2002-11-06November 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
November 6, 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,
Clerk, Ella W. Carey, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m., by the Chairman, Ms. Thomas.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Charlie Trachta said that this Saturday the School Board will be discussing redistricting and
what to do with overcrowding of schools. He showed to the Board a copy of the packet of materials which
will be distributed for that meeting. On Page 1, Facility Planning, it talks about the Countys Comprehensive
=
Plan, yet members of the School Board have said that plan does not affect them, and they do not need to
abide by that plan. At least, this seems to be the statement by its Chairman, Mr. Koleszar. Mr. Trachta said
people in the urban area were told about In-fill Committees, and after they met it turned into a
recommendation for more in-fill without any protection of the Rural Areas. The Comprehensive Plan says
the people in the urban ring will get higher services, higher densities, and urban conditions. They have
gotten the densities and the conditions without getting any more services. He thinks today is a pivotal time.
This Board, this afternoon, can tell the School Board about the Comprehensive Plan and explain it to them.
He thinks that when Saturday starts the School Board will put something into motion that will turn into an
ugly affair.
__________
Mr. Tom Loach from Crozet agreed with Mr. Trachta that a new thought process must be
developed when looking at education planning and its relationship to the growth areas. He agrees that the
Comprehensive Plan puts a priority on providing services to the residents of growth areas, including
education. In Crozet, they are looking at educational planning as part of their master planning process.
The consultants have told the people in Crozet they will be growing from a population of 3000 to a
population of 12,000 or greater. As part of the analysis, the consultants told the community they will need
at least one additional elementary school. It is easy to see the impact such a population increase would
have on both Henley Middle School and Western Albemarle High School. The consultant shows the
school as part of the educational plan, but it is also an architectural element and an activity center to serve
Crozet. It is part of the physical planning for Crozet.
Mr. Loach said as the growth areas develop, more and more residents will view education not from
a parental point-of-view, but as a point of community pride. Some will also look at it as a financial element.
The simple truth is that they will either believe the County's annual growth rate of two percent will continue
and that the build-out analysis provided by the DISC consultants was factual, or they wont. In the past, the
=
growth areas were places where development might occur. In the future, growth areas will be viewed as
places where development will occur. Planning for the educational needs of the growth areas and overall
infrastructure requirements to meet the ten-year build-out analysis described by the DISC consultants
should start right now. If the goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to continue to direct development toward
the growth areas, there must be a good reason for both developers and residents to devote their time,
money and futures to this effort, and better educational planning should be the first step.
__________
Mr. Donald Lyon said he is President of the Raintree Homeowners Association. He agrees with
=
both of the previous speakers. He said the School Board has been made aware that the Comprehensive
Plan exists. They seem to not even look at it. His neighborhood was hit hard in the redistricting. He feels
that schools are the centerpiece of neighborhoods. The urban ring requires stability feeder patterns for
neighborhood schools from elementary to high schools. If redistricting continues, a child will continuously
lose their friendships each time a redistricting occurs. He said schools need to be looked at as part of
neighborhood growth. Urban planning cannot be successful if neighborhood children are just moved at a
whim to make room for children from future neighborhoods.
__________
Mr. Michael Coppola said he lives at 308 Dover Road in Carrsbrook. He agrees with the previous
speakers. Weeks ago, they asked that this Board not micro-manage the School Board in matters
concerning capital improvement and budget decisions. It may seem as if they are contradicting
themselves, but what they ask is that the Board macro-manage the School Board. Let it know that there
are rules in Albemarle County which they are required to abide by, and that those rules provide a
framework for stability in the school system even with the growth that has occurred. Growth and stability
are not incompatible. He suggested that the Board, this afternoon, explain to the School Board that there is
a framework to control how redistricting is supposed to occur, and if that framework is followed it will be less
a politically charged exercise. It will be simpler, it will be less frequent, it will be on a smaller scale, and it
November 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
will not create the kind of tension that it currently does.
__________
Mr. John Gallagher said the School Board has come up with a new high school capacity formula. If
this formula reflects the real capacity and helps the principals of these schools to provide better service to
the children, fine. But, if it fills up the current schools, something must be done. If the new high schools are
now full by the wave of a magical pen, it appears that a new high school is now required, and probably in
the high growth area on Route 29 North. A new high school formula should not be used as a weapon to
bus children from the north urban ring across town to a southern school in a move that would be short-term
at best, only then to see them redistricted back in a couple of years. A long-term vision is needed, and not
a band-aid version that causes upheaval every two years. Guidance is needed for the School Board,
particularly for its Chairman, Stephen Koleszar. He should be told that there is a Comprehensive Plan
which calls for neighborhood schools and service areas. He should not be allowed to make up his own
plan. Mr. Gallagher said he has heard that some members of this Board do not want to get involved with
the School Board. He said the citizens elected this Board to represent them, and this Board developed the
Comprehensive Plan, and needs to provide the School Board with crisp directions so there is not a
renegade School Board moving children around needlessly and operating contrary to the Comprehensive
Plan. He asked that the School Board be instructed to follow the Comprehensive Plan. Changing the
subject, he also thinks it is unfair for the Board to meet during the day. He had to take a vacation day to
attend this meeting. He suggested that the Board meet in the evenings, so the government for the people,
and by the people, can be attended by its constituents.
__________
Ms. Monica Pawinski said she is the President of the Woodbrook PTO. She supports the
comments of all the prior speakers this morning. She thinks they reflect the views of the Woodbrook and
other northern Albemarle communities. She said they live a block off Route 29 and consider themselves to
live in the urban ring. They know what the Comprehensive Plan says and would like to see their children go
to school in their neighborhoods. She knows that this Board does not directly impact redistricting, but she
would ask the Board to look at the Comprehensive Plan and then instruct the School Board as to the views
of the majority.
__________
Mr. Dorrier noted that according to documents recently received by the Board concerning the
Comprehensive Plan, they show that Public Education is now part of the Strategic Plan. Ms. Thomas said
this does not remove it from the Comprehensive Plan. A Strategic Plan is a guide as to how to get the
Comprehensive Plan accomplished. It does not revise the Comprehensive Plan because that would take a
whole process of public hearings, etc.
Mr. Tucker said the Education part of that Strategic Plan will focus on programs and not land use
matters. What has been talked about today is more concerned with land use. He recently sent a letter to
Dr. Castner telling him that the change the School Board recently made changing the capacity of middle
schools from 750 to 900, will require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive
Plan, in the Public Utilities section, specifies what the capacity of each school level is, so an amendment will
have to be made. Mr. Bowerman asked when that number was changed from 600 to 750. Mr. Tucker said
that was done several years ago.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to approve Items 5.1
through 5.5 and to accept the remaining items on the Consent Agenda for information. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Bowerman.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
__________
Item 5.1. Approval of Minutes: March 25(A), August 14, September 4 and September 11, 2002.
Mr. Rooker had read September 11, 2002, and found them to be in order.
By the recorded vote set out above, the minutes of September 11, 2002, were approved. All
other minutes will go forward to another agenda.
__________
Item 5.2. FY 2003 Appropriations, $367,656.00 (Form #s 2003-017, 2003-018, 2003-019, 2003-
020).
It was noted in the staffs report that the Code of Virginia 15.2-2507 stipulates that any locality
='
may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the current fiscal year as
shown in the currently adopted budget. However, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the
total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget or the sum of $500,000.00, whichever is less,
November 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
must be accomplished by first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing. This Code
section applies to all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E-911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
The total of these requested additional FY 2003 appropriations is $367,656.00, which is below the
threshold level for a budget amendment, however, if additional appropriations are needed for FY 2003 that
cause that threshold to be reached, a budget amendment would be required at a future date, and these
appropriations would be incorporated at that time.
This request involves approval of four new FY 2003 appropriations, of which two are appropriations
for school programs which total $336,561, and two appropriations are grants for County Police Department
programs totaling $31,095. Staff recommends approval of Appropriations #2003-017, #2003-018, #2003-
019 and #2003-020.
Appropriation #2003-17, $188,504.39. This appropriation provides for the following School
Division contributions and grants:
The Shannon Foundation for Excellence in Public Education awarded several schools grants
totaling $10,838.00. Baker Butler was awarded $5,476.00, Cale Elementary, $500.00, Crozet Elementary,
$1,000.00, Greer Elementary, $440.00, Hollymead Elementary, $1,000.00, Murray Elementary, $497.00,
Woodbrook Elementary, $500.00, and Western Albemarle High School, $1,425.00. These grants will be
used to purchase instructional materials to assist students in various learning experiences.
Martha Jefferson Hospital (MJH) awarded the MJH Innovation Child Health Improvement Initiative
Grant in the amount of $1,000.00 to Murray Elementary School for a program in nutrition training for
students and parents, with hands-on projects and to encourage home-reading projects.
The Frederick S. Upton Foundation made a grant award in the amount of $5,500.00 to Henley
Middle School. This grant award will support Henley's Cultural Enrichment Program by funding three
artists-in-residency programs: Sculpture, Writer, and Dramatic Interpretation. The projects will involve
interactive activities to include hands-on learning experiences for students with performing, visual and
musical arts.
State Farm Insurance Company awarded Agnor Hurt Elementary School a grant in the amount of
$22,000.00. This grant will fund the Mobile Classroom Project, the Do-Drop-in-Bus. This bus is equipped
as if it were a classroom. The goal of the program is to improve the academic performance of students
through extending the time available to learn.
Three Albemarle County Public School teachers have been awarded Staff Development Stipends
in the amount of $1,000.00 each under the Golden Apple Award. Better Living, Inc is the sponsor for the
Golden Apple Award.
The Virginia Commission for the Arts awarded an Artists-in-Education Residency Program Grant in
the amount of $3,670.00 to Yancey Elementary School. This program will enhance existing arts by
integrating the musical arts, visual arts, and academic curricula.
The Virginia Society for Technology in Education (VSTE) awarded Yancey Elementary School a
grant award in the amount of $1,000.00. The money will be used to partially fund a digital document
viewer. This equipment will improve learning in the content areas through writing; both teachers and
students will use the digital document viewer to model the evaluation and editing of writing.
The Virginia Commission for the Arts awarded an Artists-in-Residency Program Grant in the
amount of $2,635.00 to Stony Point Elementary School. This program includes exploration of African
Culture through arts, music and dance and is an integral component of the regular curricula for academic,
visual arts and music.
Title III No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was passed to improve student learning by states and
districts as part of a comprehensive approach to close the achievement gap especially between
disadvantaged and minority students and their peers. To comply with the law, states and districts must now
make decisions that have enormous consequences for students including those with limited English
proficiency. This grant, in the amount of $58,235.00, is provided to assist in implementing the law to
maximize the success of Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students.
Federal funding for the Carl D. Perkins Vocational Grant was increased by $38,137.00 over the
original budget estimate of $125,000.00. These additional funds will be used to help purchase equipment
for the high schools vocational labs.
The ESOL Outreach Grant provides 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 Healthcare 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. There is a fund balance retained by the State in the
amount of $42,489.39 from FY 01-02 grant budget to be reappropriated for FY 02-03.
>>
Appropriation #2003-018, $26,094.86. This is a U. S. Department of Justice grant for the
November 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
Albemarle County Police Department for certain operational strategies and capabilities which are
confidential under Justice Department guidelines. This is the last half of the second year of the grant. The
grant period is January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2002. There is no local match.
Appropriation #2003-019, $5,000.00. This appropriation provides $1,250.00 in state categorical
grant funds and $3,750.00 in Federal categorical grant funds to purchase two additional Automatic External
Defibrillators (AED's) for the County Police Department. There is no local match.
Recognizing the importance of quick response in saving persons experiencing cardiac arrest, the
County Police Department has trained all 105 sworn officers in CPR and the use of an Automatic External
Defibrillator (AED). At this time, the Police Department has only been able to purchase one AED. With this
grant, two more AED's will be purchased.
Appropriation #2003-020, $148,056.88. This appropriation provides for the following School
Division contributions and grants:
Woodbrook Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $2,500.00 from the
Woodbrook Elementary School PTO. This donation will be used to pay for a teaching assistant to help in
the cafeteria.
The Public Charter School Startup Program is designated for Murray High School. This program
helps to facilitate intensive, experiential learning opportunities in order to provide academic and personal
success for students who are at-risk to leave school or graduate below potential. There is a fund balance
retained by the State of $86,373.57 from FY 01-02 to reappropriate for FY 02-03.
>>
Governor John Warner launched the partnership for Achieving Successful Schools (PASS)
Initiative to give special attention and assistance to Virginia's at-risk schools. PASS has targeted more than
100 academically warned schools that have struggled with the Standards of Learning tests to receive visits
from academic review teams. Greer Elementary School has been designated as PASS Partner School and
a team of two teachers and a principal will be sent to Amherst on six two-day visits. The PASS initiative will
reimburse Greer Elementary School for substitutes hired.
The Program for Seamless Transition (PoST) grant award was not fully expended in FY 01-02.
>
The grant has a fund balance of $1,710.46 to reappropriate for FY 02-03.
>
Virginia Business-Education Partnerships has a carry over grant balance of $55,972.85 from FY
01-02. 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 Business-Education
Partnership Grant Program.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolutions of
Appropriation:
FMS2 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP #2003-017
REVISED 6/84 APPROPRIATION DATE 10/11/02
EXPLANATION: VARIOUS SCHOOL PROGRAMS AND CONTRIBUTIONS.
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 3502 60606 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies J 1 10,838.00
1 3104 60216 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies J 1 1,000.00
1 3104 60252 312500 Prof Svc Instruction J 1 5,500.00
1 3104 60215 132100 PT Wages/Teachers J 1 18,500.00
1 3104 60215 210000 FICA J 1 1,415.00
1 3104 60215 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies J 1 2,085.00
1 3104 61311 580500 Staff Dev J 1 3,000.00
1 3104 60213 312500 Prof Svc Instruction J 1 3,670.00
1 3104 60213 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies J 1 1,000.00
1 3104 60211 312500 Prof Svc Instruction J 1 2,635.00
1 3215 61101 112100 Salaries-Teacher J 1 38,889.00
1 3215 61101 210000 FICA J 1 2,905.01
1 3215 61101 221000 VRS J 1 3,671.12
1 3215 61101 231000 Health Ins J 1 3,309.87
1 3215 61101 232000 Dental J 1 140.00
1 3215 61101 301210 Contract Svcs J 1 1,900.00
1 3215 61101 550100 Mileage-Travel J 1 2,200.00
1 3215 61101 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies J 1 5,220.00
1 3207 61190 800100 Machinery/Equipment J 1 38,137.00
1 3150 61101 111400 Salaries-Other J 1 2,880.00
1 3150 61101 114100 Salaries-Teacher Aide J 1 3,960.00
1 3150 61101 132100 P/T Wages-Teacher J 1 24,594.70
1 3150 61101 210000 FICA J 1 2,404.75
1 3150 61101 221000 VRS J 1 314.00
1 3150 61101 231000 Health Ins J 1 194.00
1 3150 61101 232000 Dental J 1 10.00
1 3150 61101 241000 VRS Group Life J 1 25.00
1 3150 61101 312000 Other Prof Services J 1 2,286.30
1 3150 61101 520100 Postal Services J 1 400.00
1 3150 61101 550100 Mileage-Travel J 1 342.50
1 3150 61101 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies J 1 1,000.00
1 3150 61101 601700 Copy Supplies J 1 460.70
1 3150 61101 800100 Machinery/Equipment J 1 3,424.00
1 3150 61101 800710 DP Software J 1 193.44
2 3502 18000 181223 Shannon Foundation J 2 10,838.00
November 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
2 3104 18000 181252 MJH Grant J 2 1,000.00
2 3104 18000 181221 Upton Grant J 2 5,500.00
2 3104 18000 181247 State Farm Grant J 2 22,000.00
2 3104 18000 181258 Golden Apple Grant J 2 3,000.00
2 3104 24000 240249 Revenue-AIERES J 2 3,670.00
2 3104 18000 181265 Revenue-VSTE J 2 1,000.00
2 3104 24000 240355 Revenue-AIERES J 2 2,635.00
2 3215 33000 330119 Title III J 2 58,235.00
2 3207 33000 330107 Carl Perkins J 2 38,137.00
2 3150 33000 330600 ESOL Outreach Grant J 2 42,489.39
3502 0501 ESTIMATED REVENUE 10,838.00
3502 0701 APPROPRIATION 10,838.00
3104 0501 ESTIMATED REVENUE 38,805.00
3104 0701 APPROPRIATION 38,805.00
3215 0501 ESTIMATED REVENUE 58,235.00
3215 0701 APPROPRIATION 58,235.00
3207 0501 ESTIMATED REVENUE 38,137.00
3207 0701 APPROPRIATION 38,137.00
3150 0501 ESTIMATED REVENUE 42,489.39
3150 0701 APPROPRIATION __________ _________ 42,489.39
TOTAL 377,008.78 188,504.39 188,504.39
_____
FMS2 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP #2003-018
REVISED 6/84 APPROPRIATION DATE 10/08/02
EXPLANATION: POLICE GRANT, INTERNET CRIMES
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1528 31013 120000 Overtime J 1 24,240.00
1 1528 31013 210000 FICA J 1 1,854.86
2 1528 33000 330414 Federal Categorical Aid J 2 26,094.86
1528 0501 Est. Revenue 26,094.86
1528 0701 Appropriation 26,094.86
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 52,189.72 26,094.86 26,094.86
_____
FMS2 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP #2003-019
REVISED 6/84 APPROPRIATION DATE 10/08/02
EXPLANATION: POLICE GRANT, DEFIBRILLATORS
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1515 31013 800100 Machinery & Equipment J 1 5,000.00
2 1515 24000 300001 State Categorical Aid J 2 1,250.00
2 1515 33000 300001 Federal Categorical Aid J 2 3,750.00
1515 0501 Est. Revenue 5,000.00
1515 0701 Appropriation 5,000.00
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 10,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00
_____
FMS2 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2003-020
REVISED 6/84 APPROPRIATION DATE 10/14/02
EXPLANATION: VARIOUS SCHOOL PROGRAMS AND CONTRIBUTIONS.
