350, Still Meadow
Avenue (Station 0+10) to the intersection of Route 1350, Still Meadow
Avenue (Station 17+00) as shown on plat recorded 3/9/00 in Deed Book
1899, pages 731-736; and plat recorded 10/19/00 in Deed Book 1962,
page 582, in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County,
September 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.320 mile.
Total Mileage - 0.68 mile.
__________
Item 6.8. Response to Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) Report on
Virginia's funding of transportation improvement projects.
It was noted in the staffs report that the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC)
=
sent to all chief county administrative officers and board chairs a letter asking county officials to provide
comments pertaining to a study they are now conducting on the equity and efficiency of Virginia's current
approach toward financing transportation improvement projects. On August 15, 2001, the Board directed
staff to draft comments in response to this letter. Issues to be included in the letter are: ensuring that
counties do not have to make up a growing VDOT transportation funding deficit; requesting that another
funding category be added for urban roads in counties, such as the Southern Connector; and, easier
utilization of traffic calming measures.
Staff prepared a draft letter which provides County comments for the Boards review and approval.
=
JLARC is anticipated to release the findings from this study in November. Staff recommends that the
Board review the letter for any additions and/or modifications and forward it to JLARC under Mr. Tucker's
signature.
(Mr. Bowerman said he has a couple of changes to suggest in the draft letter, and he also wanted
to respond to Mr. Johnsons remarks. The Board is aware of VDOTs measures which allow certain
==
counties (including Albemarle) to implement traffic calming. However, they only allow traffic calming
measures on roads which currently have 25 mph speed limits. Almost all of the roads where traffic calming
is desired in Albemarle are set for 35 mph.
Mr. Bowerman said that in the second paragraph of the letter, last sentence, the word "undue"
should be "unreasonable". In the fourth paragraph, the second sentence states: VDOTs current
A=
guidelines, especially as regards limitations on the types of streets than can be traffic calmed, are too
restrictive to be implemented in most cases in Albemarle. He said to strike all of the language after the
@
word guidelines, and say instead: ... do not allow their intelligent application and are too restrictive to be
A@A
implemented in most cases in Albemarle.
@
Ms. Humphris said that in the third paragraph, first line, the word Albemarles should be
A=@
Albemarle.
A@
Mr. Tucker said concerning the Traffic Calming Table which Mr. Johnson talked about, at the front
of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Terminal, those measures are used for traffic calming.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the following letter to be sent to
JLARC:
September 10, 2001
A
Mr. Philip A. Leone, Director
Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission
Suite 1100, General Assembly Building
Capitol Square
Richmond, VA 23219
Dear Mr. Leone:
We are in receipt of your letter of August 6, 2001, regarding the Joint Legislative Audit
and Review Commission's review of the existing system for funding highway construction
and mass transit in Virginia and your request for input from local governments regarding
this matter. Albemarle County would like to take this opportunity to provide the following
comments.
The County strongly believes that any transportation funding shortfalls at the state level
should not be made up by counties, which already have limited revenue-producing
sources. Transportation funding has traditionally been a primary responsibility of the
state and enabling legislation already leaves counties with limited revenue alternatives to
meet existing local obligations. Further obligation for transportation funding without
significantly increased revenue producing allowances would pose an unreasonable
burden on counties.
Albemarle County supports the creation of a new funding classification and new street
standards for the urbanized areas of counties such as Albemarle. The existing
secondary system provides neither the funding nor the flexibility to meet the County's
urban transportation needs. Such a new category should provide counties both a new
funding source and more options for planning and designing transportation systems in
support of urban land use planning priorities.
Finally, Albemarle County would like more flexibility in utilizing VDOT's traffic calming
program. VDOT's current guidelines do not allow their intelligent application and are too
September 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
restrictive to be implemented in most cases in Albemarle. While funding has existed in
the County's secondary road plan for traffic calming in recent years, the projects the
County has proposed to VDOT, all of which involve neighborhood streets, have been
determined not to meet VDOT's program guidelines.
The County stands prepared to assist in further identifying solutions to these concerns.
Please feel free to contact Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community
Development, at (434) 296-5823 to further discuss. Your consideration of these points is
greatly appreciated.
@
__________
Item 6.9. Esmont Senior Center - Community's Request to Maintain Two-day Senior Meals
Program.
It was noted in the staffs report that several members of the Esmont community came to the
=
August 1 Board meeting requesting the Board's assistance in continuing the two-day a week Senior Center
Nutrition Program. The Jefferson Board for Aging had communicated to Esmont seniors that the current
Congregate Meals Program would be reduced from two days a week to one day a week due to increased
costs and low attendance.
A letter has now been received from Ms. Debbie Foreman, JABA Senior Program Coordinator,
providing background for JABA's decision to reduce the Esmont program. JABA says the Esmont Senior
Meals program has become increasingly expensive to run in light of the lower than average attendance.
Although JABA felt they communicated the need for increased attendance to the community some time
ago, the community seemed to be unaware that the decision had been made to cut back on the number of
days if attendance did not increase. JABA's budget proposal to the County did not include funding for the
second day, although JABA did not make that clear in its budget request. The current average daily
attendance is approximately 20 persons, while the average daily attendance for other centers is
approximately 30 persons. Without increased attendance, the cost per person is too high and JABA said
their resources must be directed to centers with a greater need. JABA would need an additional $6326
from the County to cover costs for a two-day program with 30 participants.
For several reasons it does not seem to be the appropriate time to reduce the number of senior
days at Esmont. First, the Esmont community did not seem to be aware that a major effort was needed to
increase attendance and ensure wider participation of other seniors living in and around the Esmont
community. Second, the County was not made aware that funding for the second day at Esmont was not
included in the FY 02 budget request. Third, AHIP is preparing to rehabilitate the Esmont Ward Center with
>
expanded kitchen facilities, so it can be used as the new Senior Center location instead of the current site at
New Green Mountain Baptist Church. The proposed rehabilitation has been a collaborative effort between
the County, AHIP, JABA and the Ward Center using the County's CDBG administrative funds, JABA funding
and other community contributions. Rather than reducing days, it seems to be the time to encourage other
seniors to come to the newly-expanded site in order to bring attendance up to the needed average of 30
persons. Fourth, there may be some transportation issues that can be worked out with JAUNT that will help
increase participation.
Since JABA has indicated that it would need additional funding to maintain two days a week, staff
recommends that the County provide an additional $4213 to JABA to cover the additional meal costs for an
estimated 25 seniors per day. Although this does not fully fund 30 seniors as JABA requested, it does
anticipate that attendance will increase over the next year from the current 20 persons to 30, or an average
of 25 for the year.
Should the Board be willing to provide these interim funds to maintain the two-day per week
program, it is expected that the Esmont Senior Center Advisory Council with assistance from both JABA
and JAUNT staff will take the following actions during this current fiscal year: 1) Increase attendance to an
average of 30 persons daily by opening up the current Esmont Senior Center program to other seniors
through an extensive outreach effort; 2) Use the newly expanded Ward Center to promote the senior meals
program and attract new members to the Esmont program; and, 3) Revisit the idea of soliciting volunteer
assistance to manage the program, a cost cutting solution that has worked for several other centers.
If approved in concept, an appropriation to JABA for $4213 will be brought before the Board at its
October 3 meeting for approval.
(Ms. Humphris said it is unfortunate that there was a lack of communication during budget review.
She thinks staff worked it out well, and she is in favor of appropriating the additional money. She wished
the Center good luck and large attendance.
Mr. Carlton Luck thanked the Board for considering this request.
Mr. Dorrier said initially the number of people was 30; but it was dropped back to 25. There was an
emphasis on having the present people bring in new people. He asked if it will be possible to get the 25 or
30 people for full staffing.
Ms. Nancy Luck, Site Supervisor, said they will pick that number up.
Ms. Roxanne White said she would like to clarify that attendance right now is an average of 20.
The expectation is that by the end of the year it will be 30.)
September 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board agreed to provide JABA with $4213 in
additional funding in order to maintain two days a week at the Esmont Senior Center to cover the
additional meal costs for an estimated 25 seniors per day, with the actual appropriation being made
at the October 3 Board meeting.
__________
Item 6.10. 1999 Development Activity Report as prepared by the Department of Planning and
Community Development. This report was received for information.
__________
Item 6.11. 2000 Development Activity Report as prepared by the Department of Planning and
Community Development. This report was received for information.
__________
Item 6.12. Letter dated August 10, 2001, from Ms. Amelia G. McCulley, Zoning Administrator, to
Mr. Steven W. Blaine, LeClair Ryan, re:
Official Determination of Number of Development Rights - Verulam
. This letter was received for information.
Farm (Tax Map 74, Parcel 17)
__________
Item 6.13. Letter dated August 28, 2001, from Mr. Gerald G. Utz, Contract Administrator, providing
notice that the Commonwealth Transportation Board approved Alternative "B" for the Free State Connector
as presented at the Location and Public Hearing,
re: Project R000-002-259,C501 - Free State Connector,
Mr. Utz notes that this
from Route 631 (Rio Road) to Route 651 (Free State Road), Albemarle County.
approval is made with the provision that Belvedere Station Land Trust donate the necessary right-of-way
and easements through their property as they have proposed. Alternative B is the westernmost alignment
A@
that runs in the proximity of the Norfolk-Southern Railroad right-of-way. This letter was received for
information.
__________
Item 6.14. Copy of letter dated August 30, 2001, addressed to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., from Mr.
J. W. Brent, Executive Director, Albemarle County Service Authority, re: Water Supply Alternatives. Mr.
Brent enclosed historical background material on the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority's (RWSA)
funding of capital improvements and the allocation of those costs between the City of Charlottesville and
the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) customers. This letter and attachments were received
for information.
__________
Item 6.15. Charlottesville VDOT Residency Monthly Report, September 2001, was received for
information.
__________
Item 6.16. Copy of certified statements of assessed value made by the State Corporation
Commission of the real and personal property of electric light and power corporations, gas and pipeline
distribution corporations, telecommunications companies and water corporations in Albemarle County, as
of the beginning of the first day of January, 2001. Copy of statements were received for information.
(Mr. Perkins said he noticed that Dominion Resources (VEPCO) is not on the list, nor are the
railroads. Ms. Carey said a listing of railroads was received just yesterday, so did not get on the consent
agenda.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Transportation Matters.
Mr. Jim Bryan, Resident Engineer, was present. He said that August had been a good month for
his department. He said that Mr. Walt Johnson and he had talked about the speed tables mentioned earlier
in this meeting.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there is any application where these tables could be applied to a 35 mph
zone. Mr. Bryan said he does not know.
Mr. Martin said a couple of years ago, this Board had discussed this with the Resident Engineer to
determine if they could be applied to Hollymead or Carrsbrook. There was not a positive outcome to those
conversations.
Mr. Bryan said that sometimes applying a stripe has a positive affect, as in Huntington. Mr.
Bowerman said Carrsbrook has been striped. It does have an affect on drivers who feel the lane is
narrower.
Mr. Bryan said the Department has experimented with rumble strips but got a lot of complaints
A@
from people who live near them because they make a lot of noise.
Mr. Tucker said when this was studied for Carrsbrook, Still Meadows had not been built. He said
there might be a different outcome now if the speed warrants were checked. Mr. Martin said if that is to be
done, he thinks Hollymead should also be checked because of the schools in that subdivision. Mr. David
Benish said the speed limit on Hollymead Drive was recently lowered to 25 mph. After staff met with
September 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
members of the Hollymead Association Board a request was made for some all-way stops, and to pursue
A@
raised pedestrian crosswalks in Hollymead and Forest Lakes. They are trying to tie in traffic calming
measures with the opening of the bridge over the dam. Since VDOTs traffic engineer in Culpeper is
=
leaving and a new person is being hired, this creates a small complication.
__________
Mr. Bryan said the drainage problem on Route 791 (Wyants Road) has been solved. Guard rails
need to be installed, along with some planting.
__________
Mr. Bryan said they are focusing in September on vehicle maintenance because winter is
approaching.
__________
Mr. Bryan said the final deck for the Route 29 North bridge was completed last Friday. That entire
project will soon be completed.
__________
Mr. Bryan said they are still working on Morgantown Road. Ms. Thomas said her constituents are
very involved, intelligent people. Also, they are sometimes very rude, and Mr. Bryan handled a very difficult
meeting by saying if you dont agree, we will check it again. Mr. Bryan said he enjoyed the meeting.
A=@
__________
Ms. Thomas said the situation with Wyant Lane was not easy. She appreciates VDOT saying
there really is a problem. Mr. Bryan said there was a problem, but he thinks it has been solved. It was
A@
another good learning experience.
__________
Mr. Perkins asked for an explanation of the equipment list in the monthly report. Mr. Bryan said
A@
that is an additional report, and he will include it each month. It will have a direct impact on how well they
work in the winter, especially as concerns their dump trucks.
__________
Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Bryan to look at Route 682, Browns Gap Turnpike. He said the road has no
shoulders; there is a fence right on the edge of the blacktop area. He does not know the width of the
right-of-way, but it is carrying more traffic all the time.
