2002-04-03April 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on April 3,
2002, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins, Mr. Dennis S.
Rooker and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Deputy Clerk, Laurel W. Bentley, and, Chief of Community Development, David W. 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. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Sue Friedman was present to represent the Thomas Jefferson United Way Success by 6
Program. She presented to the Board a proclamation of appreciation for the Albemarle Department of
Social Services for its assistance with the childrens health insurance program. She will be presenting a
=
similar certificate to the Albemarle School Board next week.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation.
Ms. Thomas presented certificates of appreciation to:
Mr. Dennis S. Rooker for his service on the Albemarle County Planning Commission, Fiscal Impact
Advisory Committee, MPO Technical Committee, and the MPO Meadow Creek Parkway Design Planning
Advisory Committee.
Ms. Judith Herndon for her efforts in promoting fair housing for Albemarle County residents for the
past twenty-five years. Ms. Herndon developed a specialty in landlord/tenant issues and fair housing while
on staff with the University of Virginia's Student Legal Services. The community is strengthened and
uplifted by those who step forward to volunteer their services in support of improving the quality of life of its
residents.
Ms. Herndon expressed her appreciation to the Board for the proclamation. She said that working
with the Albemarle County Housing Office over the past years on matters of fair housing has been a
pleasure. She knows of no other jurisdiction in this area which has the same enthusiasm and dedication on
the issue of fair housing. She thinks Albemarle County deserves a thank you for being so supportive of
A@
fair housing.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr.
Martin, to approve Items 6.1 through 6.3 on the Consent Agenda, and to accept the remaining items for
information.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
__________
Item 6.1. Proclamation recognizing April 2002 as Fair Housing Month.
Ms. Thomas read the following proclamation into the record (approved by the vote set out
above) and then presented it to Mr. Ron White, Albemarle County Director of Housing.
FAIR HOUSING MONTH
WHEREAS, April, 2002, marks the thirty-fourth anniversary of the passage of the Fair
Housing Act of 1968, which sought to eliminate discrimination in housing
opportunities and to affirmatively further housing choices for all Americans;
and
WHEREAS, the ongoing struggle for dignity and housing opportunity for all is not the
exclusive province of the Federal government; and
WHEREAS, vigorous local efforts to combat discrimination can be as effective, if not more
so, than Federal efforts; and
April 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
WHEREAS, illegal barriers to equal opportunity in housing, no matter how subtle, diminish
the rights of all;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
that in the pursuit of the shared goal and responsibility of providing equal
housing opportunities for all men and women, the Board of County
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby join in the national
celebration by proclaiming
APRIL, 2002
as
FAIR HOUSING MONTH
and encourages all agencies, institutions and individuals, public and private, in
Albemarle County to abide by the letter and the spirit of the Fair Housing law.
__________
Item 6.2. Proclamation recognizing April, 2002 as Child Abuse Prevention Month.
Ms. Thomas read the following proclamation into the record (approved by the vote set out
above), and then presented same to Ms. Beth Hothstetler.
Ms. Hothstetler said she works for Piedmont CASA as a case manager. They train volunteers to
work with children who have been abused or neglected. Even though there are a wealth of resources in the
County to help families, and there is a large group of volunteers, there are children still on the wait list; 29
children who have no one to advocate for them. She thanked the Board for adopting the proclamation, but
said she did not want it to stop at the end of the month. She said if the proclamation can be used year-
round, they will do so. In return, she presented the Board members with a blue ribbon to wear throughout
the year.
CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH
WHEREAS, the incidence and prevalence of child abuse and neglect have reached
alarming proportions in the United States, where 8,993 children were
substantiated victims of child abuse and neglect in Virginia during fiscal year
2000 - 2001; and
WHEREAS, Virginia and the Charlottesville-Albemarle area face a continuing need to
support innovative programs to prevent child abuse and assist parents family
members when child abuse occurs; and
WHEREAS, in Virginia and the Charlottesville-Albemarle area there are dedicated
individuals and organizations who work daily to counter the problem of child
abuse and neglect and to help parents obtain the assistance they need; and
WHEREAS, all children deserve freedom from verbal abuse, sexual abuse, emotional and
physical abuse and neglect; and
WHEREAS, children deserve to have BLUE RIBBON DAYS, including loving hugs, warm
homes, tender care, parents and adults who listen and who promote
self-esteem, give quality time, provide necessary food, shelter, clothing and
medical attention; and
WHEREAS, it is vital that we join forces to reach out to parents and children to prevent the
recurrence of child abuse and neglect; and
WHEREAS, it is indeed appropriate and fitting to focus attention upon the problem of child
abuse and neglect in Virginia and the Charlottesville-Albemarle area;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Sally H. Thomas, Chairman, on behalf of the
Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim the month of
April 2002
as
CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH
in the Charlottesville-Albemarle area, and do call upon our citizens to observe
the month with appropriate programs, blue ribbons and other activities.
__________
Item 6.3. ZMA-2001-021. Carriage Gate (Sign #69). To rezone 2.742 acs from R-6 to R-15 to
allow apartments w/density of 14 du/ac. TM45, P91. Loc on Woodbrook Dr approx 1.4 mls from intersec
of Woodbrook Dr & Berkmar Dr. Rio Dist.
This petition has been indefinitely deferred by the Planning Commission, so was removed from
the agenda.
__________
April 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
Item 6.4. Copy of letter dated March 15, 2002, to Roger W. Ray, Roger W. Ray & Assoc., Inc.,
from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration, re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND PARCELS - Section 10.3.1 - Tax Map 8, Parcel 15C (Property of Charles
Pryce Ancona), was received for information.
__________
Item 6.5. Copy of letter dated March 22, 2002, to J. Paige Williams, Feil, Pettit & Williams, from
John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration, re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS AND PARCELS - Section 10.3.1 - Tax Map 55, Parcels 84C, 84D, 84E, 102, 103, 103F and Tax
Map 55A, parcel 39 (Property of Hidden Hills, L.L.C.), was received for information.
__________
Item 6.6. Copy of draft Planning Commission minutes for March 5, 2002, was received for
information.
__________
Item 6.7. Charlottesville VDoT Residency Monthly Report, April, 2002, was received for
information.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7a. Transportation Matters: Draft Statement for VDOT's Primary Road Plan
Pre-allocation Hearing in Culpeper.
Mr. David Benish summarized the executive summary which is on file in the Clerks Office. He said
=
that on April 16, 2002, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) will conduct its annual
pre-allocation hearing in Culpeper for improvements to the interstate and primary system for the Culpeper
District. All roads with route numbers below 600 are primary roads (i.e., Route 29, Route 250).
Mr. Benish said the Board had received a copy of the statement to be presented, which has been
updated from the year 2001. It addresses Albemarle Countys priorities for each allocation of TEA-21 funds
=
and each sub-allocation of the Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds. If necessary, staff will modify
the priorities based on the Board's comments today and can provide a final draft for the Board's review and
endorsement at the April 10, 2002, Board meeting.
Mr. Benish noted that on Page 4 of the statement, at the bottom of the page, No. 2) it presently
reads: Reconfigure installation of traffic signals at Route 22 and Route 250 intersection. It actually should
A@
read: Reconfigure Route 22/Route 250 intersection and install traffic signals. One change in the
A@
Enhancement Projects is to elevate the pedestrian streetscape improvements in downtown Crozet. It was
Priority No. 2 in the last years plan, and now shows as Priority No. 1.
=
Ms. Thomas asked if the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation Access Project is funded. Mr.
Benish said he does not know if they will need to request additional funding. He believes the four phases
originally proposed were funded. There is always a possibility they may need to supplement that money in
the future.
Mr. Rooker referred to the second paragraph on Page 2, at the end where it states: Also, the
A
County supports reestablishing funding for design and construction of the Route 29 interchanges at
Hydraulic Road, Greenbrier Drive and Rio Road, with consideration for alternative design concepts not
previously considered. He asked if the words which would be less intrusive and better accommodate
@A
pedestrian and bicycle traffic could be added to the end of that sentence.
@
Mr. Rooker asked if anything has been done about an intelligent transportation study to better
synchronize the traffic lights on Route 29. If everything that can be done on Route 29 had not been done,
maybe something should be added in this statement.
Ms. Thomas said the City got a grant to try and fix their section of Route 29. She does not know if
that work has been finished. Mr. Tucker said the lights in the City are not working if the work has been
completed.
Mr. Jim Bryan, Resident Engineer, said it will be later in the summer before the City begins work on
their section of Route 29.
Ms. Thomas said she would like to suggest saying Funds being scarce, we suggest dropping the
A
bypass and selling the lands and buildings acquired; since land is appreciating at seven to ten percent a
year so it acts as a good investment; go back to abiding by the Three-Party Agreement; meet the needs
and plans identified in our cooperative continuing process through the MPO and the projects we agreed to
back in 1990; aim at that and continue to aim at a regional network efficient transportation system to
support smart growth of the area, i.e., land use that does not clog too many arteries. This requires parallel
roads such as Hillsdale and facilitating traffic on the area roads that we have, upgrading with grade-
separated interchanges and long-planned connector roads like Meadow Creek Parkway. Since Meadow
Creek Parkway takes parkland, VDOT has agreed to make it a true parkway, we paid for its design, and it
needs to be built as designed. She asked if the Board members agree with that statement. She said there
@
is precedent for saying something slightly different from the statement handed in at the hearing. If both the
tone and the content of that are not something that the Board members want her to say, they should
April 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
comment now.
Mr. Martin said as far as saying it, Ms. Thomas is chairman. As to something that is in writing which
is being sent to the Commission, he would like to have a copy of what Ms. Thomas just said so he can look
at it and see what it looks like on paper. Mr. Tucker said staff will get a copy of the final statement to the
Board members before the hearing. Mr. Benish said a copy will be given to the Board at its April 10
meeting.
Mr. Rooker said he believes all of the concepts mentioned by Ms. Thomas are in the statement.
He asked if what Ms. Thomas has suggested would be the lead to the statement.
Ms. Thomas said the County is only allotted three minutes in which to make its statement. So,
there is no way to present the written statement. Traditionally, there has been both an oral statement, and
the statement which is handed in. The statement before the Board today contains all of those things which
have been requested by the County year after year, and it fits the Countys sense of priorities. She and Mr.
=
Rooker sat through a long meeting of City Council in which they discussed their priorities and they had a lot
of trouble because there are so many divergent opinions among Council members. The County has
worked out a fairly good consensus over the years, but if someone thinks there should be a change, this is
one of very few chances the Board has to make changes during the year.
Mr. Martin said as to the statement the Chairman will make, the Board usually gets a draft of that
statement first. He asked if Ms. Thomas wants to include what she just said at the presentation, as well as
add those words to the statement.
Ms. Thomas said no. She would just have those words in her covering statement. She will write it
A@
down so the Board members can see it at next weeks meeting.
=
Mr. Rooker said on Page 3 there is discussion of improvements to Route 250 West from Emmet
Street to the Route 250 Bypass. He said the City is de-emphasizing that project, if not completely dropping
the project. He wonders if the Board needs to modify its statement to deal only with the County's portion.
Ms. Thomas said both PACC and the MPO have been frustrated because the new parking garage
is going to be built in the City on the Ivy Road side of the railroad tracks. That will impact City traffic, but the
City is not interested in widening Ivy Road. She said the University is developing traffic impact studies. The
County still thinks this project is important, but the City does not, and since most of the development will
take place in the City, she does not know where that leaves the County. Mr. Benish said staff knows there
has been a change in circumstances to identify the improvements which will take place at the University
which may impact this corridor. Staff continues to recommend that whatever improvements are necessary
be coordinated with the City. Knowing the direction the City is taking, it will be difficult to coordinate anything
with them.
Mr. Dorrier asked about the safety improvements listed. It says pedestrian walkways should be
constructed along primary routes within the Countys urban neighborhoods and a number of streets are
=
listed, but Avon Street Extd. is not listed for sidewalks. Mr. Benish said this list only contains roads in the
primary road system, and Avon Street is a secondary road. That project is actually listed in the Countys
=
CIP, and probably will occur within the next two years.
Mr. Martin said he appreciates having the sidewalks along Route 20 North to Wilton Farm listed in
this statement. Being in both the safety improvements and the enhancement projects shows the continued
importance of those sidewalks to the County.
Mr. Perkins asked why Standard Project No. 7 (Finish the VDOT corridor study of Route 240 in
Crozet and improve Route 240 in Crozet in accord with County recommendations regarding this study.) was
deleted. Mr. Benish said staff is about to begin the Master Planning process for Crozet.
Mr. Perkins said if that is the case, there should be something added where the master plan is
mentioned, and that Route 240 should be looked at in that master plan, and any other road improvements
needed in the Crozet community, and not just mention the TEA-21 streetscape project. Mr. Benish said
VDOT will not be directly involved in the master plan process, whereas No. 7 was a request for them to
specifically do a project. He said staff will revise No. 7 to make reference to the study and future needs to
further address the Route 240 improvements.