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 2212 61101 114100 Salary-Teacher Aide J 1 2,322.34
1 2212 61101 210000 FICA J 1 177.66
1 3149 61311 132100 P/T Wages-Teacher J 1 16,667.42
1 3149 61311 160300 Stipends-Cur Dev J 1 17,000.00
1 3149 61311 210000 FICA J 1 2,575.56
1 3149 61311 580000 Misc Expense J 1 2,000.00
1 3149 61311 550100 Mileage-Travel J 1 800.00
1 3149 61311 580500 Staff Dev J 1 5,000.00
1 3149 61311 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies J 1 30,330.59
1 3149 61311 800100 Machinery/Equipment J 1 12,000.00
1 2204 61101 152100 Sub Wages-Teacher J 1 1,385.00
1 2204 61101 210000 FICA J 1 115.00
1 3136 61102 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies J 1 1,710.46
1 3209 61103 117100 Salaries-Bus Driver J 1 8,000.00
1 3209 61103 160300 Stipends-Cur Dev J 1 22,000.00
1 3209 61103 210000 FICA J 1 1,683.00
1 3209 61103 350000 Printing/Binding J 1 2,000.00
1 3209 61103 420100 Field Trips J 1 3,000.00
1 3209 61103 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies J 1 5,000.00
1 3209 61103 800100 Machinery/Equipment J 1 14,289.85
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation J 2 2,500.00
2 3149 33000 330117 Charter Schools Pgm J 2 86,373.57
2 2000 24000 240260 PASS Initiative J 2 1,500.00
2 3136 51000 540000 Appro. Fund Balance J 2 1,710.46
2 3209 24000 240299 Va Business Education J 2 55,972.85
2000 0501 ESTIMATED REVENUE 2,500.00
2000 0701 APPROPRIATION 2,500.00
November 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
3149 0501 ESTIMATED REVENUE 86,373.57
3149 0701 APPROPRIATION 86,373.57
2000 0501 ESTIMATED REVENUE 1,500.00
2000 0701 APPROPRIATION 1,500.00
3136 0501 ESTIMATED REVENUE 1,710.46
3136 0701 APPROPRIATION 1,710.46
3209 0501 ESTIMATED REVENUE 55,972.85
3209 0701 APPROPRIATION 55,972.85
TOTAL 296,113.76 148,056.88 148,056.88
__________
Item 5.3. Authorize County Executive to execute First Amendment of the Declaration of Covenants,
Conditions, Restrictions, and Easements for Woodcreek Subdivision on behalf of the County.
It was noted in the executive summary that in 1991 the County approved Woodcreek Sub-division,
a rural preservation development. Section 4.4 of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions
and Easements (hereinafter, the "Declaration") provides that the Declaration may not be amended with
respect to Lot 10 without the consent of the County, in addition to the approval of not less than two-thirds of
the lot owners. The Amendment has been endorsed by 16 of the 19 lot owners of Woodcreek, or 84.2
percent, which exceeds the 66.6 percent minimal requirement.
The lot owners desire to amend Section 3.1(c) of the Declaration to allow horses to be kept on Lot
10, which is the rural preservation tract. The Declaration currently allows horses to be kept only on Lots 1
and 2. The keeping of horses is a permissible activity on a rural preservation tract. The Planning
Department has expressed a concern about clearing on Lot 10. Paragraph 4 on page 2 of the Rural
Preservation Development Easement, recorded with the Declaration, states: "No timber cutting shall be
permitted except in accord with a plan subject to approval by the Grantees (the County of Albemarle and
the Public Recreational Facilities Authority of Albemarle County). Clearing of dead wood shall be permitted
without a plan. Open land shall be maintained using sound conservation practices. The area to be cleared
on the Rural Preservation Tract shall be limited to the minimum necessary for the road, driveway, and the
building site including its related appurtenances."
The County's consent to allow horses to be kept on Lot 10 would not affect Paragraph 4 of the
Rural Preservation Development Easement and, therefore, no additional clearing for pasture land would be
permitted. Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to execute the First
Amendment of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, and Easements on behalf of the
County.
By the recorded vote set out above, the County Executive was authorized to execute the
following document First Amendment of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions,
AA
and Easements of Woodcreek Subdivision on behalf of Albemarle County.
@@
FIRST AMENDMENT
of the
DECLARATION
OF
COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS, AND EASEMENTS
WOODCREEK
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT to the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions,
Restrictions, and Easements, "Woodcreek," is made this 29th day of January, 2002, and
amends the instrument dated July 27, 1993, of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit
Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1335, page 0554.
W I T N E S S E T H :
WHEREAS, the aforementioned Declaration provides in Section 4.4 that the
Declaration may be amended by an instrument signed by not less than two-thirds (2/3) of
the Lot Owners of Woodcreek; and,
WHEREAS, the aforementioned Declaration provides that no restriction with
respect to Lot 10 may be amended except with the approval of the County of Albemarle;
NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned, being more than two-thirds (2/3) of the
Lot Owners of Woodcreek, and the County of Albemarle by its authorized agent, do
hereby approve the following amendment to said Declaration:
Article III, Section 3.2 (c) is amended to read as follows: No animals, livestock, or
poultry of any kind shall be raised, bred, or kept on any Lot, except that dogs, cats, or
other domesticated household pets may be kept on the Lots, subject to rules and
regulations adopted by the Association, and further except that horses may be kept on
Lot 10. No household pet shall be permitted off the Lot occupied by such pets' Owner
November 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
except on a leash.
This First Amendment may be signed in any number of counterparts which,
when taken together, shall be deemed and construed to comprise one document.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have signed this instrument as of
January 29, 2002.
WOODCREEK LAND TRUST
By: George H. Gilliam, Trustee
Joseph Sabot
Joy Sabot
Barry McClure
Jennifer McClure
Steven D. Paitsel
Richard S. Brown
Melinda Brown
Jeffrey A. Saul
Christine Saul
Thomas A. McQueeny
Suzanne Yeaman
Eli Lesser
Barbara Lesser
Paul Balik
Julie Balik
Robert Mentzinger
Lynne T. Archer
__________
Item 5.4. Appoint Assistant Fire Marshal pursuant to Virginia Code Secs 27-31.2:1 and 27-36.
It was noted in the executive summary that Virginia Code 27-36 provides that the Board may
'
appoint one or more assistant fire marshals that may in the absence of the Fire Marshal carry out his duties
and responsibilities. Code 27-34.2:1 also provides that in addition to such other duties as may be
'
prescribed by law, the governing body may authorize an assistant fire marshal to have the same police
powers as a sheriff, police officer or other law enforcement officer, and the authority to investigate and
prosecute certain designated offenses.
The appointment of Howard Lagomarsino, Jr. (recently hired as Fire Prevention
Inspector/Investigator) as an assistant fire marshal is necessary in order for him to fulfill the duties and
responsibilities of his job description. Howard has satisfactorily completed the required training for fire
marshals exercising police powers as required by the Virginia State Department of Fire Programs. The
Board previously authorized assistant fire marshals to exercise police powers.
Staff recommends that the Board appoint Mr. Howard Lagomarsino, Jr. as Assistant Fire Marshal
with the same full police powers of the Fire Marshal as authorized in Virginia Code 27-34.2:1 and Virginia
'
Code 27-36.
'
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board appointed Mr. Howard Lagomarsino, Jr. as
Assistant Fire Marshal with the full police powers of the Fire Marshal as authorized by Virginia Code
27-34.2:1 and Virginia Code 27-36.
''''
__________
Item 5.5. Scope of Work for Route 29 Corridor Improvements.
The following memorandum had been received from Ms. Thomas:
To: Members, Board of Supervisors
From: Sally H. Thomas
Subject: Scope of Work for Route 29 Corridor Improvements
Date: October 30, 2002
The attached proposed Scope of Work (on file in the Clerks Office, and made a part of
=
the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors) is being developed by the MPO
Policy Board and the MPO-Tech Committee which includes County staff and one
planning commissioner. Dennis Rooker and I thought other members of the Board
would like to see it. We recommend approval and will act on the County's behalf in
pursuing the study.
If you would like further discussion, we'll be happy to invite MPO and/or County staff to
come to answer any questions we can't handle. Pursuing this project may eventually
involve County staff and/or County funds. We are aware of a need to expedite the study,
given the Albemarle Place/Sperry property proposal and the University of Virginia's
proposal for its North Grounds Connector to the present Route 29/250 West bypass. We
are also aware of other studies that will provide timely input into the corridor study,
November 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
especially studies done by Albemarle Place applicants and by consultants for the
University of Virginia. MPO staff is working at putting everything together into one
package to seek VDOT approval and funding.
City Council adopted the Scope of Work with a few amendments on October 7. At that
time, Council also rescinded its 1995 resolution that had opposed a grade-separated
interchange at Hydraulic Road and Route 29.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the Proposed Scope of Work,
AA
9/9/02, Route 29/Hydraulic Road/Route 250 Area Transportation Improvements Project, along with
@@
Appendix A (on file), as forwarded by the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning
Organization of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission.
__________
Item 5.6. 2002 Third Quarter Building Report as prepared by the Department of Planning and
Community Development, was received for information.
__________
Item 5.7. FY 2004 Operating Budget and FY 2004-08 Capital Improvements Program/FY 2009-13
Capital Needs Assessment Events Calendar.
It was noted in the executive summary that the process of developing the County's Operating
Budget for FY 2004 and the Capital Improvements Plan for FY 2004-2008/Capital Needs Assessment for
FY 2009-2013 is underway. The proposed schedule of the upcoming budget process events establishes
firm dates for Board meetings and public hearings on the budget and CIP. It also provides the public with
as much notice as possible for planned community meetings, public hearings, and work sessions related to
the budget and the CIP. Anticipated actions by the Planning Commission on the Recommended FY 04-08
>
CIP are also identified.
A copy of the FY 2004 Operating Budget and FY 2004-2008 CIP/FY 2009-2013 Capital Needs
Assessment Events Calendar is included. Dates have been identified in March and April, 2003, for public
hearings on the budget, Board work sessions, and adoption of the FY 2004 Budget, the CIP, and the 2003
calendar year tax rates. The two identified "Community Meetings" on the Calendar in March are tentative at
this time and are there as place holders for outreach efforts to be conducted by staff to inform members of
the public and interested groups about the proposals in the County Executive's Recommended Budget.
The exact number and form of the outreach meetings and the specific community groups to be contacted
are undetermined at this time. It is not anticipated that Board members will be required to participate in
these meetings.
(Discussion: Ms. Thomas noted this item for the public. She said this calendar sets out the times
when the Board will be discussing the Capital Improvements Program. She asked about the meeting
schedule. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission will be holding a work session on February 4, 2003,
and this Board will adopt that plan when it adopts the operating budget. Ms. Thomas said the Boards first
=
public hearing will be on March 12.)
No Board action is required. The calendar is provided for informational purposes only.
__________
Item 5.8. Public Meeting Schedule for Rural Area Review Process.
It was noted in the executive summary that following the direction of the Planning Commission, staff
in the Planning and Community Development Department established a public meeting format and
schedule to provide broad public awareness of and participation in the Rural Area Review Process. The
meetings are planned to help attendees learn about and get involved in the County's Comprehensive Plan
review process, to discuss trends in development and population that impact the Rural Area, and to receive
feedback from citizens about elements which are critical to the rural areas. Information generated by the
meetings will be included in a report to the Planning Commission and the Board in February, 2003, and will
be used in the drafting of the Rural Area Chapter of the County's Comprehensive Plan.
This item is for information only - no action is required by the Board.
__________
Item 5.9. Letter dated October 8, 2002, from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration, to
Michael T. Boggs, Haley, Chisholm & Morris, re: Official Determination of Development Rights and Parcels
- Tax Map 18, Parcel 27 (Property of Haley, Chisholm & Morris, Inc.) Section 10.3.1, was received for
information.
__________
Item 5.10. Letter dated October 16, 2002, from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration,
to Tara Rowan Boyd, Leclair Ryan, A Professional Corporation, re: Official Determination of Development
Rights and Parcels - Tax Map 18, Parcel 17E (Property of Jeffrey F. and Corinne S. Buckalew) Section
10.3.1, was received for information.
__________
Item 5.11. Copies of Draft Planning Commission minutes for September 24 and October 1, 2002,
were received for information.
November 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
__________
Item 5.12. Letter dated October 16, 2002, from Norma C. Job, Regional VWP Engineer,
Department of Environmental Quality, addressed to Sally H. Thomas, Chairman, re: Joint Permit
Application (JPA) Number 02-0410, Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, Albemarle County, Virginia, Locality
Notification of Public Notice, was received for information.
It was noted that the permittee proposes to relocate a road and extend the runway to provide a
runway safety area as required by the Federal Aviation Administration. Proposed activities will impact
approximately 0.39 acre of palustrine emergent wetlands, and 3.02 acres of palustrine forested wetlands.
Permanent palustrine emergent wetlands and palustrine forested wetlands impacts will be compensated by
a monetary contribution to the Virginia Wetland Restoration Trust Fund. Impacts will be compensated at a
replacement to loss ratio of 1:1 for permanent PEM wetland impacts and 2:1 ratio for permanent PFO
wetland impacts.
__________
Item 5.13. Letter dated October 18, 2002, from Rose M. Chioni, President, Our Lady of Peace,
provided an update pursuant to the agreement dated November 24, 1992, on the number of indigent
residents within the assisted living facility. Letter was received as information.
_________
Item 5.14. Charlottesville VDoT Residency Monthly Report, November 2002, was received as
information.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6a. Transportation Matters: Roundabout at Airport Road and Dickerson Road,
Discussion of.
Mr. Tucker said the Airport Authority, at its meeting on October 16, endorsed the concept of a
roundabout at the intersection of Routes 606 and 649, as well as Bowen Loop Road. The Authority
requests that this Board endorse the concept and submit the plan to VDOT with the following guidance
related to the design and construction of this intersection:
1. That VDOT utilize the October, 2002 conceptual design prepared by Draper Aden
Associates, Inc., as the basis for the layout and functionality of this intersection.
2. That VDOT grant to the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority is a permanent
easement/right-of-way, at no cost to the Authority, granting this body the right to install
landscaping material, signage in the interior-island of the roundabout and any/all splitter
islands constructed at each leg of this intersection as well as the right to continually
maintain these areas.
3. That VDOT construct this intersection, along with the planned improvements between this
intersection and the easternmost boundary of Airport Authority property, by 2004 utilizing
Airport Access Funds dedicated to the State Route 649 project by the Commonwealth
Transportation Board.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Tom Flynn from Draper Aden is present this morning and can answer
questions. Also, staff has posted some large renderings of the proposed project for the Boards review.
=
Mr. Rooker asked about changes suggested to VDOTs design. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Flynn can
=
explain those changes.
Mr. Brian Elliott, Airport Manager, explained the rendering. He said the major change suggested by
Draper Aden was installation of splitter islands coming from the direction of Route 29, and then as traffic
turns back toward Route 29. VDOT took the two-lane road and funneled it down to a one-lane road coming
into the center section and moving on to the north on Route 606. The Authority proposes to maintain the
two-lane configuration throughout and to construct a ramp for traffic going north on Route 606. That would
eliminate that traffic flow through the roundabout, and would continue to utilize all of the pavement to the
intersection.
Ms. Thomas asked who has the right-of-way when the traffic going straight meets the north turning
traffic. Mr. Rooker said the traffic coming out of the roundabout would have the right-of-way.
Mr. Elliott said traffic coming from Earlysville going to Route 29, rather than using the roundabout,
would use the ramp back to the four-lane section of 649.
Mr. Tom Flynn said one of the reasons VDOT was receptive to looking at changes is that this
design will handle a significant amount of additional traffic. Standard, signalized intersections are inefficient
when handling left-turning traffic. There are some significant left turns projected in this plan. Conversely,
roundabouts efficiently handle left turns.
Ms. Thomas asked how that compares to Suggestion E which is part of the paperwork sent to the
A@
Board concerning this matter. E suggests that traffic coming out of the Airport during peak hours will have
A@
a level of service E in the year 2025 even with the roundabout. Mr. Flynn said that would be one hour a
A@
day for that one movement, but the overall intersection level is a B. He said the assumptions that go into
A@
November 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
the capacity analysis for roundabouts are very conservative.
Mr. Rooker asked if those levels of service are based on having the splits. Mr. Flynn said they are
based on their design.
Mr. Rooker asked if the split design improves the level of service, versus the VDOT original
proposal. Mr. Flynn said it helps because it is a better transition than an intersection.
Mr. Bowerman asked if this design is overkill based on todays traffic level. Mr. Flynn said this is a
A@=
single-lane roundabout. The only thing that might be done differently is the free flow movement,
particularly for the northbound right turn. Over eight million vehicles have been projected for some future
point in time. That is a very heavy volume.
Mr. Bowerman asked if they had done an analysis of cost between what VDOT proposed, and this
proposal. Mr. Flynn said no; but, he thinks everyone will agree that the costs are about equal.
Mr. Bowerman asked the difference between this proposal and a standard traffic circle. Mr. Tucker
said he believes this design uses the same right-of-way.
Ms. Thomas said she and Mr. Rooker attended the Hillsdale Drive Safety Meeting that involved a
lot of people, particularly the elderly. They asked how people learn to drive using the roundabouts and the
answer was that it takes a lot of training. Introducing a roundabout into a community is not done by just
putting it in, but there needs to be training to get the locals ready to handle it. She suggested that
somewhere in the budget there be some funds set aside to educate the public.
Mr. Flynn mentioned some roundabouts that are in nearby locations that people might like to go
and see.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the one in Gordonsville is a good model. Mr. Flynn said three out of its four
legs are well-designed. One leg is a straight movement with stop signs, so if the driver is going straight
ahead, they do not need to go around the circle, but can continue to go straight ahead. That is not done
with a roundabout. One reason a roundabout is safer is that it forces people to drive at a slower speed.
The best roundabouts compared to this design would be at Westcreek or one in Amherst.
Mr. Bowerman asked why roundabouts fell out of favor when they were used in the past. Mr. Flynn
said usually people think about rotaries and the old fashioned traffic circles, like those in New Jersey and
Washington, D.C. They tend to be larger, often are signalized, have traditional leaves, and often the right-
of-way within the circle is dedicated to heavier side movements which has the potential for tying up the
whole roundabout. There are some design particulars which are different. The key to the roundabout is
that once the driver is in the roundabout, they have the right-of-way. It is also designed for a 20 mph speed
limit.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks the design is a winner, but she thinks there needs to be some
education before it goes into effect.
Mr. Rooker said the local CTB member is very enthusiastic about this proposal.
Mr. Jim Bryan, Resident Engineer, handed out some paperwork containing an analysis of lay-outs
in terms of safety, capacity delays, costs versus four-way stops, all-way stops, lights and general highlights
about safety. (Note: Paperwork is on file in the Clerks Office.) He said he had handed out a picture
=
showing two roundabouts at an off ramp of an Interstate highway. It shows how it can be adapted to any
type of environment.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks this may be a part of the proposal for the Meadow Creek Parkway
where it meets the Route 250 Bypass. Mr. Bryan said that will be an actual diamond interchange, the same
lay-out as at Route 250 East/I-64.
Mr. Dorrier asked if roundabouts lose their effectiveness with more traffic. Mr. Bryan said there is a
saturation point. He said what impressed him the most with the pictured roundabout is the aesthetics. It is
nice looking. The key to the success of these roundabouts is that once the driver is in the roundabout, he
has the right-of-way. That is a new concept for American drivers.
