2003-08-06(August 6, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on August 6,
2003, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office Building, Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter
F. Perkins (arrived at 9:06 a.m.), Mr. Dennis S. Rooker and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Clerk, Ella W. Carey, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:01 a.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Dorrier.
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. Whitman Cross said he represents the League of Women Voters. He said the League believes
the Supervisors' consideration of possible membership in the Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic
Development is of great interest and importance to the citizens of Albemarle County. Because of this, the
League recommends that a public hearing be held prior to reaching any decision on this question (This is
listed as Agenda Item No. 9 on today's agenda).
Mr. Jack Marshall said he is president of the group known as Advocates for a Sustainable
Albemarle Population (He read from a quite lengthy statement which is on file in the Clerk's Office). Until
the Board began to consider joining the TJ Partnership for Economic Development, it never occurred to
them that the County would be interested in supporting an advocacy group. Both ASAP and the
Partnership were established to advocate a position on local growth, and to try and influence public policy.
However, the Partnership uses its membership fees to market the region and recruit new businesses, thus
spurring jobs and population growth. ASAP uses its resources to research the impacts of development and
to inform the community about the real costs of growth. He said Albemarle County's economic vitality is
impressive. There is no need for an organization to sell the County. This does not mean that ways should
not be sought to maintain and enhance the County's economic development insofar as that means an
equitable improvement in the quality of life and not simply chasing industry and profits for a relative few. In
the name of economic development, ways need to be found to protect existing businesses, promote more
affordable housing, create a better educated workforce, ensure that new development reflects adaptation
to natural limits, and which examine the impact of new development on local taxes.
Mr. Marshall said such problems do not get much real attention from the Partnership. To try and
understand what true "economic development" implies, it requires wide citizen representation, not a
partnership largely confined to commercial businesses. If the Board votes to join the partnership (a self-
proclaimed growth lobby), they hope that the Board will also join the ASAP and several dozen other local
advocacy organizations that all believe they have the County's best interests at heart. Becoming a member
of a range of local organizations will provide a balanced perspective. ASAP can appreciate the wisdom of
the earlier Board that decided to reject the invitation to join the Partnership. ASAP does not believe the
community has suffered by not being a member of the TJPED, any more than it has suffered by not being a
member of ASAP. He said before the Board joins ASAP or any other group, the Board should invite
comments at a public hearing.
Mr. Jim Aluff said he is a 17-year resident of Ivy. He came today to ask the Board's consideration
of the water issue faced by those living in Ivy. He lives close to St. Paul's Episcopal Church. Recently, the
ACSA offered landowners nearby the opportunity to attach to the public water supply. At this end of
Owensville Road, the water situation is dire. They are not concerned that water be brought to the rest of the
village, or to other parts of the County, because they are not familiar with the total situation. They know that
in their area, wells are bad. Both he and his neighbor have experienced terrible rust problems, and mud is
more likely to come from their taps than water. They would like to keep the zoning as village-residential,
but bring public water to their homes so they know that their tap water is safe to drink. He has put very
expensive filtering equipment in his house, but it does not take out the rust. In the past 17 years, the water's
quality has changed and it is getting worse and worse. He is asking that the ACSA be allowed to bring
water to a few homes which need it desperately.
Ms. Valerie Manson said she is a resident of Owensville Road. She is speaking for herself and a
neighbor about bringing public water to the existing houses on the Ivy end of Owensville Road. Her well
does not meet State standards. She has lived here for 28 years, and she has experienced loss of water, as
well as Iow water pressure, many times. Her house and those of some immediate neighbors are some of
the oldest houses in Ivy. She thinks the people who were here first should receive public water, the original
houses of Ivy, before taking on Crozet, etc. She feels they are entitled to safe and adequate water, and the
fact that they are not asking for sewerage service helps protect Ivy from runaway development.
Agenda Item No. 5. Recognition by Center for Digital Government.
(August 6, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Mr. Dorrier said Albemarle County has been recognized by the Center for Digital Government as
seventh in the nation in utilizing information technology. This award is given by the Center for Digital
Government and the National Association of Counties and Government Technology Magazine. He said a
digital county survey is the first in a series of national studies by the Digital Government Center examining
how governments are using information technology to improve their overall delivery of services. All
counties in the United States were invited to participate. Officials responded to a set of 17 questions, and
ranked their jurisdiction according to a four-point scale utilizing URLs and background data for final
verification. He said this award will be presented by Susan Benton, Director of Strategic Initiatives for the
Center for Digital Government. Mr. Dorrier recognized Ms. Elaine Pack, Ms. Lee Catlin, Mr. Sean Corso
and Mr. Mike Culp, department content editors, and information technology staff for supporting the
functioning of the County's website.
