2002-06-05June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 5,
2002, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Walter F. Perkins, Mr. Dennis
S. Rooker and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: Mr. Charles S. Martin.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Deputy Clerk, Laurel Bentley, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:05 a.m., by the Chairman, Ms. Thomas.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. John Martin said he would like to speak about the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authoritys (Rivanna)
=
water supply recommendations which have been the subject of public hearings and been well received. He
suggests that consistent with the philosophy contained in the Natural Resources Section of the Countys
=
Comprehensive Plan, at some point Rivannas recommendations be reviewed for compliance with the Plan.
=
Rivannas recommendations contain statements of public policy with respect to the importance of the
=
watershed. Those kinds of policy determinations are within the province of the governing body, and not
completely in the province of Rivanna. He thinks there should be a record showing that the Board of
Supervisors agrees with those policy statements. With respect to the current Comprehensive planning of
the Rural Areas section, he thinks there is a disconnect between Rivanna and that element. Rivannas
=
recommendation contains a statement saying: We should have no higher priority than protection of our
A
watersheds. He agrees with that, but the draft of the Rural Areas chapter does not give sufficient
@
importance to protection of the watershed which he feels is of pre-eminent importance. He thinks it would
be worthwhile if Rivanna had some input into the drafting of that chapter. _______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Presentation of Certificate of Appreciation was skipped temporarily since the
recipient was not present at this time.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. Motion to approve Item Nos. 6.1 through 6.7, and to accept
the remaining items on the Consent Agenda as information (Note: Discussion concerning individual items
will be shown at the end of the staffs report on each item), was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr.
=
Perkins, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
__________
Item 6.1. Approval of Minutes: October 3, 2001; January 16, February 6, February 20, March 6
and March 20, 2002.
Mr. Rooker had read the minutes of February 20, 2002 (Pages 21 through 23) and found them to
be in order.
Mr. Dorrier had read the minutes of March 20, 2002, and found the minutes to be in order.
Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of February 6, 2002, Pages 27 (beginning with Item #12) to the
end, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of March 6, 2002, Pages 1 through 16 (ending with Item No. 10),
and found them to be in order.
Neither Ms. Thomas nor Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes which had been assigned to them.
By the recorded vote set out above, the minutes which had been read were approved.
__________
Item 6.2. Extension of Street Light Agreement with American Electric Power (AEP), formerly
Appalachian Electric Power Company.
It was noted in the staffs report that American Electric Power (AEP), formerly Appalachian Electric
=
Power Company, provides power for 87 street lights located in Southern Albemarle between from Keene
and Scottsville. The 1990 Agreement between the County and AEP has expired. AEP has offered to
extend the terms of this agreement on a month-to-month basis. The County pays AEP approximately
$5600 per year to power street lights in Southern Albemarle. Staff has enjoyed a good working relationship
with AEP and is satisfied with the service provided by this company. It recommends that the Board
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
authorize the County Executive to execute the letter agreement to extend the expired street light agreement
with AEP.
(Discussion: Ms. Thomas said she did not understand why the 1990 Agreement had expired. She
asked if this is something of concern since service will be on a month-to-month basis. Mr. Tucker said
VACO and VML have worked this out with all of the electric utility companies. It is different from what has
been normal in the past, but this is what they proposed now. Mr. Davis said this is sort of a side agreement,
and the rates are favorable since they are set by tariffs and are not negotiated. Even though the Agreement
expired, AEP continues to bill on the same tariff rates. This is basically a housekeeping measure.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board authorized the County Executive to execute
the letter agreement to extend the expired street light agreement with American Electric Power.
__________
Item 6.3. Adopt Resolution of Appropriation for FY 2002-2003 Budget and Resolution of Official
Intent for use of VPSA Bond Proceeds.
It was noted in the staffs report that the County's FY 2002-2003 Operating and Capital budgets
=
were approved by the Board on April 17, 2002, for a total estimated amount of $211,956,025. The Annual
Resolution of Appropriation for the Fiscal Year ending on June 30, 2003, provides the authority from the
Board for the County to spend those funds, effective July 1, 2002. This Resolution is different from past
years' resolutions in that it is now a comprehensive resolution which appropriates the total County budget,
including both Operating and Capital funds in a single resolution, and includes many of the initial Special
Revenue Fund appropriations that in the past were not included in the operating appropriation resolution.
Also, since April 17, adjustments have been made to the budget numbers approved in April,
particularly in the Special Revenue Fund accounts, as updated information became available. These
adjustments have resulted in a revised net total appropriation amount in this resolution of $208,618,535.00.
Most of the adjustment is a result of having a more detailed picture of the many inter-fund transfers
included in the various accounts, plus the exclusion of certain grant-funded programs that were included in
the overall adopted budget totals, but are not yet ready to be appropriated.
General Fund, $140,707,272.00. The total amount of expenditures appropriated from the General
Fund is $140,707,272,00 which is $6,264.00 less than the General Fund budget of $140,713,536.00
adopted in April. The change resulted from a recalculation of funding of salaries and benefits for staffs of
Constitutional Officers to reflect the latest State Compensation Board salary amounts.
School Fund, $99,589,820.00. The revised School operations budget is $99,589,820.00, which is
an increase of $40,958.00 over the School Fund budget adopted in April. This increase reflects the amount
adopted by the School Board based upon the most recent revenue estimates.
School Self-Sustaining Funds, $10,854,221.00. The appropriation for all of the School
Self-Sustaining Funds totals $10,854,221.00, which is a decrease of $115,165.00 from the amount adopted
in April. This change reflects the most recent information available regarding State, Federal and other
grant-funded programs.
Special Revenue Funds, $14,054,414.00. The "Special Revenue Funds" section of this resolution
of appropriation includes the various accounts funded from special revenue sources and in many cases
also from transfers from the General Fund, School Fund and other Special Revenue Funds. These
accounts include: the Comprehensive Services Act Fund totaling $5,702,325.00; the Bright Stars Program
Fund totaling $506,160.00; the Family Support Fund totaling $1,158,405.00; the Towe Memorial Park Fund
totaling $212,655.00; the E-911 Service Charge Fund totaling $1,304,418.00; the Visitor Center Fund
totaling $68,000.00; the Courthouse Maintenance Fund totaling $47,000.00; the Tourism Fund totaling
$1,360,081.00; the United Way Day Care Grant Fund totaling $573,499.00; the Criminal Justice Grant Fund
at $564,442.00; the Victim-Witness Assistance Grant fund at $75,139.00; the Metro Planning Grant fund at
$20,000.00; and, the Housing Assistance Fund at a total of $2,462,300.00. These Special Revenue Funds
may require future budget amendments and appropriations depending upon either or both the level of
program activity which actually occurs, and the actual revenues which are received from sources other than
local County revenues.
General Government Capital Improvements Fund, $11,891,000.00. This appropriation is the
same total amount as included in the adopted Budget in April for the combination of the General
Government Capital Improvement projects plus the budget amount of $475,000.00 for the Ivy Landfill
Remediation Fund. This total includes $1,000,000.00 for the Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE)
program, $475,000.00 for the Ivy Landfill, $5,520,000.00 for other approved capital projects, plus
$4,896,000.00 in Capital Reserve funds to be used for future capital projects and debt service requirements
over the next five years.
School Division Capital Improvements Fund, $9,730,000.00. The appropriated amount for
School Division Capital Improvements is the same as the adopted School Capital Improvement Program
budget in April. The only change has been to substitute Fund Balance revenue for the $200,000.00 of
State Construction Fund revenue that was lost for FY 2003.
>
Stormwater Capital Improvements Fund, $575,000.00. There have been no changes to the
approved Stormwater Fund appropriation from the budget adopted in April.
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
Debt Service, $11,443,481.00. No changes were made in the appropriations for either School
Division Debt Service ($10,473,481.00) or General Government Debt Service ($970,000.00) from the
amounts included in the budget adopted in April.
Staff recommends adoption of the Annual Resolution of Appropriation for FY 2003 which allocates
>
a total of $208,618,535.00 to the various General Government and School Division operating, Capital
Improvement, and Debt Service accounts for expenditure in Fiscal Year 2002-2003. Also recommended
for approval is a Resolution of Official Intent to use Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) bond proceeds
for certain School Division capital projects.
(Discussion: Ms. Thomas asked how the solid waste requirements the County is facing will be
funded next year by the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority. Those costs are not reflected in this appropriation.
Mr. Tucker said a request to carry-over the revenues not used in FY 2001-02 will come to the Board in
September. That amount will be added to the appropriation for FY 2002-03. Right now, that amount
appears to be adequate to cover the needs for next year even with the changes proposed in the new solid
waste budget. It is possible some revenue may need to be added to the carry-over figure.)
By the recorded vote above, the Board adopted the Annual Resolution of Appropriation for
the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2003, and, a Resolution of Official Intent to use Virginia Public
School Authority bond proceeds for certain School Division capital projects, all as set out below:
ANNUAL RESOLUTION OF APPROPRIATION
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2003
A RESOLUTION making appropriations of sums of money for all necessary expenditures of the
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2003; to prescribe the provisions
with respect to the items of appropriation and their payment; and to repeal all previous appropriation
ordinances or resolutions that are inconsistent with this resolution to the extent of such inconsistency.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
SECTION I: GENERAL GOVERNMENT
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the GENERAL
FUND to be apportioned as follows for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30,
2003:
Paragraph One: TAX REFUNDS, ABATEMENTS AND OTHER REFUNDS $92,100
1. Refunds and Abatements $92,100
$92,100
Paragraph Two: GENERAL MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT $7,361,019
1. Board of Supervisors $338,134
2. County Attorney 519,357
3. County Executive 986,783
4. Department of Finance 3,025,520
5. Department of Human Resources 447,715
6. Department of Information Technology 1,740,446
7. Voter Registration/Elections 303,064
$7,361,019
Paragraph Three: JUDICIAL $2,704,935
1. Circuit Court $81,640
2. Clerk of the Circuit Court 589,775
3. Commonwealth's Attorney 552,984
4. General District Court 22,550
5. Juvenile Court 65,653
6. Magistrate 5,000
7. Sheriff 1,387,333
$2,704,935
Paragraph Four: PUBLIC SAFETY $16,943,191
1. Albemarle County Fire Rescue Department $2,050,254
2. Department of Police 8,382,475
3. Emergency Communications Center 1,390,509
4. Fire Rescue Credit 40,000
5. Fire Department Contract w/City 717,371
6. Forest Fire Extinction Service 13,758
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
7. Thomas Jefferson EMS Council 20,260
8. Volunteer Fire Departments 726,954
9. Volunteer Rescue Squads 203,494
10. Inspections 789,661
11. Community Attention Home 15,678
12. Juvenile Detention Center 751,769
13. Juvenile Court Assessment Center 31,113
14. Offender Aid and Restoration (OAR) 74,692
15. Regional Jail Authority 1,563,047
16. SPCA Contract 84,556
17. VJCCA Contingency Funding 87,600
$16,943,191
Paragraph Five: ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC WORKS $ 3,292,369
1. Engineering & Public Works $3,042,019
2. Water Resources Management 250,350
$3,292,369
Paragraph Six: HUMAN SERVICES $11,513,037
1. Aids Support Group $4,500
2. Chville/Albemarle Legal Aid Society (CALAS) 21,215
=
3. Charlottesville Free Clinic 5,709
4. Children, Youth and Family Services (CYFS)82,083
5. Commission on Children & Families (CCF) 148,900
6. Computers4Kids 7,690
7. FOCUS - Teensight 25,625
8. Health Department 781,228
9. Jefferson Area Board on Aging (JABA) 189,156
10. JAUNT 418,481
11. MACAA - Teen Pregnancy Prevention 32,656
12. Madison House 7,829
13. Music Resource Center 5,638
14. Piedmont Virginia Community College (PVCC) 22,060
15. Region Ten Community Services 419,060
16. Sexual Assault Resource Agency (SARA) 24,000
17. Shelter for Help in Emergency (SHE) 75,313
18. SOCA 3,000
19. Department of Social Services 9,049,494
20. Worksource Enterprises 28,000
21. Tax Relief for Elderly/Disabled 161,400
$11,513,037
Paragraph Seven: PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURE $4,502,869
1. Darden Towe Memorial Park $126,805
2. Department of Parks & Recreation 1,726,332
3. Jefferson-Madison Regional Library 2,186,237
4. Ash-Lawn/Highland 8,446
5. Gypsy Moth Program 16,840
6. Lewis and Clark Festival 3,500
7. Literacy Volunteers 17,134
8. Municipal Band 15,450
9. Piedmont Council of the Arts 10,579
10. Virginia Discovery Museum 10,559
11. Virginia Festival of the Book 10,558
12. Virginia Film Festival 10,558
13. Visitors Bureau 352,259
14. WVPT Public Television 7,612
$4,502,869
Paragraph Eight: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT $4,175,992
1. Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) $397,365
2. Charlottesville Transit Service 174,729
3. Department of Planning & Community Development 1,810,317
4. Housing Office 462,709
5. Monticello Area Community Action Agency (MACAA) 132,584
6. Piedmont Housing Alliance (PHA) 133,185
7. Planning District Commission (TJPDC) 83,797
8. Soil and Water Conservation 64,735
9. VPI Extension Service 173,705
10. Zoning 742,866
$4,175,992
Paragraph Nine: CAPITAL OUTLAYS $6,545,090
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
1. Transfer to Capital Improvements Fund $5,970,090
2. Transfer to Stormwater Fund 575,000
$6,545,090
Paragraph Ten: REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENT $6,692,811
1. Revenue Sharing Agreement $6,692,811
$6,692,811
Paragraph Eleven: OTHER USES OF FUNDS $76,883,859
1. Transfer to General Government Debt Service $970,000
2. Transfer to School Division Debt Service 9,911,475
3. Transfer to School Fund - Recurring 65,725,202
4. Transfer to School Fund - One-time 125,000
5. Board Contingency Reserve 152,182
$76,883,859
SUMMARY
Total GENERAL FUND appropriations for
fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $140,707,272
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources $108,518,412
Revenue from Local Sources-General Fund Balance/Transfers 4,188,918
Revenue from the Commonwealth 24,347,101
Revenue from the Federal Government 3,652,841
$140,707,272
Total GENERAL FUND resources available for
fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $140,707,272
SECTION II: REGULAR SCHOOL FUND
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for SCHOOL purposes
herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2003:
Paragraph One: REGULAR SCHOOL FUND $99,589,820
1. Administration, Attendance & Health $6,122,669
2. Debt Service Fund 295,925
3. Facilities Construction/Modification 47,600
4. Facilities Operation/Maintenance 9,672,947
5. Instruction 74,371,153
6. Pupil Transportation Services 6,828,986
7. Other Uses of Funds 2,250,540
$99,589,820
SUMMARY
Total REGULAR SCHOOL FUND appropriations for
fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $99,589,820
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund Transfer-Ongoing) $65,725,202
Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund Transfer-One-time) 125,000
Revenue from Other Local Sources 607,140
Revenue from School Fund Balance, Carry-over, Transfers 424,000
Revenue from the Commonwealth 30,807,478
Revenue from the Federal Government 1,901,000
$99,589,820
Total REGULAR SCHOOL FUND resources available
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $99,589,820
SECTION III: OTHER SCHOOL FUNDS
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for the purposes herein
specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2003:
Paragraph One: FOOD SERVICES $3,449,960
1. Maintenance/Operation of School Cafeterias $3,226,892
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
2. Summer Feeding 223,068
$3,449,960
SUMMARY
Total FOOD SERVICES appropriations for
fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $3,449,960
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources $2,596,675
Revenue from the Commonwealth 53,965
Revenue from the Federal Government 799,320
$3,449,960
Total FOOD SERVICES resources available
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $3,449,960
Paragraph Two: PRE-SCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION FUND $ 73,123
1. Special Ed Pre-School Program $73,123
$73,123
SUMMARY
Total PRE-SCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION FUND
appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $73,123
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Federal Government $73,123
Total PRE-SCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION FUND
resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $73,123
Paragraph Three: McINTIRE TRUST FUND $10,000
1. Payment to County Schools $10,000
SUMMARY
Total McINTIRE TRUST FUND appropriations
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $10,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Investments Per Trust $10,000
Total McINTIRE TRUST FUND resources available
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $10,000
Paragraph Four: PREP PROGRAM $1,322,708
1. C.B.I.P. Severe $751,803
2. E.D. Program 570,905
$1,322,708
SUMMARY
Total PREP PROGRAM appropriations for
fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $1,322,708
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Tuition and Fees $1,322,708
Total PREP PROGRAM resources available
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003 $1,322,708
Paragraph Five: FEDERAL PROGRAMS $1,509,240
1. Adult Education $101,550
2. Carl Perkins 125,000
3. Chapter I 800,000
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
4. Chapter II 54,928
5. Drug Free Schools 44,336
6. Migrant Education 201,000
7. Title II 51,797
8. English Literacy/Civics 74,733
9. Economically Dislocated Workers 19,534
10. Bright Stars 36,362
$1,509,240
SUMMARY
Total FEDERAL PROGRAMS appropriations
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $1,509,240
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources $1,550
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School Fund) 15,000
Revenue from the Commonwealth 150,336
Revenue from the Federal Government 1,342,354
$1,509,240
Total FEDERAL PROGRAMS resources available
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $1,509,240
Paragraph Six: COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND $1,505,617
1. Community Education $1,505,617
SUMMARY
Total COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND appropriations
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $1,505,617
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources - Tuition $1,505,617
Total COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND resources
available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $1,505,617
Paragraph Seven: SUMMER SCHOOL $463,378
1. Summer School $463,378
SUMMARY
Total SUMMER SCHOOL appropriations for
fiscal year ending June 30, 2003 $463,378
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School Fund) $164,243
Revenue from Local Sources - Tuition 198,185
Miscellaneous Revenues 950
Revenue from the Commonwealth 100,000
$463,378
Total SUMMER SCHOOL resources available
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $463,378
Paragraph Eight: SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT $870,000
1. School Bus Replacement $870,000
SUMMARY
Total SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT appropriations
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $870,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Sale of Vehicles) $10,000
Revenue from Local Sources (Repair Fees) 15,000
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School Fund) 845,000
$870,000
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
Total SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT resources
available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $870,000
Paragraph Nine: AIMR SUMMER RENTAL FUND $400,000
1. AIMR Summer Rental $400,000
SUMMARY
Total AIMR SUMMER RENTAL FUND appropriations
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $400,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (rental) $400,000
Total AIMR SUMMER RENTAL FUND resources
available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $400,000
Paragraph Ten: RETURN II GRANT FUND $87,207
1. Return II State Grant $87,207
SUMMARY
Total RETURN II GRANT FUND appropriations
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $87,207
To be provided as follows:
Miscellaneous Revenues $14,120
Local Revenue (Transfer from the School Fund)24,519
Revenue from the Commonwealth 48,568
$87,207
Total RETURN II GRANT FUND resources available
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $87,207
Paragraph Eleven: ALCOA FOUNDATION EDUCATOR-IN-RESIDENCE FUND $60,000
1. ALCOA Foundation Educator-in-Residence $60,000
SUMMARY
Total ALCOA FOUNDATION EDUCATOR-IN-RESIDENCE FUND
appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $60,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources $60,000
Total ALCOA FOUNDATION EDUCATOR-IN-RESIDENCE FUND
resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $60,000
Paragraph Twelve: INTERNAL SERVICE - VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FUND $266,500
1. Vehicle Maintenance $266,500
SUMMARY
Total INTERNAL SERVICE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FUND
appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $266,500
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources $266,500
Total INTERNAL SERVICE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FUND
resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $266,500
Paragraph Thirteen: GENERAL ADULT EDUCATION FUND $8,486
1. General Adult Education $8,486
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
SUMMARY
Total GENERAL ADULT EDUCATION FUND appropriations
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $8,486
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Commonwealth $8,486
Total GENERAL ADULT EDUCATION FUND resources
available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $8,486
Paragraph Fourteen: DRIVERS SAFETY FUND $174,761
1. Drivers Safety Fund $174,761
SUMMARY
Total DRIVERS SAFETY FUND appropriations
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $174,761
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Tuition $153,757
Revenue from the Commonwealth 21,004
$174,761
Total DRIVERS SAFETY FUND resources
available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $174,761
Paragraph Fifteen: OPEN DOORS FUND $93,608
1. Open Doors Fund $93,608
SUMMARY
Total OPEN DOORS FUND appropriations
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $93,608
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Tuition $87,008
Revenue from Local Sources (Advertisements) 6,600
$93,608
Total OPEN DOORS FUND resources available
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $93,608
Paragraph Sixteen: READING EXCELLENCE ACT GRANT FUND $100,000
1. Reading Excellence Act Grant $100,000
SUMMARY
Total READING EXCELLENCE ACT GRANT FUND
appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $100,000
To be provided as follows:
Appropriation of Fund Balance $100,000
Total READING EXCELLENCE ACT GRANT FUND resources
available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $100,000
Paragraph Seventeen: STATE PROGRAMS $459,633
1. Special Education SILVER Grant $35,275
2. Special Education Jail Program 108,651
3. Character Counts 77,777
4. Learn & Serve Virginia 7,450
5. SOL Training RFP 230,480
$459,633
SUMMARY
Total STATE PROGRAMS appropriations for
fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $459,633
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Commonwealth $409,633
Revenue from Fund Balance 50,000
$459,633
Total STATE PROGRAMS resources available
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $459,633
GRAND TOTAL - OTHER SCHOOL FUNDS $10,854,221
SECTION IV: OTHER SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for OTHER PROGRAM
purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2003.