(Note: The conversation stopped here. The vote and completion of this agenda item will be shown
at the end of Agenda Item No. 6b.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6b. Transportation Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Jim Bryan, Resident Engineer, said he has one comment about his monthly report. Thirteen
months of inactivity are shown for the Free State Road connector project. He understands there has been
some talk about that project recently, and his staff is ready to proceed.
Mr. Bowerman asked if this is the section from Rio Road to Free State Road. Mr. Bryan said that is
correct. Mr. Bowerman said he understands the developer is willing to build within the right-of-way a two-
lane road of the Countys design. That is a change from what he was willing to do previously. Mr. Bryan
=
November 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
said everything has been verbal to this point. Mr. Bowerman said it has been discussed with him. He asked
if a bridge replacement would still be necessary if that occurred. Mr. Bryan said that is the Boards decision.
=
The original purpose of the project was to connect services. Building a new road fits that purpose, but
creates the need for a new bridge. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the developer is interested in the bridge
also, but may be looking to the County to build it. Mr. Bryan said that is correct; the County has already paid
for a lot of that cost out of matching funds.
Mr. Bowerman said it was going to be $1.0 million, with one-half of that being for a temporary
bridge. If it is built anytime soon, it should cost less since there would be another access point thus
alleviating the need for a temporary bridge. Mr. Bryan said staff is looking at this project and the various
permits required.
Ms. Thomas said she is concerned that when talking about the Free State Bridge, the developer is
assuming that the Meadow Creek Parkway phase which goes all the way to Hollymead will never happen.
The Board has to be clear as to whether it is blocking, or by inaction keeping that extension of the Meadow
Creek Parkway from happening. Mr. Tucker said the most important thing is to get the first leg of the
Meadow Creek Parkway to Free State Road built.
__________
Mr. Dorrier said some people have called him about the passing lane on Route 20 South near
Vintage Market which is dangerous when coming out of Vintage Market. Mr. Bryan said this same comment
comes to the VDOT about once each year. The reason this area was left open for passing is that it is the
only place which allows passing for miles. Mr. Dorrier asked if it were possible to put in some kind of
signage either at the market, or at the beginning of the passing section. Mr. Bryan said his office will look at
the problem.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the Board has recently received a copy of a letter written to Mr. Butch Davies by
Mr. John Moore asking about oversized and wide load trucks, and ODE truck construction traffic on Routes
22/231. She said she will get a copy to Mr. Bryan.
__________
Mr. Rooker asked if there has been any traffic study given to Albemarle County with respect to the
impact traffic from the Wal-Mart Distribution Center may have on Route 250 and Route I-64. He said the
potential truck traffic count was recently almost doubled. There is to be a truck leaving that distribution
center every 1.5 minutes, 24 hours a day. He thinks Albemarle needs to understand the impact of that
traffic on its roads.
__________
Mr. Rooker asked about the progress of the various traffic issues at the entrance to Colthurst that
he has mentioned at several meetings. Mr. Bryan responded that VDOT's traffic engineering section
looked at the area and agreed to install an intersection sign. They do not feel that lowering the speed limit
to 45 mph is justified at this time. It can be looked at again in the future.
Mr. Rooker said he feels it is a safety issue and asked that this intersection be included in the Six-
Year Road Plan as a potential project.
__________
Mr. Bowerman said he had received a call from a constituent who lives on Route 743. Their
driveway is located inside a gentle curve but they do not have adequate sight distance in one direction. He
suggested installing an advisory sign to indicate the curve is there. Mr. Bryan said he has been to this
location several times; he said VDOT might be able to clear vegetation to improve the situation.
__________
Ms. Thomas asked if the intersection study on Route 29 North included coordination of all the
stoplights. Mr. Bryan said the City received a grant for their study, but their lights will be synchronized with
the lights in the County.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the Route 250 West Advisory Committee has two recommendations. 1) Bicycle
lanes be considered with any widening of pavement on Route 250 from the stoplight at Ednam/Bellair into
Charlottesville, and, 2) Install something to help divide the traffic in the Ivy commercial area. This has been
discussed before, and there is little the County or VDOT can do, but someone was going to talk with the
property owners to see if anything could be worked out voluntarily.
__________
Ms. Rooker thanked Mr. Bryan for improving the sequencing of the lights at Rio Road/Route 29.
__________
Mr. Davis reminded Ms. Thomas that no vote had been taken on Agenda Item No. 6a.
Mr. Rooker offered motion to adopt a resolution approving the three-part request of the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority regarding the traffic circle (set out in Mr. Tuckers presentation).
=
The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
November 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Charlottesville-Albemarle County Convention and Visitors Bureau,
Presentation by Mark M. Shore, Director.
Mr. Shore was present to give an overview of the Countys investment in the Convention Bureau.
=
The bureau is a partnership between the City and the County, and the Chamber of Commerce. It is
governed by a four-member Management Committee. They are advised by a 15-member Advisory Board
called the Regional Tourism Council. Those members are appointed by the Management Committee.
They operate the Visitors Center on Route 20 South. They also operate a visitors center in Downtown
==
Charlottesville funded by the City on the corner of Second and Water Streets. The majority of their funding
comes from the County and the City, but there is some self-generated revenue, and a small amount of
revenue from the Chamber. They distribute maps and brochures, and help book meetings and tours, but,
they focus on the economic impact of what they do.
Mr. Shore said that motor coach tours are a big business in this area. They focus on individual
travelers, but also meet with meeting planners. They work with various markets, golfing, wineries, African-
American, heritage and student groups. They have a new (he distributed
Destination Planning Guide
copies to the Board members). They also have a visitors guide.
=
Mr. Shore said the Bureau works with meeting planners and group tour operators to bring their
meetings and groups to town. There are destination management companies in town which will work with
groups, but the Bureau provides the service for free. They try to coordinate with the hotels, restaurants and
attractions to maximize the dollars that people spend locally. They place advertisements in trade
communications to make people aware of what goes on in Charlottesville/Albemarle. There are over
190,000 walk-in visitors annually in the two visitor centers. About 175,000 of those come to the Visitors
=
Center on Route 20.
Mr. Rooker asked if the Bureau has a website. Mr. Shore said it is SoVeryVirginia.com. They
coordinate tours for the media coming into the area. They try to gain as much free publicity as possible.
They have made a significant investment in the website over the past several years. There is an average of
14.4 million hits annually, with about 270,000 unique visitors to the site. Local hotels and restaurants can
actually go onto the site and input their own information. 250,000 Visitors Guides are produced and
=
distributed annually. Cooperative programs are created to promote the area. They have worked with the
hotels and restaurants trying to get them to better package the area so the Bureau can sell it to the
consumers.
Mr. Shore said as to the return on investments, they look for the number of impressions the area
gets through the media, the number of meeting leads they get, the number of group tour bookings, the
number of Presidents Passes which they sell, the number of story placements, the number of call-in and
=
write-in requests and the number of reader response cards.
Mr. Shore said in order to measure their success, they created a new comprehensive Visitors
=
Guide. Five different pieces were being produced and it was confusing, so that has been reduced to one
piece which allows them to cross-sell the community. By consolidating the five pieces, they saved over
$17,000 in printing costs. They also did some familiarization (fan) tours last year with the local tourism
industry and visited some 27 welcome centers across the State to tell them about this area. They are now
requiring on-going customer service training for all their staff. He mentioned earlier that 175,000 people
come through the Visitors Center on Route 20, and quite often there are only three staff people. On peak
=
days they speak with 300 to 400 people, so they need to be trained to be cordial as well as knowledgeable.
Mr. Shore said another goal of the Bureau was to create a branding grant program. They give out
13 branding grants in the first year and 17 in the second year, where they pay up to $500 or one-half of the
cost of a printed piece if they will put the Bureaus logo and telephone number on the back of their piece.
=
That brings awareness of the website and the toll-free number, and gives unity to the community. They
wanted to increase their visitor inquiries by 14 percent so they invested some money after September 11,
2001, and got a 416 percent increase in the number of inquiries going from 2800 to 13,000. In order to
generate $1.0 million in earned media, their advertising agency, The Ivy Group, kept track of that and they
actually earned 41.0 million impressions valued at $11.5 million. Much of this goes to the Three Presidents
Video which was done through WHTJ. It ended up going national, so the number of impressions were
considerable. They wanted to increase their website visitations by 18 percent, and they saw a 109 percent
increase last year.
Mr. Shore said that about four years ago, the County made a significant new investment in tourism
in money that was dedicated to marketing. This doubled the size of the budget for the Bureau. They think
that investment in marketing has paid off by bringing in a greater return. Local tax revenues for visitor
expenditures was $5.8 million for the County, and that does not include the hotel tax, or the portion of the
meals tax that comes from visitors. In this environment, about 30 percent of the meals tax would be
considered as coming from visitors.
November 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
Mr. Shore said that meetings and tourism is the second largest industry in 29 states. In Virginia, it is
the second largest industry. $162.0 million is spent each year in Albemarle County and that is where the
$5.8 million was generated. $5.8 million in local tax dollars was generated from visitor expenditures, and an
additional $4.9 in hotel and meals taxes. The Travel Industry of America estimates that 2600 jobs are
created in Albemarle County with a payroll of $40.0 million.
Mr. Shore said as to future plans, they are in the middle of an RFP for a strategic planner to come
in and talk about everything from government structure, to their boards, to alternative funding methods, to
visitor services and where visitor centers may be located in the future. There have been discussions about
Monticello moving into a new visitor center, discussions about relocating the downtown visitor center, so
they felt it was time for a strategic plan. There is the addition of a sales clerk starting next week. She has
been in Washington and New York in hotel sales for the past ten years. She will solicit meetings and group
tours. They are putting out a cooperative schedule of advertising to lessen the cost of advertising for all
local members who may want to be in the same publication. They will seek new design and public relations
firms. Their contract with The Ivy Group expired in June and they chose to bring as much work as possible
back in-house and to reallocate resources. The Ivy Group did a good job, but it is time reevaluate and issue
a new RFP. They are soliciting for a Virginia Tourism Grant for next year. There are seven partners from
within the community who are going after a grant from the Atlanta market. They have been chosen by the
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission to manage the Heritage Bench or Mapping Project on
which they are in the process of opening the bids. That will be a new element on their website.
Mr. Shore said the tourism industry is the best bet for sustainable growth and economic vitality
combined. They get to invite people here to visit and then those people return home. He thanked the
Board members for their investment, and he then offered to answer questions.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Shore has done an excellent job for the area since he came with the Visitors
=
Bureau, not only upgrading and moving the operation to the next level, but also working closely with the
Tourism Council.
Mr. Rooker asked about the connection to Atlanta. Mr. Shore said it is estimated that there are
22,000 alumni from UVA in the Atlanta market. They think many of those are decision-makers for
meetings, as well as travelers making personal visits to this area. That market has a direct link with Delta.
The Virginia Tourism Corporation gives out about 25 grants per 100 applications. They are applying for a
$37,000 grant to market directly to the Atlanta market. Not many people are doing meetings marketing.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Tourism Council is doing anything specifically related to the Lewis and
Clark Bicentennial. Mr. Shore said there will be visitor tables around town. The Bureau is sponsoring
registration bags this year coordinating with locations both in the City and in the County. There are a
number of different opportunities which Lewis and Clark week will present, as well as into the future.
Mr. Dorrier asked if a large number of people are projected to come to Albemarle. Mr. Shore said
they anticipate registration will be full at 900. That would probably be a minimum. The best average guess
is about 2000 attendees in town for that week. They are hoping this will have a three-year residual effect
because people will continue to visit as the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial becomes better known nationally.
Also, the national media will be focused on the area because it will have the first signature event in the
country.
Mr. Rooker said Lakeland Tours runs a lot of tours from here. He asked if the Bureau is tied in to
what they are doing. Mr. Shore said they have a good relationship with World Strides (their new name) right
now, which is actually a compilation of seven different companies, they are the largest student/youth travel
organization in the world.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. FY 2003 Draft TJPDC Legislative Program, Presentation by David Blount.
Mr. Blount said a copy of the Draft 2003 TJPDC Legislative Program has been forwarded to the
Board members for approval. In September, he told the Board the focus of the program was to preserve
State funding to the extent possible. The action items make a good case for funding priorities. They are:
Standards of Quality funding, realistic funding of education, the Comprehensive Services Act, public safety,
drug courts, to fund existing transportation obligations, tax structure and reform, and then there are non-
revenue items such as land use and growth management.
Mr. Blount said that beyond those action items, there are items of continuing concern. This year
some funding requests have been deleted and others scaled back. Language that in the past has said we
A
support additional funding had been changed to we support sufficient funding or restored funding. He
@A@
pointed out that in the item concerning the Comprehensive Services Act, he is making an editorial change
concerning Albemarle's contribution. It will be noted that the local contribution increased from $1.9 million
to $2.7 million in the current fiscal year. He has been reminded that there is an important item that needs to
be reinserted in the program dealing with At-Risk Four-Year Old Funding. The County urges continued
support from the State for this program. That can be inserted in the Health and Human Services section.
Also, he noted that on Page 9 under Local Government Structure and Laws, it supports changes to the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authoritys Charter.
=
Ms. Thomas said the first bullet in the Executive Summary talks about the police at the Airport. She
asked if that is the same thing as that discussed on Page 9. It was not an issue of which she had been
aware. Mr. Tucker said the new Transportation Security Administration has created an issue at the Airport
November 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
in providing adequate security. Actually, it provides true security, and then the Airport Authority has to work
with the County Police Department. The Chief actually oversees the security people even though they
report to an individual at the Airport. The Authority Board felt it was time to try and create a separate Police
Department at the Airport.
Ms. Thomas noted the bullet in the Executive Summary concerning growth management and
purchase of development rights. She said there is a legislative committee looking at the criterion for the
purchase of development rights programs. She wants to be sure Albemarle is alert to that committee's
work because they are not necessarily coming up with the same criteria that Albemarle is now using in its
ACE Program. Mr. Ches Goodall is aware of that work, but has not received any directions from this Board.
Mr. Rooker said that under discussion of Growth Management on Page 5 of the Executive
Summary, it recommends that we support enabling legislation that would provide local governments with
A
various additional tools such as impact fees .... He asked what the response has been over the years to
@
the proposal for impact fees. Mr. Blount said it has been an emphatic NO.
A@
Mr. Rooker asked if this request is something which essentially has no potential for passage. Mr.
Blount said a couple of years ago the Legislature granted Stafford County some impact fee authority, but
were very specific in saying that if they did not enact it by 2003, the whole statute would go away. He thinks
Stafford is working its way through the process now.
Mr. Rooker asked the unique circumstances that allowed Stafford to get this authority. Mr. Blount
said he does not know, but that county has been growing very rapidly. Mr. Tucker said Northern Virginia
has that authority, and Stafford is in that Northern Virginia area. Mr. Davis said he believes this new
authority was to be in lieu of cash proffers.
Ms. Thomas said the High Growth Coalition still has as their priority, a request for impact fees and
an adequate public facilities ordinance.
Mr. Rooker said he has talked with several developers, and the current proffer system is deemed
by many of them to be less fair than impact fees. Essentially, people seeking a rezoning pay what they feel
to be unfair fees that are not assessed on like projects that may not need a rezoning. Mr. Blount said it
would help to have those developers come to Richmond and say that. Ms. Thomas said they really need to
say that to their state organization because they are represented in Richmond as if they were a monolithic
group.
Mr. Dorrier said a couple of years ago, the Board tried to get a provision through the General
Assembly asking that localities be allowed to set up an historic preservation fund. He asked if there has
been a change in thinking in Richmond because he does not believe the request it ever got out of
committee. Ms. Thomas said commercial banking interests reacted viciously to the idea. Mr. Blount said if
the Board wants to push forward with that idea, there are some things the Board might want to do
differently. Mr. Dorrier asked if there is any interest in Richmond in giving historic preservation more tools to
work with. Mr. Blount said some tax credits have been given in the past. But, he has not seen anything new
in the past few years. Ms. Thomas said she met with the director of Historic Preservation a few days ago,
and she said these tax credits had been wildly successful. They have an impact in urban areas where one
historic preservation project is done and then the whole neighborhood upgrades itself.
Ms. Thomas said the Board needs to approve the Draft 2003 TJPDC Legislative Program (on file in
the Clerks Office), with the understanding that suggested changes from the Board will be reflected in the
=
final version of the regional legislative program. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Rooker and
seconded by Mr. Bowerman.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Human Resources Annual Report.
Ms. Thomas said the Board has not had such a report in the past. Mr. Tucker said Human
Resources has been providing this information to the Schools, but this is the first such report on the Local
Government workforce.
Ms. Kimberly Suyes, Human Resources Director, gave a slide presentation. She has reviewed the
report with the Leadership Council. After reviewing the written report many people called her with positive
remarks. She said there has been a transformation in the Human Resources Department in the last year.
They developed a mission and a culture around customer service. To support the mission, they redesigned
the Human Resources Team into a client group focus. They have strategically focused with all County
departments, and developed a Human Resources strategic Plan. They revamped the Annual Recognition
Program.
Ms. Suyes said that where applicants learn of job vacancies is important as they develop
recruitment strategies. Twenty-six percent learn from newspapers, 26 percent from other sources, 17
percent from postings and mail-outs, and 15 percent from County employees. The system at this time is
November 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
unable to capture other categories which would include the Internet and the Countys website.
=
Ms. Suyes said the minority distribution of employees and residents is similar. It reflects the
diversity in the County.
Ms. Suyes said that employee eligibility for VERIP and full retirement is increasing. As the
workforce ages, there is a need to reinforce the importance of retention perhaps having part-time
employment for retirees, and the importance of succession planning.
Ms. Suyes said there will be a lengthy discussion about compensation and benefits later this
afternoon. The good news is that the action taken by the joint boards closed the gap for classified staff.
The salary scale was increased by 3.0 percent, and the merit pool by 3.8 percent. That made a huge stride
in closing that gap.
Ms. Suyes said Human Resources will continue to provide this report to the Board. The intention of
the report is to provide information for strategic planning for each department, and to set initiatives for the
up-coming year. The Department will continue to focus on its customer service mission. They will have
priorities around competitive compensation and benefits, a priority around performance management, also
around staffing, recruitment, retention, and rewards and recognition. She then offered to answer questions.
Mr. Tucker said Ms. Suyes has done a great job, and has molded the team into one that is focused
on providing service to all clients, both in the building, as well as those looking for a job with the County.
This report reflects the type of work coming from that team.
Mr. Rooker said the focus on customer service is obviously the correct focus. He said it looks like
an excellent plan for achieving its goals. He assumes this dovetails with the Boards strategic plan for the
=
County. Mr. Tucker said it does.
Ms. Suyes said she did not ask the members of the team to be present this morning, but they did
come to this meeting. She thinks that is indicative of the interest of the team in their work.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Resolution of Intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan, re: Affordable
Housing Policy.