Ms. Susan Benton said it was a pleasure to be in Albemarle County, and to recognize the County
for its excellent work. She said the County has a marvelous technology staffwho have found some unique
ways to work as a team. They have created a technology structure to serve the citizens of Albemarle
County well. This is one of the most historical counties in the United States and it continues to make
history. Technology has been a part of the framework of the County for at least 15 years, but new
technology has lined up in a way that could not have been imagined even five years ago. She said the
changes that have been made started with leadership, and it is a board such as the Albemarle Board of
Supervisors, which was willing to allocate funds for technology, that brought this about. She congratulated
the Board and County staff for what has been done. She looks forward to being back before this Board with
another award in the future.
Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to approve Items 6.1 (as
noted) through 6.5 and to accept the remaining items on the Consent Agenda as information. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Item 6.1. Approval of Minutes: March 17, April 2, May 7, May 14, and June 11,2003.
Ms. Thomas had read the minutes of May 14, 2003, and found them to be in order as presented.
Mr. Rooker had read the minutes of May 7, 2003 (Pages 1 through 22 ending at Item 11), and
found them to be in order as presented.
Mr. Dorrier had read the minutes of May 7, 2003 (Page 22 beginning at Item 12 to the end) and
found them to be in order as presented.
By the recorded vote set out above, the minutes which had been read were approved.
Item 6.2. Authorize County Executive to Sign Memorandum of Agreement and Federal Application
for Assistance - Urban and Community Forestry Grants, County Greenway Program.
It was noted in the staff's report that the Virginia Department of Forestry and the U.S. Forest
Service have awarded the Albemarle County Greenway Program two grants totaling $7654.00. Both grants
will support the County's efforts to recruit and supply volunteers to assist in the construction and
maintenance of the growing County Greenway system. The Mobilized Program Support System project
grant (#03UCF54) for $4900.00 will provide for the purchase of a general purpose cargo trailer which will
serve as a mobile tool storage and headquarters for volunteer workdays. The trailer will be a very visible
advertisement of the County's greenway efforts.
The Trail Construction Tools project grant (#03UCF53) for $2754.00 will provide for the purchase
of the hand tools necessary to supply volunteer work groups for trail building and maintenance. Both grants
are reimbursement grants requiring a 50 percent match. The match will be provided in-kind, primarily
through documented volunteer hours and paid staff time. In order to activate the grants, the Board must
authorize the County Executive to sign the Memorandum of Agreement and the Federal application for
assistance. Both documents have been approved for signing by the County Attorney's Office.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board authorized the County Executive to provide
the necessary materials and enter into such agreements as necessary to fulfill the requirements for
Urban & Community Forestry Grants #03UCF$3 and #03UCF$4.
Item 6.3. Notification guidelines for Rural Rustic Roads Program.
It was noted in the staff's report that during review of the Six-Year Secondary Road Plan this year,
the Board was presented information on the Rural Rustic Road Program (RRRP). The RRRP allows Iow
traffic, unpaved roads to be paved without any widening or grading. The Board requested staff to develop a
resident notification process for the program to ensure that residents are aware of, and have opportunity to
comment on, the type of improvements proposed to the road.
(August 6, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
For "traditional" road paving projects, the Board gauges public support for unpaved road projects
through the residents donation of necessary right-of-way. The RRRP does not require additional right-of-
way dedication outside of VDOT's 30-foot prescriptive easement. Therefore, staff, working with VDOT,
drafted an alternative process for Board consideration. This draft is forwarded for review and comments. If
this process is acceptable to the Board, then staff recommends its adoption.
(Discussion: Ms. Thomas said she had tried to get a neighborhood in her district to take a vote on
the use of this program for paving a road. It was an interesting experience. When she read the proposed
guidelines, she felt the words "If the Board of Supervisors supports the RRRP project, its support must be in
the form of a resolution" were sufficient to satisfy her concerns.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Notification Guidelines
for the Rural Rustic Roads Program.
NOTIFICATION GUIDELINES FOR THE RURAL RUSTIC ROADS PROGRAM (RRRP)
After the project has been identified as being eligible for the RRRP:
Send notice to adjacent property owners within the project limits three months
before estimated advertisement date. The following information will be provided
in the notice:
Information informing residents that the road is eligible for the RRRP and
explaining the difference between a traditional road paving project and a
RRRP project. The notice will indicate the County and VDOT are
proposing to use RRRP standards for construction.