Paragraph One: COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT FUND $5,702,325
1. Comprehensive Services Act Expenditures $5,702,325
SUMMARY
Total COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT appropriations
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003 $5,702,325
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund) $1,476,500
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School Fund) 1,000,000
Revenue from the Commonwealth 3,151,105
Fund Balance 74,720
$ 5,702,325
Total COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT resources
available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003 $5,702,325
Paragraph Two: BRIGHT STARS FOUR-YEAR OLD PROGRAM FUND $506,150
1. Bright Stars Program $506,150
SUMMARY
Total BRIGHT STARS FOUR-YEAR OLD PROGRAM FUND
appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $506,150
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund) $290,921
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School Fund) 23,000
MJ Child Health Grant 5,000
Revenue from the Commonwealth 158,155
Fund Balance 29,074
$506,150
Total BRIGHT STARS FOUR-YEAR OLD PROGRAM FUND
resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $506,150
Paragraph Three: FAMILY SUPPORT FUND $1,158,405
1. Family Support Program $1,158,405
SUMMARY
Total FAMILY SUPPORT FUND appropriations for
fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $1,158,405
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Federal Government $1,158,405
Total FAMILY SUPPORT FUND resources available
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $1,158,405
Paragraph Four: TOWE MEMORIAL PARK FUND $212,655
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
1. Darden Towe Memorial Park $212,655
SUMMARY
Total TOWE MEMORIAL PARK FUND appropriations
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $212,655
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund) $126,805
Miscellaneous Local Revenue 14,985
City of Charlottesville 70,865
$212,655
Total TOWE MEMORIAL PARK FUND resources
available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $212,655
Paragraph Five: E-911 SERVICE CHARGE FUND $1,304,418
1. E-911 Operations & Debt Service (Transfer to General Fund) $126,805
2. E-911 Fire Dispatch (Transfer to General Fund) 219,000
3. E-911 Fund Contingency Reserve 10,940
$1,304,418
SUMMARY
TOTAL E-911 SERVICE CHARGE FUND appropriations
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $1,304,418
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources - E-911 Fees $1,244,418
Revenue from Local Sources - Interest Income 60,000
$1,304,418
Total E-911 SERVICE CHARGE FUND resources
available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $1,304,418
Paragraph Six: VISITOR CENTER FUND $68,000
1. Debt Service $68,000
SUMMARY
TOTAL VISITOR CENTER FUND appropriations
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $68,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources $68,000
Total VISITOR CENTER FUND resources available
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $68,000
Paragraph Seven: COURTHOUSE MAINTENANCE FUND $47,000
1. Transfer to General Government CIP Fund $47,000
SUMMARY
TOTAL COURTHOUSE MAINTENANCE FUND appropriations
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $47,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources $40,700
Fund Balance 6,300
$47,000
Total COURTHOUSE MAINTENANCE FUND resources
available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $47,000
Paragraph Eight: TOURISM FUND $1,360,081
1. Tourism Enhancement (Transfer to General Fund) $444,500
2. Tourism Projects (Transfer to General Fund CIP) 508,000
3. Tourism Fund Contingency Reserve 407,581
$1,360,081
SUMMARY
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
TOTAL TOURISM FUND appropriations for
fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $1,360,081
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources $800,000
Revenue from Local Sources-Fund Balance 560,081
$1,360,081
Total TOURISM FUND resources available
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $1,360,081
Paragraph Nine: UNITED WAY DAY CARE FUND $573,499
1. Administrative Fees $52,136
2. Scholarships 521,363
$573,499
SUMMARY
TOTAL UNITED WAY DAY CARE FUND appropriations
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $573,499
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund) $87,015
City of Charlottesville 113,966
United Way Matching Funds 78,000
Revenue from Federal Government (HHS Pass-Thru Grant) 294,518
$573,499
Total UNITED WAY DAY CARE FUND resources
available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $573,499
Paragraph Ten: CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROGRAMS FUND $564,442
1. Criminal Justice Grant Programs $564,442
SUMMARY
TOTAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROGRAM FUND appropriations
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $564,442
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Commonwealth (Grant) $564,442
Total CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROGRAMS FUND resources
available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $564,442
Paragraph Eleven: VICTIM-WITNESS GRANT FUND $75,139
1. Victim-Witness Program $75,139
SUMMARY
TOTAL VICTIM-WITNESS GRANT FUND appropriations for
fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $75,139
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Commonwealth (Grant) $75,139
Total VICTIM-WITNESS GRANT FUND resources
available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $75,139
Paragraph Twelve: METRO PLANNING GRANT FUND $20,000
1. Metropolitan Planning Organization Funding $20,000
SUMMARY
TOTAL METRO PLANNING GRANT FUND appropriations
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $20,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Federal Government (Grant) $16,000
Revenue from the Commonwealth (Grant) 2,000
Local Funds - Transfer from the General Fund 2,000
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
$20,000
Total METRO PLANNING GRANT FUND resources
available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $20,000
Paragraph Thirteen: HOUSING ASSISTANCE FUND $2,462,300
1. Family Self-Sufficiency Program (Transfer to Gen Fund) $46,000
2. Section 8 Administrative Services (Transfer to Gen Fund) 260,000
3. Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments 2,156,300
$2,462,300
SUMMARY
TOTAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE FUND appropriations
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $2,462,300
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Federal Government (Grant) $46,000
Revenue from Federal Government (Housing Assistance) 2,416,300
$2,462,300
Total HOUSING ASSISTANCE FUND resources
available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $2,462,300
GRANT TOTAL - SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS $14,054,414
SECTION V: GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the GENERAL
GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 2003.
Paragraph One: ADMINISTRATIVE AND COURTS $1,211,000
1. County Computer Upgrade $220,000
2. County Facilities Maintenance/Replacement Projects 716,000
3. County Technology Upgrade - GIS 100,000
4. County Facilities Renovation/Expansion 30,000
5. Court Square Maintenance/Replacement Projects 130,000
6. J&D Court Maintenance/Replacement Projects 15,000
$1,211,000
Paragraph Two: PUBLIC SAFETY $1,864,000
1. Fire/Rescue Training Center-Police Firing Range $10,000
2. Fire/Rescue Building & Equipment Fund 486,000
3. Police Computer Upgrade 178,000
4. Public Safety Mobile Command Center 75,000
5. Police Technology Upgrade 980,000
6. Police Video Cameras for Patrol 85,000
7. SPCA New Animal Shelter Construction-County Contribution 50,000
$1,864,000
Paragraph Three: HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION $1,581,000
1. Neighborhood Plan Implementation Program $550,000
2. Revenue Sharing Road Construction Projects500,000
3. Sidewalk Construction Program 320,000
4. Georgetown Road Sidewalk 70,000
5. Transportation Planning & Improvement Program 100,000
6. Street Lamp Program 41,000
$1,581,000
Paragraph Four: LIBRARY AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS $64,000
1. Library - Maintenance/Replacement $14,000
2. Region Ten Facilities 50,000
$64,000
Paragraph Five: PARKS AND RECREATION $700,000
1. Cashier Booth Improvements $23,000
2. County Athletic Field Development 196,000
3. Crozet Park Athletic Field Development 92,000
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
4. Paramount Theater 33,000
5. Parks & Recreation Maintenance/Replacement Projects 111,000
6. PVCC Facility Renovation 93,000
7. Rivanna Greenway Access and Path 25,000
8. School Athletic Field Irrigation 77,000
9. Southern Albemarle Organization Park Development (Simpson Park) 50,000
$700,000
Paragraph Six: NOT USED
Paragraph Seven: ACQUISITION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTS $1,000,000
1. Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Program $1,000,000
Paragraph Eight: UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS $575,000
1. Keene Landfill Closure $100,000
2. Ivy Landfill Remediation Program 475,000
$575,000
Paragraph Nine: CAPITAL RESERVE $4,896,000
1. Capital Reserve $4,896,000
SUMMARY
TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $11,891,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue Local Sources (Tourism Fund Transfer) $508,000
Revenue Local Sources (General Fund Transfer) 5,970,090
CIP Fund Balance/Reserve Reappropriation 5,256,910
City Reimbursements 9,000
Courthouse Maintenance Funds 47,000
Interest Income 100,000
$11,891,000
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $11,891,000
SECTION VI: SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the SCHOOL
DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND for the purposes herein specified to be apportioned as
follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2003.
Paragraph One: EDUCATION (SCHOOL DIVISION) $9,730,000
1. ADA Structural Changes $50,000
2. Administrative Technology 70,000
3. Brownsville Addition 2,386,000
4. Crozet Kitchen 40,000
5. Instructional Technology 450,000
6. Jouett Addition/Renovation 2,318,000
7. Monticello High School Addition Design 933,000
8. Post-High House 250,000
9. Southern Elementary School 20,000
10. Walton School Addition 100,000
11. School Maintenance/Replacement Projects 3,113,000
$9,730,000
SUMMARY
TOTAL SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $9,730,000
To be provided as follows:
School CIP Fund Balance $680,000
Interest Earned 150,000
State Construction Funds 200,000
VPSA Bonds 8,700,000
$9,730,000
Total SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $9,730,000
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
SECTION VII: STORMWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the STORMWATER
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND for the purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 2003.
Paragraph One: STORMWATER PROJECTS $575,000
1. Stormwater Control Program $575,000
SUMMARY
TOTAL STORMWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $575,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund) $575,000
SECTION VIII: DEBT SERVICE
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for the function of DEBT
SERVICE to be apportioned as follows from the GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE FUND and
the SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE FUND for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2003.
Paragraph One: SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE FUND $10,473,481
1. Debt Service Payments - School Division $9,911,475
2. Debt Service Payments - PREP 266,081
3. VRS Early Retirement 295,925
$10,473,481
SUMMARY
TOTAL SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE FUND
appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $10,473,481
To be provided as follows:
Revenue Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund) $9,911,475
Revenue Local Sources (Transfer from School Fund) 295,925
Revenue Local Sources (PREP Fees) 266,081
$10,473,481
Total SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE resources
available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $10,473,481
Paragraph Two: GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE FUND $970,000
1. Emergency Services Radio System Lease/Debt Service Payment $970,000
SUMMARY
TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE
appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $970,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund) $970,000
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE resources
available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $970,000
SUMMARY
TOTAL COUNTY DEBT SERVICE appropriations
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $11,443,481
To be provided as follows:
Revenue Local Sources (Transfer from Gen Fund & Sch Fund) $11,177,400
Fees and Surcharges 266,081
$11,443,481
Total COUNTY DEBT SERVICE resources available
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003: $11,443,481
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS MENTIONED IN
SECTIONS I - VIII OF THIS RESOLUTION
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2003
RECAPITULATION:
Appropriations: $298,845,208
Section I General Fund $140,707,272
Section II School Fund 99,589,820
Section III Other School Funds 10,854,221
Section IV Other Special Revenue Funds 14,054,414
Section V General Government CIP 11,891,000
Section VI School Division CIP 9,730,000
Section VII Stormwater CIP 575,000
Section VIII Debt Service 11,443,481
$298,845,208
Less Inter-Fund Transfers ($90,226,673)
General Fund to School Fund ($ 65,850,202)
General Fund to Special Revenue Funds ( 1,983,241)
General Fund to Capital Improvement Funds ( 6,545,090)
General Fund to Debt Service Funds ( 10,881,475)
Special Revenue Funds to General Fund ( 2,043,978)
Special Revenue Funds to Capital Improvement Funds ( 555,000)
School Fund to Self-Sustaining Funds ( 1,048,762)
School Fund to Special Revenue Funds ( 1,023,000)
School Fund to Debt Service Funds ( 295,925)
Self-Sustaining Funds to School Fund ( -0-)
($ 90,226,673)
GRAND TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS $208,618,535
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Director of Finance is hereby authorized to transfer monies from
one fund to another, from time to time as monies become available, sums equal to, but not in excess of, the
appropriations made to these funds for the period covered by this appropriation resolution.
SECTION IX
All of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained items in Sections I through VIII are
appropriated upon the provisos, terms, conditions, and provisions herein before set forth in connection with
said terms and those set forth in this section. The Director of Finance (Melvin A. Breeden) and Clerk to the
Board of Supervisors (Ella W. Carey) are hereby designated as authorized signators for all bank accounts.
Paragraph One
Subject to the qualifications in this resolution contained, all appropriations are declared to be maximum,
conditional and proportionate appropriationsthe purpose being to make the appropriations payable in full
C
in the amount named herein if necessary and then only in the event the aggregate revenues collected and
available during the fiscal year for which the appropriations are made are sufficient to pay all of the
appropriations in full.
Otherwise, the said appropriations shall be deemed to be payable in such proportion as
the total sum of all realized revenue of the respective funds is to the total amount of
revenue estimated to be available in the said fiscal year by the Board of Supervisors.
Paragraph Two
All revenue received by any agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors included in its
estimate of revenue for the financing of the fund budget as submitted to the Board of Supervisors may not
be expended by the said agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors without the consent of the
Board of Supervisors being first obtained, nor may any of these agencies or boards make expenditures
which will exceed a specific item of an appropriation.
Paragraph Three
No obligations for goods, materials, supplies, equipment or contractual services for any purpose may
be incurred by any department, bureau, agency, or individual under the direct control of the Board of
Supervisors except by requisition to the purchasing agent; provided, however, no requisition for items
exempted by the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual shall be required; and provided further that no
requisition for contractual services involving the issuance of a contract on a competitive bid basis shall be
required, but such contract shall be approved by the head of the contracting department, bureau, agency,
or individual, the County Attorney and the Purchasing Agent or Director of Finance. The Purchasing Agent
shall be responsible for securing such competitive bids on the basis of specification furnished by the
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
contracting department, bureau, agency or individual.
In the event of the failure for any reason of approval herein required for such contracts, said contract
shall be awarded through appropriate action of the Board of Supervisors.
Any obligations incurred contrary to the purchasing procedures prescribed in the
Albemarle County Purchasing Manual shall not be considered obligations of the County,
and the Director of Finance shall not issue any warrants in payment of such obligations.
Paragraph Four
Allowances out of any of the appropriations made in this resolution by any or all County departments,
bureaus, or agencies under the control of the Board of Supervisors to any of their officers and employees
for expense on account of the use of such officers and employees of their personal automobiles in the
discharge of their official duties shall be paid at the same rate as that established by the State of Virginia for
its employees and shall be subject to change from time to time to maintain like rates.
Paragraph Five
All travel expense accounts shall be submitted on forms and according to regulations prescribed or
approved by the Director of Finance.
Paragraph Six
All resolutions and parts of resolution inconsistent with the provisions of this resolution shall be and the
same are hereby repealed.
Paragraph Seven
This resolution shall become effective on July first, two thousand and two.
___
RESOLUTION OF OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE EXPENDITURES FOR
VARIOUS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WITH PROCEEDS OF BONDS
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "County"),
intends to undertake various improvements to its public school
system as described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Project");
and
WHEREAS, the County intends to pay costs of the Project prior to the issuance of the
Bonds, as hereinafter defined, and to receive reimbursement for
such expenditures from proceeds of the sale of the Bonds;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY:
(1) The County intends to finance the Project through the issuance of
bonds in an amount not to exceed $8,700,000 (the "Bonds").
(2) The County intends to receive reimbursement from proceeds of the
sale of the Bonds for costs of the Project paid by the County prior to
the issuance of the Bonds.
(3) The County intends that the adoption of this resolution be considered
as "official intent" within the meaning of Treasury Regulations Section
1.150-2 promulgated under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended.
__
Exhibit A
PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
BONDED SCHOOL PROJECTS
FY 2002-2003
Description Amount
1 ADA Structural Changes $ 50,000
2 Brownsville Addition 2,386,000
3 Jouett Addition/Renovation 2,318,000
4 Monticello High School Addition Design 933,000
5 Post-High House 250,000
6 Southern Elementary School 20,000
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
7 Walton School Addition 100,000
8 School Maintenance/Replacement Projects 2,643,000
$8,700,000
__________
Item 6.4. CPA-202-01. Neighborhood Model Amendments to the Land Use Plan (continued from
May 1, 2002).
At the request of staff, this amendment was deferred until the Boards meeting on July 3,
==
2002.
__________
Item 6.5. Resolution to accept responsibility for maintenance of "auxiliary sidewalks" and authorize
County Executive to execute auxiliary sidewalk agreements on behalf of County.
It was noted in the staffs report that the County encourages and/or requires sidewalks to be
=
constructed as part of new residential developments for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and, in
part, due to the public costs incurred for retrofitting sidewalks into established communities. These
sidewalks are generally located within (or within a portion of) the public rights-of-way and may not meet the
Virginia Department of Transportation eligibility criteria for maintenance and are, therefore, considered
auxiliary sidewalks. Public streets that have auxiliary sidewalks will not be accepted into the State
A@A@
Secondary Road System until the governing body has adopted a resolution accepting responsibility to
administer the future repair and replacement of auxiliary sidewalks (VDOT
Subdivision Street
, ).
Requirements24 VAC 30-90-170 D
A resolution and a Sidewalk Maintenance Agreement were prepared for the Boards approval. The
=
agreement will serve to pass the obligation for sidewalk maintenance and repair to the developer as well as
provide the Board assurance that funds will be available for the continuing sidewalk maintenance and
repair. Developers will be required to execute the Sidewalk Maintenance Agreement prior to approval of a
final subdivision plat, or in the case of a previously-approved development, prior to the acceptance of the
roads into the State Secondary Roads System. Staff recommends that the Board adopt the resolution
accepting responsibility to administer the future repair and replacement of auxiliary sidewalks, and authorize
the County Executive to execute Sidewalk Maintenance Agreements for auxiliary sidewalks within the
County, in a form substantially similar to that approved by the County Attorney.
(Discussion: Mr. Dorrier asked how it is determined which developers will have to sign these
agreements. Mr. Tucker said the State has a policy and standard where they will accept certain sidewalks
within a certain distance from foot-traffic generators. The Countys policy now calls for more sidewalk than
=
what the State will accept and maintain. This is an attempt to have an agreement with the developer, and
maybe a homeowners association, that they will maintain the sidewalks. The County is now encouraging
installation of more sidewalks than in the past.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this is part of the Neighborhood Model. Mr. Tucker said it is similar and is tied
to the Countys Growth Area Standards for sidewalk improvements.
=
Ms. Thomas said people have asked her why the County does not require households to do snow
clearing. She does not think of that as maintenance, or is it maintenance? Mr. Tucker said he does not
know if the County has the legal authority to make that requirement. Mr. Davis said he has looked at this
issue before, and that authority is not given to counties. He said the sidewalks being discussed will not be
on the homeowners' property; they will be in the VDOT right-of-way. Unless the County has this agreement
with VDOT, the County cannot even require people to construct these sidewalks.
Mr. Rooker said the agreement before the Board does not deal with snow removal. He asked if
there is the authority to require a developer or a homeowners associations to clear snow as part of plan
=
approval. Mr. Davis said staff did not look at the question from that angle. Mr. Tucker said if that were
done, what kind of enforcement would be needed? Mr. Davis asked if staff did an analysis and found that
snow removal was an appropriate option, would the Board agree that staff could go ahead and add that
requirement to this agreement. Mr. Rooker said he would agree.
Mr. Perkins said if it is to be added, he thinks there should be a public hearing. He does not think
the Board can have an agreement which commits people to do these things without their involvement. Mr.
Davis said the developer signs the agreement. Mr. Tucker said the homeowners association would
=
ultimately be responsible. Mr. Davis said the developer would have to put it in the covenants in order for the
development or take responsibility for snow removal. Mr. Perkins said the developer could refuse to sign
the agreement. Mr. Tucker said in that case, the developer would not receive subdivision approval.
Mr. Dorrier wondered if the County should notify developers of this proposed agreement. Ms.
Thomas said the agreement would take effect only from this time forward. She asked if the fact that it is not
retroactive meets any of Mr. Perkins concerns. Mr. Perkins said the County keeps including regulations
=
and the people involved have no input.
Mr. Bowerman asked if any of the development community was consulted. Mr. Tucker said he
does not know. Mr. Rooker said this will treat sidewalks like open space, or common property in the
development. Right now, if sidewalks are not in VDOT right-of-way, it is clear that an owners association
=
has to take care of the sidewalks. It is the same with bike paths or walking trails. In this case, the sidewalk
will be built in the public right-of-way, but will still be commonly used by the people in the development.
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
Mr. Dorrier said sidewalks can be pretty expensive to maintain and replace. Mr. Mark Graham,
Director of Engineering, said this is a housekeeping exercise. The County has been requiring sidewalks
that VDOT does not maintain. VDOT has given the County a lot of leeway by letting it continue with these
sidewalks without agreements in place. He said the issue of snow maintenance has not been discussed.
Because counties do not have the authority to require snow removal, staff never tried to include it as part of
the development requirement. Staff did not discuss this with individual developers or the Blue Ridge
Homebuilders Association because it is a housekeeping item.
=
Mr. Bowerman asked if the County has any input into the covenants placed on subdivisions. Mr.
Davis said if there is a proffer that puts a certain requirement into place, staff makes sure that is covered in
the covenants.
Mr. Dorrier asked what criteria is used to decide who maintains the sidewalks. Mr. Graham said at
this time, the County does not maintain many sidewalks. Most of the sidewalks are constructed along with a
development to be maintained by the homeowners. Most of the sidewalks currently listed in the Countys
=
CIP will fall under VDOT maintenance.
Mr. Perkins asked if residential densities are used as a criteria to decide maintenance
responsibilities. Mr. Tucker said staff uses density to decide when sidewalks must be built, primarily in
growth areas. Mr. Perkins asked if VDOT has standards where they assume maintenance in high density
areas, not just schools, shopping centers, and places like that. Mr. Davis said they maintain sidewalks
within high-density areas.
Ms. Thomas said the question is whether the Board asks for an investigation as to whether it can
require snow removal, or does the Board drop that issue? Does the Board feel comfortable with the
explanation? Mr. Davis said he needs to find a mechanism which makes practical sense. If someone did
not shovel snow, how would the County deal with that issue? He would have to consult with Engineering to
see how the agreement might be structured to make it work.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there would be a change in the liability exposure of the homeowners
=
association with the inclusion of snow removal, or the maintenance of the sidewalks versus the
homeowners owning them. Mr. Davis said if the homeowners assume responsibility for maintenance of
==
the sidewalks, they are also assuming some liability.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there is an implied liability now? Mr. Davis said only if the homeowners
have a legal obligation to maintain. He said there is possible liability in that situation. Mr. Rooker said that is
the reason most carry liability insurance.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Board members would feel more comfortable investigating it further.
Should the Board pull this item from the Consent Agenda? Mr. Davis said if the Board approves the
agreement before it today with a provision that staff could add a reasonable snow removal condition, then
staff could take care of it. Mr. Graham said the primary part of this is the agreement between VDOT and
the County. Snow removal would not be part of that agreement. It would be part of an agreement between
the County and homeowners. Staff can bring that agreement back to the Board at a later date and add that
provision. Mr. Davis said that can be done now if that is the consensus of the Board members.
Ms. Thomas said she does not think there is a consensus on that question. Mr. Perkins said he
thinks that what has been presented to the Board can be approved, but it should go to the Homebuilders
Association and developers to get their input because they are the ones who will be dealing with it. After
that, there could be an amendment made to the agreement.
Mr. Davis suggested that the Board approve what was presented on todays agenda. Staff will
=
bring back an amended agreement after it has had time to look at the issue in detail.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution to Accept
Responsibility to Administer the Future Repair and Replacement of Auxiliary Sidewalks, and
authorized the County Executive to execute Sidewalk Maintenance Agreements for auxiliary
sidewalks in the County (agreement to be in a form substantially similar to the agreement forwarded
to the Board with the materials for this meeting, form of agreement having been approved by the
County Attorney).
RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY TO ADMINISTER THE FUTURE
REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT OF AUXILIARY SIDEWALKS
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle encourages and/or requires sidewalks to
be constructed as part of residential developments for consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan and, in part, due to the public costs incurred for retrofitting
pedestrian systems into established communities; and
WHEREAS, sidewalks are proposed or constructed as part of a development
within (or within a portion of) the public rights-of-way and are approved by the County of
Albemarle; and
WHEREAS, sidewalks that do not meet the Virginia Department of
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
Transportation ("VDOT") sidewalk maintenance eligibility criteria are "auxiliary sidewalks";
and
WHEREAS, VDOT will not accept public streets with auxiliary sidewalks into the
State Secondary Roads System until the local governing body has adopted a resolution
accepting responsibility to administer the future repair and replacement of auxiliary
sidewalks (VDOT "Subdivision Street Requirements", 24 VAC 30-90-170 D); and
WHEREAS, each developer will be required to execute an "agreement for the
maintenance of auxiliary sidewalks" ("Agreement"), prior to approval of a final subdivision
plat, or in the case of a previously approved development, prior to the acceptance of the
roads into the State Secondary Roads System; and,
WHEREAS, the purpose of the Agreement is to pass the obligation for sidewalk
maintenance and repair to the developer, and its successors in interest, as well as
provide the Board assurance that funds will be available for the continuing sidewalk
maintenance and repair;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County does hereby accept responsibility to administer the future repair and
replacement of auxiliary sidewalks as required in VDOT "Subdivision Street
Requirements", 24 VAC 30-90-170 D).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby authorizes
the County Executive to execute auxiliary sidewalk maintenance agreements on behalf of
the County, including any amendments to the model agreement deemed necessary by
the County Attorney.
__________
Item 6.6. Funding for Southern Urban Area "B" Study.
It was noted in the staffs report that in 1988, the Planning and Coordination Council for the City,
=
County and University (PACC) approved the Jefferson Park Avenue/Fontaine Avenue Area "B" Study.