__________
Mr. Dorrier asked if there is any possibility of improving Route 20 South between Keene and
Carters Bridge, or all of Route 20 into Charlottesville. He said what has already been done is good. The
road has been expanded into the ditch area which increased the pavement by up to five feet. He thinks that
has improved the safety of the road.
Mr. Bryan said they are trying to do that incrementally along Route 20 South. This project will
probably be on next year's paving contract. He said research has shown that a major reason for single car
and head-on collisions is that cars go off of the shoulder, over-correct and come back in the other lane.
Mr. Bowerman said that even if the shoulder is widened, there is still a drop off at the edge of the
pavement. What is being done is to give the driver more room to maneuver, and more room going around
the outside of curves.
Mr. Dorrier thanked Mr. Bryan for what has been done so far.
__________
Ms. Humphris said Mr. Bryan had noted in his monthly report that there was a 1999 O&D study of
Route 22/231. She said the Board had asked for such a study, but got a letter saying only that it would be
considered. Mr. Bryan said the people in Richmond had the study done. He just suddenly got a copy in the
mail one day. It has been copied to County staff.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she has been going door-to-door in her campaign. She has been apprised of
some things she had not known previously Kimbrough Circle has had a drainage problem and been
resurfaced in a way so the road is very rough. She did not know if there is logic behind the times when a
road is resurfaced with gravel in the treatment, and when it is resurfaced without. The neighborhood kids
have trouble with bicycles when the road is very rough. Mr. Bryan said it is a function of the daily amount of
traffic.
Ms. Thomas said there are drainage problems which have been well-handled by VDOT, but some
still exist. It appears to be in direct response to the squeaky wheel. The people who know how to
A@
complain are getting their drainage problems fixed, while the areas in between have not been corrected.
She asked that the entire Circle be checked because there are areas where the water still goes in
inappropriate ways.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the intersection at Owensville and Garth Roads is not on the list of intersections to
be checked, but people are commenting that it is a dangerous intersection. It always has been dangerous
September 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
and the people who use it know to be careful. However, there will be an increasing amount of traffic at that
intersection, particularly, since the Board held firm on widening Route 250 West. She asked Mr. Bryan to
look at the situation to see if there is a spot improvement that might help the situation.
__________
Mr. Perkins said the very hard thunder storm last week caused extensive erosion on a lot of the
gravel roads. Route 689 has a lot of rutting.
_______________
(The Board was ahead of schedule, so skipped to the next items.)
Agenda Item No. 16. Cancel November 21, 2001, Board of Supervisors' meeting.
Motion to this effect was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, and 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. Approval of Minutes: March 21(A), April 25, May 9 and July 11, 2001.
Mr. Martin had read May 9, 2001 (Pages 28 to the end), and found them to be in order. He then
offered motion to approve those minutes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. 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.
_______________
(At this point, the Board returned to the next scheduled item on the agenda.)
Agenda Item No. 8. Response to Audit Committee -- Carry-over Policy/Maintenance/Equipment
Fund.
Ms. Roxanne White said that on December 6, 2000, Albemarle County's Audit Committee
submitted a report to the Board that contained nine recommendations. Staff presented responses to seven
of these on April 4, 2001. The two that have not been previously addressed are Recommendations #3 and
#4. Recommendation #3 was to develop an Equipment, Replacement, and Maintenance Category or
Budget. Recommendation #4 was to develop a formal process for dealing with annual surpluses.
For Recommendation #3, staff found that there already is an efficient tracking system in place for
most equipment, replacement and maintenance items. In the General Fund each department has control
over its own budget for small capital replacement needs, while major maintenance and replacement
projects are funded in the CIP. Computer maintenance needs are budgeted and tracked within each
department and expenditures are transferred to Information Services to be expended. If a separate system
were set up, it would require a separate review process. Small replacement items are reviewed by the
Board as the requests are received in the operating budget. Often, these items are funded with one-time
funds, or Fund Balance moneys. In FY 01, a lot of the one-time replacement items were budgeted to be
=
funded from projected carry-over funds. In a sense, a portion of the anticipated surplus has already been
used to fund some of the repair/maintenance projects. Staff felt that these items could be tracked very
well, so a separate process is not required. However, staff found one area in which the County lacks a
reliable tracking system and that is in vehicle maintenance and replacement. With the continued growth of
the County fleet, it has become apparent that in order to alleviate the ups and downs in vehicle budgeting, a
Fleet Management Fund would be useful.
Mr. Perkins asked if this fund would include County buses as well as the regular County fleet. Ms.
White said no. She said the School Division has a self-sustaining fund for bus repair and replacement
A@
and a separate line item in the CIP for both major and minor maintenance and repair needs.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the pool cars used by the School Division would be included in this
recommendation. Ms. White said no. Mr. Tucker said the Schools use the Countys pool cars. But, they
A@=
are under the management of bus maintenance garage personnel. Mr. Bowerman asked if this Fleet
Management Fund would be for only General Government vehicles. Ms. White said yes. She said the
A@
Schools still use some of the Countys pool vehicles, but they have some of their own vehicles.
=
Mr. Dorrier asked if this would include police vehicles. Ms. White said yes. Mr. Dorrier asked how
A@
many County vehicles would be managed under this fund. Ms. White said it is 256. Mr. Dorrier asked if this
fund would envision the County setting up its own mechanical repair shop. Ms. White said the Countys Bus
=
Garage would be utilized, as is the current practice. The County would depend more on the Vehicle
Maintenance Shop as to when it is time to replace a vehicle. They have computerized systems which can
track each vehicle and the repairs made to same.
September 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
Mr. Bowerman asked how many fleet vehicles, excluding buses, are in the School System. Ms.
White said she does not know the answer to that question. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks that whatever
system is best should be employed by both General Government and the School System. Mr. Perkins said
the School System has some cars which are used to transport special education students. Mr. Bowerman
said they are still vehicles, so he wonders why there is the distinction between General Government
vehicles and vehicles of the School System. Mr. Tucker said when this first started, General Government
had just general pool vehicles. The number of police cars has increased. The Sheriffs Department
=
maintains their own vehicles. He does not know how long the School System has had their policy
concerning replacements. Mr. Perkins and Mr. Martin both agreed that it had been many years. Mr.
Bowerman said he was not talking about school uses. Ms. White said some of their vehicles are used for
transportation. Mr. Martin said they are all maintained at the same place. They all use the same computer
system and the same mechanics.
Mr. Bowerman said it sounds like the county will end up with two separate systems for fleet
management. Ms. White said it will only be from a funding point of view. Mr. Bowerman said whatever
works for one, will be incorporated for the other. Mr. Tucker said that since all the fleet vehicles are
maintained at the Vehicle Maintenance Garage, they would be reviewing General Government pool cars
just as they do for the School System.
Mr. Martin said it has been the same, except that now the Auditors want the County to have an
Equipment Maintenance Fund. He says nothing will change except for having a new cycle. Ms. White said
it is just a way of funding this need.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there will be one department in charge of this fund. How will it be managed?
Ms. White said the Finance Department would manage that fund. The details have to be worked out. In
other jurisdictions, within each department, there is a certain contribution to this pool replacement fund.
Moneys are put into that fund and a decision made each year as to which cars are to be replaced. Mr.
Dorrier asked if each department handles their own requests at this time. Ms. White said they do, using
some guidelines which have been established.
As to Recommendation #4, Albemarle County does not have a written policy for allocating end-of
year moneys. These moneys can come from either revenues collected over and above the budgeted
amount and/or expenditure savings within departments. Currently, through the reappropriation process,
departments can request reappropriation for the continuation of projects already approved or encumbered
amounts such as contracted studies. Recently, departments have begun to request their own expenditure
savings for new requests which have not been previously approved. These savings have come about due
to staff vacancies, and other types of salary lapses. Staff found that other counties are grappling with the
same issues as Albemarle, although there is no set mechanism consistently used. The research also
showed that those jurisdictions with guidelines clearly outlining priorities for the distribution of funds provide
a more efficient process for the Board and staff's review of end-of-the-year review.
Staff recommends developing a written carry-over policy, with 100 percent of the unbudgeted
revenues and 60 percent of savings going into the Fund Balance. Those funds would be used to meet
required cash flow needs. After those cash flow needs are determined, the additional money in the Fund
Balance would be diverted to the CIP Reserve Fund. The funds could be used for either new capital
projects, additional repair/maintenance projects funded within the CIP, and/or Debt Service. The funds
could also be used for any emergency that might arise. The remaining 40 percent would be divided with 30
percent being put into a County Gain-sharing Fund. The money would be used at the discretion of the
County Executives Office and the Leadership Council for County-wide initiatives. If there were no County-
=
wide initiatives, it would be opened to the departments to utilize some of their savings. There would be
conditions set for using those moneys. Staff would be looking for the department which generated those
savings through some sort of cost-saving measures.
Mr. Martin said that is not mentioned in the staffs report, but he feels it is a very important
=
component. Years ago, the Board discussed allowing departments to keep their carry-over funds to
encourage them to save, as opposed to spending everything at the end of the fiscal year.
Ms. Thomas read from Page 8 of the staffs report: Preference will be given to those savings that
=A
were due to process improvements or innovation, rather then salary lapses or simple under-spending.
@
Mr. Martin said he thinks it is important to emphasize that point. Ms. White said staff found that
some jurisdictions just allocate the money routinely. There is always the possibility that savings come about
because the department is over-budgeted. The department should not be able to take advantage of that
fact.
Mr. Dorrier said Hanover County has a county savings plan where the funds go to emergency
projects. Prince William County allows their departments to use the funds for a special one-time project or
a repair/maintenance project. That seems to encourage departments to be proactive in trying to save
money, and then entering into the process as to how to spend it wisely. He noticed that the counties and
cities noted in the report do not seem to interact with the governing body to determine how that money is
spent. He said if there were $600,000 in surplus, the board of supervisors would have input into how that is
spent, rather than just voting on a line-item in a budget amendment.
Ms. White said if there were $600,000 in carry-over funds, 60 percent of that amount would go into
the Fund Balance; 40 percent, or $180,000, would go to the Gain-sharing Fund.
September 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Mr. Dorrier asked the membership of the Leadership Council. Mr. Tucker said it is basically
composed of department heads.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks the Board needs to be sure departments have the incentives for
savings, or for cost innovations. She asked if the departments have had a chance to comment on this
proposal. Ms. White said not all of them. There is a budget review team which has some members from
the Leadership Council. They met with some staff members while this ides was being discussed.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks the Board wants those kinds of incentives in place for the depart-
ments. She wants to be sure the departments will profit if they are doing something with savings. In her
mind that also includes times when there are fewer people on staff. She would not preclude times when
there is under staffing.
Mr. Bowerman said the 40 percent amount concerns him. He understands the recommendation
about the 60 percent going into the General Fund Balance. If the origination of the savings can be
determined and it is based on the departments own efficiencies, then he thinks 100 percent of the 30
=
percent should stay in that department. Ms. White said it is staffs responsibility to look at a budget at the
=
end of the year and determine where savings were realized.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Bowerman is disagreeing with the recommendation that the Leadership
Council make the determination. The idea was for the Leadership Council to look at broader issues which
could affect the entire organization. Mr. Bowerman said it tries to separate how much of that 40 percent
came about through innovations in that department.
Ms. White said it was felt that first the money would go to the Leadership Council as a group to
determine priorities. While the department heads were discussing budgets, it was found that there are
some things needed which are important to more than one department, such as the GIS System.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the money being considered for JABA would come from the 60 percent going
into the General Fund. Ms. White said it would probably be taken from the Board's Contingency Fund.
Ms. Thomas said she sees no role for the board of supervisors in this policy. She said a year ago,
the Board received a long list of projects which could be funded from the carry-over balance. She asked if
that process would still happen under the proposed policy. Ms. White said no. Staff would do that.
A@
However, the funds would still have to be appropriated.
Ms. Thomas said the Board should discuss whether it wants to retain that role, or whether it wants a
policy which delegates this authority as it is being proposed by staff.
Ms. White said that last year there were a list of new projects proposed. A lot of those projects
would have come out of the additional revenue, as opposed to coming out of savings. Mr. Tucker said
none of these projects would come out of the 60 percent. The remainder is what the Leadership Council
would deal with.
Ms. Thomas said the process then would not change for those projects which the Board dealt with
last year. Mr. Tucker said those projects were based on all of the additional revenue realized. Ms. White
said it is assumed that all of the revenues would go to the Fund Balance, or the CIP Reserve Fund. The 60
percent of expenditures would also be taken from that Fund. The only thing left for discretion for new
projects would be the remainder of the funds. She said that even before last years budget cycle, a lot of
=
those projects had been deferred. It was decided to wait until the actual amount of the carry-over was
determined, and then fund those projects. This year, a lot of the projected FY 02 carry-over has been used
>
to fund items.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks that is a good idea because the items are judged when all of the other
budget items are being discussed. Ms. White said that is one reason staff did not recommend setting up a
separate process, but to limit it to repair and maintenance. A lot of those items are being judged during the
budgeting process.
Ms. Thomas said what she has heard is that the Board allow 100 percent of a departments true
=
savings to remain in that department.
Mr. Bowerman said to the extent that a particular department has a savings, he thinks a
mechanism may already be in place for approval of the use of those funds.