A map of the length of the project and a graphic depiction comparing the
typical cross section for a traditional road paving improvement and for a
RRRP project.
A request that property owners contact the Planning Department within
two weeks if they have any concerns regarding the proposed project.
If a majority of property owners support the RRRP, VDOT will proceed with the
RRRP after the Board of Supervisors supports the RRRP project in the form of a
resolution. Staff will work with those opposing the project to try to address
concerns.
If staff receives opposition to RRRP improvements from a majority of property
owners, staff will schedule a public meeting in the area to discuss the project with
the community. The Planning Commission member and the Board of
Supervisors' member from that district will be notified of the meeting.
Staff will assess comments in consultation with VDOT and make a
recommendation on the type of paving standards for the road project to
the Board of Supervisors.
The Board of Supervisors will decide on traditional paving or RRRP and
forward its recommendation to VDOT. If the Board of Supervisors
supports the RRRP project, its support must be in the form of a
resolution.
Item 6.4. Resolution in Support of Virginia Students.
It was noted in the staff's report that VACo has requested that localities approve a resolution to
urge elected members of the General Assembly to commit to work for additional State dollars to fully fund
the actual costs of the Standards of Quality and the legislative guidelines for higher education funding. This
funding is essential to provide for smaller class sizes, recruit and retain qualified teachers, provide
competitive salaries, and provide adequate and safe classrooms and equipment.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution.
A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF VIRGINIA'S STUDENTS
WHEREAS, many students in Virginia's public schools are at-risk of not learning
what is required to earn a high school diploma, enroll in a college or university or enter
the job market, and even the successful students who graduate are affected by schools
struggling to provide the level of educational quality they need and deserve; and,
whereas, teachers often find they do not have the tools or training necessary to teach the
subjects mandated for achievement of state standards, and teachers' salaries and the
uncertain state support of salaries do not provide the kind of incentives that attract and
keep the most talented professionals, and;
WHEREAS, state funding for public education does not reflect the true cost of
(August 6, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
constructing, staffing, equipping, operating and maintaining schools that perform at the
level needed to support the foundation for standards of quality and learning, and the
costs of educating at-risk students create additional fiscal pressures on many school
systems; and, whereas, not only are students being left behind, taxpayers are seeing the
increasing burden of higher local real estate tax rates as local governments try to pay
both their share and the state's share of education costs, and, when Virginia's students
plan for higher education, they face additional challenges because legislative reports also
have verified that appropriate levels of funding have not been achieved for higher
education, and one of the worst results of reduced funding for college students is that so
many qualified Virginia students are denied admission because the faculty, buildings, and
equipment are simply not there to accommodate them, and;
WHEREAS, the effects of being left behind without a high school diploma or a
college degree, especially for an at-risk student, are compelling. A Virginian who has a
high school diploma earns a lot more than one who does not. A degree from a
community college means more, and a four-year college degree means even more.
Education literally pays, in addition to its other quality-of-life benefits.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the County of Albemarle urges
the elected members of the General Assembly to commit to work for additional state
dollars to fully fund the actual costs of the Standards of Quality and the legislative
guidelines for higher education funding. These actions are essential if our elementary,
middle and high schools, community colleges and four-year colleges and universities are
to meet the following goals:
Smaller classes in schools and colleges where teachers and faculty can
provide students the individual attention they need to learn and graduate
on time;
Sufficient numbers of well-qualified teachers and faculty to give every
student the opportunity to graduate from high school and to have access
to higher education and opportunities for training and skill development;
Competitive salaries to attract and keep well-qualified teachers and
faculty to help students learn;
Modern, safe classrooms, laboratories, technology and equipment to
provide the environment in which students learn best;
Accountability and performance measurement at all levels for students,
teachers, faculty, administrators and others responsible for helping
students learn.
Item 6.5. Request to transfer donation funds from Donation Fund to Fire & Rescue Division.
It was noted in the staff's report that in 1998 an account was established for donations received by
the Fire & Rescue Division for services rendered to residents/public. The Department has received
donations from previous child safety seat installations and from outside agencies. They would like to
purchase additional child seats, traffic signs, tents and a camera with these donations.