Mr. Rooker asked if the study of Route 240 was initially funded with Federal money. Mr Benish said
years ago, the County asked for a Corridor Study that would show the general improvements needed to
support the development of that corridor. That functional study was partially done eight or more years ago,
but never completed. The County wanted to know what realignment might be necessary to address vertical
or horizontal curves, so it has continued to ask for completion of that study. At this time, the County would
want to go back through the master planning process, and then follow up that process with implementation
measures.
Mr. Rooker asked if some of that language should be included in Item 1 on Page 5. He asked if
Mr. Perkins wanted that study to be completed, or just to be included in the master planning. Mr. Perkins
said he thinks there should be some reference to it on the bottom of Page 4, or under Item 1 on Page 5.
Mr. Rooker asked why the study was not finished. Mr. Benish said he believes it was not completed
because of VDOTs work load. Mr. Rooker asked if there was a traffic study component attached to that
=
April 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
study. Mr. Benish said it was based on general traffic projections of current vehicle trips, so it was not an
elaborate study. With the recent work on the Route 250 West Study, the Crozet area is modeled much
better which lends itself to a more detailed analysis.
Ms. Thomas said she got a communication from the Wapolo County Board of Supervisors dealing
with Amtrak. She wondered if in No. 4 on Page 3, the Board might support Amtrak in addition to the
TransDominion Express. The Wapolo Board indicated that the Amtrak lines are not owned by Amtrak, but
are only leased, and that Amtrak is planning on giving up many of these leases. She also has no idea what
role VDOT has in this, but she does know that the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation
attends the Pre-allocation Hearing.
Mr. Dorrier said on Page 4, No. 9 says there will be a focus on mass transit in densely developed
urban areas, and funds shifted from road construction into mass transit. He asked if the County has a plan
developed for mass transit. Mr Benish said this is intended to be a general statement to VDOT that in
urbanizing areas there needs to be a greater balance of those funds to support mass transit as opposed to
just road improvements. The Countys planning for mass transit is based in large part on CTS responding
=
to the Countys growth projections and the annual look as to where to expand transit service.
=
Ms. Thomas said if there are no further comments, staff will bring back the revised statement for
review at next weeks meeting.
=
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7c. Transportation Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Jim Bryan introduced Ms. Teresa Butler the new Assistant Resident Engineer for Maintenance.
She has been on the job for three weeks, and came to this area from Fredericksburg. She has been a
VDOT employee for 13 years.
__________
Mr. Bryan said there was an emergency on a bridge a couple of weeks ago on Route 606. A
vehicle drove off the bridge into the water, and the damage appeared to be severe, but the Bridge Crew
was able to make the repair quickly.
__________
Mr. Bryan said the project scheduled for the intersection of Route 726 at Route 20 was completed
by the forces at the Keene office, so over $200,000 was saved on that project. Mr. Dorrier asked if turn
lanes were put in at Routes 726 and 20. Mr. Bryan said the original project was for turn lanes because
there was a sight distance problem. They determined that the problem could be fixed by just chopping the
bank down, which is what was done.
__________
Mr. Bryan said there was an article in todays newspaper about VDOT trying to cover stump and
=
wasteland with some seedlings as part of the Route 250 West restoration project. That project begins
today.
__________
Mr. Bryan said that last month there was discussion about the underpass on Route 643 (Polo
Grounds Road). They looked at the accident history of that section and during the last five years there was
only one sideswipe accident, and it was about 150 feet away. That means it is truly a local road, and the
local people seem to have adapted to the road condition.
__________
Ms. Thomas asked what long-arming of Route 738 means. Mr. Bryan said the long-arm is also
A@
called a boom-axe. It is a bush-hog towed by a tractor, but it has an articulated arm which can extend
beyond a guardrail or up a hill.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7b. Transportation Matters: Route 649 (Airport Road) Signal.
Mr. Bryan handed to the Board members a report entitled Route 606-649 Intersection which had
A@
been put together by Ms. Teresa Butler. He said this subject was brought up at last months meeting. He
=
said the new alignment of Route 606 was completed sometime last October. It was immediately
discovered that there was a sight line problem because of placement of a guardrail. Many complaints were
received about the problem. The Department put in a four-way stop sign. Then it ran a traffic signal
warrant analysis at the request of the Airport for the relocated Route 649 at Route 606. The intersection
met two warrants. However, due to concerns about the average daily traffic in that area, and the cost
(because a traffic light would have to be moved in a year and a half), the Department decided to study it
further. Based on the warrant analysis, the Department did a traffic volume capacity analysis. Two of the
eleven warrants were met.
Mr. Rooker asked if there was some threshold determination to make? Mr. Bryan said warrants are
management tools. If the intersection meets at least one warrant, the Department is authorized to put in a
signal barring further analysis. In this case, they felt it needed more analysis because the daily traffic
volume is not that large. They took the data from the warrants, and mapped out the three peak periods,
April 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
morning, noon and night. He said the peak hour at this intersection is at one oclock, and not during the
=
morning rush hour. There is another peak period late in the afternoon.
Mr. Bryan said traffic signal installation at this location would cost approximately $81,000. Airport
Road improvements are scheduled to be advertised in December, 2003, so any funds expended to install a
traffic signal would be essentially lost. As to safety, there have been no reported accidents since the new
alignment was put in. Yesterday someone suggested that when the new road is completed, that a traffic
circle be put at this location instead of a traffic signal. That idea will be studied.
_______________
(The Board returned to Item 7c.)
Agenda Item No. 7c. Transportation Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Rooker said the question of traffic light sequencing and an intelligent transportation study for
Route 29 was mentioned at another meeting. He asked if there has ever been such a study conducted.
Mr. Bryan said that on Route 29 North the lights are synchronized from a computer located in
Culpeper. It is state-of-the-art technology. Sometimes there is a glitch. Mr. Martin said he thinks it works
well. He likes it because if one takes the time to learn it, you can hit it and go straight through. Mr. Rooker
A@
said he does not generally experience a problem on Route 29, but thinks that whatever can be done to
make sure it is the best traffic flow, should be done.
___________
Mr. Bryan handed out some Draft Guidelines for Rural Rustic Roads, which came from HB 659
A@
which goes into effect July 1, 2003. He said this will be a true "Pave-in-Place" Program. The Department
will be looking for candidate roads as soon as the Six-Year Plan is re-modified.
Mr. Perkins asked if a road has to be dead-end. Mr. Bryan said it does not have to be. He can
think of three or four roads which are perfect candidates for this program. Catterton Road would have been
a perfect candidate as would Route 702 (Reservoir Road).
Mr. Rooker asked the effect of this policy. Mr. Bryan said it will work just like the present gravel
road policy. A road would have to be included on a list and then wait its turn, but the cost and time involved
would virtually be cut in half. Also, the road would not have to be widened to the 30-foot standard.
Mr. Martin asked about Mr. Bryans statement that the road would still have to wait its turn. He
=
asked if after the list is established, if the Board decided to move a road up on the list, it would be their
prerogative. Mr. Bryan said that is correct. The Board can reprioritize the list.
Mr. Tucker asked if there is a reason for waiting to make the policy effective in 2003 rather than
2002. Mr. Bryan said he thinks it is just to give everybody time to analyze the policy and get best practices
A@
in place. There are two pilot projects which are eminent and there will be lessons learned from those
projects.
Mr. Perkins said there is a statement in the policy which says Requires commitment from county
A
that development will be limited .... He asked if Albemarle County meets that commitment now. Mr. Bryan
@
said he cant answer that question at this time.
=
Ms. Thomas said that is a good question. With the type of development rights in the County,
Albemarle might not meet someones interpretational of that sentence. Mr. Bryan said just because it is a
=
gravel road does not mean it does not get a lot of use.
Mr. Rooker said that sentence goes on to read ... no further improvements are anticipated for a
A
period of 15 years. Mr. Bryan said they do not want to pave-in-place a road, and then suddenly there is a
@
big subdivision and the road becomes dangerous. Mr. Rooker said it might be anticipated that some
planned development along that road would make the road exceed the 500 vehicles per day standard.
Mr. Dorrier asked why most unpaved roads in Albemarle County would not qualify for this policy.
Mr. Bryan said it is based on traffic volumes. He is actually surprised at how high the traffic volume is on
some of the unpaved roads. Mr. Dorrier said those roads would be in line for regular gravel road improve-
ments. This policy would only apply to sleeper roads. Mr. Bryan said that is correct. Last year the
A@
Department paved three miles of a gravel road (Dick Woods Road) which would clearly not fall under these
guidelines.
__________
Mr. Dorrier said Carter's Bridge is on the replacement list. He asked if that project is to be
advertised in December, 2002. Mr. Bryan said it will be advertised in December, with the work beginning in
early spring, 2003.
__________
Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. Bryan has received any traffic study information on the Sperry property
project. Mr. Bryan said they have and are exchanging data almost weekly with County staff and the
consultants. It has been a good exchange of ideas.
Mr. Rooker asked if it is possible to determine how that traffic on Route 29 would be impacted if
April 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
there were an overpass at the Hydraulic Road intersection. Mr. Bryan said that is the next step. They have
asked the consultant to consider that idea.
Mr. Rooker asked if they will look at keeping Route 29 the same width from Hydraulic Road to the
250 Bypass. Will they look at whether an extra lane could be added in the median as opposed to on the
outside of the road? Mr. Bryan said the consultants are looking at adding a couple of extra lanes in different
places; not necessarily in the median.
Mr. Rooker said he and Ms. Thomas attended a meeting a couple of weeks ago where the City
expressed some concern about having a lane added on the outside of the road. He thinks the median is
wide enough that part of a lane could be captured in the median. Another question is whether the stop light
that leads into the Holiday Inn needs to be there at all. It does not line up with anything on the other side of
the road. Mr. Bryan said a lot of work has gone into the traffic studies by all parties. When they are
completed, he believes everyone will agree that the studies were done right.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the Route 250 West Task Force is not happy with its interaction with VDOT. She
has asked everyone involved to look at the charge that was given to the Committee to see if a better system
of communication can be developed.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Future Water Supply Alternatives, Overview of. Presentation by Lawrence
Tropea, Executive Director, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA).
Mr. Tropea said Mr. Gene Potter from RWSA was also present, as was Mr. Bill Brent from the
Albemarle County Service Authority. He said water will be a key issue in the future in terms of the health of
the citizens and the quality of life in the community. It is a major factor in preserving the environment. He
said as a society, water has been taken for granted for too long. In some ways, people have failed to
recognize that water is a finite resource. A sustained drought, such as that being experienced at this time, is
a cruel teacher about the value of water. The solution will come about by planning, communicating and
working together to use the finite resource in the most positive and constructive way possible. He said
water conservation needs to become an environmental ethic just like recycling.
Mr. Tropea said today he will review the recommended water supply strategy for the future, and do
a little promotion of water conservation and the watershed approach and outline a proactive strategy.
Staffs recommendation was presented to the RWSA Board of Directors on February 25, 2002. He talked
=
to the ACSA Board of Directors on March 21, 2002, and is before the Supervisors today. He will speak to
City Council on April 15. Also, there is a public hearing scheduled for May 1, 2002. All input received will
go to the RWSA Board at its June meeting.
Mr. Tropea said the objective of RWSAs future water supply recommendation is to provide a safe,
=
reliable water supply to meet the future water needs of the urban service area in an environmentally and
economically sound manner. Right now there are four raw water sources: South Fork Rivanna Reservoir,
Sugar Hollow Reservoir, Ragged Mountain Reservoirs, and the North Fork Rivanna River. He said the
water treatment plants capacities are about 20.0 million gallons per day which is an increase with the recent
expansion of the South Fork Rivanna Water Treatment Plant. The current urban water supply safe yield is
about 11.9 million gallons per day. Each time there is rainfall or high stream flows a little of that capacity is
lost. The consultants have projected that the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir will be completely filled with
sediment by the year 2050. That will be a loss of about 7.2 million gallons per day of the total capacity
unless some action is taken, so that is built into the strategy which is being outlined today.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Tropea to define safe yield. Mr. Tropea said it is the water that can be
A@
relied upon. It is not the most yield which occurs in any particular day, month or year, but takes into account
drought frequencies, etc.
Mr. Tropea showed a graph representing the actual daily water demand by customer (on file). He
said the City shows 48.4 percent, the ACSA shows 37.1 percent, with 14.5 percent being unaccounted for
water loss. He said all systems have water loss which is either lost in distribution, through meter
inaccuracies, fire fighting, street washing, etc. Fourteen and one-half percent is in line with best practices
A@
for most systems this large and this complex. However, it cannot be allowed to go any higher. The system
will continue to age and will need increased maintenance and investments.