Ms. Humphris said she finds this proposal confusing where it says that 60 percent of departmen-
A
tal expenditure savings ... will go into the Fund Balance to meet required cash flow needs. She thought
@
that after the Board finished the budgeting process each year, it made sure there was the required amount
in the Fund Balance for cash flow needs. Why would the Board need to consider putting more money into
the Fund Balance? (Note: Mr. Bowerman left the room at 10:30 a.m.). Ms. White said it is a way of
maintaining the cash flow which increases as the budget increases.
Mr. Dorrier said each year there are a number of items which are not fully funded. He thinks that if
there is a surplus, the Supervisors could look at the items on the edge of being funded and at least put
those into the mix with the department considerations. He thinks the Supervisors should have some input
into the process.
September 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
Ms. Thomas said she gets the impression that during budget discussions in March and April, the
Board members should note the things that are essentially next on the list but which cannot be funded at
the time. Those should be put on a list of things which have already been discussed by the Board, but
which are awaiting funding in an approved category. She asked how that would fit into this proposed policy.
Ms. Humphris said a lot of the things the Board wants to consider later are external to County
operations (outside agencies, etc). The things being discussed here are things which are internal to County
operations. Ms. White said if items were requested during the budget process, and there were not the
money to fund those items, the department could make that request out of the Gain-sharing Fund.
Ms. Thomas asked what would happen to external requests. She asked how that fits into this
policy.
Mr. Martin said the Board has been fairly satisfied with how it comes to a conclusion. The auditor is
recommending that the Board develop a process for dealing with annual surpluses. The Board is now
A@
trying to visualize how this proposed process will change the end of the budget process, and it is resistant
because it has been comfortable with the process being used. He thinks the Board will either have to say it
is not ready to change the process, or wait and see what will happen in April, May and June.
Ms. Thomas said it was a recommendation from the Audit Committee, and there were two
members of this Board who were not comfortable with that recommendation. Ms. White said as to external
agencies, historically the Board has not funded any of those from carry-over funds. They were either
funded or not funded during the budget process.
Mr. Dorrier suggested that if the surplus were large enough, the Board might want to consider a tax
decrease. All options should be considered. He is not sure that the Leadership Council would give the
Board all the options.
Mr. Martin said he thinks the Board members do not want to accept Recommendation #4 at this
time. It could be voted on during budget work sessions next year.
Ms. White said it gives an example of how it could be applied to the end-of-the-year moneys. It
may be that revenue surpluses will be different next year. This is a policy which would have to be very
flexible. Most of the surplus would go into the CIP Reserve.
Ms. Thomas said she believes the Board is comfortable with establishing a fleet maintenance fund,
and that 100 percent of unbudgeted revenues, and 60 percent of savings go to the Fund Balance. It is the
remaining 40 percent that the Board does not want to develop a set policy on today. She suggested that
the Board be presented with a report on this during budget work sessions next year.
Mr. Dorrier asked that staff present a full range of options. (Note: Mr. Bowerman returned to the
meeting at 10:39 a.m.)
Ms. White said staff would propose for the end-of-the-year (FY 00) just finished, that the policy for
>
100 percent of the revenues and 60 percent of the savings, then save out the 40 percent and not allocate it
to the reserve at this time. The Board may be requested to make some reappropriations in October.
Mr. Davis said that if the Board is going to adopt Recommendation #3, a motion is needed. Mr.
Tucker recommended adopting #3, and stating a consensus on #4.
Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adopt Recommendation #3
(Approve the creation of a "Fleet Management Fund" for the next fiscal year that will provide funds for
repair, servicing and replacement on a set cycle for County vehicles.).
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.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the Board is not ready to adopt Recommendation #4, but wants to see a list of
various options, during budget work sessions next year, for use of the 40 percent.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing on an Ordinance to amend Chapter 11, Parks and Recreation,
of the Albemarle County Code, to allow designated off-leash areas. (Notice of public hearing was given in
the Daily Progress on August 20 and August 27, 2001.)
Mr. Tucker said this ordinance will allow there to be a fenced-off leash area for dogs in County
parks.
The public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing
was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Ms. Humphris to Adopt An Ordinance
September 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
to Amend Chapter 11, Parks and Recreation Facilities, Article I, in General, Division 3, Conduct Within and
Use of Parks, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by amending Section 11-120, Pets.
Mr. Perkins asked if there is a requirement that people carry pooper-scoopers and clean up after
A@
their dogs. Mr. Pat Mullaney said it will be a posted rule of using the off-leash area. Mr. Davis said the
Parks/Recreation Director has the authority to establish rules and regulations for use of the park. That
would be part of that process. Mr. Dorrier said he had listened to a radio program where people from both
sides of this question spoke, and there appeared to be a real problem in the City. Mr. Martin said this is an
attempt to help the City with their problem. Mr. Dorrier asked if it will increase the problem in the County.
Mr. Tucker said the ordinance will only be used in Towe Park. Mr. Bowerman said the fence to be erected
is a temporary fence. The County does not have any problems yet, so this is an attempt to help the City
with their problem.
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.
(Note: The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 01-11 (1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 11, PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES,
ARTICLE I, IN GENERAL, DIVISION 3, CONDUCT WITHIN AND USE OF PARKS, OF
THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, that Chapter 11, Parks and Recreation Facilities, Article I, In General, Division 3,
Conduct Within and Use of Parks, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 11-120 Pets.
Chapter 11. Parks and Recreation Facilities
Article I. In General
Division 3. Conduct Within and Use of Parks
Sec. 11-120 Pets.
All pets shall be kept on a leash and under control while on parks lands except in
designated areas clearly identified by authorized signs allowing pets not to be leashed.
(9-12-79; Code 1988, 14-6.14; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-11(1), 8-1-01)
'
_______________
(Note: The Board skipped Agenda Item No. 10. and Agenda Item No. 11 temporarily.)
Agenda Item No. 12. Board to Board Presentation, School Board Chairman.
Mr. Steve Koleszar, Vice-Chair of the School Board, was present along with Dr. Jean Murray,
Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum. He emphasized the School Boards priorities, and said these
=
priories direct everything in the school system. The priorities are a way to focus resources. In terms of
academic performance, the School Boards priority is to get all of the schools accredited. Their second
=
priority under Academic Performance is to be sure all of the students graduate. Under School Climate
A@A
and Adopted Values, there will be an alternative school so that disruptive students can go to a different
@
setting. The School Board is still working on Equity and Diversity issues. They want to eliminate the gap
A@
between minority and majority students. The only way to do that is to get one hundred percent performing
on grade level.
Mr. Koleszar said the SOLs and tests are only one way to measure effective students. They will
=
also use local benchmarks to measure performance and to evaluate student progress such as portfolios
and job experience. The middle schools have always been perceived as a problem in most school systems
across the state. The School Board just completed a middle school review by the Curry School. What is
being done in the schools now was compared against best practices. As a result, middle school principals
and their school improvement teams are working on things that can be implemented this year. The Middle
School Steering Committee is working on recommendations for system-wide changes for next school year.
Mr. Koleszar said staff development now is more focused. Staff development reaccrediation of
teachers used to be a pick and choose program. Now, a structure is being developed so all elementary
A@
teachers will have a refresher course in how to teach reading and in how to teach math, so all teachers in
the system will have the same understanding.
Mr. Koleszar said the next category is Extended School Community. Every year, the schools
A@
September 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
conduct a parent survey. Last year, the response was very low. They are considering a scientific survey for
the future. They have started an initiative called Families Count, where they will focus on increasing
A@
parent involvement, and making the schools more parent friendly. He said the Leadership Team had a
presentation of this idea, and there is a lot of excitement among the principals to reach out and get parents
more involved in their childrens education.
=
Mr. Koleszar said the School Board/Superintendent Priorities for 2000-2002 have been amended
and approved. The School Board formalized State law to provide that the Schools will begin each day with
the Pledge of Allegiance. The Backpack Committee pointed out some serious problems for the children.
They made recommendations including an educational program, weekly backpack cleanup, and putting a
weight limit on textbook selection. The School Board received a preliminary report on the Standards of
Learning test results. The full analysis of this will come out in the School Boards annual report in October.
=
Mr. Koleszar said the Supervisors were given a copy of the School Boards . It shows
Strategic Plan
=
how the School Board will implement its priorities and goals. The overall improvement plan is focused on
translating what is being done on a division level to school improvement teams. All of this is designed to
help the schools become more effective. They are trying to do more data-driven evaluations. With the way
they can use SOLs and test scores, teachers will know immediately what changes are needed in teaching
=
methods.
Mr. Koleszar said State law now allows the Schools to issue an honorary high school diploma to
qualified veterans from World War II. It was suggested that instead of just presenting a piece of paper, that
these be handed out at the next high school graduation.
Mr. Koleszar said the School Board has adopted a set of guidelines for the distribution of campaign
materials by political candidates on school grounds. They are allowing the distribution of such materials
before and after football games, but he is not sure about other such activities. They will not allow
distribution of literature on school property at back to school night, except as part of a candidate forum or
A@
a candidate presentation as an evening activity.
Mr. Dorrier said the policy of not distributing literature at an athletic function seems unrealistic.
Once inside the gates, if a candidate has cards, they will probably want to hand them out to let people know
who they are. It also appears that at the various school meetings, not being able to hand out anything is a
little restrictive. He thinks that in order for a candidate to get out into the public and introduce himself,
something could be handed out without being obnoxious. Also, on election day there will be cards handed
out on school property. Mr. Koleszar said that is something that was taken for granted, and was not made a
part of this policy. He will discuss Mr. Dorriers concerns with the School Board. This policy is geared
=
toward distribution of literature. If a candidate is at an athletic event and shakes hands and meets people,
that is acceptable.
Mr. Martin said he wants to mention a problem from a parents point of view. He has three children
=
in the school system, and the first couple of days of school he gets a lot of paperwork to be signed and
returned the next day. He would like to have a copy of this paperwork. Most of the people distributing it
require him to sign and return it immediately. Unless he has a copy machine at home there is no way to
retain this valuable information which he does not have time to read all at the same time. For each of his
children, he would like to keep a file. He thinks it would be more parent-friendly to either send a copy
home, or do it in a way so the parent can keep a copy of the information. Mr. Koleszar agreed.
Mr. Dorrier said the School Board had a retreat this year on June 16. He asked Mr. Koleszar the
value of a retreat. Mr. Koleszar said the June retreat is very focused. Its primary purpose is to evaluate the
School Boards performance and the Superintendent's performance over the last school year. They
=
evaluate themselves on how well they have achieved their goals and priorities. The Strategic Plan is
primarily a staff document about how they will implement the priorities, goals and directions the School
Board and Superintendent have set.
Mr. Dorrier asked if they use a coordinator to handle the retreat. Mr. Koleszar said they did not
have a facilitator for this retreat, but have used one in the past. Usually, one or two board members head
up a team to organize the materials. Their winter retreat in January is used for the vision and long-range
focus, rather than the nuts and bolts as the June retreat is focused.
A@
Ms. Thomas said she takes for granted the School Board will know when the paperwork involved in
the strategic plan outweighs the value of having the document. Mr. Koleszar said he finds the docu-ment to
be very valuable. Ms. Thomas said it helps those who are not in the school system to know priorities, and
she appreciates it because she can tell the public about the School Board. Mr. Koleszar said the School
Board, during the last couple of years, has tried to tie its priorities to numbers and specific goals. Their hard
data comes out in October, so they have changed the way their progress report looks. This report and the
Strategic Plan is much more directly tied to their goals and priorities. The object is to give the school
system focus.
__________
(Note: At 11:01 a.m., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 11:16 a.m. Because the meeting
was running behind the published times to hear agenda items, the Board skipped Agenda Item No. 13
temporarily.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Water Supply Issues, Work Session.
September 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
Mr. Tucker said this discussion was deferred on August 1, 2001, to this meeting, and Mr. Gene
Potter from the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority (RWSA), is present to help with the discussion of
alternative supply recommendations. He said a new memorandum dated August 31, 2001, has been
received from Mr. David Hirschman and Mr. Stephen Bowler regarding their review of materials.
Ms. Thomas said the Board needs a better understanding of the various alternatives, needs to
prepare for its meeting with City Council, and have a better idea of what is going on while listening to
presentations. She said there is no decision to be made today, but it is a step toward one of the most
important decisions to be made about the future of this area (a 50-year horizon). She asked if Board
members have questions about anything to do with the process so far, or any proposals in the report.
Ms. Humphris said as a result of reading a lot of the information provided to the Board, she would
like to ask if the bladders to be used to increase the South Fork Rivanna Dam four feet have been tested.
What happens in the event of a failure? What about the dam structure? What happens downstream in the
event of a failure of the crest controls? Mr. Potter said there has been no formal risk analysis by RWSA
regarding failure. He believes that concern may have arisen because of RWSAs initial effort at de-watering
=
the bladder at Sugar Hollow. That information was sent to the Supervisors over a year go. Part of what
happened was a result of RWSAs inexperience, and a result of miscommunication on the part of the
=
people involved. It is his understanding that a decision was made to deflate the bladder and perform some
maintenance. A crease occurred in the bladder during the deflation process which allowed water to go to
that point. Now that they are aware that can happen, they would be more conscious of that in the future.