Based on identified needs for Child Seat Safety supplies and materials, staff recommended that
$2000 be transferred from budget code 2-8405-18000-181114, to the Fire Rescue Division operational
budget code 1-1000-32015-561415.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the request to transfer funds and
adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION #2004-007
APPROPRIATION DATE: 8/6/03
EXPLANATION: TRANSFER OF DONATED FUNDS FROM CONTRIBUTION FUND TO FIRE/RESCUE
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 32015 561415 F/R-CAR SEAT SAFETY PGM J 1
2 1000 51000 512008 TRANSFER IN J 2 2,000.00
1000 0501 EST REVENUE J
0701 APPROPRIATION J
1 8405 93010 930009 TRANSFER TO G/F J 1 2,000.00
2 8405 18000 181114 CONTRIBUTION J 2 2,000.00
2,000.00
2,000.00
2,000.00
8405 0501 EST REVENUE J
0701 APPROPRIATION J
2,000.00
2,000.00
(August 6, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
TOTAL 8,000.00 4,000.00 4,000.00
Item 6.6. VDOT Monthly Report, July 2003, was received for information.
Item 6.7. Copy of Virginia Electric and Power Company's (Dominion Virginia Power) Application in
Case No. PUE-2003-00285 filed with the State Corporation Commission, to revise its fuel factor pursuant to
Va. Code. 56-49.6, was received for information.
Item 6.8. Copy of Application of Virginia Electric and Power Company filed with the State Corporation
Commission to revise its market prices for generation and resulting wires charges for Calendar Year 2004
and to revise its competitive service provider coordination tariff, Case No. PUE-2001-00306, was received
for information.
Item 6.9. Preliminary FY 2003 Revenue Update.
It was noted in the staff's report that revenue projections in the last quarterly report dated March 31,
2003, anticipated a revenue shortfall of $2.2 million in the General Fund. In addition, Fund Balance
appropriations at that point had reduced the General Fund balance to $290,000 below the desired cash
flow level. The following actions were taken in the fourth quarter to deal with these issues:
* Review of CIP projects; Resulting in a reduction in funds being transferred to CIP. ($969,873)
* Reduction in the transfer to Debt Service due to the delay in the 800 MHz radio project. ($970,000)
* Reduction in the transfer to the School Division based on the local revenue allocation
formula.
Increase in funding for the Regional Jail.
Net reduction in General Fund expenditures
($980,000)
$360,000
$2,559,873
A preliminary review of FY 02-03 revenues at June 30, 2003, indicates a $1.0 million shortfall in
General Fund revenues compared to the $2.2 million projected at the end of the third quarter, an
improvement of $1.2 million. Significant changes since the third quarter projections include:
* Real Estate Tax due to new construction exceeding projections. $428,000
* Personal Property Tax due to improved collection rates which impacts both the local 30
percent and the State's 70 percent under the Personal Property Tax Relief Act (PPTRA) $468,000
* Sales Tax which reflects an improving economy $150,000
* Recordation Tax, both State and local, resulting from increased land sale transactions $200,000
* Rental of the Wachovia building. Some portion of the amount will be needed to offset
expenses incurred since the purchase of this building.
$270,000
Business License, Meals Tax and Clerk's Fees continue to exceed budgeted projections as
previously reported. Other items such as Public Service Company taxes, reflecting reduced capital
investments by the Utility companies, the Transient Occupancy Tax, Investment Income and State revenues
continue to remain below estimates.
Revenue from the Public Service Utilities is declining and may be an area of concern for the future.
The transition to cellular phones is beginning to have an impact on the utility tax collected on land lines,
which also reduces revenue from the E-911 surcharge. The State-mandated conversion of the Business
License Tax on Electric & Gas Companies to a consumption tax is also producing less revenue. In addition,
a State study committee appears likely to propose the total elimination of local utility taxes to be replaced by
a uniform state-wide tax distributed to localities based on a not yet defined formula. County staff is
monitoring the recommendation of this committee.
In addition to the $2.6 million in planned expenditure savings, further departmental savings may be
realized after the August 15 final closure of FY []03 accounts. However, it is too early to project those
savings at this point. The final end-of-the-year revenue and expenditure balances will be presented to the
Board in October with the June 30, 2003, Financial Report.
This preliminary revenue update is brought to the Board for informational purposes only and does not
require any Board action. Staff wanted to provide the Board with a slightly more optimistic update on
year-end revenues than what was reported in the March projections. However, keep in mind that these are
very preliminary projections subject to change and that final year-end adjustments will be brought back to
the Board in October.
This report was received for information only.
Item 6.10. Update on FY 2004-05 Compensation/Benefits Budget Planning and Total Rewards
Implementation.