Ms. Roxanne White said she was present to introduce the resolution of intent to amend the
Comprehensive Plan. The Affordable Housing Policy was actually drafted by the Housing Committee. She
recognized the Committee for its work on this policy. She said Mr. Eric Strucko, Chairman of the Housing
Committee, will talk about the process. Mr. Ron White, Chief of Housing, will go over a few of the major
points of the policy. She then introduced Ms. Karen Lilleleht and Ms. Joy Matthews who are members of
the Committee, and noted that Ms. Lilleleht is the one who actually led the charge to put this policy
together.
Mr. Strucko said that in the wake of changes to growth and development policies in the County, the
Housing Committee wanted to continue the effort. One of the main points of the Neighborhood Model is to
offer a variety of housing types in a variety of price ranges within the neighborhood concept. But, the DISC
Committee never defined that point. The Housing Committee for the last year organized itself into four task
groups to tackle the issue. The first task group was on demographics and it tried to determine where the
need is. The second group looked at the Neighborhood Model and the whole DISC process. They wanted
experts to look at any proposals to be sure the Housing Committees recommendations were consistent
=
with the Neighborhood Model, and now the Comprehensive Plan. A third group looked at the current
housing organizations in the County. There are two very powerful non-profit organizations which the Board
helps fund in various ways, the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) and the Piedmont
Housing Alliance (PHA), along with the Countys Housing Office. The Committee wanted to understand
=
how they operate and see if there is an opportunity to reorganize their efforts to a single focus. The fourth
group led by Ms. Lilleleht was to look at housing policies in effect around the country. This four-prong effort
has been going on for about a year.
Mr. Strucko said the policy proposals being looked at now are geared to a couple of themes. One
is the issue of supply. Albemarle Countys housing prices are increasing. There are few opportunities for
=
what can be defined as an affordable dwelling unit. There is need to be consistent with the Neighborhood
Model. They wanted to look at growth area developments to find affordable housing opportunities. They
wanted to use the existing non-profit agencies as the implementers of this policy, coordinated by the
County. The Piedmont Housing Alliance serves as a financier. They have access to a number of funds
that they can leverage, and they can offer below-interest, or no-interest loans to families of low to moderate
income. The Albemarle Housing Improvement Program is a rehabilitation program. They look at the cost
of the existing housing stock to rehab it, or they can also serve as a builder. The Countys Housing office is
=
a rental assistance program.
Mr. Strucko said the policy that is emerging is hard to describe. The Board has talked about the
challenges it has faced with the challenge of impact fees and the use of proffers. His scenario is geared
toward reality. A developer with a proposal comes in for a rezoning or a special use permit, and goes
through the process with the County pointing out the standards of the Neighborhood Model and the
Comprehensive Plan, which would include this affordable housing component. The developer would have
to demonstrate that he could offer this housing, and the price to be charged. That developer would then
November 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
proffer that housing to AHIP or someone else, and they could serve as the builder, or the developer could
build the houses themselves. They wanted to offer the private sector a number of options to meet the
public policy standards. He said that is how they want to go about accomplishing the construction of a
supply of housing. How to make those houses affordable to people is where the PHA steps in to offer a
variety of mortgages. PHA might want to buy the houses themselves, group several financial mechanisms
and then offer them to low or moderate-income families. The overall theme is to achieve public policy
common interest while preserving private market self-interests. This is trying to address the real situation in
Albemarle County now. He said a lot of the details of the recommendation still need to be worked out. The
Committee wanted to get the Boards feeling as to the sense of direction in which it was moving. They want
=
to bring the proposal before a lot of the organizations in the community which will be addressing this issue.
It is the Housing Committees opinion that the best way to address the issue is to use the non-profit sector
=
as much as possible. He then offered to answer questions.
Mr. Dorrier asked the definition of affordable housing. Mr. Strucko said it is from $-0- to $170,000.
They looked at the median family income which is between $50,000 and $60,000. Thirty percent of that
income is attributed to housing. When they talk about a strategy for affordable housing, it speaks to rental
units which provide rental assistance, to rental units which do not involve rental assistance, to attached
products such as townhouses, duplexes, quadraplexes, and then to single-family detached. As families fall
into that income range, the strategy changes. A family may only need closing costs assistance, or a
mortgage rate which is slightly below market.
Ms. Thomas asked about working with employers or mortgage programs. She said Albemarle
County is the second biggest employer in the County. Mr. Strucko said the subject came up but was quickly
lost in the discussion. He thinks that would be a great addition to the strategy.
Ms. Thomas said employers are aware that it is more and more difficult for people to live close to
where they work. That has impacts on everything from moral to the number of hours that an employee can
put on the job. There is incentives growing for employers to recognize that with some assistance they can
have employees who live closer to where they work, although she does not think it will ever be at the top of
the list for employers. Mr. Strucko said they studied statistics as they looked at income levels and
household expenses, and realized that there is a great benefit for low and moderate-income families to live
close to where they work, shop, and go to school. The car loan is the second biggest expense for a family.
If there is a way to minimize that cost, that would benefit these families. He does believe employers would
benefit in their operations from having an employee base living in proximity to their business.
Mr. Rooker said this is an excellent report. He thinks the approach of using existing agencies is an
excellent idea. He asked how it can be assured that affordable housing will stay affordable. He read an
article where it said that a public housing organization participates in resales, and splits the profit with the
existing owner. He has been concerned that there would only be one generation of affordable housing, and
the second time the house would sell at market. Mr. Strucko said the Committees strategy to utilize the
=
non-profit agencies brings that whole concept into the fold. They are the experts in retaining affordable
units. They have concepts, such as first right of refusal so if a housing organization owns the mortgage or
controls the propertys transfer of ownership, that kind of mechanism is already in place, and they can
=
maintain the affordability of the unit in accordance with the labor market, income levels, the cost of living in
the community, etc. He said the PHA, AHIP and Habitat for Humanity are well experienced in maintaining
affordability as different families move in and out as their condition changes.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks this is something which needs to be looked at so any pool of affordable
housing created is not lost. Mr. Strucko said that concept will be expressed in the final document. Mr.
Bowerman said he is pleased to see that it is part of this report. It is obvious the way to do it is the way the
Committee has suggested.
Ms. Thomas said she has been impressed with the homebuyers clubs sponsored by the Housing
=
Office. She assumes this is part of what is referred to as special programs for certain populations. Mr.
Strucko said the family condition cannot be ignored. Some people need counseling and education on how
the whole housing purchase process works. This service educates a lot of families on what it means to be
a homeowner, and what it means to budget and run a household.
Ms. Thomas said she would like to see the policy apply to the County as an employer. The County
is also a developer at some times. She went to a session on a transportation-oriented community where
affordable housing was being discussed. This was in Portland, Oregon, and their county cannot do
anything without considering how it impacts on affordable housing. That is a community which is having a
lot of trouble getting affordable housing, so the county and its library system are building a library/
apartment building. She is not suggesting that it be done here, but thinks that as a large employer, and an
entity which comes up with new buildings occasionally, as part of the Countys Comprehensive Plan, the
=
Board should keep in mind what its actions have on affordable housing.
Mr. Ron White said the Boards questions have covered most of what he was prepared to say. He
=
said the Committee adopted a definition of affordable housing, which says that 30 percent of a familys
=
income goes toward housing. He said the Committee and his office are more interested in how to increase
housing opportunities for those at 80 percent median or less, which translates into a family of four with an
income of $50,000 or less a year. They did set out a goal. Some of the suggestions made this morning will
fall under one of their five strategies. PHA did a survey to address employer-assisted housing a year ago,
and they are waiting to see the results of that. They sent surveys to 500 County employees out of the 2700
who fell in the salary range they were looking at. There got about 125 responses back, but they have not
November 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
seen the results of that survey. He said they will work on some of the regulatory administration functions
and some of the legal aspects while the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is finding its way through
the process. This policy will set some directions for his office, the Housing Committee, and non-profit and
for-profit partners, as well as the Planning Office. It will be a tool they can use when talking with
developers. He said Ms. Thomas has mentioned the High Growth Coalition a couple of times today, and he
thinks a policy like this can offset some of the concerns they have because Albemarle County will be putting
an affordable housing policy on the same standing as other land use policies. He offered to answer
questions.
Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. White knows of any employer-assistance programs where they provide part
of down payments and then perhaps share in the profit on the sale of the house when it is sold so it could
become a self-funding pool. Mr. White said he had gotten some information from Minnesota on some
specific employer-assisted housing programs. In Virginia, there may have been some informal type of
things. He knows that James City County developed an individual development account program for their
employers. He said that under the Community Development Block Grant for the project in the
Porters/Yancey School neighborhood where five houses are being developed, he thinks all five
homebuyers will be people who attended one of the Homebuyers Clubs. Two of them may be County
=
employees.
Mr. Perkins said there is Federal money through HUD and other money from the State which
comes from the Planning District Commission. There is a big pool of money in the State. Mr. White said
there are resources, and those are addressed in Objective No. 5.
Ms. Thomas suggested that No. 5 say For effectively acquiring and leveraging public and private
A
funds .... Mr. White said that can be clarified. He said this may not be ready to be presented to the
@
Planning Commission in February, assuming the Board approves the resolution today. They want to be
sure the document they present is inclusive of comments, and those comments have been addressed.
Ms. Thomas said a motion is needed to adopt a resolution of intent to amend the Comprehensive
Plan to define affordable housing and to outline objectives and strategies to promote development of safe,
affordable housing for all County residents and those who desire to reside in the County.
Motion to adopt the following resolution of intent was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr.
Perkins, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
(Note: The Resolution of Intent follows, set out in full.)
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
Whereas, the Albemarle County Housing Committee, as an advisory committee to the
Board of Supervisors, has identified a need for additional affordable housing
opportunities available to low- and moderate-income families as evidenced
by high median sales prices/rents and decreasing supplies; and
Whereas, addressing the affordable housing issues will require engaging the real
estate development community in providing additional affordable housing
opportunities; and
Whereas, existing partnerships with all housing providers, including those nonprofit
agencies providing housing and housing services, should be expanded and
new partnerships created; and
Whereas, the Board of Supervisors has indicated support for the development of
affordable housing that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
Neighborhood Model principles; and
Whereas, the Housing Committee will work with County staff and other agencies to
seek and recommend incentives, financial and other, to promote the
development of affordable housing; and
Whereas, the Housing Committee has drafted an affordable housing policy and
recommends that the Board of Supervisors amend the Comprehensive Plan
by adding the affordable housing policy statement;
Now therefore be it resolved that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
adopts a resolution of intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan to define
affordable housing and to outline objectives and strategies to promote
development of safe, affordable housing for all County residents and those
who desire to reside in the County (draft amendment attached); and
Further resolved, that the Housing Committee hold a series of focus group/public
November 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
input meetings on the proposed draft amendment and forward its
recommendation to the Planning Commission; and
Further resolved, that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing on this
resolution of intent and make its recommendations to the Board of
Supervisors at the earliest possible date.
(Note: At 11:15 a.m., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 11:29 a.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Work Session, ZTA 01-09, Parking. To repeal 4.12, Off-street parking &
'
loading requirements & all of its subparts; repeal 4.13, Parking & storage of certain vehicles & all of its
'
subparts; add new 4.12, Parking, stacking & loading, including subparts; amend 3.1, Definitions, 15.2.2,
'''
By special use permit, 16.2.2, By special use permit, 17.2.2, By special use permit, 18.2.1, By right,
'''
18.2.2, By special use permit, 19.3.2, By special use permit, 20.3.2, By special use permit, 20.4.2, By
''''
special use permit, 20.5.2, By special use permit, 22.2.1, By right, 22.2.2, By special use permit, 23.2.1,
''''
By right, 23.2.2, By special use permit, 24.2.1, By right, 24.2.2, By special use permit, 27.2.1, By right, &
''''
28.2.1, By right; of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This Ord would establish new
'
parking, stacking & loading regulations applicable to new uses, structures & parking areas, redeveloped
sites, & preexisting & approved parking, stacking & loading areas; define certain terms used in new 4.12; &
'
delineate in which zoning districts parking may be a primary use by right or by special use permit.
Ms. Jan Sprinkle, Planner, described the reason for the proposed changes saying the intent was to
amend the Zoning Ordinance in Section 4.12, Off-street Parking and Loading. A resolution of intent to
amend was adopted by the Planning Commission on November 23, 1999. There were three work sessions
and a public hearing on the amendments, but the portion of the proposed text in the staffs report forwarded
=
to the Board for this meeting is an addition made by staff after the original public hearing, and prior to the
work session on September 24, 2002, when the Commission took action. Since this portion of
the text was not included in the public hearing, it is being scheduled separately in order to have it in the
same posture with the text already recommended for approval to the Board.
Ms. Sprinkle said the purpose of these amendments was to allow on-street parking in some cases,
to allow administrative approval of certain design features, to reduce impervious areas, and to make
parking requirements more precise based on average usage rather than on peak usage. She drew the
Boards attention to Attachment IB, the actual draft ordinance dated September 16, 2002, which is a total
=
rewrite of Section 4.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 4.12 was entitled Off-Street Parking and Loading
A
Requirements, but now is being expanded to include both off-street and on-street parking. Loading
@
requirements have been revised and new regulations are being added concerning stacking at any use or
drive-in window that serves vehicular traffic. The draft also adds parking as a use and makes parking
structures by-right in some districts and by special use permit in other districts.
Ms. Sprinkle drew the Boards attention to Attachment I which states that the Planning Commission
=
at its meeting on September 24, 2002, by a vote 7:0, recommended approval of ZTA-01-09 with the
following changes to the draft ordinance dated September 16, 2002:
1) Maximum allowable percentage above the minimum required parking be changed to 15
percent (Section 4.12.4.a).
2) On Regulated parking, looking at Subsection C on page 2 of the packet, Orientation to
buildings, that language be adopted but it be specified that it does not apply to areas that
are designated Rural Areas in the Comprehensive Plan (Section 4.12.5.c, Orientation to
buildings located in designated development areas).
3) Parking lots as primary uses and Parking Structures by-right in PRD and PUD (Section
19.3.1 and 20.3.1).
4) Churches would be allowed to reduce the parking based on a study that they would
provide to the Zoning Administrator. The study does not have to be done by a traffic
engineer.
5) Delete parking as special use under 19.3.2 and 20.3.2. Amendments to 19.3.2 and 20.3.1
to allow parking structure by-right.
Ms. Sprinkle then drew the Boards attention to Attachment II which stated that the Planning
=
Commission, at its meeting on October 22, 2002, by a vote of 7:0, recommended approval of ZTA-01-09 to
add both supplemental and site plan regulations regarding parking, Sections 5.1.41 and 32.7.2A, and to
allow parking structures in the PRD and PUD to be by right. In addition, based on the absence of c, d, and
e in Section 32.0, the Commissions previous recommendation to the Board should be changed so that by-
=
right parking structures in the conventional districts be limited to two levels and a special use permit would
be required for more than two levels (see Page 69 of staffs report).
=
Ms. Sprinkle drew the Boards attention to Attachment III (Page 74), a memorandum from Mr. Jack
=
Kelsey, Chief of Engineering, regarding his recommendations for changing the dimensions in the Angled
Parking Tables which are part of Attachment IB. His recommendations are based on national standards
which were just published this year. The two tables depicted in his memorandum are the only changes
needed. All the text in the ordinance section remains the same. Staff thinks these changes are very minor.
She said if the Board agrees, all of these pieces will be put into one document and brought back to the
Board for a public hearing at some point in the future.
November 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
Ms. Sprinkle said there are two other things on which the staff needs guidance and directions. It
was always staffs intention that stand-alone parking and parking structures would be utilized only to
=
support parking required under the ordinance for a specific use. In other words, a parking lot could not be
constructed for speculation, or there be a free-standing parking lot such as those seen in the city. A
common thread in these amendments and in the Neighborhood Model is a desire to reduce parking
spaces, therefore cutting down on impervious area in the Development Areas. If the Board agrees with this
theory, then staff will move forward with this concept, but it would have to work closely with the County
Attorneys Office on how this could happen. They have pointed out that parking cannot be a stand-alone
=
use and also be accessory to a use. There will need to be ordinance changes to make this work.
Mr. Rooker asked if someone put a parking structure on a developed piece of property for their own
use, but as a structure it has more parking area than is necessary for that use, would a shared-parking
concept permit an adjoining landowner to use some of those spaces to accommodate his needs? Ms.
Sprinkle said yes. It is the concept to be able to share parking for multiple uses on one separate lot. But,
A@
it would always be attached to these other uses.
Mr. Davis said it became apparent that the ordinance as presently drafted does not prevent anyone
from putting up a parking lot which is not associated with another use. From a practical standpoint that
probably would never happen, but, theoretically someone could build a parking structure and market it as a
commuter lot, etc. It would have excess parking beyond any identified need. The ordinance now has a
loophole which would allow that to happen. How can an independent use allowed by right somehow be
accessory to other uses? There are problems associated with the fact that uses could come and go and
the parking lot stay. From a timing standpoint, someone might want to build a parking lot before the uses
have been established. How could they do that if the use has to have a piece of the parking lot. There are
some practical issues which have to be examined by staff if that concept is required. On the other
hand, it may be fine to allow by-right free-standing parking uses if the market is going to control that factor.
If the market does not control, they could be made subject to a special use permit.
Mr. Rooker asked if this is controlled by having a maximum/minimum parking requirement under
this proposed ordinance. Mr. Davis said that is true for an accessory use to the main use.
Ms. Thomas said she can picture this happening in Crozet where there are existing businesses
which do not meet VDOT requirements. Someone might bring up the idea of a municipal paid parking lot.
Mr. Davis said that is not what the staff envisioned. Mr. Cilimberg said if someone wanted to do that, staff
would need to be sure that parking was associated with efficiencies, or parking requirements of businesses
and commercial lots, and that excess lots were not being created.
Ms. Thomas said when Portland, Oregon, set out to have a more efficient transportation system,
they outlawed stand-alone parking lots. In cities where old buildings are torn down, people often turn the
property into a parking lot for a few years. She thinks that is a bad thing, but in Crozet someone might want
a parking lot. Ms. Sprinkle said the concept of required parking would work in Crozet. There are enough
businesses in the area that do not have required parking, so they could sign up and say they would be part
of a parking venture. Mr. Davis said the logistics of tieing parking spaces to either existing uses or future
uses is challenging. Then, when those uses cease to exist, what happens to the person who owns the
parking lot?
Mr. Rooker asked if it could be provided by special use permit. Absent a circumstance like Crozet
where they dont have enough parking, and someone might want to put up a pay-lot to serve the area, he
=
cant imagine anyone investing their money.
=
Ms. Thomas asked if a stand-alone lot could be built now if no changes are made to the ordinance.