Subsequently, the County has included consideration of the recommendations of this study by reference in
the Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. In consideration of recent development activities in the
area covered by this study, on May 16, 2002, PACC approved a scope of study for an update to the
JPA/Fontaine Study, now to be called the Southern Urban Area "B" Study, and authorized a Request for
Proposals to be issued. Upon receipt of proposals, selection of a consultant and an authorization to
proceed by each of the three jurisdictions, PACC will request that each jurisdiction contribute one-third of
the cost of the consultant contract, not to exceed $75,000.00 total ($25,000.00 for each jurisdiction).
The study area and adjacent areas have seen significant change since the completion of the
original study in 1988 and are now experiencing the potential for additional growth with several
University-oriented housing projects either approved or proposed. The most recent proposal for the
development of one of the last large undeveloped tracts in the County's part of the study area, Sandy Lane
Residential Village, proposes changing nearly 70 acres of Neighborhood Density Residential (3-6 dwelling
units per acre) to Urban Density Residential (6.01-34 dwelling units per acre). PACC feels this has created
a need to revisit the assumptions and recommendations of the original Area "B" study to address issues of
land use, support services, transportation and other infrastructure, the County Neighborhood Model
principles, the City Corridor Plan recommendations and the appropriate location for University-related
housing. The Planning Commission approved a resolution of intent on May 21, 2002, to consider a
Comprehensive Plan amendment for this proposal (CPA-2001-07) within the larger context of an overall
study of this area.
Staff recommends approval of funding for the Southern Urban Area "B" Study as approved by
PACC on May 16 and will bring back a request for appropriation in the near future. County funding is
subject to comparable funding from the City and the University.
(Discussion: Ms. Thomas said that she and Mr. Rooker have approved of this study as members
of PACC. She thinks that on the last page, No. (2) under Paragraph E (Public transportation routes and
A
options;) she asked that the word private be inserted. Mr. Cilimberg said that is true, he has that notation
@A@
in his notes. Ms. Thomas said PACC agreed to that change.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved of the funding for the Southern
Urban Area B Study as approved by PACC on May 16, 2002, with County funding being subject to
AA@@
comparable funding from the City of Charlottesville and the University of Virginia.
__________
Item 6.7. Support of The Appalachian Trail Work Camp.
It was noted in the staffs report that the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) has
=
worked for over a year in an effort to sponsor The Group WorkCamps Foundation for the improvement of
housing conditions of County residents. The multi-denominational supported Foundation coordinates youth
volunteers and adult chaperones for week long missions aimed at improving the lives of those in need.
One hundred thirty-two Albemarle County residents will benefit from the Foundation's volunteers
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
this summer. The Appalachian Trail WorkCamp will consist of 442 volunteers spending the week of July
15 through July 19 doing home repairs on 66 homes. AHIP has provided all of the outreach to identify jobs,
complete work write-ups and arrange for materials. The Covenant School will house the volunteers during
their stay. Each participant has paid to volunteer. In addition, The Foundation provides up to $15,000 for
materials that must be matched by $15,000 from the sponsor, AHIP. AHIP continues to raise
funds through fund-raising activities and donations to meet their match. AHIP is making every effort to use
funds not already designated for other operations.
Staff recommended that the Board support the volunteer efforts of The Appalachian Trail
WorkCamp volunteers and the co-sponsors of the camp - AHIP, The Covenant School and The Group
WorkCamps Foundation as follows: the Board Chairman will write a letter of welcome, support, and
appreciation; the Board should have representation at the camp's opening ceremony; the Board should
commend AHIP and the Covenant School as local co-sponsors in an appropriate way.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board supported the volunteer efforts of The
Appalachian Trail WorkCamp volunteers and the co-sponsors of the camp - AHIP, The Covenant
School and The Group WorkCamps Foundation as recommended in the staffs report.
==
__________
Item 6.8. Update on Corville Farms.
It was noted in the staffs report that as directed by the Board on January 16, 2002, Engineering
=
and Public Works has been working to get the Corville Farm Road ready for acceptance into the State
Secondary Road System (VDOT) and to find a long-term solution for the problems with the subdivision's
central well water system.
With regard to the road, an "as-built" survey has been completed and the additional drainage
easements required for VDOT have been identified. Staff is working to complete the easement
agreements and to relocate improvements located within the road's right-of-way. Both of these steps are
necessary before VDOT will perform the work that must be completed before acceptance under the Rural
Addition Program into the Secondary Road System. Staff foresees no difficulties in getting this work done
to match the time line for VDOT to complete its work under the Six-Year Road Plan.
Staff has been working to develop long-term solutions with regard to the water supply of these
property owners. As was discussed at the January 16 Board meeting, the distribution lines for the existing
central well system are in poor condition. The leaks in the distribution lines are causing the pumps and
wells to be overtaxed, which is the primary problem with the current system. Additionally, the owner of the
property where the wells are located is actively seeking to sell his property and there appears to be no
guarantee that the new property owner will have any duty to retain these wells.
To make sure available alternatives are fully considered, staff contracted with ENSAT Corporation
to perform a study of the water system and to examine alternatives from a technical perspective. Their
report indicated that neither individual wells on each lot or continuing with the existing distribution system is
feasible as a long-term solution. The report indicated that a new central well system appears to be
technically feasible, but both the capital and initial operational costs with such a system are likely beyond
the financial capabilities of some homeowners in the subdivision. Additionally, the ENSAT report did not
identify a management structure that would insure long-term maintenance of this system.
At this time, Engineering is considering two new alternatives. Those alternatives include a well field
on the adjoining Greenwood Center property that could be used for shared wells and a renovated split
distribution system. Both have complexities requiring additional investigation before determining their
feasibility. Therefore, it is premature to discuss those alternatives until all pros and cons have been
identified to be sure these alternatives would work. Staff anticipates it will take two to three additional
months before it can present a recommendation to the Board.
This report was received for information only. (Note:
Corville Farms Water System Study
dated April 1, 2002, ENSAT Corporation in partnership with Fallwell Corp. and Berkley-Howell &
Associates, P.C. is on file in the Clerks Office.)
=
__________
Item 6.9. Copy of draft Planning Commission minutes for May 7, 2002, was received as
information.
__________
Item 6.10. Comparative Report of Local Government Revenues and Expenditures for Fiscal Year
ended June 30, 2001, as prepared by the Auditor of Public Accounts, was received for information.
__________
Item 6.11. Charlottesville VDOT Residency Monthly Report, June 2002, was received as
information.
__________
Item 6.12. Internet Access to Real Estate Records.
It was noted in the staffs report that Real Estate assessment data is currently projected to be
=
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
available on the Internet by July 1, 2002. Staffs previous report recommended that information on name,
=
parcel and address be available on the Internet, but searchable only by parcel and address, not name.
After six months of operation, the name search issue was to be revisited based on public comment and use.
Several issues have been identified that lead staff to reconsider allowing a name search.
Due to licensing requirements of this software, County staff currently has two different methods of
accessing data. Staff in the Real Estate office, some staff in the Collections Office, and some staff in the
Development offices have direct access to the live data files. In total, the County has 25 of these licenses
that cost $250.00 per license or $6250.00 per year. Other County staff members needing real estate
information currently have access to a secondary data file on the County's internal Intranet, which is very
similar to the proposed public Internet access. Both the live file and the Intranet file allow County staff to
search information by name. The annual cost for the Intranet access is $4560.00 for an unlimited number
of internal users, which is estimated to be approximately 75 staff members.
To eliminate the $4560.00 annual cost for the Intranet file, staff had planned to eliminate the
Intranet access when the Internet access became available. However, if the Internet site does not allow
the real estate records to be searched by name, it would also eliminate the option for the internal user to do
a name search. Since few people remember parcel numbers, and only properties with structures are
assigned street addresses, many internal users will experience problems locating specific parcels. The
only alternatives to this dilemma are to: 1) allow name search on the Internet; 2) continue to operate the
Intranet version at an annual cost of $4560.00; or, 3) purchase additional licenses for some portion of the
75 users at an annual cost of $250.00 each.
Since staffs last report to the Board, it has surveyed those localities offering Internet access and
=
found that 64 percent of the localities allow name searches. The City of Charlottesville recently made its
data available on the Internet allowing name searches. Discussions with City staff indicate they have
received only a couple of complaints on this issue and they plan to continue with this option.
For these reasons, staff recommends that public users be allowed to access real estate data on
the Internet and be allowed to search by name. This option will allow more flexibility for internal users and
reduce costs. However, if the public raises concerns or complains about the name search as it did in some
major metropolitan areas, the name search could easily and quickly be removed at any time without
additional cost to the County.
(Discussion: Mr. Dorrier asked if this system will be integrated with the system in the Circuit Court
Clerks Office (Shelby Marshall). Mr. Tucker said it will not be entirely integrated. There will be two
=
separate systems, but similar. These will be the records that anyone can look at in the Real Estate or
Finance Departments. This was approved previously, but has come back because staff is now suggesting
that a name search be added to the Internet. Before, one would have to search by street name or by parcel
number. That is the only reason this question came back to the Board. Mr. Davis said this information is
the information that is put on the assessment card in the Real Estate office.)
This report was received for information only.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation.
Ms. Thomas presented a certificate of appreciation to Mr. James Eddins for his service to the
County as a member of the Historic Preservation Committee. She said he claims to be a ninth generation
from this area, his ancestors lived in Greene and Madison counties, and his great-grandfather and
grandfather lived in Albemarle County. Jim and Ann came to Albemarle and bought Red Hills in
November, 1990. In early 1998, Red Hills was listed in the National Register of Historic Places. In the year
2000, the property was placed under conservation easement.
Ms. Thomas said Jim worked hard to establish for himself a strong background in historic
preservation. He has a Masters Degree in Applied History (includes historic preservation, archival
=
management, and historical editing) from George Mason University. He completed an internship at
Monticello in which he worked with iconography (images of Monticello). After receiving his degree, Jim
stayed at Monticello as a volunteer continuing to work on the iconography file about once a week for almost
ten years. During the early 1990s, he also served as president of Preservation Piedmont. In 1995, Jim
accepted an appointment to the Albemarle County Historic Preservation Committee. Though he was
reluctant to assume the title of chairman, he was the committees spokesman, its organizer, and its
=
mastermind. For five years, Jim persevered with the Committee and his work was instrumental in
developing the Countys historic preservation plan which was adopted in September, 2000. The Committee
=
relied on Jim for his thoughtful and insightful analysis, for his practical approach to difficult tasks, for his
ability to focus on the task at hand, for his determination to see the job done, and for his ability to not only
listen to all points of view, but for his willingness to actually consider opposing opinions. He contributed
much and always with good humor.
Ms. Thomas said Jim often said that our remaining historic resources are the only tangible
evidence of the Countys heritage that todays residents can directly experience. They remind us that
==
Albemarle is a place different from all others. Jim is a man different from all others. His diligence and
dedication to historic preservation in the County are without equal. Therefore, the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors wishes to express its gratitude to Jim for his dedicated service to the Board, to the
Committee, and to the citizens of Albemarle County in protecting the history and the beauty of Albemarle
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
County and the cause of historic preservation. For all of us, it has been, and continues to be, a privilege to
work with Jim.
Ms. Thomas said she also has a letter from the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Historic
Resources that was sent for this event, and they have asked that it be read. The letter is from Kathleen
Kilpatrick, Director of the Department. On behalf of the boards and staff of the Virginia Department of
A
Historic Resources, I am writing to express publicly our profound and sincere gratitude to Jim Eddins for his
outstanding stewardship and for his effective leadership as a community advocate for the benefit of historic
preservation in Albemarle County. While Jim may be best known to the members of the Board of
Supervisors for his outspoken and effective leadership of the Albemarle County Historic Preservation
Committee from its inception, Jim has also quietly demonstrated his strong personal commitment to the
values of historic preservation and community service by his exemplary stewardship of Red Hills, one of
Albemarle Countys remarkable historic and architectural landmarks and the ancestral home of the Carr
=
family. After acquiring the property in 1990 and making only minor modifications to the house that was built
around 1797, Jim took the initiative to nominate Red Hills for the State and National Registers in 1997.
Later, after the property received designation as an official Virginia Historic Landmark, he donated an
historic easement on Red Hills that will preserve the historic resource in perpetuity. Jims success in
=
building greater public support for a strong preservation ethic in Albemarle County grew naturally from the
example of his own stewardship. A true leader, Jim Eddins has never asked others to do what he is not
willing to do himself. The Commonwealth of Virginia is also particularly indebted to Jim Eddins for his
outstanding work as a volunteer and leader in Virginias on-going community awareness campaign, a
=
grassroots effort to help educate decision-makers understand that historic resources are an asset, building
blocks to the future and not obstacles to progress. Jim entered into the campaign as Albemarles
=
representative with characteristic enthusiasm, dedication and wisdom. He readily adapted the tools in the
campaign toolbox to Albemarles circumstances, inventing new tools and taught volunteers across the state
=
the essential lessons of Albemarles experience in developing, adopting and implementing a
=
comprehensive and effective preservation plan and policy for the County. His mature, intelligent approach
to problem-solving, his integrity, his good sense of humor and his leadership by example were his great gifts
to the campaign and to Albemarle County. He shared them generously. We are delighted that your Board
will be recognizing Jim Eddins for his many contributions. It is an honor he richly deserves.
@
Ms. Thomas then presented the plaque to Mr. Eddins.
Mr. Eddins said that right after he left the Committee, he suffered a stroke which has left him
hampered in balance and in reading, but his doctors tell him it has not affected his thinking, or his sense of
humor. He thanked the Board for the plaque. He said that since September 11, the word heros has been
A@
tossed around freely, but he said members of this Board and the Planning Commission have entered his
own personal panoply of heros. He has been a great admirer of Albemarle County. His grandfather was
seventh generation being born in Northern Albemarle between Free Union and Earlysville in 1879. His
great-grandfather sold stock (the kind that walks on hooves) downtown approximately where Hamiltons
=
Restaurant is located now. His grandfather taught him that good judgment comes from experience and
experience comes from bad judgment. He said members of the Board have probably run into illustrations
of that saying from time to time. Also, while serving in the Army, he learned another saying Lack of prior
A
planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part.
@
Mr. Dorrier said Mr. Eddins has dealt with historic preservation for a number of years, so he asked if
he has any advise for the Board on the subject. Mr. Eddins said it is by nature a complex and complicated
subject. It tends to get people excited. He suggested that when people get excited, send it back to the
Committee. He mentioned the saying There is no limit to the good a person can do if he/she does not care
A
who gets the credit. He shares the certificate of appreciation with all of the members of the Committee.
@
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7a. Transportation Matters: Closing of passing lane on Route 250 West just east
of Ivy, Discussion of.
Mr. Jim Bryan, Resident Engineer, introduced Mr. Jeremy Winn, VDOT intern. He handed out a
sketch of the area to be discussed. Last month, the Board discussed whether or not to close the passing
lane at the entrance to Cherry Hill Farm. The discussion can focus on safety, function and the future of the
road. In terms of safety, the obvious threat to leaving the passing lane open is rear-end collisions both for
the Cherry Hill entrance and the two antique dealerships located on this stretch of road. If the passing lane
is closed (which is only for westbound traffic), people who are in a hurry could cause a dangerous situation.
He looked at that section of road this week, and the people drive really fast. In terms of functionality, if the
passing lane were closed, there would potentially be more congestion. His office did an accident analysis
for the past five years and found that there had been five accidents in the area. The latest was about six
weeks ago, and is the one which spawned this request.
Mr. Rooker asked if the third lane would become a turn lane if closed to passing. Mr. Bryan said
yes. He is not sure how it would be painted.
A@
Ms. Thomas said the Route 250 West Task Force discussed this request, brought it to VDOTs
=
attention, wrote a letter which seemed to indicate they are endorsing closing of the lane. However, the
Chairman of the Committee insists the letter only says it is a matter of concern. He, himself, is opposed to
having it changed to a turn lane. She asked if Mr. Juan Wade had anything to add. Mr. Wade said staff
met with the Committee on May 9 and they were adamant that they want the lane closed for passing. The
Committee was one hundred percent in favor of closing the lane.
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
Ms. Thomas said she would not be in favor of it being closed because she thinks it provides an
escape valve for the people who cant pass for a long stretch of road. As congestion gets worse, there may
=
be more sentiment for the four-laning of the road, which is something this Board has already said it does
not favor. She said that apparently the Culpeper District Traffic Engineer says this is a safety issue. Mr.
Bryan said there are precedents because passing lanes have been closed in other areas along Route 250.
Last year there were petitions signed asking that the passing lane be closed near Western Albemarle High
School. In that case, the sight lines were better, but there were also numerous entrances onto that section
of road.
Mr. Perkins said he agrees with Ms. Thomas, but there are sections where the passing lane has
been turned into a turning lane. If it was done in other places, why not do it on this section? He said there
are a couple of commercial entrances, a couple of driveways going into homes, and some apartments on
this section.
Ms. Thomas said she had asked Mr. Bryan not to take any action on the request before talking with
the Board. She said it sounds like it is something that is going to happen.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7b. Transportation Matters: Revised Six-Year Secondary Road Improvement
Plan, Discussion of.
Mr. Tucker said he had included this on the agenda today so the Board could state whether, based
on the changes in the Plan, it felt another hearing would be warranted. He said Mr. Bryan can address that
subject.
Ms. Thomas said the Board has received a copy of the following letter:
May 9, 2002
A
Mr. Robert Tucker, Jr., County Executive
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Revised Six-Year Improvement Plan
Dear Bob:
As you are aware, Governor Warner directed VDOT to overhaul the Virginia Transportation
Development Plan (including all the secondary six year plans). In order to assure that the plan
reflects realistic cost estimates and achievable schedules, the second six year plan for Albemarle
County beginning in 2002 will undergo modifications.
Accordingly, we modified revenue projections for the future years 2002-03 through 2007-08 to
reflect the Commonwealths economic forecast. The following table reflects the impact on the
=
countys secondary six year plan that the Board of Supervisors approved on February 14, 2002.
=
Secondary Construction Allocations
Total Total Difference between % Difference
Fiscal Previous Tentative Previous SYP 01 & Previous SYP 01 &
Year SYP 2001 SYP 2002 Tentative SYP 02 Tentative SYP 02
FY 02/03 5,470,847 3,255,657 (2,215,190) -40.49%
FY 03/04 5,428,745 4,277,906 (1,150,839) -21.20%
FY 04/05 5,735,274 4,009,332 (1,725,942) -30.09%
FY 05/06 6,093,356 3,966,947 (2,126,409) -34.90%
FY 06/07 6,181,151 3,980,478 (2,200,673) -35.60%
FY 07/08 6,181,151 4,016,301 (2,164,850) -35.02%
Six Yr Tl 35,090,524 23,506,621 (11,583,903) -33.01%
We validated the existing cost estimates for each project in the previously approved 2002-03 plan
to assure that they are reasonable, and we adjusted the allocation of funds for the six-year period
year based on the new projections for Albemarle County. As a result, some projects dropped
A
off because of a shortage of funds. They are:
@
Pri. #15 Rte. 0726 (James River Rd.)
$
Pri. #18 Rte. 0810 (Browns Gap Rd.)
$=
Pri. #19 Rte. 0795 (Blenheim Rd.)
$
Pri. #28 Rte. 0623 (Woods Edge Rd.)
$
Pri. #29 Rte. 0784 (Doctors Crossing Rd.)
$
Pri. #30 Rte. 0712 (Coles Crossing Rd.)
$
We also validated the existing advertisement dates for the projects because a change in
allocation could affect the dates. The criteria we used in validating the dates relied not only on
achieving full funding, but also on the development of construction plans, the relocation of
utilities and the acquisition of the necessary right-of-way.
We saw no reason to modify the ad dates for priorities 1 - 6. However, for reasons not related
A@
to funding (i.e., Utilities and Right-of-Way), we moved the McIntire Road project (Priority 5) to
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
June, 2005. The following table summarizes the projects remaining on the six year plan with the
revised total cost and new advertisement dates.
Secondary System Construction Program
Priority Route Total Ad.
Number Number Route Name Project Cost Date
1 Budget Items 150,000 Per Year
2 625 Hatton Ferry 20,000 Per Year
3 1641 West Leigh Dr 500,000 Dec-02
4 9998 Corville Farm Rd 150,000 Mar-03
5 631 McIntire Rd 16,709,600 Jun-05
6 649 Airport Rd 10,944,050 Dec-03
7 R000 Free State Connector 3,359,999 ?
8 R000 Meadow Creek Pkwy 37,500,000 ?
9 691 Jarman Gap Rd 5,150,000 Jun-06
10 649 Proffit Rd 9,500,000 Jun-08
11 601 Old Ivy Rd 7,200,000 ?
12 656 Georgetown Rd 3,200,000 ?
13 781 Sunset Ave 1,650,000 ?
14 631 Old Lynchburg Rd 1,500,000 ?
A draft copy of the recommended revised plan is being provided with this letter. After you review
it, you may decide that a new public hearing should be held to re-visit and re-approve the 2002-03
Six-Year Plan priorities and the 2002-03 budget listing. If you determine that the revised 2002-03
plan is still consistent with the countys desires or the changes are not significant enough to
=
warrant a new hearing, we ask that you advise us by return mail and that you include the Six-Year
Plan title sheet, signed with a new date.
Please dont hesitate to call me or the Residency staff if you have any questions.
=
Sincerely,
(Signed)
James L. Bryan
Resident Engineer
@
Mr. Bryan said it has been known for quite a while that there would be reductions in funds. The
allocations and the budget were finally released last month. For FY 02-03 there is a 40 percent reduction,
>
but the effect is not 40 percent. That is because the Countys Secondary Program was realistic. Priorities
=
did not change, which is the criteria for holding another public hearing. However, six projects did drop out of
the plan (see above).
Ms. Thomas said the County is required to spend a given amount each year for gravel road
improvements. She asked if that remains the same although three gravel road projects were dropped. Mr.
Bryan said there is money allotted which must be spent on gravel road improvements. That did not change.
He said that priorities 3 through 6 did not change. Jarman's Gap and Proffit Road improvements have
been moved back to June, 2006.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks those are really improvement road projects. In looking at the list, there
does not seem to be anything the Board can do to move those projects ahead.
Mr. Bowerman asked the advertisement date for the Meadow Creek Parkway. Mr. Bryan said it is
June, 2005 for the northern portion. Project #5 for McIntire Road is the traditional Meadow Creek project.
He would like to discuss that project.
Ms. Thomas said there seems to be no reason to have another public hearing on the Six-Year
Plan.
Mr. Rooker asked how VDOT decides which projects will be dropped. Mr. Bryan said it was done
by priority and how much money was needed to fund them. The projects are still on the list, no public
hearing dates have been changed.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the project costs on the new list reflect inflationary increases in cost to the
date the project will be advertised. Mr. Bryan said yes. VDOT has been following the 70 percent rule, so
A@
once the allocation is at 70 percent of the estimated construction costs, the project is advertised.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7c. Transportation Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Bryan distributed a chart concerning McIntire Road Extended. He said that just since last
month, the new advertising date jumped a year. It went from June, 2004 to June, 2005. His office did
some historical research on the project to determine why this happened. Right now, there is money
available for the Meadow Creek Parkway. He said there is a five to six year foggy area for the project. If the
cost estimates are changed, it extends the date; if the date is extended that might change the cost
estimates. The current change is because of the new alignment which added three years to the project.
When the alignment was approved, a new advertising date of June, 2004 was picked. But, then the
designers got involved again. When they handed it to the right-of-way/utilities people, they said it would take
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
longer. So, the short answer is that utilities are causing the project to be moved forward another year.