As far as the material failing, someone more technically skilled in that science would need to answer the
question. They have been told that if the bladder were shot with a high-powered rifle, even if it penetrated
the bladder, the rate of deflation would be so slow as to not cause a problem. The greater risk lies in how it
is operated, rather than the material itself.
Mr. Bowerman asked about trees going over the dam during a flood. Mr. Potter said that is a
possibility, but during a flood situation where trees might go over the dam, the bladder would probably be
totally deflated. The operating pressure of the bladder is only three to four pounds per square inch, so
there is not a lot of pressure. The bladder is so sensitive to pressure that during the daytime when the sun
is out, air is actually bled out.
Ms. Humphris said she believes the Board needs to know more about the various types of
dredging. She does not think dredging should wait for years into the future. A dredging program different
from what is mentioned in the VHB Report might be started earlier rather than later. Mr. Potter said the
Rivanna Board concurred with the staff recommendation at its last Board meeting to ask the engineer to
gather some more site-specific, detailed information for the September 27 meeting. They will have at least
one dredging contractor come on site with the engineer. He said there are some cases of communities
who felt dredging was the proper thing to do, initiated dredging, and then because of cost and other
concerns, ended those dredging plans. He does not know of any dredging operation that would be similar
to what might be proposed for the South Fork which have been successfully carried out on a long-term
basis.
Ms. Humphris said she understands RWSA will do more frequent bathymetric studies. Mr. Potter
said the next study should take place in March, 2002. That will be only one year since the most recent
study.
Mr. Bowerman asked if RWSA has settled on a type of dredging operation. Mr. Potter said no.
A@
The technology for dredging does not leave a lot of room for reinventing the wheel. You either have to
A@
vacuum it out, mechanically remove it or do a combination of the two. Where the technology comes in is
deciding what to do with it after it is removed from the Reservoir; the de-watering, the stockpiling, how to get
it from where it is removed to where it will disposed of.
Mr. Bowerman asked if barges are being considered, or removal directly to shore. Mr. Potter said
he cannot answer that question. It will have to be based on what will be done to de-water. If there is a site
approximate to where it would be removed from the Reservoir, it would probably just be piped from the
barge to that point for the de-watering. That would not be a practicable method over a long distance. He
does not think there is anything unique about this application; somebody already has experience in doing
this and can make recommendations as to the technology which should be applied.
Mr. Bowerman said he concurs with Ms. Humphris that this information is needed. Mr. Potter said
the engineering consulting team was not charged with designing the implementation of any of the
alternatives. They were to determine the available supply, determine the expected demand, identify a list of
alternatives to bridge the difference between the two, and then make recommendations based on an
evaluation of the selected alternatives. The details of implementing that are yet to be done.
Mr. Bowerman said a decision about which alternative to use cannot be made until there is some
evidence as to what would work in this situation. Dredging is one of the alternatives on which more
information is needed. Mr. Potter said it is his opinion that dredging, whether it does or does not work, is not
a decision that needs to be made now. Even if it was decided to dredge the South Fork to restore it to its
original safe yield capacity of 12.0 MGD, other measures will be needed to meet the demand in the year
2050. Maintaining 12.0 MGD at the South Fork, and using 4.0+ MGD at the Observatory system will still fall
short of the projected need.
September 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
Mr. Bowerman said if dredging is one of the remedies selected, the Board needs to know the cost
and if it will work, along with such information on other remedies. Mr. Tucker said the RWSA Board
concurred with staff to start looking at these from a pilot standpoint.
Ms. Thomas said she hopes there can be some useful information available on this by the meeting
at the end of September. Mr. Potter said there will be additional information for the September 27 meeting.
Comments he has heard indicate there is a level of mistrust about the cost information in the engineers
=
report as to dredging. He is not sure for the basis of that mistrust. From a technology standpoint, the
Reservoir can be dredged if the community is willing to pay the cost. The RWSA is not the one to make
that decision.
Mr. Dorrier asked if staff expects the City and the County to provide recommendations among all
the alternatives at the September 27 meeting. Mr. Potter said no. Based on input from todays meeting,
A@=
and based on any new information that may be received, he expects RWSA staff will make
recommendations to the Rivanna Board which will then make recommendations to the City and County.
Ms. Thomas said she does not think that making the Ragged Mountain/Sugar Hollow water system
more efficient is a part of the VHB report. She asked if that is not felt to be significant. Why was that not
part of what the consultants looked at in increasing use of existing water supplies? Mr. Potter said that
issue came up because historically there had been instances where Sugar Hollow was below overflow and
because of transfer through the weir box, there was overflow at Ragged Mountain. The concern was that
water that could be going to the Moormans River was being wasted by being overflowed at Ragged
Mountain through the weir box. That system of infrastructure was put in place in the 1920s. It is all manual,
but it works. As that level of concern increased, operating procedures were changed so that no longer
happens. They do not have funds in their budget to update or modernize that, so as to keep it from
happening in the future. Now, if because of the weir transfer Ragged Mountain starts to fill up, and there is
no overflow at Sugar Hollow, they switch and take water out of Ragged Mountain. Normally, that is the last
place from which water is taken because it takes so long to fill the reservoir again. He does not think this is
an issue.
Mr. Perkins said there seems to be a question of ownership of land around the South Fork if the
bladder is put into the Reservoir. Mr. Potter said when the City purchased the property for the South Fork
Rivanna Reservoir, theoretically, they purchased land up to elevation 387, and the spillway is set at 382.
Because in some stretches of the reservoir, the land flattens out, elevation 387 may have been several
hundreds of feet removed from the Reservoir. As a matter of convenience, someone decided on a cut-off
point. RWSA has not done a property survey to determine an acreage or what would have to be acquired
(estimated to be less than 100 acres). Until a decision is made to install a bladder, he would not suggest
going to that expense.
Mr. Dorrier said he has some questions regarding financing of the alternatives. He noted Mr.
Potters letter of August 30. Mentioned in the letter is that there has been an allocation for the various
=
acquisitions between the City and the County. He asked the various costs, terms and the percentages of
payment for Buck Mountain, Southern Loop Waterline, Moores Creek, Urban Area and Treatment Plant
expansion.
Mr. Bill Brent, Albemarle County Service Authority, said he can get that information for Mr. Dorrier.
Usually it is based on the percentage of flows in a given period. That flow constantly changes based on the
relationship of the flows between the City and the ACSA. In the urban water connection, they arrived at a
fixed percentage over the term of that debt, about 52 City and 48 Albemarle County Service Authority.
Mr. Dorrier said bonds were issued by the RWSA, and he wondered the amount of those bonds,
and what they were used for. Mr. Brent said there have been tens of millions of bonds issued by the
RWSA.
Mr. Dorrier asked if bonds are a possibility for the purposes being discussed. Mr. Brent said bonds
would be essential. The RWSA would issue the bonds.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board was not given total costs for land acquisition, i.e., Buck Mountain. Mr.
Potter said it was about $4.0 million for Buck Mountain.
Ms. Thomas said it was time for the Board to hear from staff. A lot of her questions have to do with
the area around the Reservoir. It is one thing to talk about dredging, and another to talk about it silting in.
She asked Mr. David Hirschman to summarize his memorandum dated August 31, 2001, which was late
being received by the Board members. She said she read the memo and was impressed with the
recommendation to seek advice on how to establish an integrated resource plan. This is something RWSA
has not been discussing, but RWSAs Chairman has mentioned it. It seems to be the coming way for
=
communities to deal with their water resources. It would get the County and the RWSA involved in more
overlapping issues.
Ms. Humphris said she did not go into detail about the questions which had been sent to the Board by
the League of Women Voters, by the Rivanna people, and by Mr. Martin, because Mr. Hirschman dealt with
those questions comprehensively in his August 31 memo. In other words, the overarching problems that
have to be dealt with, above and beyond the VHB report. She said the Board has the report dealing with
the recommendations for the water supply, but the public is asking that the Board go beyond that and deal
with the minimum in-stream flow, and conservation issues.
Mr. Hirschman said Mr. Stephen Bowler deserves most of the credit for the thinking and the writing
September 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
of the memorandum. They used the term integrated resource planning, but that means something
A@
different to each person. He said the process as undertaken by RWSA and its consultant can be seen as
elements of integrated resource planning because of the alternatives and the phased-in recommendations.
First there is the water supply study which looks at how to get enough water for increasing demand and
decreasing supply. That is a question of deciding which alternative to pursue, and the phased approach
recommended. Once those things are decided, there will have to be an implementation phase. Mr.
Hirschman said they do not see integrated resource planning as something to replace the water supply
study, or slow it down, but as an element of how to implement the recommenda-tions.
Ms. Thomas said if the Board wished to seek advice on how to establish an integrated resource
plan process, does staff know who would do that? Mr. Hirschman said no. In fact, this Board cannot take
A@
any unilateral action on this because it involves the City, ACSA and the RWSA Board, and others.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there is integrated resource planning taking place now. Mr. Hirschman said
different agencies are doing different things, but at this time, there is no overarching process.
Mr. Dorrier said there is no overarching process for priorities, and in trying to look at the big
A
picture there are small steps which would lead to a total solution that need to be worked on. He thinks
@
some group should be able to come up with a list of priorities and a time line for doing them. He asked
what group would do that. Mr. Hirschman said the RWSA would be the place to start.
Ms. Thomas said the Board was told the 1979 Water Supply Project is about to be updated. She
asked if that is a budgeting decision this Board needs to make. Mr. Hirschman said Mr. Bowler is about to
finish a report on the whole history of the Reservoir. It basically tells the story of what has happened to the
reservoir over the last 35 years. Updating the Watershed Management plan can easily dovetail with what is
being called integrated resource planning.
Ms. Thomas said there are a number of things on which this Board needs to say go ahead. Mr.
A@
Hirschman said that will happen when Mr. Bowlers report is ready. There is a need to understand why and
=
to what extent the reservoir is facing a sedimentation problem. That is one of the phased recommendations
for immediate implementation. They would like to have this Boards comments.
=
Mr. Bowerman said the Board knows the RWSA and ACSA are responsible for the supply of water
to the populace. Now, the Board has before it the concept of integrated resource planning, which the public
has indicated is in addition to the initial charge to the RWSA. He asked if this Board, along with the City, will
look at this issue and decide which parts of integrated resource planning to adopt. Ms. Humphris said that
has never been said before. What Mr. Bowerman said makes it very clear.
Mr. Bowerman said the public has a lot of concerns which the Board understands, but the RWSA
has not been able to respond to some of those concerns because their charge is different. He thinks there
already is some integrated resource planning going on.
Ms. Thomas said when VHB says the siltation going into the reservoir has to be limited, suddenly
the County and its land use issues have to be considered. The Soil & Water Conservation District has
certain plans for farmers with croplands. Then, when a conservation plan is needed, then the ACSA is
involved. The ACSA has talked about projects it has done with selected families changing over their
plumbing and doing innovative things. That is only a tiny piece of the conservation issue. Then, the City has
hired a conservation officer. Just reading through the Water Supply Project report from the consultant
shows how many different people in the community have different pieces of the implementation. Mr.
Bowerman said that was his point. Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Bowerman wanted to recommend this, but get
it all under one plan. Mr. Bowerman said the Board needs to recognize what must be done to collect
information, and then what needs to be done to implement certain things.
Mr. Dorrier said Mr. Hirschman mentions in his memo having a new body created. He wonders if
the RWSA could not be restructured to deal more comprehensively with this problem. Mr. Hirschman said
that is one of the alternatives listed. There would be a lot of ways to do it. The important thing to focus on
at this point is to start the discussion with the City and the RWSA Board.
Mr. Martin said this is only a beginning; recognizing the deficit of integration. He thinks the Board
wants to go slow and do it right.
Mr. Bowerman said there may be pieces that can be implemented quickly which will complement
the long-term plan. Mr. Martin said all the individual organizations will continue doing what they are doing
now. They will implement certain things at the suggestion of the Board.
Mr. Perkins said the County is fortunate that there has been cooperation in the past. There may not
be a full-blown resource plan, but Mr. Hirschman and Mr. Bowler are coordinating things, so nobody is
working in a vacuum. The County is already doing a lot of things and is fortunate in that.
Ms. Thomas said VHB did not recommend pumping water from the James River. Instead, it
recommended doing a number of things recommended by engineers, not land use planners. They showed
a complex number of steps to be taken.
Mr. Bowerman asked if anyone knows how the City feels about this report. Mr. Tucker said no.
A@
Maybe the Chairman could formally introduce this at the September 27 meeting with Council. The City is a
key player, as is the ACSA. The RWSA is key, but is made up of all those entities. Next, the Board needs
September 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
to look at the kind of structure to be created to start developing plans. First, there needs to be buy-in by
these other entities.
Mr. Hirschman said when these discussions begin, there will be some concern about the timing of
the water supply study as to leads into permitting. There are some critical time-sensitive issues as regards
demand increase and supply reduction. He said this is not a process which will replace or need to be
completed before any type of permitting. This study can proceed based on the public hearing schedule.
Ms. Thomas said when the Board discusses master planning for the DISC study, these plans
should take water supply issues into account.