Mr. Tropea mentioned water supply and demand. He said that in looking at the graph it is evident
that in the future the water demand will be much greater than the available water supply. That is based on
the fact that the area will continue to grow and there will be an increased demand from the increased
growth. It is almost equally attributable to the fact that the South Fork Reservoir will fall in its capacity and
be sediment laden in the future. By the year 2010, the demand will be 4.0 million gallons per day greater
than the supply. He said area growth and water needs for the year 2050 are subject to debate. An
opportunity exists for water conservation and watershed management. Severe droughts are a reality and
must be addressed. In-stream water needs must also be addressed.
Mr. Tropea said future water supply alternatives have been studied and debated for over six years.
At least 31 water supply alternatives have been considered. Public hearings have been held, and the public
pointed to the need for water conservation, minimum in-stream flow, and the projected 2050 demand, etc.
He said the study is over so it is time to take some action. He thinks there will be support from the Board,
April 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
City Council and citizens for the strategy which staff will outline. Immediate action needs to be taken to
meet the critical needs through the year 2030. That will earn the time to better determine the 2050 needs
and evaluate promising alternatives.
Mr. Tropea said the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir represents a significant investment by the
community and it will fill with sediment unless some action is taken. The question of dredging needs to be
looked at. He hopes Rivanna staff can come up with some things that make sense out of maintenance
dredging. He said the RWSA needs to better understand its role in protecting the watersheds which are key
to having a safe reliable water supply in the years ahead. Water conservation must be nurtured with a long-
term commitment to education. Even the best efforts of the RWSA and the City will not bring about those
changes. They must come from individual citizens changing their habits and becoming more efficient users
of water. There must be a strong underpinning of education. He said environmental protection is part of
RWSAs mission. Also, the Buck Mountain property must be retained for the future so it might be an option
=
for 2050 water needs.
Mr. Tropea said the immediate water supply strategy to meet the projected 2030 water needs is: 1)
Become a better watershed steward. Address the sediment in the watershed before it is carried down and
has to be dredged out at a higher cost. 2) Generate better data from decisions. At this time there is a very
limited number of stream gauging stations. They have discontinued monitoring on the SFRR for economic
reasons. That works needs to be reinstated so there is better water quality and water quantity data on
which to make intelligent decisions. 3) Water conservation by citizens is essential. 4) Add four-foot crest
controls on the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. He said this is an important part of this strategy. 5) Match
downstream South Fork Rivanna Reservoir stream flow release to reservoir input in order to maintain a
balance during critical times of the year. He said 99 percent of the time there will be an overflow, but during
critical times, the release will need to be managed. 6) Seek improvements in drought prediction and
reservoir management. 7) Perform maintenance dredging on the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. There is
no plan for this at this time, but they will find a way to do that. 8) Expand water sources to include the
Mechum River. He said there are some advantages to having water intake on the Mechum. It gives a river
water intake so if there were an emergency at some reservoir, some water could be supplied to the
Mechum. They need to investigate with DEQ putting a gauging station on the Mechum in order to get better
flow data. There have been a number of days when water flowing into the Mechum could have been used
to fill Sugar Hollow. There are a number of questions, both economical and environmental, which need to
be answered about this option.
Mr. Tropea said having accomplished those things, for the longer term water supply strategy to
meet the 2050 water needs, they need to better predict water supply need using actual growth data, new
technologies, and actual water conservation results. Then there will be five options available: 1) construct
Buck Mountain Creek Reservoir; 2) obtain water from the James River; 3) obtain water from Chris Greene
Lake; 4) add eight-foot crest controls to the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir; and, 5) augment upstream flow
with highly-treated wastewater.
Mr. Martin asked if these options are ranked in order, or are they just listed. Mr. Tropea said they
are not ranked. He thinks No. 5 is reaching in terms of a potential option.
Mr. Rooker said at the public meeting where the consultants report was discussed several months
ago, dredging was considered a long-term option. He said it seemed to emerge from that meeting as the
preferred option. He asked if there is a reason why it is not included in the 2050 potential strategy. Mr.
Tropea said that is because he wants to start working on this option immediately. He may have a different
view as to dredging and how it fits into the strategy then those people who made the presentation. He said
that maintenance dredging to maintain the status quo is essential. Whether there is an attempt to dredge
further than that is where the cost can get high. Going up into the watershed in combination with dredging
and trying to reduce the sediment load that flows into the reservoir is probably more important because it is
cheaper to do it in the Reservoir along the stream banks than it is to take it out once it is at the bottom of the
Reservoir.
Mr. Rooker said the consultants actually discussed dredging in both 2030 and 2050. He said
maintenance dredging was discussed in the 2030 scenario, but they discussed more extensive dredging in
the 2050 alternative. The price tag given was between $25.0 and $30.0 million. Mr. Tropea said he thinks
the figure was closer to $70.0 million. Mr. Rooker said the cost was comparable to construction of a
reservoir on Buck Mountain. Mr. Tropea said if an agreement can be reached on an immediate strategy
and the RWSA moves forward, there will be time to look harder at all of those options.
Mr. Tropea said the last graph shows the projected water supply need for 2030. It shows the
importance of water supply conservation. It also shows that a positive margin of about 4.6 million gallons
per day can be created if that series of improvements can be implemented. In conclusion, he said there is
a need to act now on the immediate water supply strategy. There is a need to take a phased, integrated
strategy to earn time to make the 2050 decisions. There is a need to reassess maintenance dredging. The
community must embrace water conservation. The RWSAs focus must expand into the watershed. Ways
=
to address the minimum in-stream flow release must be addressed in constructive ways.
Ms. Thomas asked if Board members had questions.
Mr. Perkins wondered about protection in the watershed because that is private land, and there
would have to be a cooperative effort between RWSA and the landowners. Mr. Tropea said he thinks the
things Albemarle County has done in terms of erosion and sediment control are some of the best he has
ever seen. He thinks that most of the sediment which winds up in the reservoir is not sourced by overland
April 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
flow. Most of that sediment is occurring during high flow in the feeder streams to the reservoir. It occurs
through deterioration of the stream banks. Water velocity is cutting new banks and carrying that sediment
downstream. The velocity stops when it hits the reservoir, it cant carry as much sediment so it drops the
=
sediment out in the bottom of the reservoir. He said that in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, they always
thought it was farmland erosion which was causing sedimentation behind some dams on the Susquehanna
River, but they found that most of it was sourced out of the streams themselves. He said there are some
fascinating ways to try and address that issue. He considers staff person Stephen Bowler one of the best
watershed experts he has ever met. He believes he will be a real resource in trying to address the problem
and how best to solve it.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is any effective way to trap sediment before it gets into the reservoir. Mr.
Tropea said forebays could be installed before the reservoir and trap the sediment there. That option has
been discussed. He still thinks that work in the watershed coupled with maintenance dredging will be the
answer.
Mr. Dorrier said he noticed that all of the alternatives for new water sources are in Albemarle
County. He thinks that if alternative water sources are to be considered, now is the time to do it. While it
cant be paid for now, the long-range plan to put it into effect should be thought about now. Since all of the
=
identified sources are in Albemarle County, he wondered if Mr. Tropea could work with Planning staff to
come up with other ideas. Mr. Tropea said the study looked at 30 different options as to where to get
additional water. He thinks the needs can be met just by sourcing the water within the County. It is possible
that by 2050 other options would need to be examined, but he does not anticipate that as necessary to
meet the 2030 needs. There is a strategy which they want to implement right now that will meet the needs
through 2030. It involves water conservation, work in the watershed, and adding the four-foot crest controls
on the SFRR.
Ms. Thomas said she was surprised to see that Chris Greene Lake was not considered until after
2040. Mr. Tropea said it has been looked at twice since he began work here, but it is not high on the list
because it is not needed right now.
Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. Tropea had a time frame for implementing the four-foot crest controls. Mr.
Tropea said it is five-plus years to get to that point. A lot is involved with all of the approvals needed from
different elements of the government. He wants to get a consensus as to this strategy before additional
money is spent on different elements of implementation.
Ms. Thomas asked how much more information is needed. She did not know if this option were
chosen if the bridges over the reservoir would have to be raised. Mr. Tropea said additional survey work is
needed in order to make that determination. They do not want to spend money for that survey yet. He
does not think the one major bridge would have to be replaced. They will try to figure out a way to
maximize the water that there is in the reservoir without having to replace that bridge.
Ms. Thomas said she was distressed that one of the first things Mr. Tropea had to do when he
began work was to stop the downstream flow over the dam. She noticed that he has suggested matching
the downstream flow with the in-stream flow, but he also said he does not have enough gauging stations.
Mr. Tropea said that is correct, there is no downstream gauging station past the reservoir and he thinks
that is one of the critical investments that need to be made. They want to make decisions based on the
best possible data.
Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. Tropea had indicated during a conversation this morning before this
meeting started, putting back into place the use of pump stations. Mr. Tropea said no, but he has had
A@
conversations about that with a number of people. At the RWSAs January Board meeting, a proposal was
=
outlined to jointly do a few more studies to look at the feasibility, the cost, and the environmental impact in
doing it. He said it would be nice to have some of the Mechum River water. It could have been used for the
past few months. The idea of having a river water intake should there be a problem with one of the
reservoirs is a good thing to have to supplement the supply side.
Ms. Thomas thanked Mr. Tropea for making this report, and said some Board members would be
at the RWSAs public hearing on May 1 to see what the citizens have to say.
=
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. SPCA, Update.
Because the Board meeting was running behind scheduled times, this item was skipped
temporarily. It will appear on the agenda after the lunch break.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Public Meeting Room Renovations, Update.
Because the Board meeting was running behind scheduled times, this item was skipped
temporarily. It will appear on the agenda after the lunch break.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing: FY 2002 Budget Amendment.
Mr. Roger Hildebeidel, Budget Manager, summarized the executive summary. He said that Code
'
April 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
15.2-2507 allows any locality to amend its budget during the current fiscal year. However, any such
amendment which exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget or
the sum of $500,000, whichever is lesser, must be accomplished through the public hearing process. This
proposed FY 2002 Budget amendment totals $1,130,012.56. The proposed amendment's estimated
>
expenses and revenues by fund are shown below.
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
General Fund $ 90,571.00
Local Government Programs/Projects 615,376.93
School Fund 218,778.40
Education Programs/Projects 205,286.23
TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES - All Funds $1,130,012.56
ESTIMATED REVENUES
Local Revenues $ 147,052.90
State Revenues 263,647.50
Federal Revenues 421,395.30
Fund Balances 297,916.86
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES - All Funds $1,130,012.56
This budget amendment consists of ten appropriations. The Board approved Appropriations
#2001-051, #2001-053, #2001-055 and #2001-058 on February 6, January 16, March 6 and March 13,
respectively. These appropriations are included in this budget amendment as required by the statute. The
remaining six appropriations will need approval subsequent to the public hearing. Staff recommends
approval of the FY 2002 Budget amendment in the amount of $1,130,012.56 after the public hearing and
>
approval of Appropriations #2001-056, #2001-057, #2001-059, #2001-060, #2001-061 and #2001-062.
Appropriation #2001-056, $370,989.00. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, through the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development, approved a
$370,989.00 multi-year grant for the Porters Road/Yancey School Neighborhood in southern Albemarle
County. This is the second year of the grant. The grant will rehabilitate ten owner-occupied homes,
purchase sites and develop five new homes for first-time home buyers, begin to develop a community park
and improve the W.D. Ward Community Center. This is a companion grant to the $400,000.00 CDBG
grant previously approved and completed.
Appropriation #2001-057, $98,292.93. The certified audit for FY 2000-01 of the County's grant
programs has been completed. Several grants had balances to be carried over to fund remaining
operations. This request is to appropriate the fund balances for the following grants: Drug-Seized Assets,
Criminal Justice, Criminal Records, Law Enforcement, EMS Newsletter and Chesapeake Bay.
Appropriation #2001-059, $177,617.00. On March 6, 2002, the Board authorized the execution of
an agreement between the Jefferson Area Board on Aging (JABA), Stonehaus Development Corporation,
the City of Charlottesville, and the County of Albemarle for the purchase of Windham in Crozet, Virginia.
This agreement included funding to JABA from the County in the amount of $177,617.00. This
appropriation would provide the County's portion of the funding requirements with $77,571.00 in revenues
derived from the closure and sale of assets of the former District Home in Waynesboro, and $100,046.00
from the Board's Contingency Reserve Fund.
Appropriation #2001-060, $100,000.00. The County Department of Engineering and Public
Works applied for a 2001 Water Quality Improvement Fund grant to help fund development of stormwater
management master plans in the development areas. The Virginia Department of Conservation &
Recreation approved a grant award of $100,000.00. The Board authorized the County Executive to sign the
grant agreement at its February 6, 2002, meeting. The grant agreement also has been executed by the
State, and the funds are now available to be appropriated for project expenses.