Ms. Thomas asked what utilities are in that area where nothing is located at this time. Mr. Bryan
said it is in the northern section, CATEC, the railroad bridge, overhead wires, underground pipe, telephone
lines, water lines, etc. He said the utilities must physically be moved before the project can be advertised.
Ms. Thomas said she and Mr. Rooker met with Mr. Butch Davies, Albemarles new member on the
=
Commonwealth Transportation Board. They emphasized the importance of following the Jones & Jones
Study. They also reminded him that in a legislative sense VDOT can purchase the parkland that is
otherwise extra, unusable property along this alignment. She thinks that some of the right-of-way issues
recognize that there may be more land purchased than the usual width of the right-of-way. There was a
piece of legislation a couple of years ago that said condemnation could not be used to get the extra land. It
did say it was the sense of the Legislature that more land be purchased in order to make it a true parkway.
Mr. Rooker said part the land on the west side would become landlocked, so it is a natural addition
to the park. Mr. Bryan said the City's plans are moving along smoothly.
Mr. Rooker asked what Mr. Bryan meant when he said the money is there for the Meadow Creek
A
Parkway. Mr. Bryan said the money is actually set aside.
@
__________
Mr. Bryan mentioned the sidewalk issue. He said that Mr. Mark Graham and Mr. Jack Kelsey have
done a good job in getting this sorted out. VDOT and County staff have been working on this for at least
five years. He said a developer builds a subdivision and VDOT is to take in the roads, but when they go to
inspect they cannot take in the road because the sidewalk is not built to VDOT standards. If it is a two-
standard sidewalk, VDOT normally takes it in, but most of the sidewalks either meander in and out of the
right-of-way, or they are on the right-of-way, but made out of asphalt which makes it a non-standard
sidewalk.
Mr. Perkins asked if the sidewalk will be accepted by VDOT if it meets standards. Mr. Bryan said
that normal curb and gutter designs are rarely used in subdivisions because they are very expensive. Mr.
Perkins said with the Neighborhood Model, there will be more sidewalks.
__________
Mr. Perkins handed to Mr. Bryan a copy of a letter from Mr. W. S. Figgatt.
__________
Mr. Dorrier again asked about placement of an obelisk on Carter's Bridge. He asked the funding
for the obelisk. Mr. Bryan said VDOT will fund it and place it. There should be no problem, but it would be
helpful if the Board adopted a resolution.
Ms. Thomas said the Board held up on adopting a resolution because it did not know about funding
of the request. Mr. Bryan said it is an additional bit of money, but VDOT will do it with a resolution in hand.
He described what the obelisk would look like.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there would be sidewalks on either side of the bridge. Mr. Bryan said he is not
sure, but he thinks there will be.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the sides of the bridge are concrete or rail. Mr. Bryan said he is not sure.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Board could see the design before adopting a resolution. Mr. Bryan said Dr.
Carter had also asked the same question. He said yes.
A@
__________
Mr. Rooker said a person living on Inglewood Drive had written to VDOT saying the road was
scheduled for resurfacing for a couple of years, and it has not happened yet. He asked that Mr. Bryan send
him a copy of his response to the letter.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she mentioned several months ago that people living on Kimbrough Circle would
like to have more work done due to erosion at the edge of the road. She got a letter from a person who
said that periodically a VDOT truck arrives with a small bit of asphalt composite and deposits it in an area
that is badly eroded. Little by little Kimbrough Circles edges are being patched.
=
__________
Ms. Thomas said staff has written letters to every entity that might be trucking on Morgantown Road
asking them to avoid using the entire length of the road, but to use Tillman Road and only an small portion
of Morgantown Road instead.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the Ivy Community Association has asked for a stop sign and a change in speed
A@
limit in front of the school.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Mapping Resources, Discussion of.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff understood the Board was interested in staffs mapping resources, in
=
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
particular those resources that can be brought into presentation material and into the Boards agenda
=
package. He then used new overhead projection equipment to demonstrate what is available. He said that
at this time, staff has some digitally formatted maps. They are kept in digital files and can be reproduced at
varying scales. These include road maps, topographical maps, maps showing building footprints, maps
showing water features, the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, and, all of the 2000 aerial photography
maps.
Mr. Rooker asked how expensive it would be to provide copies of the aerial maps as part of the
Boards agenda materials. Mr. Cilimberg said photocopies are not a significant costs. The Board is getting
=
a lot of materials now in a digital formal for its packet.
Mr. Bowerman asked if those same materials are available to the public through the County's
website. Mr. Cilimberg said yes. He said that in the future there will be parcel maps in the digital format,
A@
also maps of the water and sewer jurisdictional boundaries. Ultimately, the Planning Department would like
to have digital submission of plats and plans. That will take work with the development community, and
with consultants. They will have interactive mapping capabilities on the Internet. Within the next nine
months, there will be digital parcel mapping available for the entire County. All such mapping has already
been completed for the Crozet area.
Mr. Bowerman asked how the digitized plan is accomplished. Mr. Weaver said the aerial
photography is used to generate the parcel maps. The maps were hand-digitized into a digital format using
existing hard copy parcel maps as a reference. Those were registered to the high resolution aerial
photography so that the parcel lines reflect the true ground features on the aerial photo.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff can use vicinity maps. At this time, staff would draw in parcel lines
(ultimately in digital format), with the road system and the name of roads. Staff can add to that the
structures which exist in the area. They can include water features, and even some labeling for those
features. Topographical lines can be included so it can be seen how a particular site lays topographically to
the surrounding area. There could be extra labeling included. He said any guidance the Board would give
staff as to the amount of detail wanted on a map would be good. Of course, the Urban Area map is the
busiest. It may contain too many details, but it can go to a simpler level.
A@
Mr. Tucker asked if in an area where there are not recognizable features or landmarks, if house
numbers would help Board members who might be looking for a particular parcel. Ms. Thomas said she
has been frustrated at the quality of the maps in the packet. Mr. Rooker said he likes the busy map
A@
because it contains all information needed for analyzing the land use of the site.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks topographic lines on the map are very important. Mr. Bowerman asked
the time frame for suppling this type of data. Mr. Cilimberg said what he has shown today is already in the
system. Staff can begin using these maps today.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks it would be helpful to put a black and white locator map in the Boards
=
packet that is also on the computer disc.
Mr. Bowerman asked about the size of the maps posted in the Board Room. Mr. Weaver said staff
has a plotter which accepts 42-inch wide paper. He said it is limitless as to scale because two images can
be spliced together. Mr. Bowerman asked if it takes a lot of time to do that. Mr. Weaver said it does not in
the digital format.
Ms. Thomas thanked staff for the report.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Meeting Room Renovations, Discussion of.
Mr. Mark Graham said when the Board discussed renovations to Room 241 on April 3, the Board
asked staff to examine the feasibility of building a new meeting room, preferably using one of the existing
courtyards at the rear of the building. That has been done and two options developed for consideration.
Mr. Graham said Option A shows a one-story addition that has an estimated cost of approximately
A@
$1.1 million. This addition would simply provide a new meeting room with full audio-visual capabilities.
Option B shows a two-story addition that has an estimated cost of approximately $1.7 million. This
A@
addition would provide approximately 2500 square feet of office space on the first level and a meeting room
on the second level with the same type of audio-visual components as Option A. As directed by the Board,
staff kept the time and expense of investigating these alternatives to a minimum. Both options would
require significant refinement and input to reach a more accurate cost estimate. At the same time as this
work has been taking place, staff has been working on a long-term space needs analysis for the County;
this analysis will not be completed until later this summer. That analysis will most likely include a
recommendation for new office space. If a decision were made to construct additional space, it would be
relatively easy to include new meeting room space with that construction, so it appears that consideration
of constructing a new meeting room could be better considered as part of overall needs.
Mr. Graham said staff recommends proceeding with the original Option C without including work
A@
on Room 235 (see Board minutes of April 3). If the Board wishes to proceed with consideration of a new
meeting room, staff recommends postponing any discussion of that option until it can be considered along
with all long-term space needs.
Ms. Thomas asked if Option C would be money well-spent if something may be done with the
A@
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
whole building. Mr. Graham said he thinks it would be money well-spent. Regardless of what comes out of
the space study, he anticipates it being quite a long time before considering building another building. He
thinks renovation of the existing room would serve the Board well for that period of time.
Mr. Dorrier asked the seating capacity under Option C. Mr. Graham said it is about 60 persons for
all of the options.
Ms. Thomas said the Board had asked some questions about the kitchenette and asked if that
A@
remains a part of the plan. Mr. Tucker said it is a new word for an existing room which might be upgraded.
There would be nothing major done to it.
Mr. Perkins asked the cost of Option C. Mr. Graham said it is $360,000 including Room 235.
A@
Audio/visual improvements are the largest cost in the budget. Without Room 235, the cost would be about
$325,000 including new seats for the public.
Ms. Thomas asked if staff has talked with the Planning Commission and the School Board about
Option C. Mr. Graham said they worked with staff to make them aware of the options.
Mr. Perkins said he would be in favor of spending money to build a new room and just leave Room
241 as it is for other meetings. He thinks the estimated cost of a third of a million dollars for renovation is
extremely high. He thinks there are things which can be done so the public can view the materials.
Frankly, any time you renovate you pay an awful lot of money just to tear stuff out.
Mr. Rooker asked how much of the total expense is in the audio/visual costs. Mr. Graham said it is
approximately $200,000.
Mr. Dorrier said technology is a slippery slope. Thousands can be spent on technology and you
A@
get caught up in it. Mr. Bowerman said part of this is being done for the publics convenience.
=
Ms. Thomas asked for a breakdown of the audio/visual costs. Mr. Graham said they are shown in
the April 3 staff report. He then read those costs to the Board members.
Mr. Rooker asked if the Board moved from Room 241 to another room, if the equipment would be
moveable. Mr. Tucker said by that time, technology may be different.
Mr. Dorrier asked if Mr. Graham had said the Board should not consider any of this until it
considered a new location. Mr. Graham said he suggested that if the Board were to consider adding a new
room to the building that it not make a decision until the Long-Range Space Study is ready for review. Mr.
Dorrier said that makes sense to him. Mr. Graham said he still recommends that the Board go ahead with
Option C and renovate Room 241. It would provide better conditions for the public when using this room.
Ms. Thomas said if the Board had to prioritize the items listed for Option C, she does not think the
new configuration for seating at the Board table and new seats for the public are as important as giving
people the opportunity to use existing technology to make their presentations. She is not really in favor of
having the agenda posted electronically outside of the room. She has never heard a request for that
$10,000 item.
Mr. Tucker said the meeting is beginning to run way behind schedule. He suggested having staff
bring the information from the April 3 meeting to a later meeting and talk about it again. He said staff will
look to see how the cost can be reduced further. That was the consensus, and there was no further
discussion at this meeting.
_______________
(Note: Ms. Thomas announced that Mr. Martin has had two deaths in his family, which accounts
for his absence from this meeting.)
Agenda Item No. 10. Board-to-Board Presentation, School Board Chairman.
Mr. Steve Koleszar, Chairman of the Albemarle County School Board, was present. He said the
School Board is going through the middle school redistricting. At this time, the Superintendent has
recommended that redistricting decisions be deferred until the Fall when there is more recent data. At that
time, it can be done as a multi-level redistricting, rather than just the middle schools. The public thinks the
School Board should take a more comprehensive look at the redistricting.
Mr. Koleszar said the Montessori School had applied to set up a charter school. The School Board
has a process for taking applications, and a citizens committee that works with the applicant. The
recommendation was denial because there were too many unanswered questions on the application.
Mr. Koleszar said the School Board is going ahead with the renovations and the addition to Jack
Jouett Middle School that was in the CIP. The money has been allocated.
Mr. Koleszar said the School Board voted to provide a longevity payment to eligible teachers at the
top of the scale. This will provide a $200 per year longevity payment for teachers who have from 31 years
of service to a maximum of 35 years. Two new principals have been hired. He said that Dr. Castner had
done an excellent job in the past few years in hiring.
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
Mr. Koleszar said there is a Post-High Special Education Program in the schools. This is a
transition from high school to independent living for some of the more severely handicapped children. It is
required by IDEA. Currently they have been renting a space from the Unitarian Church, but have lost that
lease. There is an arrangement with CATEC which has been building a building especially designed for
them. It will be located on Burley Middle School property.
Mr. Rooker asked the size of the facility. Mr. Koleszar said it is approximately the size of a house.
Mr. Rooker asked if CATEC was considered as the site. Mr. Koleszar said it is important for this program to
be located within walkable distance to the services needed by these children. Also, the property already
has zoning approval from the City.
Mr. Koleszar said Henrico County started a program where they will give all of their high school
students laptop computers. Albemarle will try to define good teaching using that kind of technology.
A@
Design 2004 is an internal grant program where school teams will be asked for ways to use this type of
technology. This will be studied for a couple of years, and then Albemarle should be ready for a program
like that in Henrico. This will let instruction drive the technology rather than get the technology and flounder
on how to use it.
Mr. Koleszar said that Dr. Frank Morgan, Assistant Superintendent for Support Services, will be
leaving the County to serve as Superintendent in Goochland County. Dr. Jean Murray, Assistant
Superintendent for Instruction, was a finalist for the Superintendents position in Charlottesville, but has
=
withdrawn her name for that position. He said Albemarle should be proud that it is producing leaders in its
system that other people want to hire. It is a mixed blessing.
Mr. Koleszar said the Albemarle School Board will hold its annual mid-year retreat on June 15. At
that time, it will do its annual evaluations of the Board (in open session), the School Board/Superintendent
Priorities (in open session), and the Superintendent (in closed session). It will also start the process of
revising its Biennial Board/Superintendent Priorities.
Ms. Thomas said the Board will be meeting with the School Board later today, so questions can
wait until then. Mr. Koleszar said one of the greatest strengths in the County is commonality and how the
School Division and Local Government work together through all levels of service.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing: An ordinance to amend Chapter 1, General Provisions, of
the Albemarle County Code, to amend 1-119, Additional court costs, to increase the costs in criminal and
'
traffic cases in which the defendant is convicted. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily
Progress on May 20 and May 27, 2002.)
Mr. Tucker said County Code 1-119 requires defendants in each criminal, traffic or civil case to
'
pay a fee of $2.00 for the purpose of providing for the maintenance, construction or renovation of the
courthouse in addition to the State-imposed court costs. During its last Session, the General Assembly
amended Virginia Code 53.1-120 and adopted Virginia Code 15.2-1613.1, to enable a locality to: 1)
''
impose, by ordinance, an additional court fee of $5.00 on defendants convicted in criminal or traffic cases,
funds to be used for courthouse security personnel, and, 2) to impose, by ordinance, a court fee of $25.00
on defendants ordered incarcerated in criminal cases, funds to be used for processing the convicted
persons into the regional jail.
Mr. Tucker said that on April 17, as part of the FY 02-03 budget approval process, the Board
>
proposed to amend County Code 1-119 to establish a Court Security Fee of $5.00 per conviction. In
'
addition, at its meeting on May 1, 2002, the Board proposed to establish a $25.00 processing fee for each
convicted person admitted into the regional jail. The County Attorney's office drafted an ordinance for the
Board's consideration based on the new State enabling authority, and a public hearing for today. Staff
recommends that the Board adopt the proposed ordinance after the public hearing is held with the effective
date of the ordinance being July 1, 2002.
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 immediately offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to adopt An Ordinance
to Amend Chapter I, General Provisions, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by amending
Sec. 1-119, Additional court costs.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
(Note: The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 02-1(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, OF THE CODE OF
THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, that Chapter 1, General Provisions, of the Code of the County of Albemarle is
amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending: Sec. 1-119 Additional court costs
Chapter 1. General Provisions
Sec. 1-119 Additional court costs.
A. A fee of two dollars ($2.00) shall be taxed as additional costs in each criminal,
traffic or civil case in the respective district or circuit courts of the county for the
purpose of providing for the maintenance, construction or renovation of the
courthouse, jail or court-related facilities located in and serving the county and to
defray the costs of cooling, heating and electricity in these facilities. The director of
finance shall segregate the fees collected pursuant to this section for the purposes
designated above.
B. A fee of five dollars ($5.00) shall be taxed as additional costs in each criminal or
traffic case in the respective district or circuit courts of the county in which the
defendant is convicted of a violation of any statute or ordinance. The fee shall be
collected by the clerk of the court in which the case is heard, remitted to the
director of finance, and held by the director of finance subject to appropriation by
the board of supervisors to the sheriff's office for the funding of courthouse security
personnel.
C. A fee of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) shall be taxed as additional costs in each
criminal case in the respective district or circuit courts of the county in which the
defendant is convicted of a violation of any statute or ordinance and is processed
for admission into the regional jail as a result of such conviction. The fee shall be
collected by the clerk of the court in which the case is heard, remitted to the
director of finance, and held by the director of finance subject to appropriation by
the board of supervisors to the sheriff's office for the funding of costs of processing
arrested persons into the regional jail.
(Ord. of 8-8-90; Ord. of 8-5-92, Code 1975, 1-8, 6-17-89; Code 1988, 1-8 Ord. 98-A(1),
''
8-5-98; Ord. 02-1(1), 6-5-02)
State law reference--Authority for above provisions, Va. Code 17.1-281; Va. Code 53.1-120; Va.
''
Code 15.2-1613.1.
'
This ordinance shall be effective on and after July 1, 2002.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing: Proposed FY 2002 Budget Amendments. (Notice of this
public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on May 26, 2002.)
Mr. Roger Hildebeidel, Budget Manager, said Code of Virginia 15.2-2507 stipulates that the
'
County must amend its current budget if additional appropriated amounts exceed one percent of the
original budget or $500,000, whichever is the lesser. The Code section applies to all funds, i.e, Capital,
E-911, School Self-Sustaining, etc., not just the General Fund or County's adopted operating budget.
This proposed FY 02 Budget amendment totals $3,930,516.97. The chart below breaks out the
>
estimated amendment of the expenses and revenues in the funds.
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
General Fund $ 19,000.00
Local Government Programs/Projects 1,413,724.63
School Fund 26,604.12
Education Programs/Projects 468,188.22
Capital Improvement Fund 2,003,000.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES-All Funds $3,930,516.97
ESTIMATED REVENUES
Local Revenues $ 481,300.10
State Revenues 1,062,403.72
Federal Revenues 244,642.00
Fund Balances 2,142,171.15
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES-All Funds $3,930,516.97
This budget amendment consists of eight appropriations.
Appropriation #2001-063, $113,736.12. Recent action was taken by the Wireless E-911 Services
Board to encourage and assist localities with Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD). This action has provided
reimbursement in the amount of $113,736.12 to the Emergency Communications Center based on
expenditures incurred to implement the CAD system. Since the CAD project was fully funded by the
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
County, City and University, the ECC Management Board has requested that this reimbursement be
appropriated for the 800 MHZ radio project. The funds will be used to cover greater than anticipated
consulting fees.
Appropriation #2001-064, $328,775.73. Murray Elementary School received a donation in the
amount of $500.00 from Thomas and Edeltraud Guenther. This donation will be used to help finance the
Laptops for Teachers Project.
Monticello High School received a donation in the amount of $201.00 from Charles and Pamela
Rose III, $94.00 from Deborah and Richard Welch, $198.00 from Cynthia and Linwood Watts, and $116.00
from Edward and Traci Brooks. These donations will be used to fund the gifted program at the school.
Albemarle County Schools received a Refugee School Impact Grant award from the Virginia
Department of Education's Office of Secondary Instructional Services in the amount of $4919.00. These
funds will be used to provide additional services for Albemarle County's growing multi-cultural population,
which includes refugees. The grant program will run in conjunction with the evening Adult ESOL program,
targeting K-12 "Limited English Proficient" (LEP) refugee students with special emphasis on reading, writing
and mathematical concepts.
Albemarle County Adult Basic Education provides tuition classes tailored to the individualized
needs of the clients of private companies, institutions and agencies when needed to supplement existing
classes. Additional revenues were received in the amount of $3380.00 from Farmington Country Club and
$1672.00 from students in tuition and books fees for English as a Second Language class.
The Eisenhower Grant provides Federal assistance to improve teaching and learning through
sustained and intensive high quality professional development activities in the core academic areas of the
Virginia Standards of Learning. There is a local fund balance in the amount of $3516.33 from FY 00-01 to
>
be reappropriated in FY 01-02. These funds will be used to pay substitute teachers allowing the full time
>
teacher to attend staff development classes.
Albemarle County Public Schools received an award in the amount of $43,297.00 from the Virginia
Adult Basic Education English Literacy/Civics Program. This grant will provide funds to offer six
non-traditional venues in which English Language instruction will be provided in a Family Literacy
environment. Limited English families that currently are unable to attend classes regularly due to
transportation issues and work conflicts will be targeted. The venues are: monthly ESOL community
nights, ESOL job fair, ESOL health care fair, expansion of the current Adult ESOL Program at Albemarle
High School to include computer literacy, readily available computer labs and lower student/teacher ratios,
Hispanic Outreach and an ESOL "Motheread/Fatheread" Family Literacy Program.
Title I is a Federally-funded program designed to help children meet challenging content and
performance standards. There is a local fund balance in the amount of $6642.28 from FY 00-01 and may
>
be reappropriated for FY 01-02. In addition, funding for FY 01-02 increased by $241,667.00 from the
>>
original amount of $606.042.00
A consortium of school systems (Albemarle, Charlottesville and Nelson) has formed to address the
educational, social and emotional needs of students who require an alternative education program. The
2001-02 funding request included $25,000.00 in a new initiative for the Alternative Education Continuum
and the School Board approved the budget initiative as requested. The funds were added to the Enterprise
Center. It is requested that $15,000.00 be transferred from Enterprise Center to the Project Return II
account in order that remaining expenditures can be adequately covered. In addition, Nelson County
funding for Project Return II was increased by $2600.00 from the original budget amount of $5400.00.
These funds are needed to pay the additional part-time teacher for services this school year.
The Adult Education Program is a Federally and state-funded program, providing educational
opportunities to adults whose skills in reading, mathematics and other subjects are below the 12th grade
level. There is a required 15 percent mandated match of local funds. It is requested that $227.00 be
transferred from the School Fund to adequately meet the grant mandate. There is a local fund balance in
the amount of $3635.12 form FY 00-01 and may be reappropriated for FY 01-02. An additional amount of
>>
$1111.00 has been received for books fees from students. These funds will pay for salaries and
educational materials.
Appropriation #2001-065, $10,000.00. The Woodstock Drive Drainage Improvement Program
involves the installation of drainage pipes and associated structures, removal of existing storm pipes, rip-rap
installation, asphalt repair, minor grading and permanent soil stabilization. This project requires that a
portion of the storm drain pipe in the City, along Ricky Road at Wayne Avenue, be upgraded. The City
reviewed the design plans and agreed that the City portion should be included in the project as designed.
Linda Peacock, Assistant City Manager, provided a letter dated November 29, 2001, acknowledging the
City's commitment to participate in the cost of this project up to $10,000.00.
Appropriation #2001-066, $18,501.67. Murray Elementary School received a donation in the
amount of $500.00 from Dr. Jeffrey Barth. This donation will be used to help finance the Laptops for
Teachers Project. Murray Elementary School also received a donation of $28.17 from the Target School
Fund-Raising Program. Target has designated their favorite school to receive donations equal to one
percent of purchases made when shopping at Target or on-line.
Monticello High School received a donation in the amount of $137.00 from George and Sandra
Stephens and $350.00 from Blaine and Jean Norum. These donations will be used to fund the gifted
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
program at the school.