Mr. Martin said at the last joint City Council/Board meeting, there was talk about having a water
plan which would actually limit growth in Albemarle County. He thought that was an extreme sentiment,
and he hopes that is not still being thought about by some people. If it is, he personally will not tolerate any
of that kind of talk. Mr. Hirschman said that sentiment probably will not go away, but the effort to coordinate
is good.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the future of the water supply is firmly integrated within the Countys Planning
=
Department. He asked if Mr. Hirschmans recommendations are part of the recommendations on all of the
=
development in the County. Mr. Hirschman said he mostly deals with stormwater runoff and protection of
streams. That is coordinated, but water supply and infrastructure are not, except that there are
development areas which overlap with the water/sewer jurisdictional areas.
Ms. Thomas said this is a step forward in this discussion.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. CPA-98-03, Post Office Land Trust (Hollymead Town Center), Work
Session.
Mr. Benish said during the Board's review of the Planning Commission's recommended Compre-
hensive Plan amendment language for the Hollymead Town Center, property owners within the proposed
town center area expressed concern over some of the recommendations in the proposed amendment
language. On February 7, 2001, the Board deferred action on the Comprehensive Plan amendment in
order to allow the property owners to develop their own proposal for a master plan for the town center
consisting of development and design guidelines. A Master Plan was submitted on July 20 to the Planning
Department for review, and staff reviewed that proposed master plan and compared it to the Commission's
recommended amendment language.
Major issues to the property owners were: 1) the proposed requirement of a floor area ratio (FAR)
of .75; 2) the limit on compatible low FAR regional service uses of no more than 65,000 square feet on a
single floor; and, 3) a recommendation for a one hundred foot undisturbed vegetative buffer along the town
center frontage of Route 29. The proposed master plan does not provide for a minimum desirable FAR for
the town center and places no limit on the size of single-story regional service uses in the Mixed
Use/Regional Service designation. The master plan calls for a landscape frontage on Route 29 dependent
in part on the ultimate design of the Route 29 improvements (rural or urban design).
Mr. Benish said the applicant also proposes an at-grade crossing (intersection) at the mid-point of
the town center site between the Timberwood Boulevard and Hollymead Drive intersections on Route 29.
He said staff looked at the proposed master plan and compared that to the Commissions recommenda-
=
tions. It also provided the Board (see Executive Summary which is on file) with comments regarding major
areas of deviation from the Commissions recommendations. To summarize, he said staff feels much of
=
the master plan is consistent with the Commission's proposed amendment. It boils down to the three areas
where there is deviation. Staff provided some information on the short-term feasibility of that type of floor
area ratio on this site. They recommended placing more emphasis on how in-fill would take place to
achieve that over the long-term. He said the master plan does make some statements in that regard. In
the proposed Comprehensive Plan language, that needs to be set out as an expectation over time, address
FAR, and building footprint square footage. The Commission recommendation emphasizes that
compatible regional service would allow for uses larger than 65,000 square feet, but it focuses more on the
design. He said that is a timing issue as staff sees the existing market. When the Board takes action, it will
have to determined how hard the County holds to those standards for development for this site.
Regarding the crossover, staff recognizes that given the timing of the development, there may be a
need for interim improvements that include things such as a crossover. That will need to be determined at
the time a development proposal is received, and a traffic study done. He offered to answer questions.
(Note: Mr. Bowerman left the room at 12:17 p.m.)
Mr. Cilimberg asked if the Board members received an E-mail communication from Mr. Steve
Blaine last night. Several members noted that they had not.
Ms. Thomas said she and Ms. Humphris had received a presentation of the master plan by the
applicants. (Dont know the answer for the others). She said staff would like the Boards guidance on five
==
things: the FAR, the 65,000 square foot building size, the vegetative buffer, the entrance, and the scale of
mixed use-regional service area.
Ms. Thomas suggested discussing the FAR. Mr. Martin said he felt staff has agreed on a FAR
which can be accomplished based on density. They also made plans to allow for an increased FAR if there
is increased density. He did not see any problem with staff's proposal.
September 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
Ms. Thomas said if they started with a certain scattering of buildings now and assumed the goal is
to reach a more intense FAR, she assumes there would have to be stacked parking to get to a FAR lower
than a .5. She asked that staff help the Board visualize the difference in the FARs. Mr. Benish said when
=
approaching a scale of development of .5 there would need to be either radical changes to parking
requirements, and/or parking facilities beyond just ground-level parking.
Ms. Thomas said it has been noted that the Sperry site has a FAR of .61. For that site she saw a
proposal for stacked parking facilities with some public participation. If that is the case, that FAR is not likely
to be obtained in a commercial area. (Note: Mr. Bowerman returned to the room at 12:21 p.m.) Mr.
Cilimberg said there would have to be multiple floors and multiple levels of parking.
Ms. Thomas said big box stores are not built under the assumption that a second floor will be
A@
added later. If talking about going upward with either the parking or the building itself, and it is a shell
building, something would have to be torn down in order to go up. Mr. Cilimberg said that would not be true
in all cases. If parking is being accommodated in multiple structures, then part of the parking area can also
be multi-floor structures for retail. Areas where there is surface parking are the ones which would need to
be retro-fitted.
Mr. Benish said in the master plan, the applicants say current design should consider how future
A
redevelopment or additional development of existing sites will provide for increased overall density. Staff
@
thinks that is just a step in the process, at least in terms of how to review rezonings and subsequent site
plans including design and location. The Countys expectation needs to be clearly articulated. That is the
=
alternative to the Planning Commissions recommendation which is more straight-forward. It just says to
=
achieve that .75 FAR. Staff is suggesting some clarity as to what it would be looking at over the intervals of
development in terms of meeting that intent to meet a higher FAR over the long-term.
Ms. Thomas said this master plan allows for a density which would require a parking garage. She
asked if that is the kind of plan staff would visualize if that density is set as a goal. Mr. Benish said he is not
sure that type of specificity is needed in this master plan. This area may expand in the future. How is that
expansion expected to take place, horizontally along more landscape, or vertically within the develop-ment
areas which have been approved? In those increments of expansion there is an expectation of how that
expansion will take place that need to be articulated clearly.
Mr. Bowerman asked if they are to be articulated in the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr.
Cilimberg said the Comprehensive Plan amendment sets out a goal but it cannot go into the specifics of site
design. Staff will have to deal with that in the rezoning process.
Mr. Bowerman asked how the intent of reaching a higher FAR and doing the types of in-fill and
redevelopment envisioned would be incorporated into a CPA amendment without putting in language to
that effect. Mr. Cilimberg said staff is asking if the Board wants to target a goal. If it does, staff can
structure language to include in the Comprehensive Plan realizing it will not happen with the first
development on the property. Most likely, the first plan will have a much lower FAR, but the language
would give staff guidance as to how to review that rezoning. Staff feels it would be good to be more specific
in this case for the reasons Mr. Bowerman pointed out.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks that is important. If this development is to be what is intended (a new
town center and dense development), that should be stated at the beginning. If it is not stated in the
beginning, there will be no movement toward that goal.
Mr. Martin said he thinks Mr. Cilimberg is saying this will not be seen on the first presentations for
the site. However, everyone should know what is ultimately expected. Mr. Cilimberg said this will let the
applicants present options and also have flexibility in what they request. There are a variety of ways the
applicants can make a proposal, so it would not be tied to something specific in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Bowerman said this is multi-ownership of a fairly large parcel and the type of development
which incorporates many aspects of the DISC recommendations is being suggested. There are aspects of
the proposal which will not initially meet the recommendations of either the Commission or the DISC
Committee in terms of density. There is mixed-use, residential/retail/commercial/regional, which will serve
the community and neighborhood function. In essence, what DISC set out to do is have an environment
with an overall idea of the lay-out and uses of a parcel, while realizing that over a fifty-year period of time
the parcel will develop and then redevelop as economic conditions change. The land will become more
valuable over time as the area around it becomes more populous. Then it will be advantageous to utilize
the land with a higher density, with structured parking and with multi-level retail buildings. The County
cannot jump from where it was five years ago to what DISC has envisioned without there being something
in between.
Mr. Martin said this Board has another meeting at 1:00 p.m. so he would like to look at this proposal
as a whole, instead of discussing each of the five things Ms. Thomas iterated earlier. The County is getting
more now than could have been dreamed of three years ago. There is a commitment by one developer
who served on the DISC Committee, to accept this idea. A few months ago this Board told these people to
put together what they understood this Board wanted to achieve. He thinks that has happened. He
understands the Board can certainly argue about the details. Given the time restraints, he thinks this is a
fantastic step forward. He suggested that the Board take this report as a whole and pick out the parts with
which there are problems instead of going through each one.
September 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
Ms. Bowerman referred to Attachment A to the executive summary. He said it was mentioned that
there are some expectations which can be built into the Comprehensive Plan language to codify what the
Board wants. He asked if Attachment A contains that language. Mr. Benish said no.
A@
Mr. Bowerman asked if there could be standards in the Comprehensive Plan amendment while
allowing flexibility. Mr. Benish said staff has not agreed to how it would incorporate the concept plan.
Mr. Bowerman said what has been proposed is not specifically the end product. The County has to
get from what is proposed to the idea of smart growth, or smart development.
Mr. Martin said he would simply say the Board is behind the concept staff is suggesting, and one
the developers agree with. Let staff get the language together, and come back for a vote at another
meeting. He does not see the disagreement.
Ms. Thomas said there is disagreement. Page 2 of the staff report lists four areas on which staff
would like some support from the Board. The Board has discussed and taken care of the FAR. Mr.
Cilimberg said it is not an absolute, but a target to shoot for. Mr. Martin said the Board agrees on that one.
He thought it might just put the whole package out.
Ms. Thomas said she would like to tell the landowners involved that she is impressed with their
effort. She read the other day a statement saying smart growth is impossible where there are multiple
landowners. That is not true in this situation. From the smiles she sees on their faces, she thinks they even
had fun doing it.
Ms. Thomas said staff wants to know how strongly the Board wants to keep to the Neighborhood
Model concept instead of having large-scale, single-store, single-use, commercial development. She said
the Board has dealt with that question several times. For the development which would have been a Wal-
Mart store south of town, the Board wanted the building designed so it could be broken up into multiple
stores because of Wal-Marts reputation for leaving its stores after a few years. This is not a new concept
=
for the Board.
Ms. Humphris said a key piece of the Neighborhood Model is that things are at the proper scale.
Staff put it well when they said large-scale, single-store, single-use commercial development should be
discouraged and that design concepts be more in keeping with the intent of the Neighborhood Model. That
is also her thought.
Mr. Martin asked if Ms. Humphris is talking about a design issue. Ms. Humphris said she is talking
about the 65,000 square feet. Mr. Martin asked if Ms. Humphris is saying there will never be another
building of more than 65,000 square feet. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks that figure should be doubled. Ms.
Humphris said she does not think a building of a larger size should be put in a master plan.
Mr. Bowerman said Lowes found it economical to tear down a structure which covered two acres
=
and put up something different. He does not find it far-fetched that a building of 165,000 square feet could
be totally removed and a two-story structure put in its place, not necessarily today, but as conditions and the
retail industry changes. He does not see any of this proposal as being permanent. He noted several large
structures which have been vacated, and then broken into smaller or different facilities. He thinks the
current Lowes Store contains about 160,000 square feet, and he thinks it depends on the way the structure
=
is done, how it is landscaped, the way its footprint sets. He said those are site plan or planned development
issues to be discussed when a site plan is submitted along with a proposal.
Mr. Dorrier said this proposal is integrated with residential and commercial uses. Mr. Bowerman
said that is part of the concept. The property is already zoned Highway-Commercial which allows these
uses. In addition, there is the added residential, the town center, and the other components which make it
part of an overall plan. Staff is being asked to recognize that in the Comprehensive Plan amendment with
appropriate language. However, it has to be recognized that in the current market conditions, these uses
may be transient and change. He wants changing market conditions to be met and allow flexibility for
redevelopment in a rational way, but still stick with DISC principles. He does not know how to do that and
still draw a line in the sand and say certain things cannot be done.
A@
Ms. Humphris said staff did say this proposal looks like strip development, but they also say
"However, additional design guidelines specific to this area may be necessary to more concisely identify
development and design expectations for this area. She said some problems have been pointed out about
@
streets, sidewalks, landscaping, etc.. She thinks there need to be additional design guidelines to keep this
proposal from having the negative aspects of a conventional strip shopping development.
Mr. Cilimberg said the 65,000 square feet is truly about a footprint. The recommendations of the
Planning Commission are that a facility of more than 65,000 square feet would have multiple floors. Staff
was told that will not work in the existing market. Staff needs to know if the Board wants to hold fast to a
footprint of 65,000 square feet, or if 65,000 square feet were exceeded if it would accept other types of
configurations and designs compatible with the idea that a neighborhood area is being created.
Mr. Martin asked if Mr. Cilimberg was referring to multi-level facilities. Mr. Cilimberg said that under
this particular proposal, it could only be that way and meet the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is asking if the
Board wants to be more flexible.