Appropriation #2001-061, $46,095.00. The Virginia Office of Emergency Medical Services
approved a grant of $23,047.50 to assist the County with the purchase of three monitor/defibrillators with
pacing capability. These monitors are more advanced than the current monitors and will allow pacing and
cardio-conversion capabilities which the County does not currently have. There is a required $23,047.50
local match that will be funded from current operations. The total funds will be used to purchase the
monitors and to provide the training that is required for Fire/Rescue personnel.
Appropriation #2001-062, $3,266.40. Murray Elementary School received a donation in the
amount of $500.00 from Douglas Easter. This donation will be used to help finance the Laptops for
Teachers Project. Murray Elementary also received a donation from Mr. and Mrs. F. Don Bradford in the
amount of $100.00. This donation will be used to help finance the arts and cultural enrichment programs.
Hollymead Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $2,666.40 from Hollymead Elementary
School PTO. This donation will be used to purchase student chairs and desks for the school.
At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak,
the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion to adopt the following resolutions of appropriations was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by
Mr. Dorrier, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Martin.
April 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-056
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF PORTER ROAD/YANCEY
NEIGHBORHOOD GRANT
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 1224 81931 300205 ADMINISTRATION SERVICES $ 20,297.00
1 1224 81031 563100 AHIP 350,692.00
TOTAL $370,989.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1224 33000 330009 DHCD-CDBG GRANT $370,989.00
TOTAL $370,989.00
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-057
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: APPROPRIATION OF GRANT FUND BALANCE AFTER
COMPLETION OF AUDIT
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 1234 39000 580902 DRUG SEIZED ASSETS $ 992.07
1 1235 39000 580902 DRUG SEIZED ASSETS 28,274.54
1 1236 39000 580902 DRUG SEIZED ASSETS 2,966.84
1 1300 41030 332300 CHESAPEAKE BAY GRANT, SIGNS 3,150.00
1 1520 93010 900000 CRIMINAL JUSTICE GRANT, OTHER USE OF FUNDS 15,974.36
1 1526 31012 800701 CRIMINAL RECORDS GRANT, DATA PROCESSING EQUIP 3,000.00
1 1532 31013 800701 PUBLIC SAFETY GRANT, EQUIPMENT 700.00
1 1538 31013 120000 LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANT, OVERTIME 5,944.55
1 1538 31013 210000 LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANT, FICA 454.74
1 1539 31013 120000 LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANT, OVERTIME 31,509.45
1 1539 31013 210000 LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANT, FICA 2,210.49
1 1555 32015 800100 EMS NEWSLETTER GRANT, EQUIPMENT 3,115.89
TOTAL $98,292.93
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1234 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE APPROPRIATION $ 992.07
2 1235 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE APPROPRIATION 28,274.54
2 1236 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE APPROPRIATION 2,966.84
2 1300 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE APPROPRIATION 3,150.00
2 1520 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE APPROPRIATION 15,974.36
2 1526 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE APPROPRIATION 3,000.00
2 1532 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE APPROPRIATION 700.00
2 1538 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE APPROPRIATION 6,399.31
2 1539 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE APPROPRIATION 33,719.92
2 1555 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE APPROPRIATION 3,115.89
TOTAL $98,292.93
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-059
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING PER CONTRACT WITH JABA AND
STONEHAUS DEVELOPMENT TO PURCHASE WINDHAM
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 1000 59000 563210 JABA-CROZET PARTNERS LLC $177,617.00
1 1000 95000 999990 BOARD RESERVE (100,046.00)
TOTAL $ 77,571.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1000 18000 189921 SETTLEMENT-DISTRICT HOME $77,571.00
TOTAL $77,571.00
April 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-060
FUND: STORMWATER
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: GRANT FUNDING FOR STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT PLAN FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND
RECREATION
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 9100 41000 950093 STORMWATER PLAN $100,000.00
TOTAL $100,000.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 9100 24000 240540 DEPT OF CONSERVATION & RECREATION $100,000.00
TOTAL $100,000.00
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-061
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: APPROPRIATION OF EMS MONITOR GRANT
TJ-C01/12-01
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 1560 32015 550402 TRAINING $ 7,500.00
1 1560 32015 800100 EQUIPMENT 38,595.00
TOTAL $46,095.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1560 24000 240415 EMS GRANT $23,047.50
2 1560 51000 512004 TRANSFER FROM G/F 23,047.50
TOTAL $46,095.00
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-062
FUND: SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: AUTHORIZATION TO EXPEND DONATED FUNDS
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 2215 61101 800700 ADP EQUIPMENT $ 500.00
1 2215 61411 580000 MISC EXPENSES 100.00
1 2205 61101 800201 FURNITURE/FIXTURES 2,666.40
TOTAL $3,266.40
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 2000 18100 181109 DONATION $3,266.40
TOTAL $3,266.40
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Board-to-Board Presentation, School Board Chairman.
Mr. Steve Koleszar, School Board Chairman, was present. He updated the Board from information
provided in School Board Briefs. He advised the Board that the School Board needs information on how
the Development Areas Initiative Steering Committee's (DISC) will impact school size, site locations, etc.
He suggested the two boards meet to discuss the issue. Mr. Tucker said such a meeting would also
provide an opportunity for the two boards to discuss costs associated with schools.
Mr. Koleszar also advised Board members that the after-school fees have been increased.
Mr. Rooker asked when the Strings Program will get the building space set aside in the Capital
Improvements Program. Mr. Koleszar said the space will come about as renovations are made to middle
April 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
schools in order to make space available.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Virginia Workforce Council Briefing, TJPDC.
Ms. Dee Esser was present to make the presentation, using slides and the overhead projector.
Ms. Esser said the objective of the Council is to raise the level of awareness about the need to
integrate economic and workforce development efforts for the welfare and prosperity of the region. They
want to focus awareness on local public policy-making and the central partnership with the private sector
which is the prime mover in the labor market. Therefore, by necessity, business must be actively involved in
the development of local workforce and economic development policies.
Ms. Esser said economic development is defined as the intentional process of finding, sustaining
and capitalizing upon locational advantage to create wealth and minimize poverty. Capital investments by
the private sector produces goods and services to increase productivity which in turn increases the demand
for high-skill/high-wage jobs. Workforce development is defined as the intentional process of strengthening
the localized talent pool of workers to match private sector investments in technology and capital to
produce improvement.
Ms. Esser said that in the Twenty-first Century, the economic strength of the United States will
depend on the ability of each state to compete successfully in the global economy. To compete more
effectively, economic development strategies must build a skilled workforce through lifelong learning and
worker training. Rapid technological advances have changed the way products are created and services
are delivered. The percent of new jobs with increasing skill requirements continues to grow at alarming
rates. Eighty percent of new jobs require skills not possessed by the majority of the workforce. By the year
2010, most manufacturing jobs will require higher technical skills. Knowledge-based jobs, those jobs which
require some combination of post-secondary education or vocational training, have been among the fastest
growing jobs and have increased their share of the total employment. In Virginia the fastest growing
occupational group will be the professional and technical occupations category. Employment in high tech
industries is growing fast in Virginia overall, but declining in rural areas. Job growth rates are higher than
total growth in the labor force and in the population.
Ms. Esser said there is a demand and supply side to this situation. On the supply side, the most
severe skill shortages at this time are mainly in the production workforce. These skilled hourly workers
have traditionally been the backbone of manufacturing. Moreover, the major skills lacking in hourly workers
(both applicants and current employees), are basic skills such as reading and communication, with math
ranking second. The U.S. population and labor force has been stagnant for some time and are projected
to stay so for some years. Meanwhile, the job growth rate continues to grow. Public policy must respond to
a market in which everyone can be successfully employed if their skills and education meet expectations.
Ms. Esser said that in Virginia more than 50 percent of the population lacks a high school diploma
or a GED. Of people 25 years of age and older, 11 percent have an educational level of less than ninth
grade. The workforce is aging. There is an anticipated 30 to 80 percent turnover projected over the next
decade. These are the highest productivity workers, with a substantially greater skill base than those
currently being hired. Confronted with looming skill shortages, many states, regions and localities are
adopting workforce development as a core economic development strategy for the knowledge-based
economy since it is no longer viewed primarily as an extension of social welfare policy, but as an essential
part of an economic growth strategy. At the local level, the active involvement and strong leadership of
local elected officials, in partnership with the private sector is required to increase the areas value and
=
wealth.
Ms. Esser said that unless the skills gap is closed and employers can find the workers they need,
local economies will remain extremely vulnerable. Local elected officials must place workforce
development on the local political radar screen. Local economic development agencies should shift from
A@
the old assumption that jobs were in short supply to that of attracting, retaining and expanding the skilled
workforce that employers increasingly demand. Local elected officials should encourage increased
coordination of policy-making between the workforce and economic development arenas. Local elected
officials should tap the potential of labor market information to align economic and workforce development.
They need to look to the Workforce Investment Board to develop a new occupational forecasting system to
provide timely and accurate information on jobs, wages and valued skills.
Ms. Esser said the Workforce Investment Board can lead by providing visionary leadership and
focusing on policy, not programs. It can create a comprehensive workforce development strategic plan and
link workforce development strategies with economic development initiatives. It can inventory and leverage
workforce development resources; integrate where possible, eliminate duplication, create investment
portfolio, align with the WIB vision. It can establish system-wide performance measures.
Ms. Esser then presented to the Board a copy of Virginia: Profile of the State Economy as
A@
prepared for Governor Mark R. Warner by Professor Michael E. Porter, Institute for Strategy and
Competitiveness, Harvard Business School. She then offered to answer questions.
Mr. Dorrier asked whether community colleges are involved with the VWC. Ms. Esser said they are
very involved with the Workforce.
April 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
Ms. Thomas asked how many people who worked at the ConAgra plat were displaced when the
plant was closed. Ms. Esser said she did not have that figure readily available, but would be happy to
provide it to the Board if they wanted it. Mr. Don Martin, Director of the local Virginia Employment
Commission, commented that this area has been hit with many layoffs recently.
__________
(Note: At 11:05 a.m., the Board recessed and reconvened at 11:15 a.m. Mr. Martin returned at
11:17 a.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. 2002 Citizen Survey by Center for Survey Research (CSR), Presentation of.
Mr. Thomas Guterbock, Director of the Center for Survey Research, and Ms. Kate Wood, Assistant
Director, presented to the Board a copy of the Albemarle County 2002 Citizen Survey conducted by the
Center (on file in the Clerks Office).
=
Mr. Guterbock said he would like to thank the 700 citizens of Albemarle County who took the time
to talk to the research people on the telephone. He is grateful to Mr. Tucker and the citizens survey team
that he put together, and to Ms. Lori Spencer and the County Planning Department. He complimented the
Board members for having the courage to do a citizen survey. He said the Center is now a part of the
Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service.
Mr. Guterbock said the goals of the survey were to assess the residents perception of quality of life
=
in the county, to rank goals for the Strategic Plan, and to determine the level of satisfaction with County
services. Questions were asked to assess residents experience with and attitudes toward County
=
government. They had a major set of questions for measuring citizen opinion about policies for planning for
the communitys future. The Planning Department staff worked with the Center on drafting those questions.
=
He said that with the overall number of goals, all of them could not be thoroughly explored.
Mr. Guterbock said he would mention some features of the survey. They talked to approximately
720 people, but they later found that about 15 of those people actually lived in the City. This gives a
statistical margin of error of plus/minus 3.7 percent. Some of the questions were comparable to the survey
taken in the County in 1994. The method used was random digit dialing so all telephone households in the
County had an equal chance of being in the survey whether they had a listed telephone or not. They did a
respondent selection within the household, and did not talk to just whoever happened to be at home at the
time. They used a computer-assisted telephone interviewing system to allow some complicated branching
and skipping and setting probabilities for different questions. He then asked Ms. Wood to continue the
presentation.
Ms. Wood said she will explain the results of the survey. On a ten-point scale measuring quality of
life, with one being the worse place to live and ten being the best, the mean rating is 8.10. Seventy-three
percent of respondents gave the County a rating of eight or better. Eighteen percent gave the County a
rating of ten, while ten percent ranked the County at a six or lower. She said comparing these results with
the 1994 survey on the same question, the mean response was 7.92. The 8.10 is a statistically significant
improvement.
Ms. Wood said there some interesting sub-group differences. High ratings come from women,
from residents who have lived in Albemarle longer, from older residents, from residents with higher
education and income levels, from those residents working part-time, from those who are retired or are
homemakers, and from residents in the rural areas as compared to the development areas.
Next came the goals from the Strategic Plan. The top three goals by percent were: providing good
public education was number one; providing fire service was number two; and, protecting water quality in
reservoirs, streams and wells was number three. Next came: providing police service, preserving natural
resources and open space, and supporting services for the elderly. The last five goals were ranked:
providing support for people in need (45.0%), supporting affordable child care (45.8%), providing public
transportation (41.3%), promoting economic growth (40.5%), and supporting cultural opportunities (33.4%).