Mr. Davis said a by-right parking lot, particularly a surface only lot, could create a loophole. If someone
came in and said they were going to build a parking lot, leveled the land, cut trees, etc., and then used it as
a building lot. The special use permit procedure would screen out those types of situations.
Ms. Sprinkle said another issue which recently surfaced has to do with parking in individual
residential garages. To date, dwellings have been required to provide parking on the same lot as the
dwelling. Although the ordinance is silent on the issue of garage spaces, the Zoning Department has never
allowed garage space to count for meeting parking required under the ordinance. The main reason is the
ease and the frequency with which homeowners convert their garages to other uses. Even more serious is
the permanent conversion of a garage to additional living space. To attempt to keep track of which garages
are counter to parking and to research each building permit for an interior renovation would be a major
task. However, in looking at the Neighborhood Model and more city-type development on smaller lots,
there is not room for a house, a garage, outdoor parking, and green space, so staff is considering whether
garage space should be counted toward required parking. Staff would like the Boards thoughts on that
=
issue.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks this just creates problems. He thinks most people convert the upper
space in their garage, but not the total garage. Ms. Thomas said she thinks it is a common practice. Mr.
Rooker asked if this practice could be policed through the building permits granted to convert a garage.
Then as part of the process they would have to show that there is adequate parking remaining on the lot.
Ms. Sprinkle said it would take a lot of time to research every building permit. Mr. Rooker said only those
for garage conversions. Ms. Sprinkle said these are normally called interior renovations. Mr. Bowerman
asked if a plan is required. Ms. Sprinkle said it is, and staff can work this out. Mr. Rooker said he thinks
builders should be encouraged to add garages so it puts parking out of sight which is part of the relegated
November 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
parking goal.
Ms. Thomas said she has seen pictures of fairly ugly neighborhoods where a garage was provided
for parking, and it is now used for many other uses so the car is forced out onto the apron.
Mr. Rooker said he believes not penalizing builders for having garages overrides the other issues.
If people dont park in their garage, they have to park on the street, and the County is not adverse to street
=
parking if it is VDOT accepted. Mr. Davis said that recently in Prince William they began to tackle the issue
of people parking on their lawns. They tried to outlaw that, but there is a huge controversy attached. That
is one of the consequences of not having the apron. Staff may want to talk with people in Prince William.
Mr. Bowerman said to not count garages as parking spaces for a house is an oxymoron. Garages
are for cars, and some people will convert them, but to not count them does not make any sense.
Ms. Thomas asked if a home is required to have a garage and a parking space. Ms. Sprinkle said
there is no requirement for a garage, but there is a requirement for two off-street parking spaces. Ms.
Thomas said this ordinance would need to be changed to allow their two-car garage to count as their two
spaces, which means that the garage could come right up to the street. Ms. Sprinkle said staff has looked
at the setbacks for a garage, and has settled on 18 feet behind the sidewalk. On the alley side, it has to be
three feet from the right-of-way.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the problem is really so severe that the Board needs to get involved. Mr.
Bowerman said that is the way he feels about the question. Mr. Davis said the amendments before the
Board today will change the requirements.
Ms. Thomas said the Board must take action one way or the other. Mr. Davis said it has not been a
problem in the past, because the regulation has been in effect. Whether it will become a problem after this
change is made, it is not known.
Mr. Bowerman asked how it could be worse. Mr. Davis said that now the ordinance requires
outside spaces. Mr. Bowerman said if the garage cant be counted now, the parking space has to be
=
outside. If the parking space is allowed to be inside, that is probably better. He thinks the Board could
discuss this question infinitum. Mr. Cilimberg said it boils down to a fundamental question of whether the
County wants to be in the business of regulating parking spaces on residential property to the extent that all
parking spaces would have to be outside and on the lot. The ordinance proposed allows the on-street
parking to count toward the parking requirement for the residential unit. The question before the Board is
whether the garage can also be counted because it has not been counted in the past. It has been an
administrative decision, not part of the ordinance. The question is whether that should continue, or not.
Ms. Thomas asked how many members of the Board think garages should count in the
requirement for parking provisions. There were no replies.
Mr. Perkins said he does not think residential parking is a big problem.
Ms. Thomas said she assumed that one of the goals of these changes was to increase transit
access. She noticed that there are some provisions for bonus points if some transit access is provided.
She would like to make it as strong as possible if a van or bus stop is provided that would save x number
A@
of parking spaces. Does staff think this ordinance change is strong in that area?
Ms. Sprinkle said it definitely was one of staffs goals. There is a whole section on transportation
=
demand management. They hope people will choose to use that, but intentionally did not define what the
tools could be.
Mr. Rooker asked about a provision for waiver of the minimum parking requirements. Ms. Sprinkle
said the minimums are spelled out in Section 4.12.6. Staff did not give any waiver of those minimums item
by item, but did include other things such as shared parking and traffic demand management, etc.
The Board discussed the question related to parking at an office building for quite a few minutes.
Mr. Tucker said staff may not have set aside enough time for this discussion today, and suggested that staff
be allowed time to research Mr. Rookers questions to see if there are some alternatives for minimum
=
parking requirements rather than scheduling the public hearing.
Ms. Thomas said there is a whole section in the ordinance on alternatives to the required minimum
number of parking spaces. Ms. Sprinkle said a waiver for the minimum number of parking spaces could be
put into the ordinance. Mr. Davis said a provision to allow a Planning Commission waiver could be
included.
Ms. Thomas said there could be alternative wording at the public hearing level and it could be
discussed at that time. She said the Planning Commission talked about a lot of things and made decisions
all along the way. She does not think the Board members disagree with any of those decisions. She thinks
this matter is ready for public hearing. She asked if a motion to that effect is necessary. Mr. Tucker said
no.
A@
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Mountain Overlay District Zoning Ordinance and Map Amendment, Work
November 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
Session.
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development, said the Board, at its meeting on September
11, 2002, set a work session to discuss setting a public hearing on the originally-proposed Mountain
Protection Overlay District (MOD). He said the Board deferred action on the MOD zoning text and map
amendments while adopting a Comprehensive Plan amendment regarding mountain protection on August
5, 1998. At that time it was anticipated that mountain protection and the MOD would be further considered
with the update of the Rural Areas section of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff and the Planning Commission
are currently reviewing that Rural Areas section. The Mountain Protection part of that review is scheduled
to be addressed by staff between February and April, 2003, with Planning Commission action by June,
2003.
Mr. Benish said the staffs report provides some history regarding mountain protection and the
=
proposed MOD, and a chronology which dates back to 1971 up through the efforts in 1998. He said staff
has also provided some facts about development activity in the mountain protection area based on
questions raised by Board members. There were 103 building permits for single-family dwelling units
issued over a four-year, three-month period. That is about 25 building permits per year. There were a total
of 374 permits, but they cover a myriad of things such as swimming pools and renovations.
Ms. Thomas said she has noticed that there has been a surge in that activity since December 31,
2001. There were about 1.75 single-family permits per month, and suddenly it is at 3.3 per month. Mr.
Benish said staff has not had a chance to look at the permits in detail. In staffs analysis of mountain
=
protection issues, these are the things in the Rural Areas review where they would spend some time figuring
out what these numbers mean. He said there are 84,000 acres in the proposed MOD and based on work
for the 1996 staffs report, it was estimated that there were 3000 development right lots and 1300 21-acre
=
lots. Staff has not had time to recheck that number.
Mr. Benish said to determine the issues related to the MOD at this time, staff focused on the Rural
Areas review. Readvertising the MOD would take a significant amount of staff time away from that review.
To get staff up to speed and respond to public questions regarding the ordinance (if the response is
A@
similar to what was experienced in 1998), if only the Board held a public hearing, it would create a one to
two-month delay in the Rural Areas review. The notification process is an extensive one. There are over
1800 parcels, and it would be beneficial to have improved information in the GIS system and that will not be
available until January 2003.
Mr. Rooker asked if this were done as part of the current Rural Areas review, would all of these
things still have to be done? Mr. Benish said it would be done after completion of the Comprehensive Plan
review in order to factor it into staffs long-range work program. Right now, reacting to it causes delays in
=
the Rural Areas review schedule. Mr. Cilimberg said all of these property holders will not be notified during
the Rural Areas review.
Mr. Rooker said it would still take a certain amount of time. Because of the broad interest in this
subject, he questions whether it should be dealt with as a separate subject. The Planning Commission has
already dealt with it as a separate issue, and passed it unanimously. If this does not come back for a year,
it will then have been over five years since the Planning Commission looked at it. One of the problems now
is that the Board has waited four years to act, so that will require additional things in the process. If the
Rural Areas and Mountain Protection are important items, he does not think it makes a difference whether it
is done now or at the end of the Rural Areas review. Mr. Tucker said staff is not saying either or, but just
A@
explaining that it probably will mean a delay in the Rural Areas review.
Mr. Dorrier said the issue of compensation has been mentioned, but has not been discussed.
Should there be a tax break or financial incentive for the mountaintop properties? In order to consider that,
there is a need to know who owns the property and the tax breaks on the property right now. Mr. Cilimberg
said that would take an extensive amount of work.
Mr. Bowerman said he does not think that is an issue. The Board downzoned the entire County in
1980 and there was no compensation offered. He thinks this is a legislative act of the Board. It does not
remove value from the property, it simply allows for different sitings on the property to meet the ordinance.
It does not deny building permits.
Mr. Dorrier said when the Board passed the Land Use Taxation for agricultural property that was a
financial incentive for the landowner.
Mr. Rooker said most of this property is in land use now, so the owner pays very little in the way of
taxes.
Mr. Davis said the final draft of the ordinance the Board tabled did not decrease any development
rights. It specifically made a provision that if the only building site was on a ridge, they could build there. If
someone had other building sites on the property, but preferred to build on the ridge, and they could
demonstrate that was the best site, then by special use permit a house could be built there. There were a
lot of compromises made in the ordinance along the way to address any concerns about a hint of a taking
of a property. People argued that properties could be devalued by this ordinance, but he does not think
anyone could argue there was a taking in a legal sense.
Mr. Dorrier said that deals with one of his concerns. It was said that there are 1800 parcels
affected by the MOD. He asked if this is land which is presently not used for anything except agriculture or
open land. Mr. Davis said some of these parcels already have homes on them.
November 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
Ms. Thomas said building activity has added over 100 homes in the mountain overlay district in the
last four years.
Mr. Dorrier said it would be interesting to him to know where the building has occurred. He asked if
it has been in one area, or all over the County.
Mr. Rooker said to him the ordinance applies all over the County without regard to looking at
individual properties. He thinks the special use permit process that the Planning Commission included
enabled the County to deal with those special circumstances. Ultimately, the Commission came up with
something that did not take away any development rights, but did further the goals of the Committee which
worked on the ordinance. He thinks that what was recommended created a reasonable balance. There is
no need to go back and rehash everything that went on during the process. He thinks the Board should
reconsider the ordinance and act one way or the other.
Mr. Dorrier said with the controversy the ordinance produced, it is only fair to the public that they
have input now. Mr. Rooker said they would be part of the process because the Board would have at least
one public hearing. Mr. Dorrier said he was not a member of the Board when this ordinance was
considered. The four-year passage of time has resulted in there being much more building on the
mountaintop, and that is adverse to the Countys goals. Therefore, it should be looked at, but he is not
=
convinced that the delay has caused a significant problem.
Mr. Davis said no staff member has looked at the 103 building permits issued to see if anything
would have been different if the Mountain Protection Ordinance had been adopted. Houses can be built on
existing lots in the MOD, and some can be built on the ridge line if it is the only site on a lot which is entirely
within the ridge area.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks it is important to decide if the goals which are set out in the MOD are
worthy long-time goals for the County to adopt. He was convinced in 1998 that was the case, and having
reviewed this again, he is strongly convinced. He does not see how anything would be improved by another
year or more in dealing with this question.
Mr. Benish said working on the MOD would take staff away from the other Rural Areas issues it is
discussing. He said staff wants to be sure this ordinance is consistent with the new Rural Areas policy.
Mr. Bowerman asked if this MOD would set standards for other parts of the rural areas. If a public
hearing were held on this ordinance, it would give some directions for the rest of the rural areas.
Preservation is the main focus of the MOD and he thinks those standards would apply county wide. Mr.
Benish said he wanted the Board to be aware of the ordinance changes at the front end of the policy
decisions that would direct ordinance changes. Staff may be bringing back a new Rural Areas section
which will contain different recommendations.
Mr. Rooker said that in the Goals and Strategies which were approved by the Planning
Commission, which was the basis for moving forward with the Rural Areas study, there is no recommended
change with respect to the Mountain Overlay District. The Comprehensive Plan change for the mountain
areas occurred in 1998. The Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission dealt with the mountain
areas in a separate section of the Comprehensive Plan. That whole process recommended as a strategy
that an ordinance be adopted to implement those measures which were put into the Comprehensive Plan.
It just has not been done at this time. Also, a significant portion of the Rural Areas schedule has not been
allocated to dealing with mountain protection. He thinks it is an issue that by bundling it together with rural
areas will be confusing, and more time-consuming. Finally, the Board will have to take action on it as a
separate matter.
Ms. Thomas said the Board has just received two written communications from the public about
this matter. This is not a public hearing. She asked if any Board member would like to hear from those
groups today. Mr. Rooker said he had read both communications, so would say no.
Mr. Dorrier said there are probably other groups which would like to comment.
Ms. Thomas said it is now past 12:30 p.m. Mr. Rooker said this is not a public hearing, and if the
Board makes a practice of generally allowing public comment at work sessions, the Board would not be
able to disallow public comments at other work sessions. Ms. Thomas agreed.
Mr. Tucker said there are two process questions the Board needs to make a decision on. First,
does the Board want to go forward by moving this matter ahead of the Rural Areas Plan? After the Board
makes that decision, would the Board like for this to go back to the Planning Commission?
Ms. Thomas said she thinks there should be ample public input. Although, the legal advice that it is
not necessary may be correct technically, she thinks it is important in the event of any challenges. There
could be a joint public hearing with the Commission. Mr. Cilimberg said if there are separate public
hearings, the staffs work schedule is extended. It would probably take three months.
=
Ms. Thomas said the meetings about the rural areas are actually public participation meetings, not
public hearings. Those dates have already been set. Mr. Cilimberg said staff did not want those meetings
to become meetings about the Mountain Overlay District.
November 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
Mr. Rooker said if this issue is to be dealt with separately from the Rural Areas, he would be in
favor of having a joint public hearing with the Planning Commission about Mountain Protection.
Mr. Dorrier said ten percent of the County is in mountaintops. It appears that a good ten percent of
that area is in the Shenandoah National Park. He asked if that is a separate category. Mr. Benish said the
Park contains about 15,000 out of the 84,000 acres in mountaintops.
Mr. Rooker asked if the Board could take a straw vote on having a public hearing. Mr. Bowerman
said he would be strongly in favor of holding a joint public hearing with the Commission.
Ms. Thomas asked where in the process the hearing would occur. Mr. Cilimberg said staff had
recommended that it be allowed to complete the rural areas process in November and December, and
then after the end of December when parcels are verified, use January into February for a public hearing
on Mountain Protection.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks that is a good plan. That would give groups adequate time to study the
recommendations and send in written comments.
Ms. Thomas said she was reminded that simply adopting the Mountain Overlay District Zoning Map
has a significant impact. If the Board is concerned about erosion and water quality impacts from
development on the mountaintops, that kicks into effect the portion of the Water Ordinance that requires
erosion control permits for smaller land-disturbing activities. She does not want the Board members to
forget that. It may be that even without the ordinance being worked to its final form, the Board might want to
adopt the map in order to have that erosion control ordinance take effect in the most sensitive areas of the
County. There is something to be said about delineating where the ordinance would be in effect, even if the
details of the ordinance are not certain at the time the map is changed to match the Comprehensive Plan
map.
Mr. Rooker said he hopes the Board does not become involved in a significant rewriting of an
ordinance which was drafted through a four-year process, including substantial input from the Board in
1998. Mr. Cilimberg said staff did not factor in any time to make changes to the ordinance. It assumed the
Board would be looking at the same ordinance. They will talk with the County Attorney to be sure there are
no changes needed.
Mr. Davis said there have been some minor changes in the Zoning Ordinance which have to be
incorporated into the draft of the Mountain Protection Ordinance. Other than that, staff needs directions as
to whether it wants to use the ordinance which was tabled by the Board in 1998, or the ordinance that was
recommended by the Planning Commission. There were some technical changes, and some compromise
changes made between the two, but the ordinance which the Board favored was the one that was tabled.
He will compare the two ordinances so Board members may look at the differences.
Mr. Rooker recommended bringing back the ordinance which the Board tabled. However, he
would find it helpful to see the difference between the two versions.
Ms. Thomas said it had been anticipated that Mountain Protection would be addressed by staff
between February and April of 2003. It was to be a component of the Rural Areas Plan reviewed by the
Planning Commission. If that is not what the Board wants staff to do, it needs to give staff directions. She
believes the Board wants them to pick up the Mountain Protection Ordinance in February of 2003 and
proceed toward a public hearing on that ordinance. Staff would set aside its work on the Rural Areas plan
for that period of time. She asked if that is the recommendation.
Mr. Rooker said he thought the hearing would go forward in February, and then a decision be
made. He said staff indicated that it does not add time to the overall process.
Mr. Dorrier asked why the ordinance was tabled four years ago.
Ms. Bowerman said that at the time the vote would have been 3:3. The Board never actually took a
vote.
Ms. Thomas said the Board was told the Rural Areas section of the Comprehensive Plan was to be
worked on soon, and that mountain protection could fit into that study. Supposedly, it was to have been
only a matter of months.
Mr. Bowerman said that at the same time, the Board did not adopt a Growth Areas boundary
change, and DISC started its work.
Ms. Thomas said the Board chose to work on the Urban Area instead of the Rural Area.
Mr. Benish said staff worked on Historic Preservation and bio-diversity, so work went in a different
direction to address other issues of rural and county wide issues.
Mr. Rooker said he would make a motion that the Board set this for a public hearing with the
Planning Commission in February 2003, and that the process move forward accordingly.
Mr. Bowerman asked if that allows time for all the notice requirements which are needed. Mr.
Cilimberg said the normal notification procedure would be followed. He thinks there will be many questions
November 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
to staff about this whole question after the notices are mailed to property owners. Staff had included in the
time schedule an open house for information purposes before the public hearing.
Mr. Tucker suggested that staff develop a list of frequently asked questions to be mailed out with
the notice of public hearing.
Ms. Thomas asked that staff send a time schedule to the Board showing that February is a doable
date.
At this time, Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
Mr. Dorrier asked that staff indicate on a map where all the development on the mountaintops has
been occurring. Mr. Cilimberg said the Board needs to direct staff as to whether this task should be
undertaken because it will add time to staffs schedule. Mr. Rooker suggested it be included on the time
=
schedule which will be brought back to the Board. He does not personally need to see such a map.