Broadus Wood Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $4400.00 from the
Broadus Wood PTO. This donation will be used to purchase instructional materials for use in the
classrooms.
Stone Robinson Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $50.00 from Charles and
Judy Werner. This donation will be used to purchase materials for the K-1 classroom. Stone Robinson
also received a donation in the amount of $29.95 from Dr. and Mrs. Douglas Cox. This donation will be
used to help pay for magazine subscriptions for a fifth grade classroom.
The Virginia Commission for the Arts made several grant awards to Albemarle County Schools to
help strengthen education in and through the arts in elementary and secondary schools. Broadus Wood
Elementary received $300.00, Murray Elementary received $299.00, Yancey Elementary received $300.00,
Jouett Middle received $600.00, and Sutherland Middle received $600.00.
The State Farm Companies Foundation made Good Neighbor Grant awards in the amount of
$1000.00 to Crozet Elementary and $500.00 to the Monticello High School Band.
The Optimist Club of the Blue Ridge made a grant award in the amount of $200.00 to Cale
Elementary and $219.98 to Woodbrook Elementary. These funds will be used to help purchase materials
for literacy programs at the schools.
The Jefferson Region Destination Imagination (DI) will provide a regional DI competition for county
students and surrounding school districts. Of the 70 teams that participate, 25 will be from Albemarle
County. Team registration fees, T-shirt sales and contributions will help cover expenses and the DI has a
fund balance of $977.57. Albemarle County will continue as fiscal agent for the region.
7-Eleven, Inc. made a grant award in the amount of $310.00 to Red Hill Elementary School. These
funds will be used in their literacy program.
The Farmers Agri-business Resources and Marketing, Inc. (FARM, Inc) made a grant award in the
amount of $500.00 to Monticello High School. These funds will be used for a project in the Virginia Right
Choices for Youth Initiative.
Appropriation #2001-068, $19,000.00. The FY 02 budget request for the Sheriff's Office included
>
replacement of computers in his office. This request was not approved in the County budget, but the
Compensation Board approved $19,000.00 in the Sheriff's State budget. In order to obtain this funding
from the State, this request is to approve a $19,000.00 local appropriation that will be used to replace and
upgrade laptop computers in the Sheriff's office. This amount will be 100 percent funded by the State.
Appropriation #2001-069, $2,003,000.00. Based on the revenue surplus from FY 01, and as
>
previously presented to the Board in the quarterly financial reports, $2,003,000.00 will be transferred to the
Capital Fund. Of this total, $1,557,000.00 is allocated to the Capital Reserve account and $446,000.00 is
allocated to the Ivy Landfill Remediation Project.
Appropriation #2001-070, $147,514.94. Albemarle County Schools in partnership with Stafford
and Fairfax County Public Schools and the Virginia Department of Education received the Partnerships in
Character Education Pilot Project: V-CEP Grant in the amount of $77,000.00. This is the second year of
the three-year project which supports the development, implementation, evaluation and dissemination of
comprehensive K-12 character education programs.
Federal funding for the Carl D. Perkins Vocational Grant was increased by $2975.00 over the
original budget estimate of $149,675.00. These additional funds will be used to help purchase computer
equipment for the high schools.
Virginia Business-Education Partnerships has a carry-over grant balance of $36,463.94 from FY
00-01. This balance was retained by the Virginia Department of Education and is now available for use by
>
Albemarle County Schools. These funds will be used to cover expenditures in the current
Business-Education Partnerships Grant Program.
The Virginia Commission for the Arts has awarded Kelly O'Leary of Jack Jouett Middle School a
$300.00 grant. This grant has been established to help strengthen education in and through the arts.
Albemarle County Adult Basic Education provides tuition classes tailored to the individualized
needs of the clients of private companies, institutions and agencies when needed to supplement our
existing classes. Additional revenues were received in the amount of $800.00 from Boar's Head Inn in
tuition and $49.00 from students in books fees for English as a Second Language class.
The Adult Education Program is a Federally and state-funded program, providing educational
opportunities to adults whose skills in reading, mathematics and other subjects are below the 12th grade
level. Additional revenues were received in the amount of $427.00 from students for books fees.
Approximately $20,000.00 is available from the Association for Investment Management and
Research (AIMR) rental. The Superintendent proposes that available revenues from this fund be allocated
as follows: $10,000.00 to Monticello High School, $5,000.00 to Albemarle High School and $5,000.00 to
Western Albemarle High School. None of the above initiatives are recurring. Additionally, some revenue
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
for next year's rental will be received and some expenses will be necessary to facilitate AIMR's use of the
building in the time frame for which they wish to occupy it.
The Comprehensive Services Act (CSA), implemented in 1993, is the primary funding source for
at-risk children and families who are either in foster care, involved with the juvenile court system, or require
residential or day treatment services because of their special education needs. Children and families
served with these funds are mandated by the Code and include children placed for purposes of special
education, disabled children placed by local social services or the court in private residential facilities and
whose Individual Education Program (IEP) indicates such schooling is appropriate and needed, foster care
children, and children and families served to prevent foster care placement. The School Division is fiscally
responsible for costs associated with providing special education services to children served under the
Comprehensive Services Act. An estimate of these costs has been completed for FY 2002 with total
>
expenditures of $1,000,000.00. The current FY 02 school transfer appropriation to CSA is $600,000.00,
>
leaving a shortfall of $400,000.00. Shifting funds from savings associated with a mid-year Virginia
Retirement System (VRS) rate reduction for teachers will fund this shortfall.
Appropriation #2001-071, $1,289,988.51. FY 2001-02 expenditures in the Comprehensive
Service Act Fund are currently anticipated to total $5,628,743.51. Of this amount, $4,338,755.00 has
previously been appropriated, leaving an additional $1,289,988.51 to be appropriated. In March 2002, the
County received approval for additional state monies for its CSA Program in the amount of $765,588.66.
The County's portion of these additional expenditures will be funded by the CSA fund balance in the amount
of $124,399.85, and a transfer from the School Division of $400,000.00.
Staff requests approval of the FY 02 Budget amendment in the amount of $3,930,516.97 and
>
approval of Appropriations #2001-063, #2001-064, #2001-065, #2001-066, #2001-068, #2001-069, #2001-
070 and #2001-071 as detailed on the appropriation forms.
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 immediately offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve the FY 01-
>
02 Budget Amendment and to adopt the following Resolutions of Appropriation. Roll was called, and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
(Note: The adopted Resolutions of Appropriation are set out in full below.)
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-063
FUND: E.C.C.
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR CONSULTING EXPENSE FOR
RADIO SYSTEM
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 4110 31050 312700 CONSULTING EXPENSE $113,736.12
TOTAL $113,736.12
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 4110 24000 240424 DEPT OF CONSERVATION & RECREATION $113,736.12
TOTAL $113,736.12
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-064
FUND: EDUCATION
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: DONATIONS AND VARIOUS SCHOOL PROGRAMS
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 2215 61101 800700 ADP Equipment $500.00
1 2304 61101 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies 609.00
1 3123 61101 132100 P/T Teacher Wages 3,268.80
1 3123 61101 210000 FICA 252.20
1 3123 61101 312700 Prof Svc-Consultant 300.00
1 3123 61101 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies 1,098.00
1 3116 63348 132100 P/T Teacher Wages 4,514.63
1 3116 63348 210000 FICA 345.37
1 3116 63348 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies 192.00
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
1 3203 61311 152100 Sub-Wages-Teacher 3,266.45
1 3203 61311 210000 FICA 249.88
1 3150 61101 111400 Salaries-Other Mang 2,880.00
114100 Salaries-Teacher Aide 3,960.00
132100 P/T Teacher Wages 25,630.00
210000 FICA 2,484.00
221000 VRS 314.00
231000 Health Ins 194.00
232000 Dental Ins 10.00
241000 Group Life Ins 25.00
312000 Other Prof Services 5,500.00
520100 Postal Services 400.00
550100 Travel 400.00
601300 Inst/Rec Supplies 1,000.00
601700 Copy Supplies 500.00
1 3101 61101 112100 Salaries-Teacher 108,746.00
114100 Salaries-Teacher Aide 29,267.00
210000 FICA 10,557.99
221000 VRS 15,625.00
231000 Health Ins 20,786.00
232000 Dental Ins 832.00
601300 Inst/Rec Supplies 62,495.29
1 2113 61111 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies (15,000.00)
1 2113 93010 930000 Fund Transfer 15,000.00
1 3122 63349 132100 P/T Teacher Wages 16,349.28
1 3122 63349 210000 FICA 1,250.72
1 3115 63322 132100 P/T Teacher Wages 3,376.80
1 3115 63322 210000 FICA 258.32
1 3115 63322 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies 1,338.00
TOTAL $328,775.73
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation $1,109.00
2 3123 24000 240359 Refugee Grant 4,919.00
2 3116 16000 161206 Tuition-Adult Ed 4,860.00
2 3116 18000 189900 Misc Revenues 192.00
2 3203 51000 510100 Approp-Fund Balance 3,516.33
2 3150 33000 330600 ESOL Outreach Grant 43,297.00
2 3101 33000 330101 Title I Funds 241,667.00
2 3101 51000 510100 Approp-Fund Balance 6,642.28
2 3122 18000 189900 Misc Revenues 2,600.00
2 3122 51000 512001 Transfer-School Fund 15,000.00
2 3115 18000 189900 Misc Revenues 1,111.00
2 3115 51000 510100 Approp-Fund Balance 3,635.12
2 3115 51000 512001 Transfer-School Fund 227.00
TOTAL $328,775.73
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-065
FUND: STORM DRAINAGE
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR CITY SHARE OF
PROJECT ON RICKY ROAD
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 9100 41054 800975 STORM DRAINAGE-RICKY ROAD $10,000.00
TOTAL $10,000.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 9100 16000 160502 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE $10,000.00
TOTAL $10,000.00
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-066
FUND: EDUCATION
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: DONATIONS AND VARIOUS SCHOOL PROGRAMS
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 2215 61101 800700 ADP Equipment $500.00
1 2215 61101 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies 28.17
1 2304 61101 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies 487.00
1 2201 61101 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies 4,400.00
1 2210 61101 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies 79.95
1 3104 60201 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies 300.00
1 3104 60216 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies 299.00
1 3104 60213 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies 300.00
1 3104 60252 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies 600.00
1 3104 60255 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies 600.00
1 3104 60203 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies 1,000.00
1 3104 60304 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies 500.00
1 3104 60214 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies 200.00
1 3104 60212 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies 219.98
1 3129 61104 520100 Postal Services 151.00
1 3129 61104 580000 Misc Expenses 4,838.00
1 3129 61104 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies 3,188.57
1 3104 60207 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies 310.00
1 3104 60304 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies 500.00
TOTAL $18,501.67
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation $5,495.12
2 3104 24000 240295 Va Comm-Broadus Wood 300.00
2 3104 24000 240328 Va Comm-Murray Elem 299.00
2 3104 24000 240249 Va Comm-Yancey 300.00
2 3104 24000 240250 Va Comm-Jouett 600.00
2 3104 24000 240368 Va Comm-Sutherland 600.00
2 3104 18000 181255 State Farm-Crozet 1,000.00
2 3104 18000 181261 State Farm-MHS 500.00
2 3104 18000 186012 Optimist Club-Cale 200.00
2 3104 18000 186262 Optimist Club-Woodbrook 219.98
2 3129 16000 161260 DI Reg Fees 2,500.00
2 3129 18100 181109 Contributions 200.00
2 3129 18000 189918 Proceeds-Sales 4,500.00
2 3129 51000 510100 Appro-Fund Bal 977.57
2 3104 18000 186011 7-Eleven, Inc 310.00
2 3104 18000 181263 FARM, Inc 500.00
TOTAL $18,501.67
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-068
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: STATE FUNDED COMPUTERS FOR SHERIFFS
=
OFFICE
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 1000 31020 800700 ADP EQUIPMENT $19,000.00
TOTAL $19,000.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1000 23000 230202 STATE COMP BOARD-SHERIFFS EXP $19,000.00
=
TOTAL $19,000.00
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-069
FUND: GENERAL/CAPITAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: TRANSFER OF FY 02 SURPLUS TO CAPITAL
>
RESERVE AND IVY LANDFILL
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 9010 11010 999979 CAPITAL RESERVE $1,557,000.00
1 9010 41000 700006 IVY LANDFILL 446,000.00
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
TOTAL $2,003,000.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 9010 51000 512994 TRANSFER FROM G/F $2,003,000.00
TOTAL $2,003,000.00
TRANSFERS
1 1000 93010 930010 TRANSFER TO C.I.P. 2,003,000.00
2 1000 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE 2,003,000.00
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-070
FUND: EDUCATION
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: VARIOUS SCHOOL PROGRAMS
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 3146 61101 131400 PT Wages-Other Mang $25,000.00
1 3146 61101 210000 FICA 1,912.50
1 3146 61101 312700 Prof Serv Consultants 10,000.00
1 3146 61101 550100 Travel-Mileage 2,587.50
1 3146 61101 550400 Travel-Education 2,500.00
1 3146 61101 580500 Staff Dev 10,000.00
1 3146 61101 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies 25,000.00
1 3207 61190 800100 Equipment 2,975.00
1 3209 61103 117100 Salaries-Bus Driver 3,000.00
1 3209 61103 160300 Stipends-Staff Dev 15,000.00
1 3209 61103 210000 FICA 1,380.00
1 3209 61103 350000 Printing/Binding 2,000.00
1 3209 61103 420100 Field Trips 3,000.00
1 3209 61103 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies 12,083.94
1 3104 60253 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies 300.00
1 3116 63348 132100 Salaries-Teacher 743.15
1 3116 63348 210000 FICA 56.85
1 3116 63348 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies 49.00
1 3115 63322 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies 427.00
1 3145 62190 114300 Salaries-Other Tech (2,410.00)
1 3145 62190 800701 DP Equipment (2,000.00)
1 3145 62420 331200 R&M Equip-Buildings (6,090.00)
1 3145 93010 930001 Transfer School Fund 20,000.00
1 2301 61101 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies 5,000.00
1 2302 61101 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies 5,000.00
1 2304 61101 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies 10,000.00
1 2100 61101 221000 VRS (400,000.00)
1 2112 93010 930206 Transfer to CSA 400,000.00
TOTAL $147,514.94
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 3146 24000 240364 Character Ed Grant $77,,000.00
2 3207 33000 330107 Carl Perkins-Voc Ed 2,975.00
2 3209 24000 240299 Va Business Ed Grant 36,463.94
2 3104 24000 240250 Va Comm-Jouett 300.00
2 3116 16000 161206 Tuition-Adult Ed 800.00
2 3116 18000 189900 Misc Revenues 49.00
2 3115 18000 189900 Misc Revenues 427.00
2 2000 51000 510110 Transfer-Self Sustaining 20,000.00
2 3145 15000 150201 General Prop Rental 9,500.00
TOTAL $147,514.94
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-071
FUND: C.S.A.
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR COMPREHENSIVE
SERVICES ACT
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 1551 53120 581101 MAN RES THERAP FC IV-E $ (271,737.80)
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
1 1551 53120 581102 MAN RES THERAP FC OTHER 485,282 46
1 1551 53120 581201 MAN RES FAMILY FC IV-E (71,822.17)
1 1551 53120 581202 MAN RES FAMILY FC OTHER 12,369.84
1 1551 53120 581203 FAM FSTR CARE MAINT PAYM (38,397.57)
1 1551 53120 581301 MAN RES FC PREVENTION (127,758.72)
1 1551 53120 581401 MAN RES SPECIAL ED 427,998.75
1 1551 53120 581501 MAN NON-RES FC PREVENTION 433,916.12
1 1551 53120 581601 MAN NRES SPEC ED PRIV DAY 463,137.60
1 1551 53120 581602 MAN NRES SPEC ED PUBL DAY (25,000.00)
TOTAL $1,289,988.51
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1551 24000 240609 STATE COMPENSATION SERV $ 765,588.66
2 1551 51000 510100 APPROPRIATION-FUND BAL 124,399.85
2 1551 51000 512001 TRS FR-FROM SCHOOL FUND 400,000.00
TOTAL $1,289,988.51
______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Closed Session: Personnel and Legal Matters.
At 11:15 a.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman 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; under Subsection (1) to conduct an administrative evaluation; under subsection
(7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding pending litigation relating to a site plan denial and
relating to an environmental claim; and, under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel regarding a
specific legal matter requiring legal advice regarding potential county liabilities. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Rooker.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Certify Closed Session. At 2:05 p.m., the Board reconvened into open
session.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to
the best of each Board members knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open
=
meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the
closed session were heard, discussed or considered in the closed session.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. SP-2000-057. St. David's Anglican Church (Signs #89 & 90). Public hearing
on a request to allow church in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.35 of the Zoning Ord. TM 60, P 68. Loc on Colthurst
Dr (Rt 1001) at intersec of Colthurst Dr & Barracks Rd ( Rt 654). Znd RA. SDP-01-117 accompanies this
SUP. Jack Jouett Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on May 20 and May
20, 2002.)
Mr. Cilimberg said this is a proposal to construct a church with a maximum capacity of 125 people.
The applicants have indicated that they may not begin construction before the usual two-year deadline that
special permits carry. They have asked that the special permit expire on the same date as their final site
plan, which is five years from the signing date. He said the property is on Colthurst Drive at the intersection
of Colthurst Drive and Barracks Road.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff, in its initial analysis, found several factors favorable to the request. One, its
proposed size and scale was appropriate in the Rural Areas. Two, it did not include facilities for other types
of uses such as schools, day care and other programs that would increase traffic levels or noise impacts.
An unfavorable factor was a concern that increased traffic from this use will impact the residential character
of the Colthurst Subdivision, and/or increase traffic hazards at the intersection of Colthurst Drive and
Barracks Road.
Mr. Cilimberg said initially staff recommended approval subject to ten conditions. When it was
heard by the Planning Commission on March 19, they requested that the applicant defer consideration of
the project until two major issues were addressed. First, was the unresolved difference between the
applicants site design and the Architectural Review Boards (ARB) standards for the site. Second, was the
==
community concern over the traffic impacts from adding a church on this site.
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
Mr. Cilimberg said that on May 6, 2002, the applicant presented to the ARB a revised site plan and
the ARB voted unanimously to approve a certificate of appropriateness subject to a number of conditions.
The Engineering Department discussed the traffic impacts with VDOT since they felt that the proposed
church contributes to, but does not significantly generate, the need for improvements to the
Colthurst/Barracks Road intersection. VDOT has no plans to upgrade the intersection. Engineering
recommended that any approval of the special use permit be conditioned on the reservation for public use
of a ten-foot strip of right-of-way along Barracks Road at the edge of the property should this intersection be
upgraded in the future.
Mr. Cilimberg said that on May 21, 2002, the Commission recommended denial of SP-2000-057
due to continued uncertainties regarding the traffic safety impacts of the project. However, the Commission
instructed staff to supply more information regarding sight distance (horizontal and vertical) and accident
history at the intersection for the Supervisors to consider. A primary concern of the Commission was sight
distance. VDOT commented that a field review at the intersection indicated that the sight distance exceeds
the minimum requirement of 550 feet. Sight distance to the west, and for left-turning vehicles, was found to
be 670 feet and to the east it was several thousand feet. This does not specifically address the issue of
vertical limits caused by the hill to the west of the intersection, but does show that sufficient sight distance
exists.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff verified with VDOT that even considering the hill to the west, they still feel
adequate sight distance exists at 670 feet. Accident data from VDOT shows that in the last five years, there
has been one accident at the Barracks-Colthurst intersection in which one person was injured. He said
there was an error in the tables giving the speed limit in this area as 45 miles per hour. The correct number
is 55 miles per hour, but that will not change the length of the recommended turn lanes and tapers. He
said the intersection should have right and left-turn lanes given the current traffic levels. Adding the traffic
from the church does not change what is needed at the site.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff investigated the possibility of reducing the speed limit on this portion of
Route 601. The VDOT Residency requested that the District Office conduct a speed study, but staff was
not able to obtain a firm completion date for that study. He said staff recommended approval of this special
use permit, subject to seven conditions. However, the Planning Commission has recommended denial
based on its uncertainty that traffic-safety issues have been sufficiently addressed. He offered to answer
questions.
Ms. Thomas asked if the sight distance was taken from a field study and not just from a map. Mr.
Cilimberg said it was. The concern was that normal sight distance measurements for 55 miles per hour
would require at least 550 feet, or ten feet for each mile per hour. The hill to the west was an issue raised
by the Commission. VDOTs field review shows that there is 670 feet of actual sight distance.
=
Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing, and asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Steve Melton was present to represent the applicant. He said they agree with the current staff
recommendations, and that they applicant dedicate a ten-foot right-of-way at the time it is needed for a turn
lane along the frontage of Barracks Road. He said the traffic issues have been a problem. This is the third
go-round but VDOT has approved it. At the first Commission meeting, Mr. Rieley asked that staff look into
A@
additional requirements concerning sight distances along Barracks Road. This information was provided,
but at the last meeting Mr. Rieley said it did not meet his criteria, or answer some of his questions. It went
back a second time and VDOT and the Engineering Department confirmed that everything was okay. He
said it will probably be four or more years before the church is constructed. They have only 35 members at
this time. He offered to answer questions.
Ms. Elly Tucker said she is a resident at 111 Reynard Drive. She is speaking for herself and her
husband. She has nothing to say against this church, and would like to have a church in the neighborhood
except for her concerns about safety. Even though the church now only has 35 members, the church is to
be built to house 125. She would not be as concerned if traffic went directly into the church parking lot and
did not come in the entrance to Colthurst. She and her children walk frequently, and sometimes traffic
coming into Colthurst goes too fast. Also, driving west on Barracks Road, the turn into the entrance to
Colthurst is dangerous. She thinks vertical sight distance is needed, although it has not been provided up
until now.
Mr. Milton Moore said he lives at 106 Falcon Drive in Colthurst. He said the hill to the west of the
entrance is problematic. There is no left-turn lane into the subdivision. If the church is built there, he thinks
a left-turn lane must be constructed, and there should be a 45 mile per hour speed limit past Colthurst.
Mr. George Larie said he has lived in Colthurst for 14 years. He said Colthurst is located 1000 feet
off Barracks Road with Colthurst Drive being its only ingress and egress. He said St. Davids got bad
=
publicity in the beginning because there was concern about a cemetery being on the property, as well as a
day care center. Both of those things are excluded in the special use permit, so the traffic issues are the
only legitimate concerns. Mr. Larie said the accuracy of VDOT's traffic information was the primary concern
at the Commission meeting. He said these concerns were: the entrance is 200 feet to the church from
Barracks Road; the left turn into Colthurst coming from Charlottesville is sharp and is obstructed due to a
12-foot high bank; and, there was concern about parking for large events. He does not mind a church
being built there if traffic safety and parking problems are addressed. He thinks a left-hand turn lane into
the church should be required and the speed limit should be reduced to 45 miles per hour.
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
Ms. Joneal Scully said she is present to speak about safety concerns on Barracks Road at the
intersection with Colthurst. She said the VDOT study does not reflect the difficulties experienced by the
residents. The hill is problematic. A year and a-half ago she had a head-on collision with someone braking
in the on-coming lane and swerving into her lane because there was no other place for that car to go. She
said the 55 mile per hour zone starts coming down the hill from the Colonnades. Many young, aggressive
drivers exceed the speed limit in an attempt to pass coming down that hill. She said it is frightening. Also,
for the cars coming east, many are traveling too fast, and they cannot see the traffic coming up the hill.