Ms. Wood said the next major section of the survey was satisfaction with services. The first
question asked was How satisfied are you overall with County government services? The percent
A@
satisfied was 93.0. Very satisfied showed at 41.0 percent, somewhat satisfied showed at 52.0 percent,
somewhat dissatisfied showed at 5.0 percent, with very dissatisfied showing at 2.0 percent. This is an
improvement over the 1994 survey which showed only 84.3 percent satisfied.
Ms. Wood said satisfaction with environmental items had lower satisfaction levels. Managing
growth came in at 64.3 percent, protecting natural resources came in at 80.5 percent, and preserving open
space came in at 79.0 percent. Satisfaction with communication which includes interaction with local
government showed: 81.6 percent satisfaction with keeping citizens informed, 87.6 percent with the
Countys efforts to make contact more convenient, and 83.1 percent satisfaction with opportunities for
=
citizen input.
Ms. Wood said as to attitudes toward government 13 percent trust the Albemarle government just
A
about always and 54.9 percent trust the government most of the time. They asked what Albemarle
@A@
should do about taxes and services. They got the following answers: 9.3 percent said taxes and services
April 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
should be decreased, 67.5 percent said they should be kept at the current level, and 13.1 percent said they
should be increased. As to satisfaction with value for the tax dollar, 85.1 percent were satisfied.
Ms. Wood said one thing the County Executives Office was interested in knowing is what can be
=
done to make contacting the government more convenient. They asked a whole list of questions.
Flexible/expanded hours got a 76 percent response, an expanded web site got a 74 percent response, and
branch offices got a 70 percent response.
Ms. Wood said they asked a series of questions about land use and policies that the government is
considering or has instituted in terms of managing growth. The concept of development areas was the
most general question they asked. They found that 79.0 percent favor the idea of development areas, with
18.0 percent strongly in favor, and 43.0 percent only slightly favoring them. A list of questions concerning
policies to manage growth elicited the following responses: allowing services (post offices, grocery stores,
etc.) in traditionally rural communities got a 95.9 percent response; providing public amenities in
development areas got a 90.6 percent response; encouraging a mix of housing types in development areas
got a 83.9 percent response, taxing agricultural and forested land at a lower rate got a 79.4 percent
response; restricting the number of lots for subdividing got a 76.1 percent response, greater mix of urban
services with residential areas in development areas got a 73.9 percent response; acquiring conservation
easements got a 73.6 percent response; and interconnected streets in development areas got a 67.8
percent response.
Ms. Wood said she had sent to the Board an executive summary which lays out all of these results.
The full narrative report is in print and will be available about the 15th of April. She offered to answer
questions.
Mr. Martin asked if there was a question in the 1994 survey about providing fire service. Ms. Wood
said there was such a question. Mr. Martin said the 86.7 percent response in the goals jumps out at him.
A@
Ms. Wood said goals are different from satisfaction. There were planning goals in 1994. Mr. Guterbock
said he thinks that was an addition to the questions in this survey and was not in the 1994 survey. He said
that in looking at the goals, the answers reflect not only the goal, but the perceived need for the service.
Mr. Dorrier asked how Albemarle Countys survey compares with surveys taken in other localities
=
as to quality of life and satisfaction with the tax rate and the level of service. Ms. Wood said they have not
done a statistical comparison, but in just looking at the results, Albemarle County is a little higher. Quality of
life is about the same compared to Prince William Countys survey. Overall satisfaction with County
=
government in Prince William was about 89.0 percent.
Ms. Thomas said the Board will be discussing these things further when it has its Strategic Planning
Retreat. She asked if any particular thing came to the forefront of this survey. Mr. Guterbock said the
improvement in satisfaction with services overall increased substantially. He said Albemarle has not
committed itself to systematic performance measurement of citizen satisfaction through surveys, but it is
good that the two surveys were done so that whatever is being done to improve services can now be seen
in the survey.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the citizens interviewed were queried about whether they would volunteer for
services. Ms. Wood said at the end of the survey they always ask for volunteer comments from the
respondents. They get very interesting comments, and a copy of those comments will be a part of the
written report the Board will receive. She said the top goal is education, but the percentage of satisfaction is
somewhat lower than with other services. That is something which needs to have some attention. She was
also very interested in the high level of support for the growth items. There were a few people on each of
those questions who said they did not have an opinion. She expected to hear more division on those issues.
Mr. Martin asked how often does Center sees fire protection higher than police protection. He
thinks that is odd. Ms. Wood said that generally education is first and public safety is second. Safety items
can be defined in any number of ways. She thinks that number depends on the demographic and
geographic character of the area. Prince William is a much more urban county. In terms of the issue of fire
service it is not as much of an issue as it is in Albemarle.
Ms. Thomas said this survey was taken after September 11. Ms. Wood said that is a good point.
That should be kept in mind when looking at these answers. The trust in government, nationally, went up
after September 11. Ms. Thomas said she thinks that fire might have gotten a bigger response at that time.
Mr. Rooker asked about water quality protection being rated so high. Ms. Wood said she cannot
remember another survey which contained that question on a list of strategic goals. Mr. Guterbock said he
wonders if quantity may also be a part of quality in that question because of the drought. It may be that
people are just saying that water in general is important.
Ms. Thomas said this is very interesting, particularly the answers to the open-ended questions. She
thanked Mr. Guterbock and Ms. Wood for the report.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15a. CPA-2001-03. Rivanna Village at Glenmore, Work Session.
Ms. Elaine Echols summarized the staffs report which is on file in the Clerks Office. She said this
==
is a proposal to change the Comprehensive Plan designation from Neighborhood Density to Community
April 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
Service for 78 acres at the entrance to Glenmore near the fire station. She said the proposal is for a true
TND (Traditional Neighborhood Development) with an emphasis on the commercial and residential aspect.
The properties are owned by Glenmore Associates, Alan and Daphne Dillard, and the East Rivanna
Volunteer Fire Department-Albemarle County. She said a mixture of uses is proposed for this area; 24,000
square feet of non-residential uses, mostly in small retail shops, restaurants and offices, and the other 76
percent of the square footage in the area would be residential uses ranging from 440 to 520 dwelling units.
The residential units would be mostly attached units; townhouses, apartments and senior living. Because of
the commercial aspect, a change in the land use designation is required.
Ms. Echols said the Planning Commission reviewed this proposal at seven meetings. The main
issues were transportation, streams and the impacts on the adjoining properties. She said the CPA
amendment would change the land use designation to Community Service, but put specificity in how the
community service area should be developed. It would put limitations on the amount of and type of
commercial uses allowed. The CPA would add new language related to the need for upgrading Route 250
East for the entire Rivanna Village and not just for this community service area. She said the CPA would
require general conformity with the design and character of the proposed plan. It would allow for the
covering of two streams. It would require sensitivity on the perimeter near the Magruder Subdivision by
having residential units abut residential units, requiring screening and berming and preservation of mature
trees. It would also allow for a variety of civic uses to be possible in the Village, rather than just the
previously proffered school site.
Ms. Echols said a lot of information had been forwarded to the Board about this proposal.
Therefore, she offered to answer questions rather than making a longer presentation.
Ms. Thomas said that after seven meetings, it seems the Planning Commission, applicant and staff
arrived at the right answers to the questions asked at those meetings. She said reading the information
sent was like reading a novel without having all the chapters. Because the Board did not get the minutes
from the Planning Commission meetings, or the minutes from the public hearings, the Board does not know
all that went on during consideration of this request. She was particularly interested in the decisions about
the traffic impacts and whether the Commission feels there will be ways in the future to reduce some of
those impacts.
Ms. Echols said with regard to actual traffic improvements, that question would be handled during
an actual rezoning through proffers by the applicant. There was a lot of discussion about traffic. She noted
the staffs report for the December 4, 2001, Planning Commission meeting marked revised December 5,
=A
2001. She said the traffic increase is anticipated to be between 5000 and 7000 vehicles per day above
@
what would be there with the existing land use designation. The Route 250 East Corridor Study
recommended a series of improvements that the committee felt needed to be done. Staff asked whether
the additional vehicle trips per day would impact the improvements already proposed by VDOT. The
answer came back no. However, that does not mean there will be no traffic impacts. This development
A@
will probably cause those traffic impacts to occur sooner. Staff would expect any approval by the County
through a rezoning request to carry proffers concerning traffic.
Ms. Thomas said that is a traditional way to think about traffic impacts, but she encourages staff to
think about non-traditional ways of getting more opportunities for shuttle services, and park/ride lots, and
ways for people to reduce the number of cars that have to travel the whole distance. She said the mere
existence of this village will absorb some of that traffic. Ms. Echols said in this amendment language staff
added a bullet which says Provide mass transit where feasible to the Village of Rivanna. If the Board
A@
wants that language to be emphasized, staff can do that.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks that bullet should contain some additional language about mass transit
and park/ride, and local transit.
Mr. Dorrier said he was concerned that there is only one road in and out of this development. He
said Route 250 is shown as a four-lane road. Ms. Echols said she believes it is, but staff does not know
what the improvements will be in the future, so that is not supposed to depict the future condition.
Mr. Dorrier said that in the executive summary, there is a statement about it being a six-lane road.
Ms. Thomas said a number of recommendations which came from the Route 250 East Corridor study are
mentioned.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks there is a sight distance problem at the entrance due to topography. He
asked if that had been taken into consideration. Mr. Benish said that kind of situation would be handled
during a zoning of the property. There is anticipation of a traffic light at that intersection which will take care
of some flow issues. The Route 250 East Corridor Study made recommendations which this Board has not
acted on yet. In the CPA, staff established some recommendations for that corridor. There is a statement
which says that any widening necessary should be minimized to the greatest extent possible.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the developer would be responsible for upgrading the intersection at the new
road. Mr. Benish said that is possible, depending on phasing of improvements and what would be
necessary to support that development. Those things are considered during a rezoning and can be
established by proffer. There might be cash proffers, or phasing of development until public improvements
take place. There are a number of ways to address that traffic impact.
Mr. Martin said staff and the developer have worked on this for a long time, and have moved toward
April 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
something the County really wants the developer to provide. He said the two big issues are transportation
and the two streams. Staff has given a good summary of why they are in support of covering the streams.
He thinks this is an excellent opportunity for the County.
Ms. Thomas said she likes the language which talks about housing for all age groups and housing
for all socio-economic levels. That is one item which she would not want to be dropped from this
amendment.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks this is a fine project. He believes the traffic details can be worked out.
Traffic was his only concern.
Ms. Thomas said there is still the issue of what to do with the area called Area for potential buffer
A
and residential uses. She understands there is some talk about reducing the amount of parking required
@
so that area would be less impacted, and also moving some of the townhouses. She said if staff needs
emphasis from the Board that that is something which is worth working on, she will say it is important.
Mr. Rooker said it was a concern of the Planning Commission that the neighbors in the Magruder
Subdivision were reasonably buffered and protected. He asked about the statement concerning the
wastewater treatment plant which serves Glenmore. He asked if that facility is adequate to serve the
expanded village. Ms. Echols said yes.
A@
Mr. Rooker said that under Land Use there is a bullet which says should contain and then it lists
A@A@
a number of items. He mentioned the item which says Other civic buildings including schools, churches,
A
community centers and public offices located within the Village. He thinks the word "and" should be "or.
@@
He does not think it is being suggested that the Village contain everyone of those things. He said that point
is duplicated because under Public Facilities it is stated Locate public facilities such as a school, library,
A@A
police substation or playing field, when needed in the Village in the Community Service Area. He said
@
there is a mention of the and he does not have a copy of
Monticello Viewshed Guidelines for Developers
those guidelines. Ms. Echols said they are at the very end of the packet. Mr. Rooker asked if these
guidelines were produced by Monticello. Ms. Echols said yes. Mr. Rooker asked who did the viewshed
A@
analysis. Ms. Echols said they did that at Monticello also.
Mr. Benish said concerning the comments on public facilities, the language is redundant. He
believes the intent under Land Use was to specify that the Community Service area should contain some
public facilities. Under the public facilities section, it is a general recommendation tied to the development
areas. He said staff will determine whether the language is necessary in both sections, and clarify it so it is
not confusing.
Mr. Rooker said if this language is incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan, the language might
be clarified to make it clear where it is talking about the Rivanna Village at Glenmore or the Community
Service area, and where it stops. Mr. Benish said this is the Profile Section of the Comprehensive Plan, and
it is talking about the Village recommendations. He said it may just be a matter of formatting the
amendments.