It was noted in the staff's report that the Board of Supervisors and School Board discussed a number
of employee compensation, benefits, methodology and total reward issues at its joint meeting in June,
2003. Staffwas committed to coming back to the Boards with an update on the status and process that will
be followed over the coming months to address these issues.
In 2000 a cross-functional committee comprised of members of the joint Boards, staff and citizen
(August 6, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
representatives convened to review the County's compensation and benefit programs and to develop
recommendations for a more comprehensive and cohesive total rewards strategy. This Total Rewards
Strategy was intended to support the changing needs of the General Government and the School Division
and to be the framework for the evolution of new or improved programs to meet the demands of a
changing workforce. With the assistance of consultants from Palmer & Cay, a significant amount of
information was collected from Board members, County and School leadership, and employees using
interviews, surveys and focus groups. The development of a Total Rewards Strategy was to be conducted
in various phases. Before significant work could be done on the broader Total Rewards Strategy, the
Committee determined there was an immediate need to establish a compensation philosophy and to have
a consistent methodology to determine annual salary increases and Board contribution for benefits.
The initial work of the Committee focused on this first phase, which included:
The establishment of a compensation philosophy,
The identification of specific localities, school divisions, and other organizations in the County's
competitive market,
The benchmark positions to be used when surveying this competitive market,
The goal of being at 100 percent of market for compensation and slightly above market for
benefits,
The use of the "median" as the measure in establishing competitive positioning,
The use of World-At-Work public sector survey data as a guide in subsequent year's
compensation budget guidance, and,
The need to conduct an in-depth survey every three years to reaffirm the competitive position
of teacher and classified pay structures.
The joint Boards adopted the Committee's recommendations from the first phase and the County has
followed this methodology for the past two years. The next phase to be developed was a Total Rewards
Strategy. The work on this phase was delayed for several reasons. However, staff feels the development
of a Total Rewards Strategy is critical to the success of the Board's Strategic Plan for a "quality place of
employment". There is a need to look at new and innovative total rewards programs that will align
employee compensation, benefits, performance management, and incentives with the needs of the
organization while also recognizing the needs of a changing workforce. Staff feels that the County now
needs to move forward with this next phase which will involve the following steps:
A review of current programs using the prior work of the consultant and committee from 2000,
A review of the needs of the County and its employees, primarily drawing from the work done
in 2000,
A review of what other high performing public and private organizations are doing in the area
of Total Rewards,
An analysis and assessment of alternatives or changes in current programs, and,
Development of recommendations for a Total Rewards Strategy.
Based on the discussion, questions and direction from the joint Board meeting in June, staff is
proceeding with work on the following two separate tasks:
1)
2)
FY 2004-05 Budget Guidelines, which continues the adopted methodology for determining
annual compensation and medical/dental rates and includes a review of market positioning for
teacher compensation;
Total Rewards Strategy, a more comprehensive look at a compensation structure and reward
system, as outlined above:
The following is presented for consideration:
1) 2004-2005 Budqet Guidelines - The total compensation review process adopted by the Boards in
2000 envisioned an in-depth tri-annual survey be conducted of the adopted market. The purpose of this
in-depth survey is three-fold. 1) To determine if the salary scale adjustments implemented in the past two
years have maintained competitive position with the adopted market; 2) To determine if any of the
benchmark positions are significantly out of alignment with the market, and, 3) To determine if the County's
benefit programs are still competitive with the market.
The results of this survey forms the basis for budget planning guidelines on salary scales, scale
adjustments, merit percentage and Board contributions for medical and dental plans. School Division staff
will review the market positioning for teacher compensation and present this separately to the School
Board.
Current Status: The tri-annual survey has been distributed to the localities and school divisions in the
adopted market. Survey results should be compiled and analyzed by late September. Staff will present the
results of survey to the joint Boards in late October using the current adopted market and methodology.
2) Total Rewards Strategy - The survey used in 2000 has been updated and expanded to also
capture information on a wide range of total reward components. This additional information will assist staff
in its review and development of a total rewards strategy that looks at different ways to more effectively
recruit, retain, recognize and compensate classified and administrator staff. There will be two separate
teams, one for General Government and one for the School Division. Each team will be able to develop
the best programs to meet the needs of the organization and its employees. This effort does not preclude
the development of similar programs, but it also does not mandate similar programs.
(August 6, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
Current Status - An RFP for consulting services to assist staff with this phase has been issued.
Vendor selection is expected by the end of August. A comprehensive Total Rewards Strategy will be
developed over the next six to nine months and will be presented to the Boards at a later time. However, if
new initiatives are identified early in this process, they may be presented to the Boards in conjunction with
the 2004-2005 budget process.