Mr. Bowerman said one of the main entrance roads to the property is through the main area. If it
September 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
was built as an entrance to a community, and what could be seen from that road was a complement to that
community, does that take in the scale and type of things being discussed in terms of the whole cloth? He
A@
is trying not to look at the proposal in pieces. Mr. Benish said portions of the roads are in the commercial
area where there are no road classifications. That sets the expectation for design and breaks up the site
from conventional strip shopping. He said Mr. Bowerman is right in that one of the central entrances into
the commercial area is designed in a way intended to break up the concept of a more traditional lay-out of
buildings.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks one of the things which kept developments from being built with multiple
owners were problems like this which kept one section from being built. In this instance, if there is a
compromise on the issue of an anchor store, the overall project is more viable and becomes an asset
rather than a liability. He asked the total square footage which could go on the site at this time. Mr. Benish
said portions of the property are not yet zoned commercial. Mr. Cilimberg said it is designated Regional
Service in the Comprehensive Plan. That is no floor area designation.
Mr. Perkins said this is sort of an integrated resource plan involving a lot of different people and a
lot of different functions. He thinks there are many different ways to go about this. One big store does not
have to look like a big store. Mr. Cilimberg said staff can draft language which would allow for more
flexibility. Mr. Benish said there are certain uses which are difficult to put on two stories. There are some
practical restrictions for certain uses.
Ms. Thomas asked if there is a consensus on what staff said today, not what was written in the
executive summary, in terms of the design standards so the Board would have to be convinced about any
proposal over 65,000 square feet, without having a second floor. Mr. Martin said he can agree with that.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Board could go ahead with the recommendation for a 100-foot vegetative
buffer. She said staff agrees that the alternative approach to using landscaping is reasonable. The Board
members agreed with staff.
Next, Ms. Thomas mentioned the recommendation about the at-grade crossing at the mid-point.
Staff has suggested that this be handled at the time of any rezoning when a traffic analysis can be
undertaken. It might be necessary to have this road as an interim improvement. She is concerned about
the impact it might have on Route 29 if there are not parallel roads, or any improvements, other than
constantly widening Route 29. She understands the interim aspect, but has never seen an interim,
temporary intersection. Mr. Cilimberg said for the Regional Service component, the crossover is felt to be
critical. One reason is the type of customer flow there would be in a Regional Service use, and second, the
alternative to the crossover is the street network which gives multiple connections into the property. That
will not all be built in the beginning. That is why staff felt the interim crossover would be the solution while
the Regional Service develops. Care must be taken not to say that is the only solution. A crossover of that
magnitude which is signalized will probably never be removed. It will become a feature along the road and
was not included in the transportation improvement recommendations the Board adopted a few months
ago into the Comprehensive Plan. Understanding the nature of the land use being sought, the crossover is
critical. If the Board wants to leave that door open for consideration, that would need to be stated in the
A@
Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the transportation study included this town center. Mr. Cilimberg said it did
include the basic concept of a town center, but focused on the number of square feet located on the site,
and what uses might be placed along Route 29. Whether to allow a crossover is going to be a function of a
traffic study which happens during a rezoning process. Staff thinks the possibility of it being allowed should
be stated in this Comprehensive Plan amendment. At this time, the Comprehensive Plan would not allow it
to happen.
Mr. Steve Runkle said the Regional Service use is the driving aspect of the proposed plan. Their
concern is that it is 180 acres, the size of the downtown mall. They show 3.2 million gross square feet in
the proposed plan, the bulk being residential. It is potentially 1500 to 3000 households, in addition to the
Office, Regional Service and Commercial uses. It is literally the size of a town. The owners control one
entrance at this time without the crossover, and that is Timberwood Boulevard. When they approach
VDOT, he is sure there will be a design on that road no one will like. He thinks Timberwood Boulevard will
have to bridged going north-south on Route 29. It will be an immense design, and they are saying that on
an interim basis, a crossover is needed to serve the town center. They do not control the two access points
to Airport Road, or do they control the access point going south toward Hollymead. They are making
provisions in this plan for those to be part of the network. Should they at some point control those, they will
probably be built, but today they dont control them. If the Board said it did not want that interim crossover,
=
they would have a big battle with VDOT. They do not want the situation to be prejudiced at the inception of
that discussion. At the least, they would want it to be neutral based on what traffic demand shows for this
town center.
Mr. Martin said if it is limited to one access, given the reality of the situation, pressure would be put
on keeping densities down. Mr. Runkle said they fight that battle every day. When densities get too high,
particularly with a single point of access, then the developer has to back up on the density. The
interconnected system is an integral part of the proposed plan, and even with two entrances off of Route
29, density will be a battle.
Mr. Bowerman asked if this is the main entrance. Mr. Runkle said along with the entrance at
Timberwood Boulevard. Mr. Bowerman asked if they are of equal importance. Mr. Runkle said looking at it
from the standpoint of a town center, they are of equal importance. He said there are currently 2000
September 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
households on the east side of Route 29 which would access directly through Timberwood. That is an
important intersection already. Mr. Cilimberg said the households in Hollymead and South Forest Lakes
could access through Hollymead Drive, but that is the part these applicants do not control. That is a
missing link for the developer; not from the Comprehensive Plan standpoint. For the three parties to come
together to make a plan work, that is something they dont control. Mr. Benish said staff is trying to build
=
that into the language so as to include flexibility to address the timing of this development. It may not take
place for 20 years from now. Staff did not want to assume there will be a crossover there at the time
development begins.
Ms. Thomas said she is willing to accept staff's recommendation that the additional at-grade
A
crossing may best be determined at the time of rezoning when a traffic analysis can be undertaken. She is
@
not enthusiastic about it, but it opens it up for discussion by the Board at that time. She asked if there has to
be a change in the Comprehensive Plan if the Board is going along with that change. Mr. Cilimberg said it
can be incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan amendment that a crossover would be a possibility based
on further analysis along with other options or alternatives.
Mr. Benish said the Board has already addressed the last issue in terms of the design issues. It is
really an issue of clarifying some things in the master plan. Ms. Thomas said the last issue is one of
consistency of building orientation and internal street design and pedestrian connections. She asked what
the staff wanted from the Board. Mr. Benish said for the staff, in evaluating the master plan, it needs a little
more clarity in terms of what is in the master plan. He thinks staff can work with the applicant on that and it
also ties into how building square footage is treated.
Ms. Thomas said the Board expects pedestrian connections, green space connections, public
space, and consistency of building orientation.
Mr. Martin said in terms of the recommendations of the DISC Committee, this is a huge step in that
direction. He said the Board can disagree over details, but he hopes this community realizes what a big
step has been made toward DISC recommendations today by getting the landowners to cooperate, and
then present this proposal. It was also a big step toward Albemarle eventually becoming what the
community would like to see.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff needs to work on the language the Board wants to incorporate into this
amendment. He asked if the Board wants another work session, or is it ready to schedule the public
hearing. Ms. Thomas said she thinks the Board is ready for the public hearing. It was agreed that the
hearing would be held on October 10, 2001.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. Closed Session: Personnel Matters.
At 1:05 p.m., motion was offered 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; under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding probable
litigation and other specific legal matters relating to the Ivy Landfill; and under Subsection (7) to consult with
legal counsel and staff regarding probable litigation relating to a public safety incident. 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. 20. Certify Closed Session.
The Board reconvened into open session at 3:46 p.m. Motion was immediately offered by Ms.
Humphris 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.
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 and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing on proposed FY 2001 budget amendments. (Notice of this
public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on August 26, 2001.)
It was noted in the staffs report that Code of Virginia 15.2-2507 stipulates that the County must
='
hold a public hearing to amend its current budget if the additional appropriated amounts exceed one
percent of the original budget or $500,000, whichever is the lesser. The Code section applies to all funds,
i.e., Capital, E-911, School Self-Sustaining, etc., not just the General Fund or the County's adopted
September 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
operating budget. To meet this requirement and to provide timely appropriation of funds, a regular public
hearing is scheduled on the first day meeting of each month to have all appropriations heard and approved.
This proposed FY 01 Budget Amendment totals $233,830.72. The chart below breaks out the estimated
>
revenues and expenditures for the amendment in the General and Piedmont Regional Education Program
(PREP) Funds.
ESTIMATED REVENUE
General Fund/Other Funds
State Grant Revenues$ 1,848.64
Fund Balance - Other Funds 2,686.41
General Fund/Other Funds Estimated Revenue$ 4,535.05
PREP Fund
Fund Balance $ 229,295.67
PREP Fund Estimated Revenue$ 229,295.67
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE$ 233,830.72
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
General Operating Fund
Public Safety$ 4,535.05
Total General Fund Expenditures$ 4,535.05
PREP Fund$ 229,295.67
TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES$ 233,830.72
This budget amendment consists of two appropriations which will need approval subsequent to the
public hearing in the amount of $233,830.72, and Appropriations #20081 and #20082 will also need
approval.
APPROPRIATION #20081, $229,295.67, Funding for FY 2001 PREP Activities. The County served
as fiscal agent for activities relating to the construction of the new Piedmont Regional Education Program
building. During FY 2001, construction expenses totaled $229,295.67. Funds from the PREP Fund
Balance will be used to fund these expenses.
APPROPRIATION #20082, $4,535.05, Funding for FY 2001 EMS Grant Activities. The Virginia
EMS for Children Program administered by Virginia Commonwealth University has approved two
mini-grants providing funds to assist with child care and babysitter safety and car seat training efforts. The
Board approved the grants for the 1999-00 fiscal year. This is a request for a reappropriation for the
completion of the program in FY 01. There is no local match. Revenues are provided by the EMS Fund
>
Balance and EMS grant funds.
The public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing
was closed.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Martin to adopt Resolutions of Appropriation #20081 and
#20082. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20081
FUND: P.R.E.P.
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR FY 01 ACTIVITIES
>
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 9810 61194 800200 Furniture/Fixtures$ 16,094.90
1 9810 61194 800605 Construction 213,200.77
TOTAL$229,295.67
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 9810 51000 510100 Fund Balance$229,295.67
TOTAL$229,295.67
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
September 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20082
FUND: E.M.S. GRANTS
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR FY 01 ACTIVITIES
>
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1558 32012 312500 Instructional Supplies$2,000.00
1 1559 31012 930200 Transfer to Grant Projects 2,535.05
TOTAL$4,535.05
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 1558 24000 240415 EMS Funds$1,848.64
2 1558 51000 510100 Fund Balance151.36
2 1559 51000 510100 Fund Balance 2,535.05
TOTAL$4,535.05
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing on proposed FY 2002 budget amendments. (Notice of this
public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on August 26, 2001.)
It was noted in the staffs report that Code of Virginia 15.2-2507 stipulates that the County must
='
hold a public hearing to amend its current budget if the additional appropriated amounts exceed one
percent of the original budget or $500,000, whichever is the lesser. This proposed FY 02 Budget
>
Amendment totals $2,386,938.59. The chart below breaks out the estimated revenues and expenditures
for the amendment in the Tourism, Capital Improvement and School Funds.
ESTIMATED REVENUE
Tourism Fund
Local Revenues$ 847,240.00
State Grant Revenues25,000.00
Fund Balance 913,945.50
Tourism Fund Estimated Revenue$1,786,185.50
Education Funds
Local Revenues$ 1,807.59
Education Funds Estimated Revenue$ 1,807.59
Capital Improvement Fund-General
Transfer from Tourism Fund$ 598,945.50
C.I.P.-General Estimated Revenue$ 598,945.50
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE$2,386,938.59
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
Tourism Fund
Contingency$ 179,240.00
Transfer to CIP 1,606,945.50
Tourism Fund Expenditures$1,786,185.50
Capital Improvement Fund - General$ 598,945.50
Education Operating Fund$ 1,807.59
TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES$2,386,938.59
This budget amendment consists of three appropriations that will need approval subsequent to the
public hearing in the amount of $2,386,938.59, and also to approve Appropriation #2001007, 2001008 and
2001009.
APPROPRIATION #2001-007, $837,240.00. Original Appropriation for FY 02 Tourism Fund. To
>
establish the original budget for the FY 02 Tourism Fund, this action recognizes that 60 percent ($837,240)
>
of the FY 02 hotel/motel room tax estimate of $1,395,400.00 is reserved by code for tourism-related
>
projects. The following tourism-related projects were approved in the Capital Improvement Budget: (1)
Court Square Enhancements, $250,000.00; (2) Rivanna Greenway, $25,000.00; (3) Paramount Theater,
$33,000.00; and (4) Acquisition of Conservation Easements, $ 350,000.00, for a total of $658,000.00. This
action will authorize the transfer of this amount to the CIP Fund leaving a contingency of $179,240 from FY
02 revenues in the Tourism Fund. After year-end balances are finalized, Tourism Fund balances will be
>
allocated to the General Fund for already committed projects.
APPROPRIATION #2001-008, $1,547,891.00, Reappropriation of Tourism Projects from FY 01.
>
Based on a decision made in the capital improvement process to budget tourism related capital projects in
the CIP using Tourism revenues rather than budgeting them in a separate tourism fund, this request is to
September 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
reappropriate uncompleted FY 01 tourism projects into the FY 02 CIP Fund. This request includes seven
>>
projects totaling $598,945.50 plus the $350,000.00 allocated for the A.C.E. Program in FY 01 that has not
>
been expended.