Mr. Martin asked what happens to this amendment now. Ms. Thomas said it will be set for a public
hearing before the Board. Mr. Benish said staff will provide the Board with a packet of minutes from the
Commission meetings before the public hearing.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there is much interaction between the Rivanna Village and Glenmore. Mr.
Benish said the applicant can respond as to how they expect that relationship to work. The plans are to
have it be as integrated as possible.
Mr. Dorrier asked if these facilities will be available to the Glenmore residents. Ms. Echols said
yes.
A@
Ms. Thomas said this is not a public hearing, but she asked if the applicant had anything to say in
response to any of the questions raised by the Board today.
Mr. Frank Cox said he represents the applicants. Also, Mr. Kessler and Mr. Runkle are present as
owners of the project. He said there were some meetings held at Glenmore and not all of the residents
were excited about this project. They discussed the concept of taking golf carts, or some similar type of
vehicle, and creating a pathway to move back and forth. They also developed a second entrance into the
community which would allow the Glenmore people to come in and take a right-hand turn to get into the
community without having to go through the major short section which would be the principal entrance.
They did a traffic study. They worked with VDOT over several months as they encouraged the applicants to
look at the Route 250 East Corridor Study. Their traffic study focused on the level of improvements that
would be required when evaluating their project and regional growth along the 250 East corridor under
normal conditions through the build-out year of 2010.
Mr. Cox said VDOT is not excited about being overly permissive in the amount of internal absorption
that can be estimated based on traffic originating in Glenmore. They are limited to a capture rate of 15
percent. Their traffic studies dictated a certain level of improvements including a traffic light at full
development at both of the proposed intersections. As they get into a more formal dialogue on traffic as it
relates to specific improvements, they recognize that their development will create traffic demands and that
certain improvements will have to be built into the proffer system. They feel the project does provide for a
April 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
substantial amount of capture and the ability to divert some of the traffic originating further east on Route
250.
Mr. Rooker asked what is being done to protect the Magruder Subdivision. Mr. Cox said that is a
work in process. They have made a commitment to one family in that subdivision to work on a plan along
the northerly property line where there will essentially be a ring road to feed the commercial parking lot.
The objective is to either create more of a green buffer there or to establish a residential component of the
project that would have backyards owned by the residents and then possibly an open space band beyond
that. The amount of parking that is shown on the master plan represents what would be required under the
current standards if all of the uses were parked out according to an accumulation factor. He thinks the
Neighborhood Model ordinance will unfold an opportunity for the development community to come in and
negotiate with staff to have a shared parking study developed so parking can be substantially reduced. He
hopes their ultimate plan can have a ten percent parking reduction by using commonly shared parking
formulas.
Mr. Rooker said the plan talks about the possibility of the fire station moving. He asked if there has
been any further discussion as to about where the fire station might be moved. Mr. Cox said if it is
economically feasible to do so, there is a possible relocation of the fire and rescue station, but nothing
formal has been developed. For the rezoning, a co-applicant is going to be the County. When they filed
the rezoning request this time last year, although they had obtained the signatures of the officials for the
East Rivanna Fire Department, the County Attorney determined that the County also had to sign the
application.
There was no further discussion of this item at this time.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15b. CPA-2002-01. Neighborhood Model amendments to the Land Use Plan,
Work Session.
Ms. Elaine Echols summarized the staffs report which is on file in the Clerks Office. She said this
==
is a proposal to delete dated language from the first 34 pages of the existing Land Use Plan, and replace it
with language that incorporates the Neighborhood Model into the text, not in its entirely, but by several
references. It is not intended to change any of the existing Rural Area policies. Further Comprehensive
Plan amendments will be provided that relate to the Rural Areas. It is intended to add three new concepts
which are in keeping with the Neighborhood Model for specific land use designations. Those three things
are Mixed-use, Amenities and Green Space.
Ms. Echols said the Land Use designations are modified to add opportunities to allow for non-
residential uses in residential designations, to allow for residential uses in non-residential designations, and
to provide some guidance on the appropriate mixture of residential to non-residential uses by square
footage. It is also to introduce some guidance on the amount of area devoted to amenities because of the
mixed-use component. Amenities are gathering places and activities in areas that are not just the left over
open space. Staff is also suggesting that green space be provided in unpaved or vegetative areas.
Ms. Echols said the proposal before the Board has been to the Planning Commission at three
meetings. They had a lot of discussion about mixed-use, amenities and green space. She noted that this
proposed amendment does not change any density recommendations. It makes specific reference to the
character and form of future development that comes from the Neighborhood Model and references the
Neighborhood Model as Appendix A. It continues to provide guidance, not requirements, for land use
A@
decisions. It is area related, not specific development related. She offered to answer questions.
Ms. Thomas noted a typographical error on Page 19. She was not sure what the word woes
A@
should be. Ms. Echols said the word should be types.
A@
Mr. Rooker mentioned Page 8, Facilities Planning, under Goals, the word to before the word
A@
transportation should be of. He would also add the word "infrastructure" after the word transporta-tion.
A@A@A@
The Goal would then read: Strongly support and effectively implement the Countys growth management
A=
priorities in the planning and provision of transportation infrastructure, public facilities and public utilities.
@
He said that at the bottom of Page 8, in the last line he would add the word "public" in front of service.
A@
Mr. Rooker then mentioned Page 12, Land Use, the sentence in the middle of the first paragraph
reading: At the same time, the Plan proposes a future land use pattern that may alter the physical
A
character of the County as it exists today. He recommends that the sentence be deleted since he does
@
know if that will be true. He thinks this model is intended to preserve as much of the County in its present
form as it can, while accommodating growth.
Mr. Martin referred to the sentence on Page 8 where Mr. Rooker suggested adding the word
public and asked if the sentence really is referring to public service. Mr. Rooker said he thinks this
A@
particular paragraph is referring to public service because the first sentence begins Emphasis is placed on
A
providing a level of public service delivery that will .... Ms. Thomas suggested using the generic term
@
service delivery. Mr. Tucker suggested taking out the word public in that first sentence. Mr. Rooker said
A@A@
the whole paragraph talks about public service. Mr. Benish said this subsection concerns facilities
A@
planning.
Mr. Rooker noted that on Page 14, Land Use Plan, Relegated Parking, on the second line there is
April 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
an e and it should be the word be.
A@A@
Ms. Thomas suggested that anybody who found such an error should just turn those pages in to
staff unless it changes the meaning of the sentence.
Mr. Rooker said he has some corrections which are more substantive. On Page 19, he would
delete No. 5. which reads: Well-defined residential areas. He said to him that envisions something
A@
different from mixed-use. He said this is trying to break down the barriers between uses and when you say
well-defined that cuts against that concept.
A@
Mr. Martin said when a paragraph is picked out on a certain page and it is suggested that it be
deleted, he has a hard time assimilating all that it could mean. He suggested that the Board get a list of the
suggested changes, so they might study them in the context of the whole amendment.
Mr. Dorrier said this is a very complicated document.
Ms. Thomas suggested staff send these changes in writing to the members. Mr. Martin said
otherwise, the Board should slow down so it can think about what the change means. Mr. Dorrier said there
is a list of things which comprise what a community is and what a village is, but if it has less than those
things, is it a community or a village? There are references to the various communities and villages
throughout the report and he wonders if there are minimum standards for each definition. Mr. Benish said
identified here are the expectations for an urban area or a community. They set the guidelines for what a
community should be. There needs to be flexibility in how those guidelines are provided.
Mr. Dorrier said Rome wasnt built in a day so this is really a work in progress. He is having
A=@
trouble with the context in which these changes have been made. There are sentences deleted and
sentences added, and the Board does not know the background as to why these changes were made.
Ms. Thomas said the Board could get copies of all of the Planning Commissions minutes. Mr.
=
Martin said it would be more helpful to him to hold the public hearing and then hold another work session.
He apologized because he said that while reading the packet on Glenmore, he thought all of this
information about the Neighborhood Model pertained to Glenmore, so he is ill-prepared today.
Ms. Thomas noted the sentence on Pages 20-21 which reads: A proposal for an entirely new
A
village should demonstrate that it maintains this principle of a central village area as the logical confluence
of streets and movement patterns. She thinks there needs to be a stronger verb used in that sentence
@
than demonstrate. On the same page, No. 8, she said the words "firm edge" had a lot of discussion
A@
during the DISC Committee meetings. She sat in on a meeting a number of farmers had with Planning
Staff, and they pointed out that if what is on the other side of the firm edge is a working farm, there is trouble
due to noise, odors, etc. The green frame is one place that is mentioned, but the buffer has to be the
A@
responsibility of the residential area and not always the farmer. That is something which needs to be
considered in talk about firm edges. If farmland was simply subdivisions in a holding pattern, then it would
A@
not matter. But, if the County really cares, and the Comprehensive Plan up until now says the County does
care, then the County should not make it impossible for farmers to work.
Mr. Dorrier asked if green frame is a planning term. Mr. Benish said it is an internalized green
A@
edge within the development area.
Mr. Rooker said there are some things which are more fundamental which the Board may want to
discuss today. On Page 31 under Urban Density Residential a strong case is made that nothing that does
A@
not push toward the upper edge of the density level should be allowed. He does not know if the County
wants to go that far. He said that throughout this section, that is the basic concept.
Mr. Dorrier said he thought that was because the developer would not put in the public amenities
unless he had the incentive of greater density. Mr. Rooker said if the developer has a plan for eight units
per acre and the range in the Comprehensive Plan is six to 34 dwelling units per acre, does this language
say that kind of development is discouraged?
Mr. Martin said that goes to the bigger point which is that the language should not use should and
A@
shall and must. The DISC Committee discussed this many times as being a way and not the way.
A@A@A@A@
Although, the idea is to move the County toward it being the way most used, he does not think it has been
the intention to say this must be the way.
A@
Ms. Thomas said there are not many musts and shoulds in this language. Going back to why
A@A@
this started, the Board was looking at whether to expand the designated growth area boundaries, or
whether to look inward. The Board realized that more compact, mixed-use developments have to be
encouraged. If suddenly it is said that the Board did not mean that, that is a major change, and something
the Board should discuss.
Mr. Martin said DISC never said this was the only way of doing business. There were certain
members of DISC who tried to say that, but there were other members who did not say that, and
compromised.
Ms. Thomas said she thought Mr. Rooker was suggesting that the language say greater density is
A
April 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
strongly encouraged. She thinks the Board should say that.
@
Mr. Martin said he does not want people to say you cant do this unless the density is x high.
A=>=@
Throughout this whole document goals are set, but it is not saying you have to do it this way, or its no go.
A=@
Mr. Dorrier asked how it was decided that Urban Density should be between six and 34 dwelling
units per acre. Mr. Benish said those figures have been used since the 1982 Comprehensive Plan
amendment. The urban density designation was one that tried to designate areas where townhouse and
apartment-type development was the most appropriate. One reason the language is so strong is that in the
early 80s and 90s, high density areas were being developed with single-family attached dwellings. Staff
was trying to send the message that these are important resource areas that hold certain densities for
particular unit types. In Neighborhood Density, the intent was to be more flexible with any unit type. The
Comprehensive Plan establishes the density that is to be achieved. The Neighborhood Model then controls
the form. It is the quality of that development based on the implementation of the design expectations and
its sensitivity to the environment and the surrounding area and its integration into the community. It will be
the evaluation process during the rezoning that will dictate what that density should be. He said the Plan
starts off trying to account for the holding capacity needed for the anticipated growth. The standards of
development will ensure that there are different ways to achieve it.
Mr. Rooker said in the Infill Development Section, on Page 22 under Recommendations, he thinks
there should be some wording about mixed use. On Page 25 there was a No. 6 deleted which stated:
A@
Require underground utilities in new residential and non-residential developments, including new lines and
A
major improvements to existing lines. He asked why it was deleted. Ms. Echols said she thinks it is now
@
part of the Subdivision Ordinance regulations. Mr. Rooker asked if staff is sure the language is not needed
here because this covers both residential and non-residential development.
Mr. Rooker said that on Page 27, in paragraph 3, there are these words: The current provisions of
A
the Zoning Ordinance addressing the screening of objectionable features and dissimilar uses provide for
appropriate protection. These features should be retained. He asked if that language is contrary to the
@
idea of mixed use. Ms. Echols said it is the objectionable features that are being referenced. Mr. Rooker
suggested taking out the words dissimilar uses. Ms. Thomas suggested using a word other than
A@
features. Mr. Dorrier said the sentence does not make sense. Ms. Echols said staff will work on the
A@
wording of that sentence.
Mr. Rooker said that on Page 28, Commercial Land Use Standards, one concept in Paragraph 2
which was deleted was having common access points. He asked if that concept should remain in the
wording somewhere. He thinks that concept should be preserved somewhere.
Ms. Thomas said on Page 26 in Paragraph 7, it talks about reducing parking requirements if there
are creatively designed alternative parking areas. She asked why that wording was removed. Ms. Echols
said that language could be retained. Staff did not want to say that parking areas should be along the road
frontage. She said staff can work on that language.