The next steps are to: 1) Designate the General Government and School Division Teams; 2)
Establish a time line and proposed dates for team meetings; and, 3) Communicate all of the above to the
respective Boards through periodic updates and status reports.
Although these are two separate tasks, they both involve total compensation issues for both entities
and, therefore, the work will be conducted under the auspices of a staff steering committee whose
members are: Robert Tucker, County Executive; Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive; Kevin
Castner, Superintendent; Pam Moran, Assistant Superintendent; Steele Howen, Executive Director for
Support Services; Kimberly Suyes, Director of Human Resources; and, Lorna Gerome, Human Resources
Manager.
This information is provided for the Board's information and does not require any action at this time.
Staff is working on this two-pronged approach to developing a long-term compensation strategy and will
keep the Boards apprised of progress through periodic updates and reports.
(Discussion: Mr. Martin said in looking at the makeup of the committee, he thinks that non-
employees should be members. If anyone disagrees, he would like to hear their argument. Part 1 included
people from the Human Resources Department. He thinks the Total Rewards Committee should include a
broader base of people.
Mr. Rooker said this was discussed at a meeting where Mr. Martin was absent. He (Mr. Rooker) had
made a strong argument that the composition of the committee should be more like the original
Compensation Committee. That turned out to be a minority viewpoint, but he does not think that precludes
Mr. Martin from bringing up the subject again.
Mr. Tucker said staff is not opposed to bringing in people from outside of County government. There
will be other committees looking at total rewards or any other facet studied.
Mr. Martin said he believes the legitimacy of Part 1 came from the fact that people with differing
opinions were able to agree. As a member of that Part 1 group, he knows that if other people had not been
included, the outcome would have been completely different. Mr. Tucker said as staff develops the teams
that will look at the concept this can be brought back for discussion by the Boards.
Mr. Rooker said this committee has a fairly limited charge. They will be gathering information; they
will not be making any recommendation. Mr. Tucker said this committee will be working under the
guidelines of the original committee, which were set by this Board and the School Board.
Ms. Roxanne White said the second phase is being looked at as how the compensation plan should
be administered. If the committee is divided into several groups, citizens could be brought in to hear the
information being discussed. Staff did not feel that this part of the study needed a lot of citizen input.
Mr. Martin said the original steering group had subcommittees, and the subcommittees reported back
to the steering committee, and eventually the steering committee became the subcommittees. This second
part was set aside to study later, but he had envisioned that this second part would come back to that same
steering committee for some type of approval. He thinks people need to know that group had legitimacy
because it had different voices on it. Those different voices were able to agree. It was because of that fact
that he was able to say to the members of this Board that the County needed to stick with the report and not
pull pieces out of it, otherwise the whole thing would fall apart because it was a compromise decision. He
just asks that the Board keep his concerns in mind as this work moves forward.
Ms. Thomas said if Part B finds itself wanting to change any of the policy, then she thinks the steering
group should be put back together again. Since the County is one of the area's largest employers, what it
decides to do in the way of compensation is of interest to other employers.
Mr. Dorrier said there was also a question of getting a report back to the Boards in October.
Ms. White said the first part of the study will be coming to the Board in October because it has to do
with the market. The second part is a much longer study, and has to do with how to reward people through
various options. There are a lot of different recruitment ideas and reward ideas which are changing the
market because of demographics and the older population.)
Agenda Item No. 7a. Transportation Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Jim Bryan, Resident Engineer, mentioned the Board's request for a through-truck restriction on
Profflt Road. He said that request has been approved, but it will actually take six to eight months to
enforce. He said when the request was analyzed, there was not a lot of through-truck traffic on that road,
but the geometrics of the road do not lend themselves to truck traffic at all.
(August 6, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mr. Bryan said the public hearing on the Jarman's Gap Road project was canceled at the last
moment, and he appreciates what County staff did to get the word out. He wants to offer the community
another alternative, rather than just the one offered by VDOT.
Mr. Bryan said VDOT began work this week on the mud slide on Route 20 North.
Mr. Bryan said work on the Limestone Creek bridge on Route 250 East has been completed. They
hope the work on the bridge at Carrollton Creek will be finished soon.
Mr. Thomas said there was a mention that the bridge painting has been completed, and the
contractors are clearing the area. She knows the County's Engineering Department staff had serious
concerns about the project. Mr. Bryan said if that concern had to do with toxic waste, all of that was
checked and there were no spills, or danger to anyone.