Mr. Perkins noted a list of owners and buildings permits for a number of different types of buildings,
etc. which the Board had received. He said the number is a little misleading, when just looking at the totals.
Also, included with the information received from the Albemarle Smart Growth Coalition are suggestions
about supporting visual quality legislation. He said if there is some way to sweeten the
A@A
pot, landowners might go along with it. Since Albemarle County is part of the Chesapeake Bay Act, how is
@
that affected?
Mr. Dorrier said he was looking for some sort of financial incentive. Mr. Davis said that is an issue
staff looked at extensively. They did not identify any financial incentives the County could offer.
At this point, roll was called on the motion which carried by the recorded vote which follows:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Closed Session: Personnel and Legal Matters.
At 1:05 p.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 (3) to discuss the acquisition of property for public facilities;
and, under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters requiring
the provision of legal advice relating to an agreement between the County and other political entities.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Certify Closed Session. At 2:20 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: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17 was skipped temporarily.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. SP-2002-041. Mountainwood Executive Center (Sign #34). Request to allow
operation of Mountainwood Executive Center in an existing bldg, to consist of commercial office space & up
to 42 executive apartments in accord w/Sec 23.2.2.9 of the Zoning Ord. TM 76, P 46F, contains 8.98 acs.
Loc on Rt 631 (Old Lynchburg Rd) approx 1/4 mile from intersec of Old Lynchburg Rd & Fifth Street Ext.
Znd CO. Scottsville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 21 and October 28, 2002.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staffs report which is on file in the Clerks Office and made a part of
==
the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said this is a request to provide residential uses by
November 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
special use permit on this property which is zoned CO. This proposal would allow for adaptive reuse of the
existing building into 15,641 square feet of offices, and 49 one-bedroom apartments. There is no significant
change proposed for the exterior of the buildings. There is a proposal to improve an existing gravel
pedestrian path that leads from the rear of the site to Old Lynchburg Road and eventually to the
Rivanna Trail. Also, there would be a new concrete sidewalk to connect the buildings to the public sidewalk
along Old Lynchburg Road.
Mr. Cilimberg said the site is surrounded by residential uses, therefore, the proposed residential use
would be more compatible with the area than prior uses. Staff did not identify any unfavorable factors to the
request. Staff recommended approval of SP-2002-041 subject to one condition. The Planning
Commission, at its meeting on October 1, 2002, by a vote of 5:0 recommended approval subject to this
same condition.
At this time, with no questions for staff, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing and asked the
applicant to speak.
Mr. Clark Gathright, architect with Daggett & Griggs, was present, but had no comments. He
offered to answer questions.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
placed before the Board.
Mr. Dorrier immediately offered motion to approve SP-2002-041 subject to the one condition
recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called,
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
(Note: The condition of approval is set out in full below.)
1. The site improvements shall be developed in general accord with the attached Minor Site
Plan Amendment, entitled Mountainwood Executive Center, dated August 20, 2002 (copy
on file in Clerk's office).
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. ZMA-2002-009. Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. (Sign #90). Request to rezone 0.5 acs
from RA to C1 to allow installation of stormwater detention/quality facility & septic drain field for commercial
use loc across US 250 on same property. TM 79, P 9, is loc on Rt 250 (Richmond Rd) at intersec of Rt 250
and Rt 22 (Louisa Rd). The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area. Scottsville Dist.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 21 and October 28, 2002.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staffs report which is on file in the Clerks Office and made a part of
==
the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said this request is to rezone 0.5 acre of this parcel
from Rural Areas to Commercial (C-1). Originally, the application was filed with three proffers, one of which
would have restricted the by-right uses on the north side of Route 250, another would have limited uses on
the south part of the property to stormwater facilities and septic drainfields, and a third would have
stipulated that the property not be divided. He said the changes made to the Zoning Ordinance and Map in
1980 resulted in the property on the north side of Route 250 being zoned C-1, and the property on the
south side being zoned RA. Before 1980, all of the property was zoned for business. He said the RA
portion of the property is surrounded by small parcels zoned C-1, and larger parcels in the Natural
Resource Overlay District for the quarry. The southern edge of the parcel abuts the CSX Railroad. The
applicant is requesting this rezoning in order to accommodate replacement of the existing Shadwell Market,
most particularly to provide for the septic field. Now that stormwater facilities are allowed by-right, there is
no longer a need to have that as part of this rezoning, but the septic fields do need to be included in the
same zoning as that which exists on the north side of Route 250.
Mr. Cilimberg said that in most situations, staff would recommend denial of a requested rezoning to
a commercial designation on land identified by the Comprehensive Plan as Rural Area. But, in this case,
the subject portion of the parcel is too small, too difficult to access, and too isolated by the surrounding
intense uses to have agricultural or conservation significance. The rezoning would permit the redesigned
and enlarged Shadwell Market to have an improved septic field as well as the stormwater facility now
allowed by-right. These facilities would still be required if the rezoning were not permitted, but would have
to be designed to fit on the northern portion of the parcel with the store. Given the location, scale, history,
context and uniqueness of the proposal, the requested rezoning is not expected to have a significant impact
on the Rural Areas.
Mr. Cilimberg said the staff and the Planning Commission (at its meeting on October 1, 2002) both
recommended approval subject to proffers. He said that since the Commissions meeting, the three
=
proffers have become two, but they essentially cover the same thing, but in more concise language.
At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Joe Wright was present on behalf of the applicant. He said the property (Tax Map 79, Parcel 9)
November 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
is bifurcated by Route 250. One portion of the property (approximately 0.6 acre) is north of Route 250 and
is the piece of the property where the existing Shadwell Store has been located for many years. There has
been a store on that property since the 1930s, and the property has been in the Wood family since the
1930s. The second portion of the parcel which is the subject of this rezoning application, is the 0.5 acre
piece south of Route 250. Despite having two different zoning classifications since 1980, and being
physically separated by Route 250, the property has always been treated by Albemarle County as one
parcel of real property. It has been taxed as one parcel since 1939, and it has been taxed as if the entire
parcel were zoned C-1 except for a brief period when the property was treated as two parcels and one
piece of it was erroneously shown as property of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Mr. Wright said the rezoning request is simple and straightforward. Mr. Wood filed a preliminary
site plan requesting approval to construct a replacement for the Shadwell Store on the portion of the
property which is zoned C-1 and is not a part of the application today. He showed some photographs of the
existing store to the Board members. He said County staff has approved the site plan for the replacement
store with the exception of two details. The site plan showed stormwater detention and drainfields on the
portion of the property that is currently zoned RA.
Mr. Wright said as to the stormwater quality facility and drain field features of the site plan,
stormwater detention continues to track normal flows of stormwater which historically have flowed over and
under Route 250 onto the property which is currently zoned RA. No structure is proposed to be constructed
on the property which is the subject of the rezoning request. In terms of the drainfields, no physical
treatment or settling tanks will be placed on this property. There will only be drainfields. The flexible
location of the drainfield lines will allow the preservation of as much tree and vegetation material as can
possibly be preserved. He said this property slopes off of Route 250 rather dramatically. There is a 20 to
30 foot drop in elevation going down a bank onto the property which is small, difficult to access, and,
realistically, too topographically challenged to have any real significance or use for other agricultural or
conservation purposes. He said the staff report acknowledges that. Also, Mr. Wood has agreed to proffer
away all development rights for this parcel. At this point, he offered to answer questions.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
placed before the Board.
Mr. Bowerman offered motion to approve ZMA-2002-009 subject to the two proffers. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
(Note: The proffers are set out in full below.)
PROFFER FORM
Date: October 25, 2002
ZMA # 2002-009, Lloyd F. Wood, Jr.
Tax Map and Parcel Number: 79-9
0.50 Acres to be rezoned from RA to C-1
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County. Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its
duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall
be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the
requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for
the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning
request.
1. Only stormwater management facilities and septic drainfields shall be located on
the property, which is that portion of Tax Map 79 Parcel 9 that is south of Route
250. The stormwater management facilities and septic drainfields shall serve
only the following uses that may be established on the portion of Tax Map 79,
Parcel 9 that is north of Route 250: Section 22.2.1(a)(6) (food and grocery
stores including such specialty shops as bakery, candy, and milk dispensary and
wine and cheese shops); Section 22.2.1(b)(16) (automobile service stations);
and Section 22.2.1(b)(19) (temporary constructions uses). These three classes
of uses are allowed by right under Section 22.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance of
Albemarle County, Virginia (Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code), as that
section is in effect on November 6, 2002. A copy of Section 22.2.1 is attached
hereto.
2. The property shall not be divided, and shall not be divided from the portion of Tax
Map 79 Parcel 9 that is north of Route 250.
Signature of All Owners Printed Names of All Owners Date
(Signed) Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. 10-25-02
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider an Ordinance to amend Chapter 9, Motor
November 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
Vehicles and Traffic, of the Albemarle County Code, by amending Section 9-404 License fees - amounts, to
increase the fee for a motor vehicle decal by two dollars ($2.00) on motor vehicles and motorcycles and by
one dollar and fifty cents ($1.50) on trailers, semitrailers, and specialized mobile equipment. (Notice of this
public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on October 21 and October 28, 2002.)
Mr. Tucker said the adopted FY 03 Budget included projected revenue from a $2.00 increase in
>
the motor vehicle decal fees for Calendar Year 2003. In order for the fee increase to be effective January
1, 2003, the Board would need to adopt the fee increase in November. Currently the decal fee for motor
vehicles that are 4000 pounds or less in weight is $23.00. The maximum fee allowed by State law is
$28.50. The proposed ordinance increases the fee by $2.00 to $25.00. Currently the decal fee for motor
vehicles that weight more than 4000 pounds is $28.00. The maximum fee allowed by State law is $33.50.
The proposed ordinance increases the fee by $2.00 to $30.00. Currently the decal fee for motorcycles is
$18.00. The proposed ordinance increases the fee by $2.00 to $20.00. In addition, upon the
recommendation of the Finance Department, the existing $3.00 fee for each motorcycle sidecar is
proposed to be eliminated. This fee generated minimal revenue and is not cost-effective. Currently the
decal fee for trailers and semitrailers weighting 1500 pounds or less which are not designed for
transportation of passengers is $8.00, and for those weighing more than 1500 pounds, is $18.50. The
proposed ordinance increases the fees by $1.50, the maximum allowed by State law, to $9.50 and $20.00,
respectively. Finally, the current decal fee for well-drilling and other specialized equipment vehicles is
$15.00. The proposed ordinance increases the fee by $1.50, the maximum allowed by State law, to
$16.50.
Mr. Tucker said that at the conclusion of the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt
the ordinance amending Section 9-404 of the County Code to increase the motor vehicle decal fees.
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 to approve the staffs recommendation by adopting
=
An Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Chapter 9, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, Article IV, County Vehicle
Licenses, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by amending Sec. 9-404, License
fees--Amounts.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
(Note: The Ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 02-9(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 9, MOTOR VEHICLES AND
TRAFFIC, ARTICLE IV, COUNTY VEHICLE LICENSES, OF THE CODE OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that
Chapter 9, Motor Vehicles And Traffic, Article IV, County Vehicle Licenses, is hereby
amended and reordained by amending section 9-404, License fees--Amounts, as
follows:
CHAPTER 9. MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC
ARTICLE IV. COUNTY VEHICLE LICENSES
Sec. 9-404 License fees--Amounts.
A. On all motor vehicles, except as otherwise specifically provided in this
article, there shall be an annual license fee based on gross vehicle weight. The fee shall
be twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for vehicles with gross vehicle weights of four thousand
(4,000) pounds or less and thirty dollars ($30.00) for gross weights in excess of four
thousand (4,000) pounds. Gross maximum loaded weight shall be substituted for gross
vehicle weight for motor vehicles not designed and used primarily for the transportation of
passengers.
B. On every motorcycle there shall be an annual license fee of twenty dollars
($20.00).
C. On every trailer or semitrailer not designed and used for transportation of
passengers, there shall be an annual license fee as follows:
Gross Weight Annual Fee
0 - 1,500 lbs. $ 9.50
1,501 lbs. and above $20.00
November 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
D. In the case of a combination of a tractor-trailer or semitrailer, each vehicle
constituting a part of such combination shall be licensed as a separate vehicle.
E. On every motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer upon which well-drilling
machinery is attached or other "specialized mobile equipment" as defined in Virginia
Code 46.2-700(B), there shall be an annual license fee of sixteen dollars and fifty cents
'
($16.50).
(Code 1967, 12-93; 1-18-73; 6-7-89; Code 1988, 12-25; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord.
''
99-9(1), 11-10-99; Ord. 02-9(1), 11-6-02)
State law reference--Va. Code 46.2-752.
''
This ordinance shall be effective on and after January 1, 2003.
_______________
The Board next went to Agenda Item No. 17. Appointments, which had been skipped earlier in
the meeting.
Ms. Thomas said a motion was needed to make the following appointments:
Appoint Ms. Ida Lee Wooten to the Housing Committee for a term which will expire on December
31, 2003, to replace Mrs. Dolly Prenzel.
Appoint Dr. Martin Schulman to the Route 250 West Task Force, to complete the unexpired term of
Mr. William Vlasis, which will expire on September 5, 2003.
Appoint Mr. Ivo Romenesko to the DISC II Committee, to replace Mr. Bob Watson. There are no
terms for these appointments.
Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Mr. Rooker, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
_______________
Not Docketed:
Mr. Tucker said that for a couple of years, the Board has made a donation of $1000.00 to the
TransDominion Express support group. He needs to know if the Board wants to continue that practice.
Mr. Davis asked if this money is used for a lobbyist. Mr. Tucker said yes. Mr. Davis said the
A@
County need to make the payment directly to that lobbyist on behalf of Albemarle County.
Ms. Thomas said this is the same amount of money given to the High Growth Coalition, and the
County gets a tremendous benefit from that donation. Mr. Tucker said for a county with a population of
over 50,000, the donation requested is $1000.00.
Mr. Dorrier said the County spends more than $300,00.00 a year for public transportation. This is
not a large contribution. Ms. Thomas said it does not get the County a direct service, but simply adds the
Countys voice to that of others in the General Assembly. She would like to know who the lobbyist is, and
=
what the County actually gets for the money.
Mr. Rooker asked if this group has been universally supported. Mr. Tucker said staff will get more
information. Ms. Thomas asked if $500.00 would be an appropriate donation. She does not think the
County will get anything back for the money this next Session. Mr. Tucker said it is his recommendation
that this donation not be made this year.
Mr. Dorrier said if the Board truly believes in alternative transportation, trains will be as important as
buses and more important for the high speed corridor going to Washington, D.C. He believes that is worthy
of a small percentage of the Countys money.
=
Ms. Thomas said she is a consistent supporter of public transportation by rails, but does not think
the County needs to put any money into this cause this year given the unlikelihood of its coming to anything.
Mr. Rooker suggested that the request be put on hold until the staff develops further information.
Ms. Thomas agreed.
_______________
At this time, the Board returned to discuss Agenda Item No. 11. Third Quarter Financial Report,
from the morning agenda.
November 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
Ms. Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive, said the financial news is not good. Basically, the
Department of Finance has done its analysis for the first three months of the fiscal year. There appears to
be a $2.8 million deficit, or two percent of budgeted revenues. That is a result of some local revenue
decreases and the projected State decreases which are known at this time. She said she would go through
Attachment A to the Staffs Report.
=
Ms. White said Real Estate Taxes are projected to exceed budgeted revenues by $0.754 million
mainly due to a 12 percent estimated reassessment rate used for budgeting last January compared to the
most recent projection, which may average as high as 15 percent. Personal Property Tax revenues are
expected to be below budget in the current year by approximately $3.4 million due to the continuing
decrease in used car values as well as the cumulative effect of over projecting personal property revenues
in both FY 02 and FY 03
>>
Sales Tax revenues are expected to be below the budgeted estimates by $0.050 million reflecting
the continuing general economic slowdown at the national, state and local level. However, Business
License collections are expected to more than offset this decrease by coming in at approximately $0.512
million over budget.
Other Local Revenues show a $0.324 million decrease from the budgeted amount mainly due a
$0.350 million projected decrease in interest offset by other increased projections.
State revenues outside of the PPTR are anticipated to be less than budgeted by approximately
$0.314 million due to the projected reduction in State reimbursements for constitutional officers, which
includes reimbursement funds for Department of Finance expenditures, the leased vehicle tax, 599 Funds
and recordation fees. These preliminary revenue decreases are based on the Governor's November 15
budget reductions, although it is unclear whether there will be additional FY 03 reductions in the Governor's
>
December 20th budget recommendation.
This all comes to a $2.8 million reduction in revenues. She mentioned that $0.512 million of the
Fund Balance was used for reappropriations for purchase orders which were approved by the Board in
September.
Ms. Thomas mentioned the $4.4 million reduction from the State, and asked how much of that is
due to the economy and how much is based on the Governors decisions. Ms. White said about $341,000
=
of the reduction was caused by the Governors decisions.
=
Mr. Rooker said the large decrease in the car tax has been caused mostly by zero percent
financing. It is an unusual circumstance in the market when it is cheaper to buy a new car instead of a used
car. Ms. White said some of the book value on used cars has gone down as much as thirty percent.
As to expenditures, Ms. White said they are within appropriate levels (23.5%) for the first quarter of
the fiscal year for departmental expenditures. Since the July 1 appropriations, the Board has approved
additional appropriations in the amount of $0.512 million. These appropriations reflect the reappropriation
of FY 02 purchase orders approved by the Board in September.
>
Ms. White said Revised Revenues less Revised Expenditures show a projected $2.803 million
shortfall by the end of this current fiscal year (June 30, 2003) based on staff estimates as of September 30.
Adding the Fund Balance as of September 30, 2002, of $0.427 million as reported in the October 2, 2002,
FY 02 end-of-the-year financial report, there will be a net shortfall of about $2.376 million for the approved
>
FY 03 budget.
>
Ms. White said she would skip to Attachment D, Fiscal Impact Discussion. She said this
attachment looks at how to deal with the shortfall mentioned above. First it looks at the FY 03 appropriated
>
revenues as compared to the actual FY 03 revenue collections (just in local tax revenues). This was done
>
because it is the basis for the 60/40 split of revenues with the School System. In local revenues it appears
to be $2.2 million, and when that is shared, 60 percent of that change is about $1.3 million for the School
Division, and $0.874 million for General Government. Adding in Other Local Revenues which are being lost
by General Government, that brings General Governments shortfall to $1.513 million. She said staff also
=
believes there will be another $0.5 million in Comprehensive Services (CSA) funds lost. This is just the
initial estimate. Social Services is looking at revenue enhancements to see if there is anyway they can
offset some of those costs. Also, when the health insurance provider was changed it was noted that there
had been very high claims recently and if that trend continued, there might not be enough money to get
through the year. The claims have not decreased, so additional money may have to be put into that
account to cover costs through the end of the year. If the County paid 100 percent of that cost, it could be
$160,000. Staff has not decided on a recommendation at this time.