APPROPRIATION #2001-009, $1,807.59, Sutherland Middle School received a donation in the
amount of $609.59 from Ahold Financial Services. This donation will be used to purchase instructional
materials for the school. Murray Elementary School received an anonymous donation in the amount of
$500.00. This donation will be used to support the miscellaneous needs of the school. Crozet Elementary
School received a donation in the amount of $298.00 from Andrew Scheiner and Mary Gallo. This donation
will be used to purchase instructional supplies for the school. Greer Elementary School received a
donation in the amount of $400.00 from William Tucker, III. Mr. Tucker stipulated that $200.00 be used to
purchase instructional supplies for Lisa Molinaro's first grade class and $200.00 be used to purchase
instructional supplies as needed.
The public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing
was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to adopt Resolutions
of Appropriation #2001-007, #2001-008 and #2001-009. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-007
FUND: TOURISM
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ORIGINAL APPROPRIATION FOR FY 02 TOURISM
>
FUND
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1810 72030 999999 Tourism Contingency$179,240.00
1 1810 93010 930010 Transfer to C.I.P. 658,000.00
TOTAL$837,240.00
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 1810 12000 121000 Hotel/Motel Room Tax$837,240.00
TOTAL$837,240.00
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-008
FUND: TOURISM/C.I.P.
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF TOURISM PROJECTS
FROM FY 01
>
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 9010 72030 568901 Visitor's Bureau-Maint.$ 8,700.00
1 9010 72030 950026 Rivanna Greenway60,000.00
1 9010 72030 950055 Rts 250/616 Turn Lane110,000.00
1 9010 72030 950056 Ivy Road Bike Lanes5,500.00
1 9010 72030 950107 River Access Improvements30,000.00
1 9010 72030 950111 Greenbelt-Boat Access369,745.50
1 9010 72030 950112 Greenbelt-Free Bridge15,000.00
1 1810 93010 930010 Transfer to C.I.P.598,945.50
1 1810 93010 930010 Transfer to C.I.P. 350,000.00
TOTAL$1,547,891.00
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 9010 51000 512034 Transfer from Tourism$ 598,945.50
2 1810 18000 181108 Contribution-Developer10,000.00
2 1810 24000 240500 State Grant25,000.00
2 1810 51000 510100 Tourism Fund Balance 913,945.50
TOTAL$1,547,891.00
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
September 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
NUMBER: 2001-009
FUND: SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: AUTHORIZATION TO EXPEND DONATED FUNDS
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 2255 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies$ 609.59
1 2215 61101 580000 Misc Supplies500.00
1 2203 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies298.00
1 2204 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 400.00
TOTAL$1,807.59
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 2000 18100 181109 Donations$1,807.59
TOTAL$1,807.59
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Land Use Taxation Program, Presentation.
Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance, said this report on the Land Use Value Taxation Program
is in response to several questions from the Board on program implementation, as well as a request for
more information about Sliding Scale Roll-Back legislation. Staff included in its report a brief summary of
the enabling legislation, general policies and procedures, and updated figures on the size and deferred
value of the program. A separate section discusses some of the same alternatives to the current land use
taxation program that were presented to the Board in a 1994 report, as well as a discussion of an annual
revalidation process and the Sliding Scale Roll-back legislation.
Mr. Breeden said the County currently has approximately 310,319 acres in the land use program,
or approximately 65 percent of the County's total acreage. The annual tax deferral is approximately $7.2
million, a deferral that has been exacerbated over the past ten years by rapidly declining SLEAC values in
horticulture and agriculture.
Currently, a property owner must submit an application for taxation on the basis of use assessment
at least sixty days prior to the tax year for which the reduced taxation is sought. Anyone receiving use value
taxation must submit a reapplication whenever a change in acreage or a change in land use occurs.
Albemarle County charges a fee of $15 per parcel plus 15 cents for each acre over one hundred acres for
initial applications and reapplication. This does not provide a lot of revenue. In order to quality, a property
owner must certify on the application that the property meets the standards of classification prescribed by
the State Commissioner of Agriculture, the State Director of Conservation and Recreation, or the State
Forester.
Mr. Breeden said the County can require certain items to help in determining eligibility for land use:
USDA/ASCS farm number; Federal tax forms (1040F), (4835) or (1040E); a conservation Farm
Management and/or Forest Management plan; or evidence that gross sales averaged more than $1000
annually over the previous three years. He said the County requests these documents only if a physical
review of the property is insufficient to determine eligibility. It should be kept in mind that most of the
property in the land use program originally qualified in the mid-1970s and there has been no revalidation of
that information since then. (Note: Mr. Dorrier returned to the meeting at 3:51 p.m.)
Mr. Breeden said the major part of the program is the roll-back when land changes to a non-
qualifying use. Between 1991 and 2000, there were 7787 acres on which there was a roll-back and the
County collected $1,250,627 in roll-back taxes. He said that for the year 2001, the deferral was $7.2
million. On a 76 cent tax rate ($676,000 per penny), that equates to 10.5 cents, so the tax rate could be
reduced by that much if there were not land use taxation.
Mr. Perkins asked if there is a committee which works on the application process. Mr. Breeden
said it only deals with some of the equalization and appeal processes. If it is determined that a parcel will
be disqualified, the property owner can appeal to that board. Mr. Davis said it is an advisory board, and has
no legal status. It was created to provide a citizen review of decisions in regard to land use valuation.
Mr. Breeden said the amount of the deferred tax over the years has increased from $4.0 million in
1991 to $7.2 million currently. Fair market values are steadily increasing, but SLEAC values have
continually gone down. The decreases have at times been as much as 50 to 60 percent.
Mr. Perkins said the change from $4.0 million to $7.2 million may look alarming, but in looking at
the Countys current budget and the current assessment of property, it is really right in line. Mr. Breeden
=
said the amount of the deferral will continue to increase. SLEAC values are only used each two years
because of the biennial assessment cycle. If the County was using the 2002 SLEAC values, it would be
looking at a 13 percent decrease on agricultural and a 31 percent decrease on horticultural values, with a
small increase in forestry. He does not think the 2003 values will be much different.
Mr. Dorrier asked if these values are the same throughout Virginia and across the country. Mr.
Breeden said they are consistent. It is hard to compare Albemarle County with others on forestry land
September 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
because a lot of the SLEAC values are based on crop values. He said there are counties which have a lot
of commercial crops, but there is not much of that in Albemarle County.
Mr. Breeden said staff also listed some options the Board can consider for the land use program.
Staff does not recommend any of them, but did it only for the Boards information. Option One would be to
=
eliminate the Land Use Ordinance. Under State law, any land currently part of an agricultural/forestal
district would qualify for land use taxation, but that is all the acreage that would qualify. Of the 310,000
acres in the land use program, only 66,000 acres are currently in those districts. The County would save
about $5.2 million in deferred taxes, but, if the Board did this, there would probably be requests to put more
land in agricultural/forestal districts.
Ms. Thomas asked if there are any properties that could not be in an agricultural/forestal district
that are included in the 310,000 acres currently getting land use taxation. Mr. Breeden said he is not totally
familiar with district requirements, but he believes there are some which would not qualify, lands in growth
areas would not. Mr. Davis said that in the Rural Areas there are some basic size requirements that have to
be met, and there need to be contiguous parcels. It is possible there could be some isolated parcels where
land around it could not be in an agricultural/forestal district. Ms. Sherry Buttrick said the land has to be
within two miles of the core of the district.
Mr. Breeden said Option Two would be to allow use value taxation only for the Open Space
Classification. He said it would probably give the Board the most control because it would be able to
approve or disapprove those applications. There would need to be a signed agreement by the property
owner not to develop or change the use of the property for a specified period of time. This option could
achieve a similar effect as Option 1, which would eliminate use value except for eligible parcels within the
agricultural/forestal districts. It might also encourage property owners to grant an easement to a public
body in return for the benefit of use value taxation and the assurance that the property will be preserved as
open space.
Option Three is to eliminate use value on Forest Land only. In Albemarle County, this would
eliminate more than 64 percent of the land currently enrolled in land use (199,436 acres). The realized
revenues from this change could be as much as $3.3 million in deferred taxes. However, the land in an
agricultural/forestal district would continue to qualify for that option no matter what the local ordinance says.
Option Four is to require a periodic revalidation of land use properties. Albemarle County has
never done this. By State law, a fee could be charged for doing a revalidation every sixth year.
Ms. Thomas asked if there is a fee which can be charged other than a revalidation fee because she
had been told that Fauquier has an annual fee. Mr. Breeden said he does not know of any such fee. The
Code allows a revalidation every year, but a fee can be charged only each six years, and it can be no more
than the amount of the original fee. He said this would require more staff and place burdens on taxpayers
to comply. Staff thinks it would cost a minimum of $50,000 to do that every year, and only $72,000 of that
cost would be recovered each six years.
Option Five is an on-going review of parcels in the land use program by a County staff person
devoted solely to assuring program compliance. That person would be monitoring (make sure properties
enrolled in the land use program continue to meet classification standards) the parcels currently in the
program. The property owner would have no new requirements placed on him. If this were done, the
County might try to raise some of the original application fees to recover some of the costs. There have not
been changes in the fee since the program was adopted in the mid-1970s.
Option Six would be to ask for information on the Sliding Scale Roll-back Legislation. He said that
in 2000 a bill was introduced in the General Assembly and ultimately signed into law that allows localities,
upon adoption of a local ordinance, to provide for a Sliding Scale Roll-back. The Sliding Scale Roll-back
extends the roll-back from five years up to 20 years. In conjunction with this extension, the deferment is
also increased up to 99 percent of the current use value. To participate, a property owner must enter into
an agreement with the locality and by doing so, gives up the right to change the use of the property for up to
20 years. So far there has not been a lot of interpretation of this new legislation. Loudoun County has
adopted something, but has not had much participation in the program. The program looks good, but
about the only person who would take advantage of the option is the person who is not going to develop
their land.
Mr. Dorrier asked the idea behind the legislation. Mr. Breeden said there are several options
available for setting the contractual time frame. The deferment can be increased at a rate of five percent
each year up to the twentieth year where it would be increased four percent and the deferment held at 99
percent thereafter. The scale could be set up to give a 50 percent reduction for the first 10 years of a
20-year contract and increased to 99 percent for the last 10 years, or the scale could be set up to give 99
percent reduction every year during the 20-year contract. It could also be set at a fraction of the 20-year
period, for example 10 or 15 years, with a prorated reduction in the deferment.
Mr. Dorrier asked why that legislation would not be good for Albemarle County. Mr. Breeden said
he thinks it is good for the taxpayer if he gets a reduced tax, but he does not think it will stop development if
that is the Boards concern. The person who will develop property, once in the program for six years, if he
=
stayed in the program for one additional year, would immediately wipe out any savings during the first six
years with the additional deferment. He would have to pay six years of roll-back, plus an extra year of the
full roll-back from fair market value down to the land use value.
September 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
Mr. Dorrier asked why Loudoun adopted an ordinance. Mr. Breeden said they have been trying
everything possible to slow down growth. They have said that the only parcels applying are those in the
part of the County where there is little growth going on at this time. He does not think it would work as a
growth tool.
Mr. Davis said the statute does not set out a time frame. It just says there can be a longer period of
time for a lower assessed value. Loudoun chose the eight to 20-year provision in their ordinance. That
ordinance sets out one rate for the first ten years, and another rate for the second ten years. They did not
do a true sliding scale, but a step scale. It is not a widely-used piece of enabling legislation. It has not been
found to be very useful.
Mr. Perkins said if someone is going to sign up for the program, they will probably choose the
twenty-year period. If someone is thinking about development, he does not believe they would sign up for
the program at all. Mr. Breeden said the time periods can be set for different commitment periods. If
someone adheres to the period they signed up for, then it goes to a five-year roll-back after they have met
their commitment.
Mr. Bruce Woodzell said if someone in the program decided to stop farming within that time frame,
the County has no choice but to apply the roll-back, and then the agreement is void.
Mr. Breeden said they still have to meet the classification standards and guidelines. If someone
decided to sign up for agricultural use, and then decided to stop farming, the property is automatically
disqualified and out of the program. He does not know if this information helps the Board, but staff will be
glad to do further research on any of the options. He offered to answer questions.
Ms. Thomas said it bothers her that a lot of people are getting a tax break on 20 of their 21 acres
which they cannot develop anyway because they have no more development rights on the property. There
is not a land use planning tool in that sense, and they are not farming their land. To her, farming is a
minimum of putting fertilizer on the land, keeping up the fences, and getting some produce off of the land,
or letting someone else get produce off of the land. There are no incentives for the owner to do anything
other than bale the weeds they mow, rather than bush hog the weeds they mow down. Because they are
not putting any investment in their land, a farmer who rents pastures for his cows finds the pastures getting
worse year by year because the landowner probably is not putting fertilizer on the land. Even a farmer who
truly wants to farm in the old straight-forward way is having a hard time despite the fact that there is a lot of
land getting the use value tax break.