She is not against the church, but she is concerned for them, and she is concerned for the residents. If the
traffic speed limit can be reduced, or a stop light installed, or left-hand turn lanes and lanes for people
coming from the west toward the east could be installed, that would be good.
Mr. Robert Humphris said he has lived in Colthurst for 32 years. He said that in a chart entitled
Vehicle Trips Generated per Day, the staff used the number of six by-right residences on Colthurst Drive.
A@
The developers plat shows four residential lots. The church, plus only three residences would result in
=
different traffic numbers on the chart than the church, plus five residences that the chart shows in the
column titled Additional Trips per Day. Also, the E-mail and letter comments from the public were not up-
A@
to-date on the website. He agrees with what has been stated by other Colthurst residents. There are two
major problems, traffic and safety. The 45-mph speed limit provided to the Commission was in error, and
even though VDOT says the present 55-mph limit would make no difference in their recommendation, it
actually is a major part of the problem at the entrance. About 20 years ago, the homeowners association
=
asked VDOT to lower the speed limit on this section of Barracks Road to 45-mph, but the request was
denied. Based on current VDOT criteria, he does not believe VDOT would change the speed limit now.
Also, with a seating capacity of 125 and a parking lot with only 32 spaces, there will be occasions when
there is overflow parking on Colthurst Drive which is not wide enough to allow on-street parking. Mr.
Humphris said that unless there is a guarantee of a safe left-turn lane onto Colthurst Drive and, unless the
church negotiates with the developer to purchase a larger piece of property with enough road frontage to
allow a safer entrance farther to the south along Colthurst Drive, and to provide more parking spaces, he
believes the application should be denied.
Mr. Barry Schleifer said he is a resident of Colthurst. He has lived there about a year and learned
quickly what the other speakers mentioned in regard to the situation turning into Colthurst coming from
town. He does not know anything about sight lines and sight distances, etc., but he knows what people are
doing. Whatever the speed limit is, people are driving very fast. His concern is that cars will park on
Colthurst, even though spaces are provided. There is no assurance that there will be a turn lane or the
speed limit will be reduced. He registered his opposition to the permit as it is described now.
Mr. Bill Anderson said he is a vestry for St. David's. He said all the traffic problems at the Colthurst
intersection with Barracks Road have been evident for at least ten years. He said Mr. Jack Kelsey stated it
A
is our opinion that the proposed church contributes to, but does not significantly generate, the need for
improvements to the Barracks Road/Colthurst Drive intersection. That is important. The same problems
@
will be there tomorrow and two weeks from now. Talk about speed limits does not apply. Only VDOT can
change the speed limits. The fact is that both VDOT and the Countys engineers have said the church will
=
not greatly impact the traffic problem at Colthurst and Barracks Road. He said the church has complied
with every single regulation. The 125-people is the Countys standard for a church. The church was
=
required to build the number of parking spaces for 125 people. There is no reason not to approve the
church. He thinks it will contribute to the neighborhood of Colthurst. It is a good church of modest design.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
placed before the Board.
Mr. Rooker said the most recent staff report included information about the traffic situation. It notes
that even when the speed limit is corrected to 55 mph, no changes are needed in the length of turn lanes
and tapers. It indicates that there should be a left-turn lane there today for safety purposes. There should
be a right-turn lane there today for safety purposes. The church would not impact the situation greatly.
However, adding additional traffic to an already unsafe situation is not something this Board should do. He
would favor the application for location of a church on the property if that problem could be cured. He
thinks the special use permit should include a condition that a left-turn lane would be added on Barracks
Road and that a right-turn lane would be added coming from the west.
Ms. Thomas asked why the church would make the intersection more unsafe. She went out and
looked at the intersection, and each person making that turn now is in a dangerous situation. Having more
people make that turn is not endangering any one of those people more than they are already endangered
by that situation. How does having 30 more cars on a Sunday make that situation more dangerous?
Mr. Rooker said he questions the number of 33 parking spaces for a church that will hold 125
people. He also thinks there would be the likelihood of having cars stacked up waiting to make a
A@
left-hand turn. It would just add to the general congestion of that intersection. Coming from the west, there
would be more cars making right-hand turns and there is no turn lane. It is unsafe for the residents today,
and will be more unsafe after the church is built.
Ms. Thomas said there has never been an intersection improvement for this location in the Six-Year
Road Plan. She asked if Mr. Rooker was suggesting that it be added to the list. Mr. Rooker said the Board
could simply add a condition that the special use permit could not be exercised until the improvements were
made, privately or publicly. He said people who obtain rezonings are often required to make improvements
necessary to alleviate any significant problem.
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
Mr. Davis said almost the exact same issue has been litigated by the Virginia Supreme Court. The
standard as to whether or not the Board can require a turn lane as part of special use permit approval is
whether this development substantially generates the need for it. Given the findings of VDOT and the
Countys Engineering staff, he does not think the fact situation exists because they found that the condition
=
merits a turn lane now. The question is if there were no development there at all, would this development
A
generate the need for a turn lane? If that were the case, the County might be able to require a turn lane.
@
He has not seen that question answered.
Mr. Rooker said that is a piece of information the Board does not have. Mr. Davis said unless this
church itself generates the need for a turn lane, the Supreme Court has found that under special use
permit powers a locality cannot require that as a condition of the special use permit.
Mr. Cilimberg said he did not understand the statement that there was a question which had not
been answered. Mr. Davis said the question is, if there were no development in the area at all, would this
church generate the need there for a turn lane? Mr. Cilimberg said if there were no existing development in
Colthurst, Colthurst Drive would not be there. The church would be accessing their property from Barracks
Road so might be required to have turn lanes for access directly from Barracks Road. Staff did not
encourage that type of access because of the existence of the Colthurst Drive intersection.
Mr. Rooker said one way or the other they would be accessing their property from Barracks Road.
The question is whether the church itself would generate sufficient traffic to require a left-turn lane.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board had received a memorandum from Jack Kelsey saying that in staffs
=
opinion, the proposed church contributes to, but does not significantly generate, the need for
A
improvements to the Barracks Road/Colthurst Drive intersection. He also said VDOT has no plans to put
@A
in a turn-lane there, but the County would recommend a condition that the developer reserve the dedication
to public use on demand of the County a ten-foot strip of right-of-way on the frontage of the property
adjacent to Barracks Road for future turn-lane and pavement improvements to the Barracks
Road/Colthurst Drive intersection. He understands he is saying the church does not significantly generate
@
traffic at that intersection, but to correct the problem there it would require a ten-foot right-of-way along
Barracks Road for future improvements. He asked if that was a correct interpretation of the
recommendation. Mr. Cilimberg said that is correct. He called the Boards attention to paperwork which
=
was included in the packet for today that analyzes the impact of St. David's by itself. The second of the
three worksheets in the packet indicates that St. David's by itself on Barracks Road would require a 150-
foot taper, no deceleration lane, and no left-turn lanes.
Mr. Dorrier asked the meaning of taper. Mr. Cilimberg said it does not store vehicles, but just
A@
allows the driver to slip off to the right while making a right-turn.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there is existing right-of-way to the left of Colthurst Drive which would allow
such a taper. Mr. Cilimberg said he is not sure. Mr. Davis said he does not think so because he believes it
is a 30-foot prescriptive right-of-way. Mr. Bowerman said the applicant would then not have any control
over the creation of that taper.
Mr. Melton said all of Barracks Road (Route 654) has a 60-foot right-of-way through this area.
They are being asked for an additional 10 feet on the church side. Mr. Davis asked about the taper on the
other side of Colthurst Drive. Mr. Melton said the applicant has no control over that property.
Mr. Rooker asked the cost of constructing a left-turn lane. Mr. Jack Kelsey, Chief of Engineering,
said to build a left-turn lane would require a widening of Barracks Road to provide a 200-foot left-turn lane
and a 150-foot taper lane, plus work to deal with the approach of traffic to these lanes.
Mr. Dorrier said he understands that staff is not recommending that the road be widened and the
taper installed. Mr. Kelsey said when staff looked at the traffic impacts, they determined that the church
would not be contributing greatly to the existing problem.
Mr. Dorrier asked when Mr. Kelsey believes the need will be there. Mr. Kelsey said the intersection
needs turn lanes now. If Colthurst were a new subdivision being built right now, turn lanes would be
required as part of the development under the site plan for this church, he cannot require the church to put
in the turn lanes.
Mr. Rooker said it is presently an unsafe situation. He questions whether the Board should approve
a discretionary use that will increase traffic at an already unsafe intersection. If there were residential
property at the back of Colthurst that was seeking a rezoning to add units, he would not vote in favor
because it is a discretionary act.
Mr. Dorrier said the question is whether the Board penalizes an applicant for putting in a use which
does not significantly contribute to the problem. He would like to know how much this improvement would
cost and whether VDOT has anything to say about it. Mr. Cilimberg said any project for that intersection
with left-turn lanes would require at least 1000 feet for transition in and out of the turn. It would be a fairly
significant project. Improvements have been in the Six-Year Plan in the past, but this one is not in the plan
now, nor is it anticipated to be in the plan in the foreseeable future. Mr. Kelsey said staff could not even
guess at a price because there is quite a large volume of traffic that would have to be controlled through
that zone. That has an impact on the cost of the traffic. Mr. Cilimberg said speed limits also contribute to
the length of the improvement.
Ms. Thomas said it is time to make a decision.
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
Mr. Barry Marshall said he is a member of the church, but he arrived late. He said everyone here is
in agreement that the Highway Department should do something about the intersection, whether St. Davids
=
Church goes there or not. He hopes the Board will not hold the church hostage in its effort to get
something done. He said they will not be building a church for several years. He asked that the Board not
turn down their request for a special permit at this time.
Mr. Bowerman said he has concluded that the addition of the church is not going to be a significant
detriment to the existing situation. As the church grows, he thinks they will have activities there beyond
Sundays. The major activity on Sunday is generally at a time when people are still in their homes. He is not
familiar with Barracks Road at 10:00 a.m. on Sunday, but it cant be as bad as it is at 5:00 p.m. on
=
weekdays. Therefore, he moved to approve SP-2000-057, subject to the seven conditions recommended
by the Planning Staff.
Mr. Rooker said there were several concerns expressed about people parking along Colthurst
Drive. He asked if there can be a condition imposed to prevent parking along Colthurst Drive by church
members. He thinks the 32 parking spaces for a church that will hold 125 people, appears to be small for
the size of the congregation.
Mr. Bowerman said parking is based on the number of square feet in the church.
Ms. Thomas said the church wanted more parking spaces, but it is the Boards desire to limit the
=
amount of impervious paving in a watershed area that led the Planning Staff and Commission to reduce the
number of parking spaces. She thinks parking can always be kept back from an intersection. Mr. Davis
said it is a VDOT road, so they would restrict parking on it. He does not know how the road would be
signed.
Ms. Thomas said she does not know how parking could be restricted entirely on Colthurst because
people in the subdivision have parties, so sometimes there would be that type of parking.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier who said he thinks the Board might recommend that the
road go in the Six-Year plan in the near future.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the Board should also request that VDOT lower the speed limit at that
intersection. Mr. Tucker suggested that after the Board votes on this request, that it take a separate action
requesting that VDOT do a speed analysis. Mr. Cilimberg said VDOT has already said they will conduct the
study.
Roll was called at this time, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote.
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: Mr. Rooker.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1) The church shall be limited to one structure with a maximum one hundred twenty
five (125) seat sanctuary;
2) Commercial setback standards, as set forth in 21.7.2 of the Albemarle County
'
Zoning Ordinance, shall be maintained adjacent to residential or RA zoning districts;
3) There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a
separate special use permit, or amendment to this permit;
4) There shall be no cemetery on the site without approval of an amendment to this
permit;
5) Construction of the 125-seat sanctuary shall commence on or before the expiration
date of a signed final site plan based on preliminary site plan SDP-01-117 (as
shown on the plan dated April 19, 2002, and prepared by Rivanna Engineering &
Surveying, PLC). If SDP-01-117 expires or is withdrawn without the signing of a final
site plan, this permit shall expire five (5) years from the date of approval of this
permit;
6) Health Department approval of well and septic systems; and,
7) The applicant shall reserve for public dedication to public use, upon demand of the
County, a ten (10) foot strip of right-of way along the frontage of the property
adjacent to Barracks Road for future turn lane and taper improvements to the
Barracks Road-Colthurst Drive intersection.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. ZMA-1999-13. Young America (Sign # 70). Public hearing on a request to
rezone approx 3.50 acs to allow for HC uses. Loc on approx 9.099 acs znd LI & an unzoned, abandoned
highway right-of-way. Portions of TM 76M1, Pl 1 loc on E sd of Fifth St Ext just N of its intersec w/I-64.
(Property designated for Industrial & Regional Service uses in Neighborhood 5 in the Comprehensive Plan.)
Scottsville Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on May 20 and May 27,
2002.)
__________
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
Agenda Item No. 18. SP-1999-059. Young America (Sign #67). Public hearing on request for
approval of approx 4.00 acs for fill of the flood plain of Biscuit Run at its confluence with Moores Creek.
Loc on approx 12.897 acs znd LI & HC. Portions of TM 76M1, P 1 & TM 76, P 55A. Loc on E sd of Fifth
St Extd just N of its intersec w/I-64. Scottsville Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily
Progress on May 20 and May 27, 2002.)
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant requests a Zoning Map Amendment of approximately 3.5 acres to
allow Highway Commercial uses on properties located on about 9.099 acres zoned Light Industrial and an
unzoned, abandoned highway right-of-way. The property is located on the east side of Fifth Street
Extended just north of its intersection with Interstate 64. The special use permit is for approval of
approximately 4.0 acres for grading the flood plain of Biscuit Run at its confluence with Moores Creek. The
properties and the abandoned right-of-way comprise approximately 12.897 acres and are zoned Light
Industrial, Highway Commercial, and no zoning.
Mr. Cilimberg said that on May 22, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and
reviewed these requests. The Commission recommended denial based on the applicants inability to
=
commit to or provide detail to several broad concerns. At its meeting on June 20, 2001, the Board agreed
with the Commission and recommended that the applicant work with staff and the Commission to provide
information on 10 items before it would reconsider the request. The applicant has worked on those 10
areas of concern and has submitted a plan to address those issues.
Mr. Cilimberg said a proffered plan of development has been submitted. Some aspects of the plan
remain speculative in that the ultimate user has not been identified, and there may be a desire to shift the
location of some parking. The intent of the proffers is to list the items which staff feels will be important to
the eventual site plan, although items which are not specifically listed may be altered if found to be
generally in accord with the proffered plan.
Mr. Cilimberg said there is a proffered list of specific uses of the site. Those are in keeping with
uses identified in the Comprehensive Plans Interstate/Interchange Development Policy. Regarding
=
Greenway Trails, the applicant proffered provision for a greenway easement along both sides of Moores
Creek and along the eastern side of Biscuit Run. The dedication of these easements, as well as a $500.00
contribution toward repair of the bridges which will serve as stream crossings for the greenway, are seen as
positive aspects of this proposal. The applicant has proffered additional vegetative screening between the
projects proposed buildings and the greenway trails to mask the development from the trails.
=
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant has reduced the impacts to the one hundred foot stream buffer by
reducing the area of fill slightly and pulling all grading and construction activities outside the waterway 50
feet of the buffer. In other words, it is to maintain a sufficient area of buffer even though it would be reduced
from the one hundred foot stream buffer that is normally in place. He said the encroachment of the project
in the one hundred foot stream buffer along Moores Creek will be offset by a mitigation plan approved by
the Countys Engineering Department. He said the applicant remains uncertain as to who the eventual
=
users of the property will be. As to mitigation of traffic impacts, Proffer No. 7 lays out the conditions
whereby the applicant will perform a traffic study to the satisfaction of the County and VDOT. The
mitigating improvements shown as necessary by the study will be required on the site plan.
Mr. Cilimberg said as to stormwater management, the applicant has provided a conceptual plan for
managing stormwater on the site. The Engineering Department has reviewed the applicants proposal and
=
believes a viable solution can be produced at the site plan review stage. The impacts to the flood plain
have been deemed to be within acceptable limits by both the County Engineering Department and the
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Mr. Cilimberg said the most recently submitted concept plan meets many of the concerns raised by
the initial Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and later reviews by ARB staff. The applicant has
proffered to bring the convenience store up to the setback line from Fifth Street. He also proffered to place
the fuel canopy and pumps behind the store. Most of these proffered items could only be
recommendations of the ARB. By incorporating these items into the proffered concept plan, the ARB will
have more control when it reviews the project at the site plan stage.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommended approval of both ZMA-99-13 with proffers, and SP-99-59.
He said the Planning Commission, by a vote of 4:1, recommended approval of both. The one dissenting
vote was caused by concern about the flood plain. He said the proffers associated with this request have
been signed, but the signatures have not yet been verified as valid so the proffers can be accepted by the
County. The Board can go ahead with the public hearing, and if the Board wishes to approve the request it
would need to be based on condition that the signatures be verified.
Mr. Rooker asked about Proffer No. 7 concerning the traffic study and the possibility of a traffic
light. He asked if the applicant would be required to build those improvements before getting a certificate of
occupancy. Mr. Cilimberg said that is the intent. They would be required to construct because this is a
rezoning and they are proffering to do the things set out in No. 7. Mr. Davis said the proffer says these
things would have to be provided prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
Mr. Dorrier asked what bridge will be improved. Mr. Bob Smith, representing the applicant, said it is
an old bridge that crosses Old Lynchburg Road just a short distance off of Fifth Street.
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
Mr. Rooker asked about the entrance and exits of the property. Mr. Cilimberg said the entrance is
into and out of the Holiday Inn South parking lot. Mr. Rooker said he was trying to distinguish this case from
the last one. Mr. Davis said this is a rezoning request, and they have proffered the improvements.
Mr. Dorrier asked about the greenway easement. He asked if that land is being proffered to the
County. Mr. Smith said yes.
A@
At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing, and asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Bob Smith said he represents the applicant. Present with him are Mr. Dale Ludwick, Manager
of the Holiday Inn South, the people who own the property, and Mr. Dave Collins of John McNair Engineers.
He said the applicants started working on this project in 1997. They submitted the rezoning application and
the fill application in September, 1999. They did a wetlands report in 1999, a FEMA report in 2000, and got
VDOTs approval in 1999 after getting a piece of property from VDOT which it had vacated. The applicants
=
have worked with the ARB, the Countys Engineering Department and other County staff in order to get this
=
project moving. They worked with Parks and Recreation on the Greenway part of this project. It seems to
be a very important piece of property for the greenway project since it will link up Biscuit Run and Moores
Creek. He said the Holiday Inn people granted them permission to use their property just last Saturday. He
then showed to the Board a picture of the people in the community who came to that ceremony (copy on
file in the Clerks Office.)
=
Mr. Smith said he did a fiscal impact study on this property about a year ago. He determined that
the current taxes are about $1400 a year. If the property is developed as requested, he calculates that the
taxes would amount to $267,000. He gave this information to the Countys Fiscal Impact Planner, and the
=
figure was corrected to be about $279,000. He then offered to answer questions.
Mr. Rooker asked him about Proffer No. 2 which restricts uses on the property. He asked if it can
be envisioned that the property might become a truck stop. Mr. Smith said no, the property is not big
A@
enough to accommodate that type of use. Mr. Rooker asked if there would be a problem eliminating that
as a potential use. Mr. Smith said he did not think so. Mr. Rooker said the property is very close to streams
and having it as a truck stop would lead to the potential for polluting the streams. Mr. Smith said truck
A
stop was added at the recommendation of County staff. They do not anticipate that being one of the uses.
@
Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. Smith would have a problem with taking that language out. Mr. Smith said no.
A@
Mr. Dorrier said it is recommended in the proffers that certain greenway areas be given to the
County. Mr. Smith said it would be through an easement to the County, but the applicants will retain
ownership of the property.
Ms. Thomas asked if it is an easement for use of the property as a pathway. Mr. Smith said yes.
A@
They have also agreed in the proffers to build a set of steps down to the greenway and a vehicular
travelway. In the future, if there were need to get equipment into that area, there would be access. They
have agreed to leave the other side of Biscuit Run in its natural state, undisturbed. Mr. Davis said that is in
Proffer No. 8 where they proffer a vegetated buffer of the development from the greenway in addition to the
other regular landscaping requirements.
Mr. Rooker asked if providing access to the greenway by easement is something commonly done,
rather than granting a fee in the property. Mr. Davis said it has been done both ways. He said some
owners prefer to dedicate the property because it eliminates any liability issues they may have. The State
Code somewhat protects owners from liability in these types of issues. It has been done both ways.
Mr. Rooker asked if the County Attorneys Office has a standard agreement form they use for this
=
purpose. Mr. Davis said they have a standard type of agreement which basically provides that the property
will remain in a natural state and it gives the County the right to have access through it for purposes of the
greenway system.
Mr. Dorrier asked about an area shown on the plat, and asked if it were being proffered to the
County. Mr. Smith said no. It will be undisturbed. Ms. Thomas said that property is part of Proffer No. 8A
A@
which says there will be a vegetated buffer. They will own the property, but are proffering to keep it
vegetated as a buffer. Mr. Smith said originally they were going to grant the greenway easement on the
other side of Biscuit Run, but the greenway people wanted it on the opposite side, so it was reversed
(please see copy of Conceptual Site Plan on file). Mr. Steve Barnes, Planning staff, said the buffer that is
referred to in Proffer No. 8A is along the 3:1 fill slope. That is where the plantings would go. Mr. Cilimberg
said Mr. Dorrier was pointing to the mitigation plan area, not the easement. Mr. Davis said that will also be
an undisturbed vegetated area.
At this time, Ms. Thomas asked if anyone from the public wished to speak. With no one from the
public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Ms. Thomas said she was trying to picture how this area will be used. There is a hotel being built at
the present time on the other side of Fifth Street, and then there is this hotel. Sometimes, people staying in
hotels become pedestrians and she asked if there is any easy way to get to the shopping areas which are
actually inside the Citys limits. There are no sidewalks on this part of Fifth Street, and there is no other way
=
proposed for walking. The Greenway goes along the waterways and not across them. Mr. Barnes said the
$500 would be used to repair the one bridge that would allow one to cross Moores Creek. It is a pedestrian
means of getting to the area Ms. Thomas has mentioned. Mr. Barnes said a challenge faced in developing
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
an east/west movement for the greenway system in this area is getting across Fifth Street, but that is an
issue which is bigger than this project itself.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks this project is in keeping with the area, and he will move approval. Mr.
Davis said staff does not have proffers on which it has been able to verify signatures. He would request that
the Board defer these petitions until the next meeting. He suggested that the public hearing on Agenda
Item No. 18 be held before deferring.
At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing on SP-1999-059, since she had not mentioned
that item when the other public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public
hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Dorrier then moved for deferral of ZMA-1999-13 and SP-1999-059 until the proffers are in
hand and the signatures thereon have been verified by the County Attorney. The petitions will then be
included on the next available agenda.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. He said on the site plan where the 3:1 slope and the
fill is shown, there is a notation saying proposed boundary for rezoning. He asked if that means on-site
A@
the zoning is Highway Commercial and off-site the zoning is still Light Industrial. Ms. Thomas said that was
her assumption. Mr. Bowerman said it is almost all in the greenway. Mr. Barnes said the part of their parcel
which is not under consideration is a wedge which (on the plan) continues off to the right, and is adjacent to
several allied parcels which are off to the right. Mr. Cilimberg said the natural dividing line ended up being
the stream.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. ZTA-2001-06. Fill and waste. Public hearing on an Ordinance to amend Sec
3.1, Definitions, & Sec 5.1.28, Borrow, fill, or waste areas, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County
Code, to add definitions related to borrow, fill or waste activities, to amend the types of materials that may
be placed in a fill & waste area from soil & rock to soil & inert materials such as rubble, concrete, bricks,
broken bricks & blocks & to amend the regulations applicable to borrow, fill or waste areas & activities
including, but not limited to, reducing from 10,000 cubic yards to 10,000 square feet the threshold at which
the activity is subject to an approved plan, requiring ongoing maintenance of the activity area & delineating
prohibited locations, hours of operation, duration limitations & surety and reclamation requirements. (Notice
of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on May 20 and May 27, 2002.)