Mr. Rooker said he thought there was an individual aggregate stop loss on claims. The Board was
told that a lot of the cost was attributable to a few large claims. Ms. White said there is a stop loss, but she
does not think they are over that amount. The other part has to do with prescription costs.
Ms. White said staff is proposing to use one-time moneys to offset this deficit: they propose to use
$0.970 million in 800MHz Debt Service Funds which will not be needed in FY 03; and, $0.400 million in
>
ACE funds ($0.600 million remains for ACE projects or $0.150 million in General Funds and $0.450 million
in Tourism Funds).
Ms. Thomas said she does not think Tourism money can be used for all the properties. Mr. Tucker
November 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
said staff cannot answer that at this time. Ms. Thomas said Albemarle is getting four times as many acres
for the dollar as Loudoun County is getting. Albemarle is getting three times as many acres for the dollar
as the whole state of Maryland has had in its program. Pushing off ACE means the County will be paying
more per acre in the future. It is a bad time to be cutting the ACE Program. Since the County is only three
months into FY 03, are there any other programs which have not started, or any new programs that create
>
a similar amount? Ms. White said the VRS savings and department reductions in the operating budget of
two percent would amount to $628,000. This would cover the deficit that is known right now. If the deficit
turns out to be greater, of if there are other choices needed to cover the shortfall, staff would look first at the
$427,000 in the Fund Balance, and the next step would be to look at which capital projects might be
deferred.
Ms. Thomas it is hard to tell a department to cut their budget by two percent and continue with
existing work, so she wondered if there are any entire programs that could be delayed or not started as a
way to cover that shortfall. Ms. White said the departments have been asked to determine how they will
manage the two percent reduction because some departments do not have a big operating budget. It is
possible that employee vacancies will not be filled immediately. Staff is just waiting for the Governors next
=
message in December. Mr. Tucker said the Governor has only addressed half of the deficit so far. Staff
anticipates that the next reduction will hit the school system, plus additional 599 Funds, all ABC Profits and
Recordation Taxes may be eliminated. They have also heard that the actual deficit estimate is going to be
revised downward.
Mr. Bowerman said in this figure, staff has excluded the $1.3 million the School Division is under
funded because the Schools have to deal with that number. Ms. White said that is correct. Mr. Tucker said
this report has been given to the Superintendent who will share it with the School Board.
Mr. Rooker asked if the supplemental request for CSA is a result of state cuts. Ms. White said no,
A@
it is a result of the increasing expense of some of the CSA residential treatments, especially for the highly
troubled children in the system. Also, for the last couple of years, some of the Fund Balance has been
used each year to keep the local transfer from going up as much. That Fund Balance has now been used
up. That is another reason for requesting additional money.
Mr. Rooker said he would like to know the basis for the increase. Ms. White said it is in mandated
costs, but there are several mechanisms for trying to reduce those costs. The State does need to have a
good system in place for the treatment of these children so they are at the mercy of the private providers.
At issue is the unregulated cost the State has not addressed. Ms. Thomas said it seemed cheaper to close
State facilities and throw it on the community. There are more court-ordered foster children in this area
than in other communities. Ms. White said that number is declining a little.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks deferring some capital improvements projects would be better than
cutting back on general operations.
Ms. Thomas said the County has been proceeding along with capital improvements which account
for one cent on the tax rate. She has been defending that money because this cannot be an urbanizing
county if it is not putting in infrastructure. Ms. White said the last time there was a shortfall, it was addressed
by deferring a lot of capital projects. That was when it got down to just one percent of the General Fund
going into capital programs, and it took a long time to build that back up again. When projects are
deferred, you have to play catch up with those projects, but staff can look at them to see what might be
done. Mr. Tucker said staff will look at all of these numbers again in January after the December 5
collections. It hopes the overall picture will be a little better.
Ms. White said staff asks that the Board accept the First Quarter Financial Report for FY 2002-03
and approve of the proposed FY 03 Budget reductions of $1.3 million to the School Division and $1.5
>
million to General Government.
Mr. Tucker said this is the way staff will approach the shortfall. After hearing the comments today,
staff will look at the ACE Program and debt service and capital projects to see if there is anything else
which can be postponed. He said the Schools have already put a 15 percent holdback on their functions.
Mr. Dorrier asked about putting a freeze on hiring. Ms. White said that is being done on an
individual basis, not just putting on a flat freeze. There may be some impacts to departments. Mr. Tucker
said he usually lets the department head make that decision.
Ms. White said staff will bring a new report in January.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. FY 2003 Revised and FY 2004 Projected General Fund Revenues and the
FY 2004 Preliminary Budget Guidance, from the morning agenda.
Mr. Roger Hildebeidel, Budget Manager, said each October, the Department of Finance prepares
updated current year revenue projections and preliminary revenue projections for the upcoming fiscal year.
These revenue estimates are the first step in the budget preparation process and form the basis of the
recommended budget proposals to come before the Board the next March. Based on these preliminary
revenue estimates, the Board also approves a preliminary allocation of the projected revenue growth, first
to committed expenditures such as Revenue-Sharing, Capital Outlay and Debt Service, and then between
General Government and the School Division for operations.
November 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
Mr. Hildebeidel said the preliminary estimate of total General Fund revenues and transfers for FY
2004 exceeds the FY 2003 appropriated budget by $4.45 million (3.2%), largely derived from a steady
growth in revenues from Real Estate Taxes reflecting the effect of next Januarys reassessments and
=
increasing property values. Overall, General Fund revenues from all local taxes (including PPTR from the
State) in FY 2004 are expected to increase by $5.46 million (4.5%) over the same tax revenues in FY 2003.
However, projected revenues from Other Local Revenue sources, the State, and the Federal Government,
are expected to decrease by $1.03 million (6.8%) from the FY 2003 budget level. Revenues from
Transfers are expected to have only a slight increase (1.0%).
Mr. Hildebeidel said there will be a decrease in the Public Service Tax largely because the County
uses a two-year reassessment cycle while the State assesses PCS properties on an annual cycle and uses
the current years sales to assessment value ratio. In non-reassessment years for the County (such as FY
=
2004), the sales to assessment ratio for the County decreases and causes a reduction in the amount
received from the State from this source.
Mr. Hildebeidel said in the area of Other Local Tax, the sales tax is projected to increase slightly
compared to the FY 2003 appropriated budget. Business License Fees are projected to increase reflecting
growth in the retail merchants and home improvement/repair sectors of local business activity. Other Local
Revenues are projected to decrease by 5.9 percent basically from a significant decrease in interest earned
on County funds deposited in banks because of lowered interest rates, offset by net increases from various
recovered costs and service fees.
Mr. Hildebeidel said State Revenues are projected to decline sharply by over $0.7 million from the
FY 2003 initial appropriated budget level. Reductions are anticipated in Leased Vehicle Tax revenue,
Compensation Board reimbursements for constitutional officers, and reductions in State support for local
police departments (HB 599 funds).
Mr. Hildebeidel said General Fund revenues are projected to increase by 3.2 percent, or $4.45
million higher than the budget estimate for FY 2003. That is a fairly small increase compared to recent
years.
Mr. Bowerman requested that in the future these reports be reduced to a form where they can be
projected onto the screen in this room so the public can follow the presentation.
Mr. Hildebeidel then explained to the Board the figures on Attachment B, which are just local tax
A@
revenues. Only local tax revenues are involved in the Sharing Formula. He said the projected increase in
Revenues from Local Taxes is $5.4 million, but the anticipated payment to the City of Charlottesville under
the Revenue-Sharing Agreement will increase by $1.033 million, leaving a net figure of $4.4 million to
distribute in the formula. Staff also figured Committed New Non-Department Expenditures which is the
A@
allocation to Capital Outlay, to Debt Service and to the Capital Reserve, and it is projected at 1.5 percent
net overall revenue growth, bit that may be optimistic. He has talked with School staff and they are looking
at FY 2004 and think there will be another decrease of up to $2.5 million from the State. If that happens
there will be zero net revenue growth.
Mr. Hildebeidel said these are preliminary numbers and staff will look at them again in January. It
is hard to say what will happen. The State has left Education and Law Enforcement alone up to this point,
except for HB 599, and there arent many more places to make additional cuts. The 1.5 percent overall
=
growth does not leave much to put into the capital program under the formula. There is the one cent of the
tax rate for basic growth, and the one-half percentage point of the new net revenue, which only gives about
$250,000 more to allocate to capital. Taking off the Boards Reserve Fund and Refunds, that leaves about
=
$4.131 million to split 60/40 with the Schools. The $1.652 million for General Government operations has
to take into account that there are also declining revenue projections. There is more than a $1.0 million
decline in revenues on the General Government side from other revenue sources.
Ms. Thomas said she understands the Governor is proposing to take the percentage of local car
rental fees. The County gets about $400,000 so that would take $40,000. The more the General
Assembly meets and tries to determine places where money can be taken, the more she thinks they will be
tempted to do things like this. Mr. Hildebeitel said staff knows about this and it is actually a 15 percent
reduction being proposed.
Mr. Rooker said if it is suspected that at the end of the year, revenue collections will basically be
flat, that should be taken into consideration in what the Board is looking at today. Simply deferring hiring
someone for a couple of months may not be a good plan when looking at flat revenues next year. He
thinks staff should consider both FY 2003 and FY 2004 together.
Ms. Thomas said this report does not factor in new expenses the County is facing, such as those for
Solid Waste. The County is having to pick up many public service expenditures which it has not had to pick
up in the past.
Mr. Hildebeitel said there are additional costs such as the Monticello Fire Station where only one-
half of a years operations were covered in FY 2003.
=
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the Board needs to be sensitive to such things as hiring of new
employees.
Mr. Dorrier asked if road improvements could be deferred. Mr. Hildebeitel said little of that money
November 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
is in the County budget, those are State dollars. In terms of programmatic items, there are very few in the
operating budget. Most are contracted expenses such as: Landfill Monitoring, the Recycling Contract, the
Groundwater Study, and the Development Area Contracts, etc. Those are all committed items.
Mr. Dorrier suggested that new construction items be deferred. Mr. Hildebeitel said that would all
be on the capital side of the budget. A lot of the capital budget is for schools, and it is already financed. It is
hard to leverage that in the short-term.
Mr. Rooker asked what percentage of General Government expenditures are for personnel costs.
Mr. Hildebeitel said about one-half of direct General Government department expenditures are for
personnel and benefits. The plan did not hit any non-local government departments. None of the
contributions which the County makes to other departments, none of the transfers for the Jail, the Detention
Center, etc. were changed. Those are a significant part of the local operating budget, but about one-third
of the operating budget is off limits to reductions.
A@
Mr. Rooker asked to what extent the County has control over the transfers for these items. Mr.
Tucker said it is difficult because these are regional agencies. When reductions had to be made in 1995,
staff studied the idea of reducing all agencies by a certain percentage. It was a nightmare because in some
cases it was only a few hundred dollars. Then, the other localities did not want to subsidize, so staff looked
to see what could be done without cutting some of the regional agencies and some of the transfers. It may
come to that, but at the moment he does not know how other localities are affected.
Mr. Rooker asked if the revenue deficit for other localities is largely related to the personal property
tax.
Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance, said he had talked with people from several counties, and
they are all seeing the same things regarding revenue collections.
Ms. Thomas thanked staff for the report.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 22. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on The Agenda.
Ms. Thomas said she has asked that the Board receive a briefing, during its work session on the
CIP, on what the DISC Committee is doing.
__________
Ms. Thomas said Ms. Lee Catlin, Mr. Mark Shore and others have been working on a video of the
local properties connected to Lewis and Clark. The County is involved in this because it is trying to protect
landowners from people trespassing on their property. PBS will be filming it. At first, it will be a ten-minute
show, and later it may be augmented by some of the best scholars in the world who will be in town in
January.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she now has a schedule for the public participation meetings on the Rural Areas
section of the Comprehensive Plan. They are scheduled for November and December.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she and others were subpoenaed to testify regarding Foxfield. She thinks it will
take the ABC officer a little while before coming out with a decision.
__________
Ms. Thomas said in January, CORE II is coming to town. It will be a big thing. She suggested that
the Board members sign up for the special programs which will go on during that Lewis and Clark week in
January. Tickets are pricey, but can be shared with family members.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she attended a meeting with Secretary of Transportation Clement and
Transportation Commissioner Shukett and was impressed with what the Commissioner is doing in terms of
getting VDOT in financial shape.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she and other members of the High Growth Coalition met with the Governor to
encourage him not to take away any of the High Growth's revenue sources. He said he could not make
such a promise. In the process of meeting with the Governor, they did put together a list of ways in which
the State has reduced local land use abilities over the past ten years.
__________
Ms. Thomas updated the Board on her attendance at the VML conference.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she attended the dedication of the Baker-Butler Elementary School. Mr. Martin
gave a good speech on his background with both Mr. Baker and Mr. Butler. It is a wonderful school.
__________
November 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
Ms. Thomas said the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority has a well-done website which outlines
their plans for the short-, medium- and long-term.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she met with people from the Nature Conservancy. They have chosen the
Rivanna Watershed as a significant watershed in the Piedmont. They are putting some attention in this
watershed and are working with the Bio-diversity Committee. They are particularly interested in flow issues.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she met with Kathleen Kilpatrick, Director of State Historic Resources, to
encourage support of visual quality scenic overlay district legislation.
A@
__________
Ms. Thomas said the UnJAM Round 2 workshop will be held on Wednesday, November 20, 2002,
at the Senior Center on Hillsdrive Drive.
__________
Ms. Thomas noted that Mr. Perkins is now Chairman of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the High Growth Coalition will be meeting at the Homestead at 4:00 p.m., on
Monday, November 11, 2002.
__________
Ms. Thomas said Board members had received a memo regarding employees of Technicolor.
__________
Ms. Thomas mentioned the Livestock Compensation Program. She said farmers from Albemarle
County are wondering why they are not on the list. They have read about counties which are receiving
compensation because of the drought for their livestock. Albemarle was hit drastically. It seems to have
been a clerical error made at the State level. Now, Albemarle is having to work hard to get that corrected at
the Federal level. It has not been easy. Albemarle did what it was supposed to do in a timely manner, and
somehow it was not sent by the State to the Federal level. There are farmers in Albemarle who are not
getting the compensation they are entitled to.
(Note: At 4:00 p.m. the Board recessed, and reconvened immediately in Room 235.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. Joint Meeting with the School Board, Room 235.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth Boyd; Mr. Gary Grant; Mr. Stephen
Koleszar, Ms. Diantha McKeel; Ms. Pamela Moynihan; Mr. Gordon Walker and Mr. Charles Ward.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Dr. Kevin Castner, Superintendent; Mr. Michael Struiksma, Assistant
Superintendent for Support Services; Dr. Pam Moran, Assistant Superintendent for Instruction; Mr. Mark
Trank, Deputy County Attorney; Ms. Kimberly Suyes, Director of Human Resources; Mr. Bob
Brandenburger, Human Resources Manager for Benefits and Compensation; and Ms. Jennifer Johnston,
Clerk of the School Board.
The meeting was called back to order at 4:06 p.m. by the Boards Chairman, Ms. Thomas, and the
=
School Board meeting was called to order by Mr. Koleszar, School Board Chairman.
__________
Agenda Item No. 21a. FY 2004 Compensation/Benefit Recommendations, Presentation.
Ms. Suyes said that in November 2000, the School Board and Board of Supervisors approved a
Total Compensation Strategy to target employee salaries at 100 percent of market median and benefits
slightly above the market at 105 percent. In addition to the adopted strategy by the two boards, the School
Board set a priority to reevaluate the methodology used to analyze the salary and compensation structure.
Ms. Suyes said that last year, the salary scale was adjusted 3.0 percent (data showed that
Albemarle lagged the market by 2.5 percent) and this adjustment only impacted new hires and employees
whose salary was below the minimum. There was also a merit pool increase of 3.8 percent for classified
employees. For teachers, the scale was adjusted and there was also a built-in 3.3 percent average
increase. This was done as a result of competitive market data and the WorldatWork projections. To
maintain competitive compensation based on the adopted strategy, two separate but related actions were
required. First, Human Resources conducted a survey of the competitive market and based on that market
data, they determined if the actions taken in July either resulted in the County leading the market, lagging
the market, or whether it was right on market. Then, salary increase projections were obtained from
WorldatWork. Between the two, they projected what will be needed for the next fiscal year.
Ms. Suyes said the Boards actions over the past three years have resulted in the classified scale
=
November 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
being 0.5 percent above market, the gap has been closed. She said the County started at a scale which
was 2.5 percent below and salaries at 0.5 percent below market. The market gave no scale adjustment,
but gave a 3.0 percent salary adjustment. The County gave a 3.0 percent scale adjustment, and a 3.8
percent merit pool, so at this time the County is at 0.5 percent above market.
Ms. Suyes showed a slide which gave the range of the salary increases in the market. She said
that of the 51 localities/schools which responded to the survey, for classified employees 20 were below
three percent, 19 were between 3.0 percent and 4.5 percent, and 11 were between 4.6 percent and 8.0
percent. For the teachers, Albemarle started at market. The market gave a 3.58 percent salary increase.
Albemarle gave a 3.3 percent salary increase which included the step. At this time, Albemarle is above the
market median only at Steps 0, 5 and 15. It is below market median at Steps 10, 20, 25, 30 and the
maximum.
Ms. Suyes said the next step for staff is to make projections for FY 2003-04. WorldatWork
projected a total salary increase of 3.8 percent. She said that subsequent to September 11, WorldatWork
revised their projections to 3.3 percent. However, the eastern region actually implemented a 4.3 percent
increase.
Ms. Suyes said as to Benefits, the strategy is to target slightly above market levels. She said as to
premiums on medical insurance, the County ended the Plan Year at the end of September with claims
exceeding revenue by 11 percent, the medical reserves covered that shortfall. The question is whether the
medical insurance program is adequately covered in the current year. The premiums were established
based on a projected increase of 16 percent. If that projection is too low, claims may exceed revenue.
Claims are being monitored weekly, and staff will make a report to the Boards in December as to whether a
mid-year premium adjustment may be necessary. The first five weeks of claims data monitored do not look
bad. Of course, there are still eleven months to go in the claim year. Staff is anticipating a 16 percent to 30
percent increase in claims, so is recommending that a decision be deferred on that question until later in
the budget development process.
Ms. Suyes said that for FY 2003-04, staff is projecting a 3.8 percent merit pool. They project a
teacher salary increase of 4.08 percent (to include the step increase), and that there be no classified salary
scale adjustment. Then staff is expecting an increase in the medical insurance plan from 16 to 30 percent.