Ms. Thomas said it was really the sentence which was deleted which stated: For large retail
A
developments, parking capacity needed only a few peak shopping days of the year is amendable to design
alternatives to flat blacktop. That was wording that she liked. She said that recently the Board had a
@
discussion about pervious parking and it was noted that it might be problematic because of the clay soils in
this area. She hates to have asphalt when it is needed only one day out of the year.
Ms. Thomas said it is time for the Board to have a lunch break. The Board will be setting a public
hearing on this amendment. Mr. Tucker said staff would like to have the public hearing held before bringing
back comments on Mr. Rookers suggested changes.
=
Mr. Rooker said he has one conceptual question. On Page 34, the third sentence in the second
bullet, says: In these mixed use areas, pervious surfaces and green space should occupy at least 20
A
percent of the area. The fourth sentences reads: Amenities such as parks, paved plazas, indoor or
@A
outdoor gathering areas, lakes, pedestrian paths and the like should occupy at least 20 percent of the
area. He asked if it clear that the things in the second sentence can count toward the first sentence. Ms.
@
Echols said that is the intent, although it may not be clear. She said staff will work on that language.
Ms. Thomas asked if staff had a suggested date for the public hearing. Mr. Tucker said staff will go
ahead and schedule that hearing, probably in May, with a work session to follow at the Boards day meeting
=
in June.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Closed Session: Personnel Matters.
At 12:45 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Rooker that the Board go into Closed Session pursuant
to Section 2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards and
commissions; and, under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal
matters relating to a franchise agreement. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
April 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Certify Closed Session.
At 1:43 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was immediately offered by Mr.
Rooker 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. Dorrier. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin and Mr. Bowerman.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Appointments.
Ms. Thomas noted that the following appointments need to be made:
Mr. William Edgerton to the MPO Meadow Creek Design Planning Advisory Committee with said
term retroactive to January 2, 2002, with no expiration date.
Mr. Rodney Thomas to the Charlottesville/Albemarle/University of Virginia Planning and
Coordination Council (PACC) Technical Committee with said term effective retroactively to January 6,
1999, with no expiration date.
Mr. Will Reiley and Mr. William Edgerton appointed as Joint Chairs to the Development Area
Initiatives Steering Committee II with said terms retroactive to January 8, 2002, with no expiration dates.
Motion to make the above appointments was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Rooker,
and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin and Mr. Bowerman.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. SP-2001-061. Melampy Shop (Sign #88). Public hearing on a request to
allow for fabrication of counter tops & cabinets & for sales & installation of these products in accord w/Sec
10.2.2.31 of the Zoning Ord. TM105, P8M, contains 2.0 acs. Loc on W sd of Buck Island Rd (Rt 729),
approx 2 miles S of Rt 53. Znd RA. Scottsville Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the
Daily Progress on March 17 and March 25, 2002.)
Mr. Benish summarized the staffs report. He said the applicant has requested approval of a
=
special use permit for a Home Occupation-Class B which would allow for the operation of a counter
top/cabinet sales and installation business. The applicant would produce custom-made furniture for sale
and then install the fabricated products off-site. Production of products would occur in a proposed 30-foot
by 60-foot utility shed. Approximately 1200 square feet would be used for the production area and
approximately 600 square feet would be used as a storage area for items not related to the special permit.
The applicant would not have any employees. Any future consideration for the hiring of employees would
be limited to no more than two as prescribed by the regulations covering Home Occupation-Class B.
Mr. Benish said the property, which contains 2.0 acres, is located in the Scottsville District on the
west side of Buck Island Road (Route 729) approximately two miles south of Route 53. The property is
zoned Rural Areas and is designated Rural Areas in the Comprehensive Plan. He said the surrounding
area is an inter-mixed wooded area with farmland and residential development. The nearest residence is
approximately 300 feet south of the site. The applicant obtained a Home Occupation-Class A permit in
August, 2000, and has operated the business in his home.
Mr. Benish said staff reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of
the Zoning Ordinance and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. He said staff does recommend
approval subject to conditions. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 5, 2002, unanimously
recommended approval subject to the five conditions recommended by staff.
(Note: Mr. Martin arrived at 1:47 p.m.)
At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Melampy said the description of the request mentions the word sales, but there are no sales
A@
on the property. There are no customers on his property, or at the business. He has spoken to all of his
April 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
neighbors, and no one has a problem with this request.
Ms. Thomas asked if having no more than two employees will be sufficient. Mr. Melampy said he
works by himself most of the time. He has a friend who helps sometimes, but no employees.
With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed
before the Board.
Mr. Dorrier offered motion to approve SP-2001-061, subject to the five conditions recommended
by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Ms. Thomas noted that in
Condition No. 4 there is a typographical error; 14 feet should actually be 14 inches.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. There shall be no on-site sales;
2. There shall be no outdoor storage of materials;
3. All production or fabrication activity of products shall occur within the confines of
the proposed 30 (thirty)-feet by 60-(sixty) feet utility shed;
4. All requirements of VDOT shall be met, including installing a 14 (fourteen)-inch
culvert and widening the entrance to 34 (thirty-four)-feet; and,
5. All solvents/paints shall be disposed of in accordance with all applicable
hazardous waste regulations.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. SP-2001-067. Gould Farm Utility Building (Signs #85 and 86). Public
hearing on a request to allow for custom furniture shop in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.31 of the Zoning Ord.
TM34, P50, contains 75 acs. Loc on E sd of Helios Path, approx 1 ml S of Rt 641. Znd RA. Rivanna Dist.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on March 17 and March 25, 2002.)
Mr. Benish summarized the staffs report which is on file in the Clerks Office. He said the applicant
==
has requested approval of a special use permit for a Home Occupation-Class B, to allow for the operation
of a custom made furniture shop. The applicant proposes to construct a 30-foot by 80-foot workshop
where approximately 1100 square feet would be used as the woodworking area and approximately 1100
square feet would be used as a studio/office not related to the proposed home occupation. Both areas
would be enclosed and separated by an entryway. The applicant would not have any employees. Any
future consideration for the hiring of employees would be limited to no more than two employees which is
permitted under the definition of a Home Occupation-Class B.
Mr. Benish said the property contains 75 acres and is located in the Rivanna District on the east
side of Helios Path, approximately one mile south of Route 641. The property is zoned Rural Areas, and is
so designated in the Comprehensive Plan. Access to the property is through the Solaris development to
the north. The nearest residence is approximately 1500 feet to the north and is heavily buffered by a
wooded area. In September, 2001, a permit was approved for a Home Occupation-Class A for a
landscape and flower design business.
Mr. Benish said staff reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of
the Zoning Ordinance and recommended approval subject to conditions. The Planning Commission, at its
meeting on March 5, 2002, unanimously recommended approval subject to the four conditions
recommended by staff.
At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Gould said he will be using some of the resources on the farm, so that will alleviate a lot of the
traffic. He has spoken with his neighbors who have expressed no problems with his request.
With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed
before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Dorrier to approve SP-2001-067 subject to the
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
April 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
1. There shall be no on-site sales;
2. There shall be no outdoor storage of materials;
3. All solvents/paints shall be disposed of in accordance with all applicable
hazardous waste regulations; and,
4. All production activity of custom-made furniture shall occur within the 30 (thirty)-
foot by 80 (eighty)-foot workshop.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. Sugar Hollow Agricultural/Forestal District Addition. Public hearing on an
Ordinance to Ordinance to amend the Albemarle County Code 3-226, Sugar Hollow Agricultural/Forestal
'
District, for the addition of two parcels. TM40, P12B1, contains 15.367 acs, & is loc on Rt 811, approx 0.3
mls W of its intersec w/Rt 810. TM40, P46C1, contains 9.93 acs, & is loc on Rt 811, approx 1 ml E of its
intersec w/Rt 810. Znd RA. White Hall Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress
on March 17 and March 25, 2002.)
Mr. Benish said this is a request to add two parcels totaling 25.297 acres. He said the Sugar
Hollow District was approved September 6, 1989, and was reviewed in October, 1999. That district totals
4925 acres in 55 parcels. The two properties of Mr. Henley are largely covered in hardwoods with small
areas of pines and open land. The Scherer property is largely open. It does have some fruit trees and is
used at times for growing vegetables which are marketed.
Mr. Benish said the Sugar Hollow District and the proposed additions are located within the Rural
Area of the Comprehensive Plan and are zoned RA, Rural Areas. The nearest Development Area to this
proposed addition is the Crozet community, which is approximately two miles south of the properties. The
Agricultural/Forestal Districts Advisory Committee, at its meeting on March 4, 2002, unanimously
recommended approval of these two additions to the Sugar Hollow District. The Planning Commission, at
its meeting on March 26, 2002, also unanimously recommended approval.
At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak,
the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Rooker, to approve the addition of these
parcels to the Sugar Hollow Agricultural/Forestal District by adopting An Ordinance to Amend and Reordain
Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of the Code of
the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by amending Sec. 3-226, Sugar Hollow Agricultural and Forestal District.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
(Note: The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 02-3(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN ARTICLE II, DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE
SIGNIFICANCE, OF CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS, OF
THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that
Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal
Districts, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and
reordained as follows:
By amending:
Sec. 3-226 Sugar Hollow Agricultural and Forestal District
ARTICLE II. DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE
DIVISION 2. DISTRICTS
Sec. 3-226 Sugar Hollow Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Sugar Hollow Agricultural and Forestal District" consists
of the following described properties: Tax map 25, parcels 11C, 12, 13, 14, 14A, 14B,
14C, 18, 18A, 18B, 21, 21A, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28; tax map 26, parcels 5A, 9, 10, 10B, 10D,
10F, 11C, 11D, 12A, 13, 19, 40B, 40C, 41A, 52, 52D; tax map 27, parcels 8, 8E (part), 26;
tax map 39, parcels 2, 2A, 3, 4, 14, 15, 25, 25A; tax map 40, parcels 1, 9, 9C, 10, 10A,
10B, 10C, 12B1, 22, 22A, 27A, 46C1, 49. This district, created on September 6, 1989 for
not more than 10 years and last reviewed on October 6, 1999, shall next be reviewed prior
to September 6, 2009.
(11-17-93; Code 1988, 2.1-4(q); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 99-3(5), 10-6-99; Ord
'
02-3(1), 1-9-02; Ord. 02-3(2), 4-3-02 )
April 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
__________
Ms. Thomas asked if staff is helping people put their land in an agricultural/forestal district. She
said a letter was mailed about four months ago to people who are getting use value taxation. It scared
some people. The mowing and baling of hay has gone up in the County because of that letter. One way to
retain use value taxation is to have the land in an agricultural/forestal district. She talked to a couple of
landowners who had chosen to go that route, but they told her the process was very difficult.
Mr. Benish said Mr. Scott Clark, a Planning staff member, is the new direct contact with the public.
He said some of the A/F District Committee members are also quite helpful. The County does not have the
ability to actually recruit people, but does have this one person dedicated to responding to questions. He
hopes the new ACE Coordinator will be able to take on a larger effort in rural agricultural preservation
initiatives.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 22. Cancel June 12, 2002, Board of Supervisors' meeting.
Mr. Tucker said the meeting of June 12 can be canceled because there are no items scheduled for
public hearing that night.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to cancel the meeting of June 12,
2002. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Update on SPCA.
Mr. Tucker said during last year's budget process, the Board requested that staff meet with
representatives of the SPCA regarding development of a proposal for County and City financial support for
construction of their new facility. At that time, the SPCA requested a one-time contribution of $750,000
from each the City and County toward construction. Since that time, all parties have met regarding both
operational and capital funding. At a recent budget work session, the Board requested additional
information on the basis of the proposed SPCA capital funding recommendation included in the FY 2003-07
Capital Improvement Program and general information on the proposed facility.
Mr. Tucker said as part of the discussions with the SPCA regarding their capital requests, staff
conducted research on capital costs of government-funded animal control facilities recently constructed in
the state of Virginia. Staff focused its research on facilities that provide basic services to meet state
requirements, rather than the higher level of services provided by agencies such as the SPCA. The SPCA's
mission is beyond the typical animal control responsibilities of local governments. According to the State
Veterinarian, the cost to construct a basic animal shelter facility that would meet state requirements would
average approximately $100/square foot. Gloucester, Shenandoah and Fluvanna counties recently
constructed animal control facilities which ranged in cost from $250,000 to $460,000. These localities have
much smaller animal populations than Charlottesville and Albemarle County. A number of other localities
have worked in collaboration with agencies such as the SPCA to reduce costs and provide services that
meet citizen expectations.