Mr. Barnes said this was a request from a citizen to expand the list of materials that would be
deemed acceptable in fill and waste operations. This list would be expanded to include soil, rock, asphalt,
block, brick and concrete. Asphalt was of concern to the Planning Commission and they did not
recommend adding road pavement/asphalt as acceptable fill and waste materials. Beyond what the
applicant requested, staff looked at two items. One was the environmental effects of expansion of the list,
and the second was aesthetic impacts. The environmental impact was dealt with by extending stream
buffer protection as found in Chapter 17 of the County Code. Basically, it would disallow fill in areas
protected by the Water Protection Ordinance, and there could be no fill in flood plains. There was
discussion of using fill materials as part of stream bank stabilization. That is an item staff decided not to
study because they feel it was not related to the original request. There is another zoning text amendment
request pending which would deal with that question.
Mr. Barnes said as to aesthetics, staff put a limitation on the amount of time that a site can be used
as a fill or waste area, and also defined what the ultimate appearance of the site should be.
At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing. The applicant was not present.
Mr. Jeff Werner was present to speak for the Piedmont Environmental Council (he handed in quite
a lengthy statement which is on file in the Clerks Office). He said that asphalt is a petrochemical product,
=
and such products are not inert. Also, asphalt is a recyclable material. He hopes that no decision by the
County would ever encourage dumping in lieu of recycling. He said PEC asks if it is in the best interest of
the community to allow asphalt to be dumped on the countryside. He said some rather shaky arguments
have been put forward which advocate rural dumping over recycling or proper disposal. If that logic were
adhered to, it might not be long before inert fiberglass insulation, non-biodegradable asphalt roof shingles,
and other environmentally stable items such as old tires and used appliances might be legally dumped.
Mr. Wayne Russell distributed photos of an illegal dump on the property adjoining his property. He
opposes this amendment. He submitted a petition containing 100 names requesting that dump materials
remain at the dump. They cannot follow the logic that any low spot in Albemarle County should be subject
to this type of dumping which includes conduits, etc. In addition, there are reactive materials such as steel,
which have a laceration, puncture hazard. It is not only bio-hazards, or petroleum, or even asbestos. He
understands this amendment, if one obtains a permit, would allow this to take place county-wide. He asked
who would be liable if the County legalized what is illegal now. He said all of these things can be scooped
up with a front-end loader. He has over 30 years in the construction business, and sees what happens to
this stuff. It is all scooped up and goes in the hopper. He said when an old building is torn down, it has
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
friable asbestos, which is the most dangerous type. All of this is gathered, and it is dumped. He said these
carcinogenic items could be left exposed to the elements for over a year. He did not see much in the
amendment that would benefit the County in any way. He is not in favor of seeing county-wide dumps and
is particularly concerned with overflow into streams.
Ms. Kathryn Russell said she lives next to a dump site where the dumping has been going on for
seven years. It is an eyesore, a road hazard, and has caused her a drainage problem. The trucks coming
in are intrusive, and dust is raised. It is not an approved fill, and when the County tried to make contact with
the owner/contractor he ran trucks way into the night to cover up the stuff with dirt, so what he had dumped
could not be seen. At that point, he also called it a farm road, so the County has no regulation over it. For
the County to consider allowing the creation of more such offensive uses of land is beyond her
understanding. She said tree trunks were mentioned in the staffs report as an unacceptable fill material.
=
That highlights a concern about using demolition materials for fill. The reason tree trunks are not
appropriate is that they eventually degrade, form a soft pocket which can lead to settling, sink holes, and
damage to structures and roadways. By the same token, large slabs of concrete and asphalt which are not
properly broken and compacted, will, over time and under the pressure of buildings and roadways, crack
and collapse and cause the same problems. The amendment does not address the issue of proper
compaction, and due to the impossibility of monitoring the myriad of dump sites, it is likely that there would
be a failure of proper compaction. Is the County ready to accept liability later when there is a failure of the
fill to stand the test of time and weight? She said the asphalt used in the California reservoirs mentioned in
the staffs report is not contaminated demolition material. It is a new material specifically designed, applied
=
and compacted for specific projects. It is not material torn up from roadways, parking lots and gas stations.
One only need to check the website of the Asphalt Institute to find out what they have to say about these
issues. Asphalt is also highly recyclable. Why would the County discourage efforts to recycle in order to
make it easier on certain businessmen? Surely, the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority could use the tipping
fees generated by disposal, as much as the contractors could use the extra money. Every dollar the RSWA
collects at Ivy is a dollar the City and County do not have to give them. If it is difficult and expensive to
dispose of the asphalt, perhaps that is an increased incentive to reuse it. What interest does the County
have in subsidizing the profits of developers? After four-plus years of drought conditions, there are many
small washes and seasonal springs that are dry. By changing zoning laws to encourage filling, these areas
can be considered available to be reclaimed by dumping and covering. One must wonder what will happen
when the dry conditions are alleviated.
Ms. Debbie Stockton said she is the manager for the Crozet Farmers Market. She speaks partly
=
on behalf of the people who support their efforts. She said that in the staff report regarding this
amendment, the report compared asphalt to peanut butter. There is a tone in it that makes it appear the
Countys Engineering Department has become an advocacy group for contractors. She doubts this is their
=
desire, but that is the appearance. She asked why a County department would advocate for an elite group.
Total disregard for the rest of the population is shown, particularly those who use, or want to keep
available, land in the County for farming. She thinks any support of this amendment is a strong statement
that farming is not respected in the community, and farmers are not welcome. She thinks it shows a
callous attitude toward those people who have tried to maintain and increase the number of farmers in the
area.
Ms. Cathleen Jump, a Crozet resident, said she agrees with the comments by the PEC. She said
everyone has to pay to live in a clean environment. There have been economic arguments made that the
added burden of asking the contractor to pay to dispose of these materials will not be borne by the
contractor, but by house buyers. To follow that argument through, it is already a cost of doing construction
in the County. Logically, if this amendment is passed, and the law changed, there should actually be a
decrease in house prices. She does not believe that will happen. She said asphalt can be recycled. She
would like to make it more cost efficient to move away from materials like asphalt and other traditional
building materials. All should think about using different sustainable materials. The fact that they may be
more expensive at this point would be offset by not having to pay for dumping afterward. This amendment
does not seem to be a step toward the future, but a step backward. The fact that Albemarle has stronger
regulations than the State reflects the fact that people put a high priority in the beauty of the County, and the
safety of the land. She asked that the Board not take a step backward.
Mr. Ralph Hemrick, a resident of Route 53, said he would like to finish the statement that Mrs.
Russell was reading. He said this activity would not be monitored if the service area were under 10,000
square feet regardless of the depth of the fill. It is an inappropriate change to consider. What will occur
when the dry conditions are alleviated? Wet weather springs and wash areas will degrade from
underneath. Are the contaminants in the fill going to be subject to washing through? There are too many
sites like this that exist in the County that could be affected. When a problem appears years later, who will
be liable? The contractor will have been unregulated in the dumping, have come and gone, and the
property may have changed hands more than once. Suppose a wash is filled, covered and vegetation has
grown, but the dry springs start running again after the water table has recovered. Are all sites going to be
noted so that when there is building on them wells will not be drilled too close to sites with contaminates?
Will there be notations so that drain field construction will not run into snags? Is the county going to keep a
database of fill areas and have them engineer-tested prior to allowing building on them? This amendment
leaves too many questions open and offers no one other than developers and contractors any benefit. In
rural areas there are separate issues. Suppose he wanted to start a small scale organic truck farm and
unknowingly purchased a property that had been used as a dump site. In soil testing, what might then be
found down grade from the site? Who would be responsible for insuring that these issues do not come up?
While there has been a drought recently and many washes gone dry, what will happen when they are filled
and the water must go elsewhere? Since these sites will not be monitored if they are below 10,000 square
feet, the County may not even be aware of them. Who, then, is liable?
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
placed before the Board.
Ms. Thomas said some good points had been mentioned during the hearing.
Mr. Rooker suggested holding a work session on this amendment. He said he is not prepared to
vote today. He thinks a number of the issues raised need to be dealt with.
Mr. Dorrier asked staff to look into how many fill or waste areas currently exist in the County.
Ms. Thomas said if this is to be deferred, it would help staff if the Board listed the items they should
study. There is the compaction issue, the preview of sites so the Board will know if there are any standards
for the area that will be used for a fill area, keeping track of the sites, someway to notify subsequent
landowners that it was a site, and the issue of asphalt.
Mr. Rooker said one of the speakers mentioned that there is information on the asphalt industrys
=
website having to do with the use of asphalt as a fill. His other question is the use of old asphalt which may
have spilled oil or gasoline on it.
Ms. Thomas said there was something which came up during the Commissions meeting that was
=
not mentioned today, and that is the possibility of creating a recycling plant. The Zoning Administrator at
that meeting did not give a complete answer as to whether there can be a recycling plant. She asked if all
the Board members agree that this item should be deferred.
Mr. Dorrier said he agrees. Mr. Bowerman said there are too many unanswered questions. It was
the consensus to defer this item to the Boards meeting on July 3, 2002.
=
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. Compensation for Constitutional Officers' Staff, Discussion of.
Mr. Tucker said at the May 8 meeting of the Board, the Commonwealths Attorney, Mr. James
=
Camblos, presented a written request to the Board (request also signed by Sheriff Ed Robb and Circuit
Court Clerk Shelby Marshall), asking for a pay increase for their staff members. This increase would offset
the lack of any salary increase from the State for FY 03. The Board asked staff to provide some
>
alternatives. Currently the State provides approximately 71 percent of the total salary and benefit costs for
all the constitutional officers and their staff with the remaining 29 percent coming from local sources. For
the Commonwealth's Attorney, the County pays approximately 18 percent of the salary and benefit costs.
In addition to a two percent stipend for everyone, six out of seven staff members receive a flat stipend,
some of which are attached to the position and some of which are attached only to the current staff
member. These stipends have been granted at different times for retention purposes, as well as equity
concerns with the County Attorney's staff. The County also pays approximately 18 percent of the salary and
benefit costs for all Circuit Court Clerk staff members, who all receive a two percent stipend on top of their
State salaries. The Sheriff's deputies receive a six percent stipend on top of their State salaries with the
County paying approximately 40 percent of compensation and benefits (this includes six locally-funded
positions). None of the Constitutional Officers themselves, i.e., Sheriff, Clerk and Commonwealths
=
Attorney, receive a stipend, but receive the salary set by the State budget act. The Registrar had been
receiving a five percent stipend up until this year, but during budget work sessions the Board approved a ten
percent stipend at the Registrar's request.
Mr. Tucker said the current system of administering differing levels of compensation to the various
constitutional officers' staffs is difficult to maintain and creates inconsistencies among the different offices.
Many of the past adjustments were recommended to bring salaries up to market and/or to address
retention or equity issues with County scale positions. However, each year any logical schedule or system
of salary enhancements can be sidetracked by what the State decides to give or not give. Comparable
market data for these positions has not been collected or updated since 1999. In the absence of a
comprehensive and market-driven analysis of constitutional officers staff salaries, the following two
=
short-term options are presented for review and consideration:
Option 1. Provide a one-time 2.5 percent bonus to all constitutional officers staff members, which
=
is comparable to what the State is doing for all other State employees in FY 03. Although this does
>
not address many of the commonality or market issues raised by Mr. Camblos, the constitutional
officers staff positions could be part of the market data collected over the summer with a
=
longer-term solution deferred until the following year. Placing the constitutional office staffs on the
County payroll plan would require a more in-depth analysis than is possible before the start of the
fiscal year in July. Therefore, the one-time bonus could be a short-term solution until staff could
analyze a longer-term solution and present it to the Board. The cost of this one-time option for FY
03 is $48,176.00.
>
Option 2. Increase Sheriff percentage stipends by 1.5 percent (from 6.0 percent to 7.5 percent)
and increase Clerk of the Circuit Court and Commonwealth Attorney's stipends (excluding flat
stipends) by 1.8 percent (from 2.0 percent to 3.8 percent). This option provides a 3.8 percent
stipend that is comparable in size, not in increase, to the 3.8 percent merit pool received by County
employees in FY 03. This option provides a slightly smaller increase to the Sheriff deputies since
>
they already receive a larger percentage stipend than the others. This option could be considered
a one-time compensation adjustment similar to the 2.5 percent option or the higher stipend could
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
also be built into their annual salary supplement in future years. This option would cost $22,447.00
in FY 03.
>
Mr. Tucker said there are only two options presented and obviously a number of other permutations
with their associated costs could be developed that range between the anticipated FY 03 cost of
>
$48,176.00 for Option 1 and $22,447.00 for Option 2. Should the Board be interested in a longer range
analysis that would establish compensation commonality among all the offices or place these employees
on the County pay scale, staff would propose that these positions be included in the market study to be
undertaken by the Human Resources Department this summer.
Ms. Thomas said since the Board meeting is running late, she asked that comments be brief.
Sheriff Ed Robb said his deputies provide an outstanding service to the community in terms of
providing safety and security in the Juvenile/Domestic Relations Court which is known to be the most
dangerous in the state. He has only had two complaints in two and one-half years related to civil process.
There have been few complaints related to the rest of the service and there have been no disciplinary
actions in that time. He said the deputies have complemented the Albemarle County Police Department
beyond what they have been asked to do, including the difficult Foxfield Races. In addition, they are
operating with 100 volunteers including a fully accredited certified trained search and rescue team which
the County never had before. This is at no cost to the County. This Department has brought more money
to Albemarle County over the last two and one-half years from the State Compensation Board than any
previous administration. Also, he does not think the court security fee the Board just voted on today would
have passed the Legislature if it had not been for this personal efforts. It is not fair that his deputies do not
get an appreciative thank-you by having the Board provide them with additional support.
Mr. Jim Camblos said he thinks his office has done a good job over the last 11 years as the
Countys Commonwealth Attorney. He said over the last two years, 2500 County employees have received
=
an eight-percent increase (4.2 and 3.8). This year, the State is getting a 2.5 percent bonus. As for the
second option, he thinks the 1.8 percent is a slap in the face. It is not a 3.8, but adding a 1.8 to the 2.0.
A@
He asked the Board for the 2.5 percent that the State is getting, and then adding them to the Human
Resources study this summer, and that they be given the option of going onto the Countys pay plan in the
=
future. He said his office will go on the County plan if they are put there; he is tired of being a step-child.
Ms. Thomas said there are two options before the Board. Maybe the Board can choose one of
them.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks Option 1 is reasonable and fair. The raise is less than that given County
employees, but he thinks the real comparison should be with what the State has done.
Mr. Dorrier said he will second what Mr. Rooker said. He asked if the Sheriff wants his employees
to become a part of the Countys pay plan, then that issue can be discussed further.
=
Ms. Thomas said the meeting is running late, so the Board can deal with that question later. Her
concern is that this plea is being addressed to the wrong people, and the wrong people are being told this is
not fair. It is not this Boards decision to not give the bonus, that was a state decision. She thinks the same
=
message should be said just as strongly to the Countys State representatives. She is tired of the state
=
doing this. These offices are only the most recent example. She has said to State legislators that the state
is balancing its budget on the back of local governments. The County has always resisted doing this in the
past. If the County picks up what the state is not funding, then the state will never have any reason to do the
funding because they will simply depend on local government to pick it up. If she does not agree with the
motion, it is not because she wants to be disrespectful to the offices or the good job that is done for the
local taxpayer by those offices, but, she thinks this is the wrong group to be picking up the error that is being
made at the state level. It is being made not just in this instance, but in many instances of state funding.
At this time, roll was called, and Option 1 as set out above, was adopted by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: Ms. Thomas.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. Review of Strategic Planning and Visioning Goals.
Due to lack of time, this item was deferred to the Boards meeting on July 3, 2002.
=
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Appointments.
Mr. Bowerman offered motion to appoint Mr. Paul Howard, Jr. to the Rivanna Solid Waste
Authority Citizens Advisory Committee, to complete the term of Ms. Cynthia Dupree which will expire on
December 31, 2003.
Mr. Bowerman offered motion to appoint Ms. Carole Wernstrom to the Region Ten Community
Services Board to replace Mr. Dwight Colley, whose term had expired. This term will run from July 1, 2002,
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
to June 30, 2005.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 23. Recess and Reconvene in Meeting Room 235. At 4:15 p.m., the Board
recessed and moved to meeting Room 235 for a joint meeting with the Albemarle County School Board.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 24. Joint Meeting with School Board. The meeting was called back to order at
4:18 p.m.
Present at this time were School Board members: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Mr. Gary W. Grant, Mr.
Stephen H. Koleszar, Ms. Diantha H. McKeel, Ms. Pamela R. Moynihan, Mr. Gordon J. Walker and Mr.
Charles M. Ward.
School Board Officers/staff present: Dr. Kevin C. Castner, Superintendent; Dr. Frank E. Morgan,
Assistant Superintendent for Support Services; Dr. Jean S. Murray, Assistant Superintendent for Instruction;
Mr. Mark Trank, Deputy County Attorney; Mr. Al Reaser, Director of Building Services; and Ms. Tiffany
Townsend, Deputy Clerk of the School Board.
(Note: Mr. Dorrier returned to the meeting at 4:30 p.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 25. Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and the Comprehensive Plan Process,
Discussion of.
Mr. Cilimberg said he was asked to speak about the Comprehensive Plan and how it relates to the
Neighborhood Model. He will speak about the capital programming process as it relates to working with
education staff in enrollment projections and the work of the Schools Long-Range Planning Committee.
=
He said the process, in terms of growth and providing facilities for growth, has not changed at all due to
adoption of the Neighborhood Model. The policies which have been in place for the last 30 years have
been to provide for growth in those places designated in the Comprehensive Plan as development areas.
The boundaries of those areas have changed over the past years. The development area now is actually
not as large as it was when the first Plan was adopted. But, the boundaries are the areas in which the
majority of the Countys growth should be captured, and it is where there should be public facilities to serve
=
that growth. Over the last 12 or so years, there has been an emphasis on placing schools and other public
facilities in those designated development areas.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Neighborhood Model is specifically about the form development will take,
and not whether it should be in development areas, or whether it is going to create some level of growth not
anticipated. It is not about trying to make the development areas any bigger in terms of their holding
capacity. The Comprehensive Plan has already established what the holding capacity should be. The
County has been having difficulty under the type of growth which is occurring getting close to the effective
capacities of the development areas. As a result, the Neighborhood Model has tried to introduce some new
form to provide more efficiencies and more desirability for the development areas. The Comprehensive
Plan assumes a certain level of growth for the County in the forecast period of 20 years and beyond. That
has not changed by the Neighborhood Model or by whether people choose to live in development areas. It
is growth the County will have to accommodate somewhere.
Mr. Cilimberg said when he has talked with the Long-Range Planning Committee over the last
several years, he indicated to them that just because there are projects in the pipeline it does not mean all
A@
those houses will be in place at one time. Certainly, it does not in and of itself drive growth. Those
residences are a response to the demand for housing. He said that each year staff goes over those
projects to determine where they are occurring and where the more significant projects that might drive
particular needs for enrollment capacity are located. Enrollment capacity needs will exist somewhere in the
County. He referred to a map posted on the wall which shows the development areas, all of the school
districts, and pending significant projects (those with more than 20 dwelling units). The vast majority of
those projects are in the development areas. He said the Long-Range Planning Committee has discussed
these projects in detail.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Development Areas section of the Comprehensive Plan is currently before
the Supervisors to incorporate the Neighborhood Model recommendations. The Supervisors have referred
it to DISC II for further review and recommendations before they take action. Also, there has to be a
change in the Community Facilities section of the Plan to better reflect how facilities might be provided for
schools, parks and recreation, fire/rescue, and all public facilities. That will be a Comprehensive Plan
amendment eventually. A third implementation method is the Crozet Master Planning which is in process.
That is a very specific level of planning to determine the future form of development and how land uses will
inter-relate and how to achieve the principles in the Neighborhood Model. He said it will be out of the
changes to the Community Facilities Plan, along with these new Master Plans for the Development Areas,
that the County will be able to identify the kind of capital projects that are necessary for the future.
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
Mr. Cilimberg said that ultimately the CIP will reflect those needs based on the revised Community
Facilities Plan. The CIP has a major review every two years, and this is the year for that review. In reality,
there will not be a lot of work finished this year to allow this CIP review to reflect the Neighborhood Models
=
public facility types of demands. That will not come for another two years.
Mr. Cilimberg said there has been a lot of talk regarding schools under the Neighborhood Model,
that the Model does not speak to any kind of desired capacities for schools. The Model does indicate a
desired site size and it also suggests that some of the recreational facilities which have been provided for
more general public use at schools, be separated from schools and put into other locations in the
development areas. That does not take away the facilities which are necessary to the operation of a
school. He said location of facilities away from the schools will most likely be identified through the master
planning process.
Mr. Cilimberg said that when thinking about schools under the Neighborhood Model, there is a
potential difference in the form of that school. It will not be assumed that every site will accept one school
design. It is not as much fitting the site to the school as fitting the school design to the site. Under the
Neighborhood Model concept, the sites will be somewhat smaller, but it is not being suggested that
enrollments be limited. It also is not saying that all students must be able to walk to school. It says that in
locating these schools, they should be in locations where those children who are within walking distance are
able to walk to school. That puts the responsibility on new development to provide the necessary facilities
to do that. There would also still be bus service to that school for the neighborhoods which surround the
school.
Mr. Cilimberg said that is just a brief overview of what is going on at this time with regard to the
Neighborhood Model. He said there is a process underway which will bring it into the Comprehensive Plan
and into the Capital Improvements Program, but it is not all happening immediately. He offered to answer
questions.
Mr. Ward said Mr. Cilimberg had said the Neighborhood Model does not change the growth areas,
but then gave two instances where it does make a change. One is the idea of small mini-parks. He said
the School Board has been trying to plan for parks and recreation at the elementary schools. Second, the
School Board may have to go back in the CIP and address the idea of providing sidewalks to some of the
schools. The other reason for this meeting which Mr. Cilimberg did not mention is that when the School
Board met with the Planning Commission, they felt pressure that some of the 12 Principles were being
enforced for the new elementary school.
Mr. Cilimberg said there have been no boundary changes of the development areas due to the
Neighborhood Model. There also have been no holding capacity changes. Mr. Ward said what is done
within the growth area affects the CIP. Mr. Cilimberg said that is the reason for the master planning. He
said that at the Planning Commission meeting fitting a site to a school became an issue. What he said
earlier is that one thing to be achieved in the Neighborhood Model is fitting a school to the site. When the
Supervisors and School Board discussed the new southern elementary school site about a year ago, it was
said that the possibility of looking at all sites should be kept open. There needs to be some flexibility in
finding a suitable location for this new school.
Mr. Rooker said the problems the Planning Commission had with Baker-Butler were siting
problems such as: the amount of cut and fill taking place on the site, the way streams were being
impacted, and connectivity to the adjacent neighborhoods. Those issues, except for connectivity, were not
Neighborhood Model issues.