She said there are other factors which impact the compensation-merit formula and Mr. Brandenburger will
explain those.
Mr. Bob Brandenburger said that in 1996, Mr. Hendricks did a pay study for the County and
basically changed the pay structure for both classified employees and teachers. For the classified
employees, there was a merit formula. When the Board appropriates a certain amount of money, that
money is distributed across the classified employee pool. There is a formula which was adopted and it has
two features, one is an acceleration factor, and the other is a deceleration factor. That means that when an
individual employee is hired, an assumption is made that they will begin at the lower end of the pay scale.
In order to reward that employee and get them to the market rate (which is the mid-point of the pay scale),
they will be accelerated to that level. Once the individual is past the mid-point, there is a deceleration factor
built in. That individual will continue to get salary increases, but proportionately it will be less than someone
who is on the front end of the pay scale. When this process was implemented, the vast majority of
employees were put on the new pay scale below the mid-point. In Mr. Hendricks proposal, he indicated
=
that the formula was not set in concrete. It is adaptable based on the needs of the organization. He
suggested that over a period of time, if it was found that employee distribution began to normalize around
the mid-point, the formula should be revisited. In 2002, the distribution is more widely disbursed. If an
employee is at the mid-point they will have a ratio of 1.0. The average of all County and School classified
and administrative employee salaries is 0.95.
Mr. Brandenburger said at this time in order to retain and motivate employees, staff is suggesting
that the deceleration factor be removed. Many employees feel that it is a penalty. There is still a concern
as new staff is hired, although turnover is low. Staff proposes that the acceleration factor be retained, but
that the deceleration factor be removed. That will not change the total dollars in any year. If the Board
were to allocate a 3.0 percent merit pool, the formula would take care of not exceeding that amount.
Mr. Grant asked if the deceleration factor is eliminated if all employees benefit, or do the
employees in the higher paying jobs benefit more from the merit pool than those who are in the lower
paying jobs? Mr. Brandenburger said the latter statement is the correct statement. Mr. Grant said his first
impression is that that might not be good for moral. Mr. Brandenburger said if there were the same amount
of dollars to distribute as last year, the employees at the bottom would get a little less than last year, but it
would still be more than their peers at the higher end of the scale.
Mr. Ward said he is concerned about retention. It is easier for people under the VRS System to go
somewhere else to work where there is not this factor, or the County could say that there are such great
benefits under the retirement system that they are hooked. Someone needs to show him what is wrong
with the deceleration factor if there is not a big turnover rate.
Ms. Suyes said the Hendricks model was put into place to remedy a situation that existed several
years ago, which does not exist at this time. The deceleration factor is not something that would motivate
long-term employees or those employees that are now being employed at a higher range of mid-point or
above. Because of the aging work force, the County is obviously looking at bringing in some experienced
individuals, and this will not motivate them.
November 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
Mr. Ward said it is a retention issue. He said that in civil service, if an employee is within five years
of retirement they generally do not move at that point. He just wonders if this is the right thing to do, and is it
a problem in terms of retention. Mr. Brandenburger said retention may be part of it. He said if someone is
exceeding expectations at the high end of the scale, and that individual is looking at their counterpart at the
lower end of the scale, and that person is getting a greater percentage of the dollars, that begins to have a
demotivating factor.
Mr. Ward asked if that does not show up in the aggregate with the WorldatWork and all the other
factors. Dr. Castner said there could be an employee with 28 years service who exceeded expectations,
and because of the deceleration factor they received a 2.6 percent raise, and another employee who met
expectations in year five received a 3.8 percent, the deceleration factor causes that. The people who are in
the top performing category will see the 3.5+ over the years, but then in their latter years they see 2.5+.
They see that as being devalued as an employee. When Hendrickss did the study, there was a much
==
smaller percentage to get into merit. That has to do with the feedback Human Resources is getting now.
Mr. Tucker said that is definitely a demotivator. As an employee gets further into the system, the employee
is less likely to leave, but why penalize that person?
Ms. Moynihan asked the average grade at the mid-point. Mr. Perkins said every grade has a mid-
point. Ms. Moynihan asked how many years of service the employee would have at that mid-point. Mr.
Perkins said the mid-point is supposed to be the market value of that job. But, it seems the County
employees feel they have to reach the maximum of that pay scale. The way staff looks at it is certainly
different than the way the private sector looks at it where employees work toward the mid-range.
Ms. Moynihan said she wants to know who the employees are at the mid-point. What is the
average age, etc. Ms. Suyes said she does not have that information today. Ms. Moynihan asked if there is
any way to tell.
Mr. Brandenburger said if there was no scale adjustment, keeping the scale as it is today, and there
was a four percent merit pool, it would take an individual starting at minimum about seven years to get to
the mid-point. In general, from one year to the next, the scale is raised, and the employees ability to
=
approach that mid-point is at least 10+ years in terms of normal progression.
Mr. Perkins said mid-point is supposed to be the market value of a job. It is unusual when you have
people reaching for the maximum of a certain pay grade. They have to be a dedicated long-time employee
who has done a good job.
Ms. Suyes asked if Mr. Perkins was basing his comments on private sector experience. Mr. Perkins
said he thinks that is the way it should be for the County also.
Mr. Rooker asked what has happened that makes staff want to make this change. During the
course of this discussion he has lost the logic behind the change. Mr. Brandenburger said there have been
comments from employees at the top end of the scale who have been with the County over five years who
say that because the County has no discretionary moneys to give out, that limits the ability to recognize top-
performing individuals. Because of the formula, the further the employee gets to the right of mid-point, the
less money they will receive. He said new employees will get proportionally larger increases.
Ms. Suyes said she would like to discuss methodology. One of the School Boards priorities is to
=
reevaluate the methodology. Possible factors to consider are: How does the County evaluates its
competitive position relative to market? Currently it is compared to the market median. Is this the
appropriate measure? Should there be different markets for different positions? If compensation is to
reflect the Divisions performance, expectations and accomplishments, should the top quartile of all
=
divisions in Virginia be looked at? Should something more than 100 percent of market be targeted? How
does the teacher scale compare to 130 other school divisions in Virginia? Currently, Albemarle is in the top
quartile at only two steps, 0 and 5, and is in the second quartile in all other steps.
Ms. Suyes asked if using the market average should be considered. Based on the market average,
the teacher scale is above market only on two steps. However, currently using the median, the County
shows that it is above market on three steps. What about the classified scale? Using the average, it says
the County is 0.79 percent below market, while the median says the County is 0.5 percent above market.
Should different markets be looked at for different positions? Eleven of 16 school divisions which are in
Albemarles market are from surrounding areas resulting in a heavy local focus. Some positions, such as
=
teachers, senior managers and administrators are drawn from outside of the area.
Ms. Suyes said that in summary, based on the joint Boards adopted strategy, projections indicate a
=
3.8 percent merit pool for classified, no classified scale increase, a 4.08 percent average teacher increase,
and that a decision on medical contributions be deferred. The other factor discussed today is eliminating
the deceleration factor.
Ms. McKeel referred to a report given to the School Board, and said she thought staff was
recommending continuation of the longevity increase for teachers. Ms. Suyes said she had overlooked that
in her presentation. It is not recommended for deletion.
Mr. Boyd said he thought there were 30 school divisions in the market area. Ms. Suyes said there
are 30 organizations; 26 are school divisions.
Mr. Boyd asked why staff had concluded that because 11 out the 26 school divisions are
represented by surrounding school divisions that is out of kilter with reality. Ms. Suyes said there will be a
A@
November 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
report to the School Board soon which will show where teachers are pulled from. Last year she told the
School Board that the University of Virginia is graduating more math teachers, but Albemarle is not able to
pull a lot of math teachers locally, and 11 of the people in the market are in close proximity. It makes it
hard to be competitive when Albemarle has to go elsewhere to employ teachers. The heavy local focus is
something the Board needs to consider in the reevaluation methodology.
Mr. Boyd said he could understand that thinking if the majority of the new teachers were coming
from other than this area.
Ms. Thomas noted that Mr. Martin had a death in the family so could not be present today. He had
worked very hard with the Committee on putting together this system and she thinks he would suggest that
it be changed only with a good deal of care and after a lot of agreement with everybody. On the other
hand, she is impressed that there may be new information.
Mr. Rooker said he assumes that does not include the proposed change to the acceleration/
deceleration factor. Ms. Suyes said that is outside of the methodology.
Mr. Ward said if the same pot of money is used (taking away deceleration), then the people on the
left will be told they will not get as much because we have to take care of the people on the right side. He is
concerned that the hard, young chargers will say Im out of here. Mr. Perkins said their salaries would be
A@=
below market, so they could go elsewhere to work.
Ms. Moynihan said that is why she wanted to know how many people are on each side of the scale.
Mr. Ward said this will fix one thing, and create another problem, so he wonders what the real
problem is. He does not want to create another imbalance, because the Hendricks study in 1996 was a
hard exercise to go through. Ms. Thomas said the Hendrix study fixed this one problem pretty well, so the
proposal now is to slow down the fix, but not to eliminate it. Mr. Brandenburger said a larger percentage of
the employees are still below the mid-point on the scale.
Mr. Bowerman asked if this just affects the School System. Mr. Brandenburger said no, it affects
A@
both School and General Government classified employees.
Mr. Perkins said in the real world, the mid-point changes all the time. That might not happen with
the County every year because the salary scale does not change, but mid-point goes up all the time. A
person could get a four percent increase and still be in the same range where they started.
Mr. Koleszar asked if Ms. Suyes recommends this change due to feedback from employees, and
how she thinks the model should work. Ms. Suyes said yes.
A@
Mr. Grant asked if this is a policy matter that requires Board action. Ms. Suyes said yes.
A@
Mr. Tucker said this was part of the Hendricks Plan which was adopted by the joint Boards.
Mr. Rooker asked if a motion is needed. Ms. Thomas said she felt that one piece could be
removed from the total recommendation and considered separately. She suggested finishing the
discussion about Eliminating the deceleration factor in the classified/administrator merit formula.
A>=@
Mr. Rooker offered motion to adopt the proposed change to Eliminate the deceleration factor in
A>=
the classified/administrator merit formula. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called,
@
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: Mr. Perkins.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
A similar motion was made by Ms. McKeel for the School Board and it was seconded by Mr.
Ward.
Mr. Grant asked if this will lead to a low moral issue on the left side of the scale. He foresees some
of the employees comparing notes with other employees and he pictures a clash between the two. Ms.
Suyes said she foresees a moral problem if the deceleration factor continues for those individuals above
mid-point. She does not see a moral problem with the other people.
Mr. Boyd said it is an equity issue, not a merit issue at all.
Ms. White said this impacts everyone, and not just administrators.
At this time, roll call of the School Board members was taken and the motion carried by the
following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ward, Mr. Koleszar, Mr. Grant, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Moynihan, Mr. Walker and Ms. McKeel.
NAYS: None.
__________
Mr. Walker asked the policy of the Board of Supervisors as to paying a living wage.
A@
November 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
Ms. Thomas asked if the $8.65/hour methodology is the same methodology as the $8.00/hour. Mr.
Walker said yes, it is still based on a family of four. It is just that the cost-of-living is increasing the Federal
A@
poverty level. Ms. Thomas said she recalls that it was the job pool and the difficulty of hiring people, and
not something that was discussed in great length.
Ms. Suyes said she does not have a response to Mr. Walkers question at this time.
=
Mr. Walker said he would like for the two boards to discuss the question. It does hit the School
System much harder. He understands that there is one Local Government employee who is below $8.65
an hour, but there are 106 employees in the School System who are paid between $8.00 and $8.65/hour.
__________
Ms. Suyes said that based on the joint Boards adopted strategy, staff has given its projections for
the next year. Based on the School Boards priority, she has mentioned the reasons for revisiting the
=
methodology. She asked if there is any other information she or her team can provide.
Mr. Koleszar said in the staffs report there is a suggestion to use the market average or linear
=
estimator instead of the market median in analyzing the divisions salary and compensation structure. He
=
asked if that is a good way to address the issue. Mr. Brandenburger said it was just suggested as another
method of looking at other measures. Staff did not run any assessments of the method. Ms. Suyes said it
was provided as a method for the School Board to think about.
Dr. Castner asked if the Boards have any directions for staff in the question. There is an
established market, and a methodology looking at the median. When talking about whether to use the
median, mean or linear estimator, the question that needs to be considered is whether to value employees
at the average, or value them based on their performance. That is a value judgment, and it does not
change the methodology. With that value judgment, there are associated costs. The economy today might
enable the County to address that issue at this time.
Mr. Bowerman said if the Board had the ability to tax income, he thinks the County could give 100
percent. But, since all taxes are based on regressive forms of taxation, he would have a difficult time
making an equity issue out of that.
Ms. Thomas said the Boards have not yet given directions to staff about Budget development
projections for FY 2003-04. She said the Supervisors, this afternoon, received a report on revenue
projections and they are very glum. The Boards may have to decide that since there will not be the revenue
increases usually expected, there may not be a way to have a 3.8 percent merit pool for classified
staff, and a 4.08 percent fund for teacher increases. She said the goal is known, but the Supervisors do not
know if it can be achieved.
Mr. Bowerman said the goal may become the expectation. Ms. Thomas said that is why she
brought this up, because given the adopted methodology this is what the goal should be. It cannot be
assured that this goal can be met.
Dr. Castner said Mr. Zimmerman has said that if the School Board waits until after the Governors
=
message of December 20, and gives the School Division a number by January 7, he can still meet the
target date for giving the School Board a budget presentation on January 12.
Mr. Boyd asked how that date coincide with getting County numbers? Mr. Tucker said it is a little
early for revenue estimates.
Mr. Boyd said he wonders if building the budget around these recommendations should be a top
priority item over the loss of some other program.
Ms. Thomas said that most Local Government expenditures are for salaries. There is not much in
the budget which is not people-related.
Mr. Ward said he would like to take this matter under advisement, and wait for the most up-to-date
information on the medical. He said the final outcome may be worse, but he is ready for that.
Ms. McKeel asked if Mr. Ward wanted to wait until January 7 to make a decision on the question of
compensation.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to be able to make a decision about medical benefits at that time.
Mr. Walker said deferring this decision does not indicate that he wants to shrink salaries in any way.
Ms. Thomas said that nothing the Boards have done today indicates that they have changed any
goals.
Ms. McKeel said she thinks this is one of the best reports the School Board has received. She is
interested in talking about some of the comments in the report at another time.
_______________
November 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
Agenda Item No. 21b. Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Thomas asked if there were any other matters that the Boards would like to discuss today.
Mr. Bowerman said the County has a strategy that says the majority of the population should be
concentrated in Urban Area centers, and that these centers be provided a differential level of service. He
said the entire strategy, back to 1980, has been to do what could be done to encourage people not to build
in the Rural Areas. But, to provide benefits to people in the way of additional fire, rescue, natural gas, and
transportation in return for the increased density. Because of that density, there are five elementary schools
within about five miles of each other. He asked if the School Board takes into account in any manner any
differential when it redistricts when the County has a policy of encouraging urban population and with that
some stability in the schools. Does that have any more weight when staff makes recommendations based
on finances? Is there any formula or weight given, or is it the same in the Rural and the Urban Area?
Mr. Ward said it is not a formula. In the Crozet master planning, he has been preaching that
another elementary school will be needed in that area. However it gets done, he has to convince three
other School Board members that it is necessary. If the land were already set aside for the school, that
would be one thing, but he knows the Supervisors want to have someone proffer the land.
Mr. Bowerman said if the numbers show another school is necessary, and development does not
go in so there can be a proffer taken, then the County will have to come up with the land for a school, and
then build a school.
Mr. Ward said it may be five or more years but the numbers show the necessity for the school, so
should the land be bought now and held, or what? That is the dilemma. How fast will the 11,000 people
show up in the area? Mr. Bowerman said he thinks those are issues for the Board to look at. There is a
huge Comprehensive Plan with a rural and an urban segment, and the plan has been worked on for over
25 years to get the urban population that is now in Dunlora, Stonehenge, Raintree, and all those
subdivisions in that area. They are complaining that they seem to be targeted because they have a lot of
people, and it is easy to build a school where it is needed. He just wonders if the School Board takes into
account in any way the Countys strategy evidenced by the Comprehensive Plan.
=
Mr. Boyd said he does not believe they consider the Comprehensive Plan at all. They go by birth
data and approved subdivisions. He thinks the School Board will be wrestling with this question at its retreat
on Saturday.
Mr. Bowerman said he does not want to be involved at all in what the School Board is doing.
Mr. Koleszar said transportation distance is also one of the criteria. He said the urban ring schools
have an advantage. If a child lives in Mill Creek, that child only has one mile to go to school. If a child lives
on Red Hill Road, that child must go five miles to school. Because this is part of the criteria for redistricting,
the formula does favor the urban areas.
Mr. Bowerman said he is just asking that this be one of the issues used when considering
redistricting. He said the Board does have a policy on growth and development which favors the urban
areas over the rural areas.
Ms. Thomas said the Supervisors will continue to be very definite on that policy which is to have
schools in areas where there is public water and sewer service. That means they will be in the urban area,
and that is beginning to be harder, so it is possible the school sites may become smaller. She said growth
in every other community in Virginia has led to kids being shuffled around a lot. In Loudoun where there
has been runaway growth, some kids have gone to 10 different schools and yet had never moved. It is hard
to have both growth and stability.
Mr. Bowerman said tough decisions have to be made to get equity among schools with the money
involved. He is aware that the School Board has to make very tough decisions.
Mr. Walker said he thinks the Comprehensive Plan is trying to provide incentives so people will live
in the Urban Area. If one of those incentives is direct feeder programs, that should be something the
School Board is trying to do.
Ms. Moynihan said she thinks direct feeder programs would alleviate some of the problem.
Mr. Boyd said that where schools are located also influences where growth occurs.
Mr. Bowerman said when finding land for a new school, that decision is dictated by what is available
and what the County can afford to pay for the land.
Mr. Ward said land banking, which was discussed about four years ago, was probably a way to
A@
solve some of this.
Mr. Koleszar said he has been a member of the School Board for six years, and the only two times
November 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
they redistricted was when Monticello High School was opened, and when Baker-Butler Elementary School
was opened. So, generally there have not been a lot of kids moved.
Ms. Moynihan said if a new school is built in a new development, it would be hoped that kids in old
developments going to established schools would not have to be moved. The problem is when the new
school is not built soon enough to accommodate the new development.
Mr. Dorrier said the new Comprehensive Plan language the Board recently received noted that the
Educational policy would be developed with the Strategic Plan. Mr. Tucker said Ms. White will be working
with School staff in drafting this; it is still at staff level.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 23. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 5:35 p.m.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 03/19/2003
Initials: EWC