Ms. Thomas thanked Mr. Bryan and the CSX for starting on the railroad crossing at Grassmere
subdivision.
Ms. Thomas asked about a traffic light at Route 29 and 1-64 and a signal warrant being requested.
She asked the location of this light. Mr. Bryan said he will have to check, he does not know at this time.
Mr. Rooker asked about approving signage at the off-ramp. Mr. Bryan said it just needs to be
installed.
Mr. Rooker asked about a public hearing date for the design phase of the Meadow Creek Parkway
project. Mr. Bryan said the redesign has been finished by VDOT, and it is in the hands of County staff. He
thinks they will consult with Jones & Jones. Mr. Rooker asked that staff bring the Board a proposal for
including all the publicly-owned land in the area as parkland.
Mr. Martin said he would like to see in print every so often the fact that Penn Park was the original
donation of parkland for the Meadow Creek Parkway project. He said few people know this. The County
has been doing its best to add parkland, but it would be nice to get a little credit for Penn Park.
Mr. Perkins asked for an update on the Advance Mills bridge project. Mr. Bryan said VDOT has
finished the repairs to restore it to a three-ton capability.
Agenda Item No. 8. Board-to-Board Presentation by School Board Chairman.
Ms. Diantha McKeel, Chairman, handed to the Board members a copy of the School Board's monthly
report. She said that at its meeting on June 12 they made several changes and appointments in School
Division administration. In addition to hiring about 100 new teachers, some thirty percent of the
administrative staff has been reassigned.
Ms. McKeel said many projects have been in progress at the schools during the summer months.
She gave to the Board a copy of the construction time line. All of the projects are coming in on budget.
The Jack Jouett Middle School project has the tightest time line for completion. Weather delays and other
issues have caused the project to lag behind schedule. The school will be ready for the students on the
first day, but there will be some areas that are not complete at that time. She thanked the Supervisors for
supporting the School Board's CIP Program.
Ms. McKeel said the School Board held its retreat in June using the new Media Center at Burley
Middle School. At that time, the School Board completed its annual evaluation of the School Board, the
School Board/Superintendent priorities, and the Superintendent. It is currently completing the 2003-04
priorities, and she will send a copy to the Supervisors at the appropriate time.
Ms. McKeel said the 2003 National History Day competition was held at the University of Maryland in
June. Jason Moran and Chris Ours from Albemarle High School placed first in the nation for their senior
group documentary "Unnatural Selection: A Hidden History." She said a copy will be available in CD
format for everyone to see. Mr. Dorrier said the Board may be amenable to having it shown at a meeting at
some time in the future.
Ms. McKeel said Dr. Castner has reported the results of the County's preliminary SOL tests to the
School Board. Twenty-four out of the County's 25 schools are accredited. She will share the final data with
the Supervisors when it is available. For the Eleventh Grade, the Reading/Literature SOL saw a passing
rate of over 90 percent for each of the high schools. Efforts are being focused now on the Yancey
Elementary School community.
Ms. McKeel said the School Division held summer school programs for remediation and enrichment.
Not every school site had a program because some schools combined their efforts. On August 2, there
(August 6, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
was a graduation program for 42 students from Albemarle, Fluvanna, Madison, Nelson and Greene
counties, and the City of Charlottesville.
Ms. McKeel then gave to the Supervisors a copy of the guidelines which have been developed by the
School Division concerning campaigning on school property. She said the Superintendent held an
orientation session for all School Board candidates in June.
Ms. McKeel said during the 2003-04 School year, approximately 30 teachers participated in a
Summer Curriculum Institute focusing on the steps needed beyond meeting SOL standards and
expectations into the Twenty-First Century. From August 11 through the 13th, the Division will hold a New
Teacher Academy for approximately 100 teachers. Most teachers will return on August 18, with the first
day of school being August 25. There will be new programs in the schools. Yancey Elementary will be
extending its school day by 20 minutes. Scottsville, Red Hill, Baker-Butler and Hollymead will be piloting an
elementary school Spanish course. Mandarin Chinese will be offered at Monticello High School and Arabic
will be offered at Albemarle High School.
Ms. McKeel said on August 19, the Schools will be hosting a community gathering at Western
Albemarle High School. She invited the Supervisors to attend.
Mr. Bowerman asked the expected school population for the coming year. Ms. McKeel said it is
anticipated at approximately 12,320. Mr. Bowerman asked the gain over last year. Ms. McKeel said it is
approximately 90 students.