Mr. Tucker said the SPCA has estimated the cost of this new facility to be $3.5 million. They are
currently involved in an active fund-raising campaign and have also received a $1.0 million payment from
VDOT for land purchased due to the Route 29 Western Bypass alignment which crosses their current
facility. Based on staffs research and the benefits of a continued partnership with the SPCA, City and
=
County staff feel that a $50,000 contribution for each of the next five years would be appropriate to support
the SPCA in providing this required service. The SPCA's request of $50,000 per year for five consecutive
years is included as part of the County Executive's recommended budget.
Ms. Thomas said no action is needed on this item, but she appreciates receiving this information.
When it was presented during the budget work sessions, the Board had not been aware of the costs for this
project.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Public Meeting Room Renovations, Update.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Engineering, will make the presentation.
Mr. Graham said there is an increasing need for more sophisticated technology and presentation
capabilities in the Boards Meeting Room (Room 241). Presentations by County staff, applicants,
=
community groups and others demand more complex technical support. It has become a standard
expectation that the room will accommodate Powerpoint presentations, other projection displays, and
A@
visual displays. In order for all using the room to receive the maximum benefit from these more advanced
April 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
presentations without having major disruptions while setting up presentations during meetings, significant
changes in the room's arrangement and equipment are critical. Instituting these changes will transform
Room 241 into a technologically smart roomappropriate for numerous uses beyond the meetings of the
A@
various public bodies currently using the space. Also, if long-range space plans create a new public
meeting space for Board meetings where this is a very large public attendance, Room 241 will be ideal for
continued use as a smart space for in-house, as well as external, meetings and presentations.
Mr. Graham said that after meeting with various users of Room 241, a number of changes to the
audio/video systems in the room and the basic configuration of the room, as well as tie-ins with the adjacent
conference room (Room 235) were deemed desirable. A schematic-level cost estimate developed by a
consultant indicates that the complete upgrades would cost approximately $360,000, which exceeds the
amount in the current budget. For this reason, options for some incremental upgrades were developed.
Cost estimates for three options were forwarded to the Board with this information.
Option A - Basic Audio/Visual Renovations. Cost approximately $180,000. This would include a
presenters station with a projection display system, enhanced sound system, archival recording system,
=
integrated multimedia control system, hearing assistance system for ADA compliance, agenda display and
remote monitors in the hall. This setup would allow electronic presentations with display of board agenda
items in the hall. It would provide the backbone for broadcasting of meetings.
Option B - Basic Audio/Visual Renovations with Room 235 as a "Smart Room". Cost approximately
$250,000. This option is the same as "A" with audio/visual extended to Room 235 to allow it to be a smart
room, somewhat similar to the conference room on the third floor. This would allow Room 235 to serve
both as an enhanced conference/meeting room and an overflow space where people could view meetings
in Room 241 when Room 241 is full.
Option C - Audio/Visual Renovations with Room 235 as a "Smart Room" and Room 241
Rehabilitated. Cost approximately $360,000. This option is the same as "B" with Room 241 receiving a
new dais for members of boards, committees, commissions, etc. The ceiling would be raised to allow for
better display from the projection system. Also, there would be new seating. This option also provides for a
kitchenette where the current closet is located, and a new door would be provided from that area to the hall
rather than having to exit through Room 235.
Mr. Graham said staff recommends option "A" with the possible addition of new audience seating, if
funds are available. This accomplishes the initial objectives at the smallest cost and fits within the current
budget. In part, this recommendation is based on the assumption that the physical space in Room 241 at
the current time will become too small in the future and a larger space will be required. With this time
frame and anticipated technology changes, it does not appear prudent to make substantial improvements.
It does appear prudent to invest in the technology described in Option A at this time. Use of this technology
should extend the useful life of the current space by allowing meetings to be displayed outside of the
physical space. In addition, experience with this new technology will provide staff with valuable in-sights into
the design of new space in the future.
Mr. Rooker said it appears that the configuration for Room 241 under Option C is the best
configuration. He asked the difference in cost. Mr. Graham said the difference between Option A and
Option B is the cost of a smart room. So, if Option C did not include the smart room, the cost would drop
from $360,000 to about $290,000.
Ms. Thomas asked if Options A and B included the same horseshoe arrangement of the dais. Mr.
Graham said yes.
A@
Mr. Dorrier asked if there are hook-ups for computers at all the seats at the meeting room table.
Mr. Graham said yes. He said there is a possibility that once cameras are installed, they can be tied in to
A@
the Countys Intranet so that the video display could be seen through any computer hooked to the Intranet.
=
However, that idea still needs some investigation.
Mr. Martin said he does not know if the second area is needed as an overflow, but it seems that to
do Option A would limit what can be done overall. However, if Option C is chosen without doing any work in
Room 235, that could be added at a later date. He thinks that whatever is done, it should be done right.
Mr. Tucker said he does not know how often the Board would use the smart room.
A@
Mr. Rooker suggested dropping the idea of adding a kitchenette. He asked the cost of that idea.
Mr. Graham said that cost was not set out separately.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks the Board should talk about the configuration of the table and the
speakers podium. She said the difference in cost between A and C is fairly significant. She said when
=A@A@
citizens come forward, often they have to be reminded that they are addressing the Board. To have them
standing where they are partly looking at the audience, and partly at the Board, will make it more difficult.
The reason the dais was slightly elevated was to have the people speaking and the people sitting on the
dais be at eye level to each other. She is thinking more about the citizens, and wants to be sure that
whatever is done is both user-friendly for the citizen, but directs them to speak to the Board.
Mr. Martin said he thinks the chairman will have to play a bigger role in making sure the person
standing on the side partially facing the audience understand that they are talking to the chairman.
Mr. Rooker said he has heard many complaints over the years from people in the audience who
April 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
cannot hear what is going on.
Mr. Martin said in a growing County it does not make sense to just patch something. It should be
A@
done right the first time. Even if the cost is a little excessive on day one, it will not be in year ten.
Ms. Thomas said staff feels that in the future Room 241 will not be adequate for its intended
purpose so they do not want to put a lot of money into its renovation. She said this was a whole new
concept for her. She asked where Board meetings would be moved. Mr. Tucker said the only other space
in the building is in the Auditorium. It would require major changes in order to make it user-friendly.
Ms. Thomas asked if the new configuration for the room would allow meetings to be televised. Mr.
Graham said staff has not talked with anyone about it at this time. They want the equipment installed to be
compatible. Ms. Thomas said she would encourage staff to talk with someone who has experience in
televising meetings.
Mr. Martin asked if it is the consensus to choose Option C without the smart room. Ms. Thomas
A@
said it would be C without the frills. Mr. Martin said he would not rule out the kitchenette. He asked if the
A@
Board needed to take a vote. Mr. Tucker said no, staff only needs some direction and thoughts from the
A@
Board members.
Mr. Davis reminded Ms. Thomas that she wanted to discuss the microphones. Ms. Thomas said
she likes the lapel mikes. She thinks they are a good discipline item for the Board members. Mr. Tucker
said if laptop computers are installed in the room, the gooseneck-type microphones will be in the way.
Mr. Perkins wondered if Option C will get more than ten years of additional use out of Room 241.
He said there is a need to upgrade the sound system and he thinks the room needs to be wired for
computers. He does not think that much money should be spent for no more difference than it will make. It
is not that inconvenient for the members to get up and move around because of people making visual
displays on the screen behind the table. He has seen systems where something can be shown on one wall
and it also shows it on the opposite wall. He just wonders if there has been enough research into this
matter.
Mr. Martin asked if Mr. Perkins is suggesting that more options be studied.
Mr. Perkins said he cant see a need to move the podium when the speaker will still have their back
=
turned to some part of the audience. The persons speaking will still be speaking to the Board, the School
Board, the Planning Commission, or whoever, and he does not think you can get away from the fact that
they are not talking to the public. He wonders if it would be better money spent to basically leave Room
241 as it is and to build a new space in the courtyard and build a state-of-the-art room for meetings. Mr.
Tucker said that could be done, if that is what the Board wants.
Mr. Dorrier said that is not a bad idea because he does not think Room 241 is broken. Mr. Tucker
A@
said if some improvements are made it can still be used, but it needs some changes to upgrade it for all of
the things set out in the staffs report.
=
Mr. Perkins asked if the School Board had been consulted about these changes. Mr. Graham said
staff has not talked with the members of any of the boards and commissions using the room, but they have
talked with all staff members. Mr. Davis said they all have similar problems with taking of the minutes,
particularly the Planning Commission. The audio in this room is very difficult. There are limitations on
presentations for all bodies. If the option is not to make any changes and think that these bodies will
continue to use this room, there will be complaints forthcoming as technology advances.
Ms. Thomas said she would like to be sure that everybody is looking at the same piece of material
when talking about changes in the wording of conditions. If that were on a screen where all people at the
board table and the Clerk could have see that in front of them, everybody could be sure they were talking
about the same thing. If this room is to be renovated, she hopes that whatever is done, it makes it easier for
the audience to follow. Mr. Tucker said that under the proposed changes, a screen would be available for
viewing.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks Mr. Perkins idea of starting new with another space is preferable.
=
Ms. Thomas said she thinks nine-tenths of the Boards meetings are with audiences no bigger than
=
that present at this time. If meetings are televised for Cable TV, even the curious will not have to come in.
Mr. Rooker said the room is fine with him the way it is now, but at this time the public does not really
participate in the meetings, and they do not have the opportunity to know what is going on. The public cant
=
see the documents or maps being referred to, and the people making presentations either hold up
something or put things on an easel. He said the current sound system does not always allow the audience
to hear what is said.
Mr. Martin asked the pleasure of the Board. Mr. Rooker said he likes Option C without the smart
room, and, depending on its cost, removal of the kitchenette.
Ms. Thomas said C is preferable because it allows for easier use and viewing of the electronic
A@
presentations. She said there is not 100 percent agreement on that option. She said getting an estimated
cost on Mr. Perkins suggestion would be one step to take. Mr. Tucker said staff will look at that, but there
=
April 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
may be more value for the money spent in the long run.
Mr. Graham asked if the suggestion is to build an entirely separate facility. Mr. Tucker said yes.
A@
Mr. Graham said if that idea is to be studied, there needs to be a Needs Assessment first where they
A@
interview all of the potential users of the facility. The facility would need to have a twenty to forty year life
span. If it were a 10,000 square foot facility, at $150.00 a square foot, that would be over $1.5 million.
Mr. Dorrier asked how many meetings are actually held in Room 241 where there is an overflow
crowd. Mr. Tucker said it is probably five at the most in a year. But, there is also the School Board, the
Planning Commission, the Board of Zoning Appeals, etc. who use this room.
Mr. Perkins asked the size of Room 241. Mr. Graham said it is probably 800 square feet. Mr.
Perkins said he was not thinking about anything as large as 10,000 square feet, but something more like
2500 square feet.
Ms. Thomas said she has no enthusiasm for that idea because she does not think it is needed. It
would be very expensive.
Mr. Martin said given the situation, the Board either needs more information or it needs to take a
vote since there is no consensus.
Mr. Rooker asked if a new facility were built if it would take up current parking spaces. Mr. Tucker
said no. Staff would have to look around at this building first. He wonders if the balcony in the Auditorium
A@
is really wasted space since it is seldom used. Also, could the two courtyards in the building be enclosed
and that space used.
Ms. Thomas said staff should get a better cost estimate for Option C with the modifications that
have been discussed. Staff might brainstorm about what the use of a larger facility without bringing in a
consultant. Then, the cost of Option C could be pared down and compared with doing something much
bigger. She suggested that as an acceptable manner in which to proceed.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 23. Approval of Minutes: September 27(A) and October 3, 2001; and January
16, 2002.
No minutes had been read.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 24. From the Board: Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Thomas showed the gifts received from the Italian visitors. She described the gifts given to
them in return. She said they had a great time, and they were asked to come back to the City/County with
more particulars about what the next exchange should be both in terms of students, teachers and
commercial ventures. She said the visit was successful.
__________
Mr. Tucker asked if the Board members think the budget hearing scheduled for next Wednesday
night needs to be held in the Auditorium. After a short discussion, it was decided to meet in the Auditorium.
__________
Mr. Perkins said he would like to have a copy of the recent photograph taken of the Board
members.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she just learned that some services in solid waste disposal are proposed to be
cut back due to their costs, and there may be a fee charged to use the McIntire Road recycling center, that
household solid waste collection cut back to once a year. Those are the kinds of things she has told people
will become taxpayer supported services. Now they are being talked about being cut back, and the Board
has not had an opportunity for any discussion. Mr. Tucker said the County is already significantly
subsidizing the McIntire Recycling Center. The idea was to charge $1.00 per vehicle for all vehicles coming
to the center. He said better education is needed. Ms. Thomas said the education position is also being
cut. Mr. Tucker said that item has been reduced, but that is what has to be done when the revenue stream
drops.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 25. Adjourn. At 2:50 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board,
the meeting was adjourned.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
April 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
Date: 08/14/2002
Initials: EWC