Mr. Breeden said staff looked at that situation, but it is hard coming to any conclusions on parcels
that are less than 21 acres. Of the parcels in the program, there are about 2000 parcels which contain less
than 21 acres. This is less than 10 percent of the total acreage in the program. Of those parcels, about
500 contain less than five acres, and they qualify because they are contiguous to a larger tract. There are
15,000 acres (1400 parcels) in the program which range from five to 20 acres each.
Mr. Perkins said in reference to the 21-acre parcels, one acre is taxed at market value, but in the
Rural Area there must be two acres for a lot. If a person has an undeveloped parcel and wants to create
five, two-acre lots, the Health Department requires two acres, so why does the County allow one acre
parcels. Mr. Breeden said the land use guidelines say that basically all land is eligible. Anything not used
for personal use in the house/yard area would be eligible for the program. He said of the 21-acre lots,
there are only 131 parcels of this size in the program.
Mr. Perkins asked if a person bought a parcel of 21 acres for $200,000 and could only use two
acres of that parcel, what are the other 19 acres worth without a development right? Mr. Woodzell said that
normally staff considers two acres as the site, and puts the majority of the value on those two acres. If the
property sold for $200,000, the assessment on the site might be $125,000 with the rest being excess land.
The remaining 19 acres would carry the other $75,000. Mr. Breeden said those 21-acre sites are a small
part of the issue. If all of them were eliminated, it would not amount to many dollars.
Ms. Thomas asked if there is any way to use this as a tool to increase the agricultural activity going
on in the community. Since 65 percent of the program is in forestry, there is only 35 percent in agriculture.
She does not like people getting a generous tax break for claiming their land is in an agriculture use, when it
is not. Mr. Breeden said in the 1970s, land use was tried as a farmers tax break, and it never passed until it
=
became more of an environmental issue. He said the actual number of legitimate farmers in Albemarle
County is very small.
Mr. Dorrier asked if Mr. Kluge got tax breaks on the 10,000 acres he gave to the University of
Virginia. Mr. Breeden said he did. Ms. Thomas said he was actually farming a lot of that land. Mr. Breeden
said he had one of the most legitimate farming operations in the County.
Mr. Davis said if there is a legitimate agricultural, horticultural or forestry activity on the 21-acre lot,
the State Code does not allow the minimum acreage to be changed. Five acres is the set minimum. The
only category the County can increase acreage on is open space. Albemarle set that at 20 acres, but State
Code minimum is five acres.
Ms. Thomas said she has heard farmers who make a business of farming, say that Fauquier
focuses on getting an annual report to be sure a person is actually farming the land. Farmers dont have
=
any problems doing that because they have other reports for their business, so it does not add a layer of
September 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
reporting. For the people who are getting a tax break but barely farming, she would like the Board to think
about whether this would impress on them that there are responsibilities for calling their land a farm. Mr.
Breeden said he believes that most of the smaller parcels qualify because someone is already farming the
property. Most of the parcels in the low twenties qualify as forestry, not as agriculture. In the current
economy and farming environment, he does not believe there is anything that can be done from a tax
standpoint to encourage farming.
Ms. Thomas said she was not saying the County should encourage someone to go into farming,
but that they do something more responsible with the land. She thinks a lot of land is growing up into trees,
while the remainder is being baled even though it is hardly edible as hay. Mr. Perkins said low use
agriculture might be better environmentally than intensive agriculture. He wondered the intent of the
General Assembly when the law was enacted. He thinks they expected valuable products to come off of
the land, as well as other benefits; clean air, clean water, etc. He said the County might use Option 5 and
select 25 parcels for an inspection. In the audit which Westvaco does of its forestry practices, they do not
look at everything, but visit different job sites to see of their standards of sustainability have been met. The
County might try doing the same thing. If it was found that one of 25 did not meet the criteria for land use,
that probably means that one out of every 25 probably does not meet the criteria either. Mr. Breeden said
the Board needs to keep in mind its philosophy of the program. If it is intended to encourage agriculture, it's
a losing battle. If it's to encourage open space, whether a person is farming or not farming, it is still not
being developed. The question is, how strict does the Board want to be about farming. The guidelines are
set up for barely farming in order to meet the criteria.
A@
Mr. Perkins said the Board has to forget that there are $7.2 million which could be collected. If
there was no land use program, what would happen with that land? Also, the Board needs to look at the
services the land requires, which are not many. In that regard, the land is more than paying its fair share.
He has a concern that there were a number of parcels created in subdivisions of 21 acres, and they are
getting land use taxation under forestry. But, individual regulations in these subdivisions do not allow them
to cut the trees. He thinks that from a forestry standpoint, if there are trees which are dying and falling down
because they dont want to cut them, that does not seem to be the intent of the General Assembly. They
=
expected people to practice forestry and in order to do that, trees have to be cut every now and then. If that
person is not following a forestry management plan, maybe they should not be accorded land use taxation.
Mr. Breeden said he agrees to an extent. However, staff has seen some plans which are as simple
as a one-line statement approved by the Forestry Department that said trees should be grown on this
A
property to avoid soil erosion. That would make it a legitimate, qualified use.
@
Mr. Perkins said Miller School planted 107 acres in trees this past year on some of the most
productive acres in the County. They will be planting another 100+ acres in trees this coming year because
they are tired of trying to find someone to farm their acreage. They can get more out of trees than renting
the land to a farmer. He hates to see doing away with forest land taxation because he thinks the County
gets the most environmental benefits from forest lands.
Ms. Thomas said she has no interest in removing the forestry category.
Mr. Woodzell said he agrees with Ms. Thomas. If a person has given up all of their development
rights, so what more can they do with the property than what it is designed to do. There is nothing in State
legislation that prohibits the County from not allowing them land use. If the program was written to prohibit
people from developing their property, if the development rights are gone, what are they deferring?
Mr. Perkins said that was not the only intent. Mr. Woodzell said he believes the major intent, the
second time the legislation was presented, was to make sure things remained in an open atmosphere, and
to protect water and air.
Ms. Thomas asked if it is possible to distinguish between those parcels that no longer have any
development rights. Could those parcels be checked to see if there are agricultural or forestal activities
taking place? Mr. Breeden said those parcels could be targeted as the ones to look at, but as long as they
meet the guidelines, there is nothing to be done. Ms. Thomas said the County could change its
enforcement of the ordinance in some way. Mr. Breeden said staff is willing to investigate anything it
becomes aware of. Occasionally, people do call in and ask questions.
Mr. Perkins asked about doing a selective audit; what would that cost? He suggested using the
members of the Land Use Evaluation Advisory Board to do this. Mr. Woodzell said they could certainly go
out with him to view the properties. Mr. Breeden said he thinks staff might conduct the review, and on the
ones which were questionable, then use the Land Use Board.
Ms. Thomas said that before doing that, a package of information should be sent to each person in
the program letting them know the review is about to take place, and explain the steps the property owner
might take to be sure they still qualify for the program. She said the County has not communicated to the
property owners that they have responsibilities if they want this tax break. Mr. Breeden said staff can look at
what it would take to do that. He said that farm management plans are one way to show that a person is in
a farming operation, but if the owner meets the other minimum requirements of the SLEAC Committee,
they would probably qualify without a farm management plan.
Mr. Martin suggested putting together a strategy to do some minor education, and do some
checking, and see what happens.
September 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
Mr. Woodzell said the appraisers are on the property every 18 months, and they do try to monitor
land use. However, if they are on the property in the winter, there is no way to tell what goes on in the
summer. If they feel there is a neglect of proper use, they do notify that person and give them an
opportunity to correct that situation.
Mr. Tucker asked if the Board wants another report on what staff decides to do. He said a report
can be put on the consent agenda in the near future.
Ms. Thomas asked if other Board members had problems with this program.
Ms. Humphris said she has always had a basic problem with the program. She has felt that it all
worked to the benefit of the landowner when they had no obligation because there is no contract. They can
go in and out of the program at will. She always felt there should be something. She realizes it is to the
benefit of everybody in the County that these properties be kept undeveloped, but a lot of them do not have
development rights anyway.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. Appointments.
Ms. Thomas said she would read the list of appointments which should be made today:
For the Public Recreational Facilities Authority, reappoint Mr. Christopher R. Lee for a term which
will run from December 14, 2001, to December 13, 2004; reappoint Mr. Craig G. Van de Castle to a term
which will run from December 14, 2001, to December 13, 2004; and, reappoint Ms. Sherry Buttrick to a
term which will run from December 14, 2001, to December 13, 2004.
For the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Citizens Advisory Committee, reappoint Ms. Cynthia Dupree
to a term which will run from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2003.
For the Agricultural/Forestal District Advisory Committee, appoint Ms. Sherry Buttrick to replace Mr.
P. Scott Morrill who has resigned. There is no set term for membership on this committee.
For the Board of Building Code Appeals (BOCA), reappoint Mr. Raymond E. Gaines to a term
which will run from November 22, 2001, to November 21, 2006.
For the Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Appraisal Review Committee, reappoint Mr.
Joseph T. Samuels, Jr., to a term which will run from January 1, 2002, to December 31, 2002; and,
reappoint Mr. Ross L. Stevens to a term which will run from January 1, 2002, to December 31, 2002.
For the Housing Committee, reappoint Ms. Joy F. Matthews to a term which will run from January
1, 2002, to December 31, 2004.
For the Joint Airport Commission, reappoint Dr. Leo Mallek for a term which will run from
December 1, 2001, to December 1, 2004.
For the Historic Preservation Committee, appoint Mr. Lowry W. Abell to replace Ms. Cynthia Marie
Conte who has resigned. There is no set term for this appointment.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin to make the appointments as read by Ms. Thomas. 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 and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Tucker mentioned the item heard today from Ms. Meredith Richards regarding an appropri-
ation of $1000 to match the Citys contribution for the Lewis & Clark Bicentennial and the Twin-cities
=
relationship. He recommended that the $1000 be appropriated from the Boards contingency fund. He
=
asked for a motion to that effect.
Motion to approve an appropriation as stated by Mr. Tucker was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded
by Ms. Humphris, and carried by the following recorded vote (Note: The actual appropriation form will be
presented on a future agenda for adoption):
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
__________
Mr. Tucker said the Mayor of Scottsville has written asking for help with regard to the towns
=
stormwater management needs. It is a fairly significant issue. He and Mr. Dorrier have discussed the issue
September 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
with County staff. There are several things the town has asked the County to be involved in. He wants to
have a team of staff members look at what other towns provide within their own town limits, and what the
county provides. Later, he will ask that a committee containing Board members meet to discuss what staff
finds. It is a formal request from the Town Council that the County look at stormwater
management/drainage issues with them.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she would like to know the situation with the final closure plan of the Ivy Landfill
since that was in limbo awaiting the recreation request that never came through. She said the Board
promised the community it would do something else, but that hinged on something else. The closure has
to happen 120 days from last Saturday, so there is no time to wait to see what the final closure plan should
look like.
___________
Ms. Thomas said she has asked Mr. Davis to look at the wording of the litter law concerning loose
items escaping from trucks. He found that the State Code is much more clearly stated than the Countys
=
ordinance. Some policemen have said, informally, that they were having trouble getting the judge to pay
any attention to their citations. She would like to communicate to the police, the State Code provision and
how it might be more enforceable. It does not require that the local ordinance be changed.
__________
Ms. Thomas said that this coming Friday there will be a public hearing by the Federal Highway
Administration on the transportation planning process that is done in this region. She and Ms. Humphris will
be at that meeting, but she invited all to attend.
__________
Ms. Thomas said October 13, 2001, is the date for the local Lewis and Clark Festival. Kids from
Clark Elementary in the City and kids from Meriwether Lewis Elementary in the County will be together in
the Lane Auditorium and present a one-hour program.
__________
Ms. Thomas asked if anything has been heard from Greene County. There was a letter received
about a possible sewage treatment plant on Preddy Creek. She has read in the newspaper that they are
going to use a different location. Mr. Tucker said nothing formal has been received.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she has been receiving telephone calls from the Conservation Leaders Network
about the roadless area conservation rule. She has assumed that Albemarle County will not be getting
involved in that. She knows Mr. Perkins has felt strongly about this sort of thing before. She just wants to
be sure this is not something the County has studied and is not becoming involved.
Mr. Martin said he told someone that he believed the Board members would follow Mr. Perkins
thinking on this issue.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the Italians are coming in March, 2002. She sent out an E-mail to the Board
members about this visit. She did not know if anyone was interested in being on a planning committee with
her. Mr. Dorrier said he is interested.
__________
Ms. Thomas said on September 20, 2001, at 7:00 p.m., City Council would like to discuss their bus
transportation plan with the Board. Council got the same report from the consultants as that given to this
Board. She asked if any of the Board members will attend the meeting in City Council Chambers. Ms.
Humphris said she did not understand the need for such a meeting because this Board cannot deal with the
issue until time for budget work sessions.
__________
Ms. Thomas said that January 2, 2002, is the Boards first meeting in January. She just wants to be
=
sure the Board wants to continue its regular meeting schedule, and keep this meeting on January 2. It was
agreed to hold a short meeting that day, possibly not starting until 1:00 p.m.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 22. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the Board of County
Supervisors
September 5, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
Date: 11/05/2001
Initials: EWC