Mr. Koleszar said he thinks one impact on the CIP is that schools should be designed to fit sites
rather than having a generic site plan. That will involve more design and construction costs. He asked if
that additional money will be made available in the CIP when the time comes.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks a school could be built cheaper if it were built to the site, rather than
making the site fit. The cost would vary from site to site.
Mr. Ward said Henley and Jouett Middle schools are the same because the School Board did not
have to go through the whole process since the same plan was used. That occurred for other schools also.
He got the impression that this would not be case in the future under the Neighborhood Model. What is
gained by having commonality is lost because of a specific site requirement under the Neighborhood
Model.
Ms. Thomas said she remembers when Monticello High School was the subject of a big debate.
She said there was a lot of discussion as to how to get in the required number of playing fields without
grading the site down to the bare bones. She said that predated the Neighborhood Model. There is a
A@
growing awareness that some respect must be shown to the land the schools are placed on. She said if
one wants to say there has been a change away from a prototype that assumes you can grade the land flat
and then put the prototype on it, there has been. She said the Neighborhood Model is also encouraging
walking, and it requires sidewalks, it is hoped that plans can be made early enough to get developers to
build those sidewalks. It may also include how a school is situated on the site.
Ms. Thomas said it may be useful for the School Board to see the form of the report the
Supervisors receive from staff on any development request. Staff goes through the 12 steps of the
Neighborhood Model, but obviously not all projects fit every step. That does not mean it is turned down; it
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50)
only gives the Supervisors a way of assessing how much the proposal fits the various aspects of the Model.
She assumes a school project would go through the same kind of review.
Mr. Rooker said it also gives staff some criteria for giving feedback to the developers throughout the
application stage as to the best way to approach the project.
Mr. Bowerman said a few years ago, the Supervisors pushed the School Board to use a school
plan more than once. The plan for Cale Elementary became Agnor-Hurt because of design cost. When
that was done, he does not believe much attention was given to the site. Current thinking about how a
school should fit into the neighborhood and its topography, has changed.
Mr. Ward said the School Board is used to a policy and now it sees 12 principles. He said they
want to be consistent and do not want to go through another session with the Planning Commission like that
which occurred with Baker-Butler. They want guidance up-front. If the principles are policy and they are
enforced by ordinances, that makes it much easier for the School Board. He said it is not about redistricting
, but making sure they have the guidance necessary to do a redistricting and to set school sizes within
per se
the confines set out.
Mr. Dorrier said the big issue to him seems to be the size of the school. Mr. Ward said that is only
one of the issues. The School Board needs to know if these principles will be enforceable. He would
suggest that an ordinance sends out a message which the School Board can work with.
Mr. Rooker said there was no change implemented by the Planning Commission in regard to
Baker-Butler. The problem was the time constraints when it came to the Commission. The Commission
did not have a work session on the site plan, or any exposure to the project. It was presented with a request
that it be approved that night. There was no Commissioner on the site selection committee. No
Commissioner sat in on the meetings about the plans for the school. The problem was a process problem.
Normally, when the Commission gets a project of major proportions, they have a work session, in which
they provide input to staff who then work with the developer, and then it comes back for a public hearing
and approval. That process did not occur in that instance. It was brought to the Commission to rubber-
stamp the facility.
Ms. Thomas said the Supervisors were partly to blame for that because they were the ones who
could not find a site. When a site was found, then there was a problem with time. Some times the County
is the most awkward developer.
Mr. Cilimberg said that in terms of policy, that is what the Community Facilities Plan represents.
The School Board has been following the Plan which has been in place for some years. County staff talks
with School staff about what needs to be included in school sites. That is the reason it is important to make
a change in the Community Facilities plan. It would not be subject to an ordinance. Also, every public
project goes through a review for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. That is where the policy of the
Plan is interpreted and applied in terms of any public project.
Mr. Grant asked if the gray coloring on the map to which Mr. Cilimberg referred are development
areas. The answer was yes. He asked if the School Board should try to find sites in gray areas. Mr.
A@
Cilimberg said that is what the School Board has been doing in the past. Mr. Grant said that was not the
case for Baker-Butler. Several people disagreed, and Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the new Baker-Butler
lies right on the boundary of the growth areas. He said there are several smaller elementary schools which
are located in areas that were designed as villages in previous Comprehensive Plans. He said that with
A@
the exception of the oldest County schools, they all lie in the development areas.
Ms. Thomas said the most visible indication of how the Supervisors enforce the gray areas is that
A@
public water and sewer services are not extended beyond those lines. The Supervisors do not want public
schools using septic systems and water wells. Mr. Cilimberg said that has been the policy since at least the
mid-80s.
Mr. Bowerman said the implication of that is that the sites will be more expensive unless they are
given to the County under a proffer for a development. Sites will also be harder to find, because sites of
that size in the development areas are already scheduled for some other use.
Mr. Davis said there was a Comprehensive Plan amendment adopted a couple of years ago which
allowed only for schools to be located on the edge of the growth area. Mr. Cilimberg said the County
becomes a competitor with the private sector for sites. One thing the master planning can do for the
County is to help locate school sites (15 to 20 years into the future), particularly if dealing with smaller sites.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to switch the conversation and talk about growth. He said it was
mentioned that just because a project is on the drawing board does not mean it will be built. It also was
said that neighborhoods do not drive growth, but are built in response to the growth. In looking at the map
he sees two gray areas; one in Crozet and one at Glenmore. What if each of those sites is one-half of an
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 51)
elementary school? He said that would create a real dilemma. They would need to either build smaller
schools, or redistrict. That is their problem with the current redistricting.
Mr. Cilimberg said in terms of projecting growth, the drivers will be the economic activity of the area.
School kids come with families that are employed. That growth has been fairly steady, and staff has been
able to predict that growth fairly well. In terms of what schools these kids will attend, that will be a factor of
the new development which is occurring. That is why staff looks each year at where new development is
being proposed, and where the trends are for build-out of new projects. Even in relying on the information
provided by developers, they have found that it is two to three times more than the demand will be over that
period of time.
Mr. Boyd said it would be helpful to determine how developers decide how many units they will
build. Mr. Cilimberg said in reality, the developers can build as many houses as they want to. County staff,
along with School staff, tries in its enrollment projection rates to look at the various projects, their timing,
and what they feel will be the demand for housing. It is not a perfect science, so that is why it is checked
each year.
Mr. Boyd said the School Board plans its growth based on system-wide growth. All the figures he
has seen simply project the number of expected students, and not where they are coming from.
Mr. Bowerman said there will be kids from any population growth in the area. He thinks there is a
direct correlation. Mr. Cilimberg said the toughest number to project is that for kindergarten. They use birth
rates from five years prior. Once the kids are in school, they can make fairly accurate projections. Mr.
Reaser said the CIP is built on where staff thinks growth will occur. The operational budget is based on
general overall growth.
Ms. Thomas said population growth is assigned throughout the nation, with Virginia getting a certain
portion. Then, Virginia assigns a number to each county or planning district, and it gets less accurate the
smaller the unit. When it gets to the schools trying to assign growth to an age cohort, it is already less
accurate. Then, in trying to assign it to particular schools, it is even less accurate. She said she was on the
first Long-Range Planning Committee in 1985, and they stumbled straight into this fact. If a developer is
asked how many houses he will build in the next year, they will give a number that is two or three times
greater than what actually is built.
Ms. Moynihan said since the Neighborhood Model is designed to develop certain neighborhoods
with certain infrastructure, should the County work with the developers to develop the Neighborhood Model
which would in itself include schools? Mr. Perkins said if it is a rezoning, the County can ask for a school
site as a proffer. Ms. Moynihan said she thinks some way should be found to require developers to work
with the County to determine where these schools will be located. Mr. Cilimberg said when staff has been
able to identify the need for a school in a particular area, they have been able to work with developers to
reserve a school site. Staff needs to be able to do that with developments coming through the process. He
said there is not a big development requested every year.
Ms. Moynihan said staff knows where the developments are projected to be. Problems begin when
there are old neighborhoods where kids are going to the old schools, and then new people come into new
developments and push those kids out of the schools they want to go to because there are no schools in
these new areas. If the County has a plan to develop neighborhoods, she thinks the County should be able
to work with developers, and developers should have to work with the County to develop the infrastructure
necessary. Mr. Cilimberg said if schools are to be planned for neighborhoods, then the ideal neighborhood
area must be decided first. That is part of what the master planning process is about. Mr. Cilimberg said
there is also a timing aspect to this. Staff worked for a good amount of time on one potential project in the
northern part of the County, which ended up being where the Baker-Butler School has been constructed.
That project never moved to a point where the County was able to get a school site. That project still has
not gone forward.
Ms. Moynihan said the County needs more control over where and how developers are building
their developments so that it can be determine where a school should be located before there is the
necessity for the school to be built. Mr. Cilimberg said that will be part of the master planning process.
Mr. Rooker said if people develop their property according to its existing zoning category, there is
no requirement that they make proffers of any kind. It is only when there is a rezoning of a large parcel of
property that there is an opportunity like that. It happened at Glenmore. A property was reserved for a
school site, and ultimately the County decided not to build a school there. The County is now looking at
other public uses for the property.
Ms. Moynihan said when a developer makes a request, there are ways to get in there without
having them proffer land, to reserve areas for school sites. Mr. Rooker said the land is privately owned, so
the County cant come in and rezone one persons land for a school to support development on an
==
adjacent property. Mr. Cilimberg said the County can buy the land. Mr. Rooker said part of the master
planning process is to ultimately come up with a development scheme for overall communities within the
growth area. Hopefully, that will identify potential school sites. But, those sites would then have to be
acquired. The County cannot force developers to build out a property at any given pace. There are many
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 52)
development lots in the rural areas that can be developed as a matter of right.
Ms. McKeel said she knows that the type of population in neighborhoods cycles. If a small
elementary school is built to support a neighborhood, at some time in the future there will probably be no
children in those neighborhoods to support the schools.
Ms. Thomas said that has happened in a lot of communities, and the old elementary school has
become a senior center. Just because the Neighborhood Model says the schools should be walkable does
not mean that every child has to be within walking distance to that school. There will still be school buses,
and neighborhoods do recycle.
Mr. Boyd said there will be a lot of building in Crozet, and supposedly it will be done under the DISC
model. If a need is created to house 100 high school students, can the County tell the developer during the
planning stages that the students in their development will have to be bussed to Monticello High School
because there is no room in Western Albemarle? He thinks the School Board has the authority to do that.
He said the School Board has a dilemma now. There are students in existing feeder patterns to Albemarle
High School, and now new developments are pushing them out of Albemarle High and into another school
district.
Mr. Bowerman said people in existing neighborhoods do not want new developments, even the
same type of housing, in their neighborhoods because of reasons such as schools, traffic, etc. For every
new development in the urban area, the Board has a myriad of problems connected with that development.
A lot of the development is market-driven and the County has no control over it. Even though there is a
master plan, the County has no control over the size of existing parcels, or their owners, or who buys the
property. However, when there is enough critical mass to create the need for a rezoning, the developer will
often proffer some of the things in the Community Facilities Plan. There is a new housing development
going in next to Dunlora. That will be an opportunity to approach that developer and make a request. On
the other hand, even with the problems Still Meadows caused, it has not supplied a lot of kids to the school
system. It was being designed for older people, but there are people without children moving into that
development. The County has no way of knowing what will happen in any given development. It is not a
science.
Mr. Boyd thinks the County, or the School Board, can be part of that market-driven process.
Mr. Bowerman said in a growing community like this, he knows of no way to put a control on where
the kids show up, or have some orderly way that does not create the need for redistricting.
Mr. Perkins asked the current policy of the School Board concerning kids walking to school. He
lives within sight of the school, but the school bus picks them up and takes them to the school. He thinks
that even with a walkable school, either a school bus will pick them up, or their parents will drive them to
school. People are concerned about traffic hazards for kids walking, and other things.
Ms. Moynihan said there is a safety issue with the walkable schools. Ms. McKeel said sidewalks
A@
should take care of the safety issue. Mr. Perkins said there are predators out there everywhere. Just
because it is a nice new neighborhood does not mean they will not be there.
Ms. Thomas said if the School Board would like to have a discussion about this with someone who
has a Federal grant on this issue in this community, an organization called the Alliance for Community
Choice in Transportation (ACCT) will be taking one of the City elementary schools through the process of
getting more kids to walk to schools on the basis of health problems occurring because kids do not walk
enough, etc. At the end of the coming school year, they will have a lot of experience on the subject.
Mr. Ward said he believes it would be good for the School Board, and the people in the Crozet
community should also hear about it. Those questions are being asked because parents are concerned
about security. If sidewalks are put in the CIP and if the School Board decides in the future to go with a
school choice option, then there will be more parents dropping off their kids at schools and there will be
A@
fewer school busses.
Mr. Walker asked if the Planning Department gives developers information about where children
from their development might go to school. Ms. Thomas said the Board actually gets a listing of the
number of school children at the different levels of schools, and the cost of housing those children, and the
school districts involved.
Mr. Bowerman said for Still Meadows, the developer contributed $500 per house and that money
went to the schools, and it did not all have to be spent at Woodbrook Elementary.
Mr. Walker asked if there is communication with school staff during a rezoning process. Mr.
Reaser said school staff works with Planning. That is one of the reasons projections are made ten years
into the future. He said there is another northern elementary school already in the Schools CIP out about
=
eight years. This projection gives Planning some teeth to make requests of the developer. The Planning
A@
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 53)
Department is also the main and final checker of enrollment projections each fall. They work closely with
the Long-Range Planning Committee as they go through that process.
Mr. Walker said he has learned that one of the factors going into redistricting is trying to provide
some mix of socio-economic levels within the schools. He noticed that in the Neighborhood Model, one of
the things to be accomplished is a range of incomes, offering housing that is affordable, etc. He asked if
the County really thinks there will be a socio-economic mix in new developments, or will the schools have to
continue to import students from other parts of the County in order to get that mix? Mr. Cilimberg said that
A@
in the 12 principles, that one will be the hardest to achieve. He said the Albemarle County Housing
Committee is looking at that. There was enabling legislation adopted in 2002 which the County can use to
offer incentives for affordable dwelling units. In Virginia, it is challenge to do this. In Maryland, they have
inclusionary zoning which requires that a certain percentage of projects with over 50 dwelling units to
provide some monetary amount to go toward producing that housing. That is not allowed in Virginia. He
said there are a couple of projects which staff is looking at which have several different dwelling unit types.
The popularity of the dwelling unit will ultimately drive the cost. There could be affordable dwellings built
today that within five years are above market. That is a real challenge.
Mr. Koleszar said Mr. Cilimberg talked about amending the Community Facilities Plan earlier in the
meeting. He asked how the School Board has input into that process. Mr. Cilimberg said School staff
already has given input for the beginning of that effort. Now, the points in the plan that are to be addressed,
must be identified. Then, the various agencies responsible for those items will be brought in for discussion.
Mr. Tucker said the School Board may not be aware that the CIP is a five-year plan which is
updated annually. The Comprehensive Plan, or any element of that Plan, is updated every five years, but
the Plan has a twenty-year horizon.
Mr. Koleszar asked if the Comprehensive Plan should be a driving force to determine what is in the
CIP. Mr. Tucker said the Plan is the policy, and the CIP is the implementation tool.
Mr. Koleszar said the School Board knows the Comprehensive Plan will be changing, yet it has to
do the CIP before that change is made. They are concerned that they will put things into the CIP that will
have to be removed at a later date. He is hearing that there is nothing in the changes being discussed that
will change the CIP, what will be changed are the projects within the CIP. Mr. Tucker said that is a correct
interpretation.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Boards had covered the agenda the School Board wanted to discuss. Mr.
Koleszar said he is comfortable with what has been talked about. As a School Board, they had some
misconceptions as to what the Neighborhood Model looked like in terms of schools. They thought the
Model was changing the size of schools. That has been clarified now.
Mr. Ward said the Neighborhood Model contains 12 Principles, not rules. He takes for granted that
the rules are enforced through the Comprehensive Plan. He was more interested in time lines because of
A@
the decisions the School Board has to make before August.
Mr. Bowerman encouraged all School Board members to speak to the Board member
representing their district about any concerns and questions they may have.
Dr. Castner said the main issue brought up by the public is that they question the wisdom of not
building schools where the kids already are thus avoiding the necessity of having to move some kids to
schools where there is capacity. He said any time there is growth in the community there will be a
necessity to have some moving. The master plan is trying to do as little of that as possible, but it is not
perfect. Even when there are sites, schools cant be exactly in the middle of development. Everybody has
=
been looking for a simple answer which involves not moving anybody from a school in their backyard, and
there is no simple answer.
Ms. Thomas said the County has been trying to encourage growth in certain areas for about 30
years. In theory that should make the job easier because there should be more predictability about where
the children will be located. The Neighborhood Model is a continuum as opposed to a brand new jump in
trying to be more successful in getting more of the population to live in the gray areas which are only
A@
about 36 square miles which is three times as big as Charlottesville, so it is still a lot of area.
Mr. Bowerman said what brought about the Neighborhood Model and DISC was that the Board did
not want to increase the size of the growth areas. Instead, they wanted more density in the current growth
area, which is what the 12 Principles and the Neighborhood Model are attempting to do.
Mr. Rooker said it is an effort to get the market-driven economy to accomplish that. The current
Comprehensive Plan, in most of the growth areas, calls for a much higher density than is being achieved.
The question is how to get people to build to a higher density, to live with more higher density in the growth
areas, as opposed to taking an easier route such as just building a standard subdivision. How do you
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 54)
induce the developers to build in the growth areas? Hopefully, that can be accomplished by providing for a
form of development in the growth areas which is more attractive; underground utilities, sidewalks, bike
paths, tree lined streets, schools that are closer to people, etc. Ultimately, you have to get people to want
to make the decision to live in the growth areas as opposed to going out further and further in cul-de-sacs
toward the mountains.
Mr. Koleszar said the School Board wants to thank the Board of Supervisors for their support over
the years.
With no further discussion of this item, at 5:30 p.m., Mr. Ward offered a motion to adjourn. Ms.
McKeel seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously. Ms. Thomas asked the Board to
reconvene in Room 241 to continue its session.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 26. From the Board and School Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
There were no matters brought up.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 22. From the Board: Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Thomas said she went to the National Trail Days celebration.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she has received another communication about emergency preparedness and
people with disabilities. She has been contacted by the local Disabilities Board offering to work with 9-1-1.
Mr. Tucker said he thinks Mr. Herman Key has been appointed to serve on the 9-1-1 committee to address
these issues.
__________
Ms. Thomas said that on July 3, 2002, the Board will work on the emergency water situation. Mr.
Rooker asked what is being covered in the media. Mr. Tucker said they are looking at ways to insure that
the public knows the connection between groundwater and surface water. One thing staff is looking at is
the possibility of having some type of a mechanism which would look at the total drought and not just the
reservoirs. There might also be some type of gauge to use like when there is a fire hazard.
Ms. Thomas said she forwarded to the Board members a website that someone found that asks
whether Virginia is having a drought, and answers the questions in terms of surface water, agricultural
drought and groundwater.
Mr. Rooker said there were two articles in the paper today. One of them said the Board was at
odds with the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority because of the emergency proclamation water situation.
On the next page there was an article about how streams are drying up again, and saying there is a
seasonal drought.
Mr. Bowerman said that is useful for the urban population only. Mr. Tucker said the media needs to
be educated. They are the ones who do not get the connection the Board has been trying to explain.
Ms. Thomas said the editor must know the connection because he placed one article directly below
the other article.
Mr. Rooker asked if the Board could get a report about the possibility of poisoning the drinking
water system in the event of a sabotage act. Mr. Tucker said their answer is that someone would have to
dump truckloads into the reservoir because of the volume of the water. The need for security is around the
water treatment plant. Mr. Rooker said he has had a number of people who asked the question. There
was a direct threat that this would occur in the Boston area a few months ago. Nothing happened, but he
would like to have a report.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she appointed Mr. Alan Culbertson to the Charlottesville-Albemarle Community
Foundation. It seemed to be an appointment to be made by the Chairman and he seemed to be the
appointee the Foundation wanted.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she went to a VML/VACO TEA-21 workshop because the Transportation
Efficiency Act is going to be reauthorized. The question was what should be emphasized in attempting to
get that reauthorization. One thing that might be interesting to the County is that rural safety will be
emphasized more than it has been in the past. There may be more money for rural roads and bridges.
Mr. Dorrier said the Planning District Commission is going to develop a new comprehensive plan
for Scottsville.
__________
Ms. Thomas asked if anyone will attend the Annual NACo meeting to be held in New Orleans from
July 12-16. If not, then the County should submit a form to NACo so they can find a proxy for the County.
__________
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 55)
Ms. Thomas said Adelphia Cable has given notice that its rates are increasing.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the State bid out Medicaid non-emergency transportation services to private
industry. It is hurting JAUNT a fair amount, but it is awful for those people JAUNT ordinarily carries. They
have written the Medicaid director in Richmond about the terrible things that are going on with this private
company. This may eventually become a County budget item because if Medicaid is not going to pay for an
appropriate way for people to be carried, and JAUNT has to pick them up but not be reimbursed, that is an
issue.
(Note: Mr. Bowerman left the meeting at 5:45 p.m.)
__________
Ms. Thomas thanked those who went to UNJAM. She said Maurice Cox is interested in getting the
City and County together to talk about the whole Route 29 corridor which will not stop at the City line, which
it has always done in the past. She said there is need to think about the Kroger property and the K-Mart
property. Instead of just focusing on the Sperry property, what if the two bodies looked at the property on
Route 29 as it goes into Charlottesville and the traffic issues. Mr. Cox assumes he will be the next Mayor,
and that is one of the things he would like to accomplish in his year or two as Mayor.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission will be celebrating it Thirtieth
Anniversary soon. She suggested that the Board adopt a resolution to recognize this event.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she has been hearing a lot of good things about the ACE Program. Other
counties are picking up, and copying, Albemarles program. She said that in Maryland, a group is going to
=
take Albemarles sliding scale to their legislature to see if they can make a change since their program is
=
having problems because of the lack of the sliding scale.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the Board wrote a letter in support of a retirement housing foundations efforts to
=
try to provide affordable low-income senior housing in the County. She does not know where the project
will be located, or how it will be developed.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she is now President of the Virginia Transit Association.
__________
Ms. Thomas mentioned the cellular tower on Tilman Road and the problem with that tower which is
coming back on the Boards agenda. The applicants want to meet with her and Mr. Cilimberg and Ms.
=
McCulley. She just wants to touch base and be sure the Board members have no interest in letting them
continue with the tower that was installed by accident. Mr. Martin told her he has no interest in letting the
tower remain as installed. He thinks they made a mistake, and if the Board allows it to stand, it is done at
great peril to the County.
__________
Mr. Tucker said he received a letter from Ms. Frances Lee-Vandell, Director of the Blue Ridge
English as a Second Language Council. They are a volunteer group which provides summer camps for
kids and they want to put on a festival at the Covenant Lower School grounds across from McIntire Park this
Saturday. Ms. Lee-Vandell has asked for start-up money for publicity and rentals. They requested $500.00
from both the City and the County. He does not know how this request could be approved on such short
notice, but felt he had to mention it today. Ms. Thomas said it would have to be an emergency before the
Board could consider it today.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the Board was also asked to help with expenses for the Fourth of July Fireworks
display. Mr. Tucker said the Board has not contributed to this event financially in the past.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 27. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, at 5:55 p.m.,
motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Rooker, to adjourn this meeting until 5:30 p.m. on
June 19, 2002, in the County Executives Conference Room on the Fourth Floor of the County Office
=
Building.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Martin.
June 5, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 56)
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 09/11/2002
Initials: LAB