Mr. Dorrier asked about the extra 20 minutes in the Yancey School program. Ms. McKeel said
Yancey received a large grant to help with its reading program. The extra 20 minutes will allow the students
more time with other core subjects such as science and history because extra time had already been
allotted for reading. She said Yancey is the topic of a lot of discussion by School staff and School Board
members.
Ms. Thomas said she received a call yesterday inquiring why insurance is required of groups using
school facilities. She asked that someone look into this question. Also, last night she was told that
Albemarle County is not listed on the State Income Tax form as one of those places where someone can
donate money from their state tax. She said there is evidently a list of cities and counties which have this
provision, and Albemarle County is not listed. She asked that someone look into this question.
Mr. Rooker asked if the "No Child Left Behind Act" is imposing additional requirements on the School
System this year. Dr. Castner said the testing starts in FY 05-06. The curriculum must be altered
somewhat and staff is working on that. There are additional requirements for teachers who have to be
certified. They have found that if someone from outside of Virginia is hired, where originally they could have
a Virginia certificate, they now come in as provisional. There is one more year before phase-in, but when it
happens, there will be additional testing required which will create a need for additional resources and time.
Ms. McKeel said the testing does not start yet, but the School Board is looking at all of the
ramifications.
Mr. Rooker asked if the State has tried to eliminate the "No Child Left Behind" program, since the
State has the SOL requirements. Dr. Castner said there was no flexibility even though Virginia gives the
SOLs in Grades 3, 5, 8 and the high schools. It was meant to be grades 3 - 8. That was not negotiable.
The State is proposing that it devise its own tests. Each state is different in what it is proposing, and
different in its test scores. Looking across the country, scores in Virginia are among the highest.
Mr. Martin said this is a Federal initiative, but it sounds as if test scores will not be able to be
compared to those of other states. It will not be a national standardized test. Dr. Castner said that is true.
There will be people in control at the state level. But, because of what they are requiring, there will be a
higher level of accountability across the country.
Ms. McKeel said the State withdrew state money from the Stanford 9 test, but Albemarle County will
continue to give that test because that is the way the County can compare itself nationally. Dr. Castner said
he thinks Virginia has higher standards than the majority of the states.
With no further comments, Mr. Dorrier thanked Ms. McKeel for her report.
Agenda Item No. 9. Presentation: Request from the Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic
Development that the County join the Partnership.
Mr. Lindy Cockman, Chairman of the TJ Partnership, made the presentation. He said they are
requesting that Albemarle County become a member of the partnership. He said the partnership is a
regional organization comprised of governmental units, educational institutions, and business members of
the private sector. Over the past two years, this group has worked diligently to establish a strategic plan to
promote economic viability with a regional jurisdiction. The major focus of the partnership has been to
promote existing business expansion, highlight regional infrastructure needs (water, transportation), and
workforce development.
Mr. Cockman said the partnership recognizes that economic impacts are not confined by
(August 6, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
jurisdictional boundaries. The impacts of decisions made in one location by one group can become
manifest in another. Because of this, it is incumbent to coordinate planning and policies. Public and private
sector decision makers are involved in determining the shape and the future of the area. Each sector is
dependent on the other to help mold a political, a social and an economic climate that sustains the quality
of life all enjoy. This is the one place where leaders from the business community, the educational
institutions and local governments can come together to discuss major issues. Although, Albemarle County
is represented by an excellent cross-section in the business community, the County has chosen to remain
absent from the deliberations within the organization. They hope the Supervisors will make the decision to
allow Albemarle County to have a voice in the regional issues involving transportation infrastructure,
adequate water supply, business expansion, and workforce development. They believe the citizens of
Albemarle deserve to have their government's voice included in the discussion within the partnership on the
important issues of the day.
Mr. Stan Livengood, Director of Economic Development for Orange County, was next to speak. He is
also treasurer of the partnership. He offered to answer questions concerning the procedural relationship
between Orange County and the partnership. He explained the basic process companies looking for a new
place of operation take to find suitable sites for their business. He said the primary function of the
partnership is to provide a forum between Planning District 9 and Planning District 10. Most jurisdictional
boundaries are arbitrary and the artificial separation of these two planning district commissions restricts the
opportunity for coordinated planning and policy implementation to promote the general welfare. No one
can deny that the economy of these jurisdictions is intertwined. As far as a direct benefit is concerned, two
businesses have located in Orange as a result of Orange's membership in the partnership. Perhaps,
Albemarle would not have been interested in a book distribution facility, but it has become Orange County's
largest employer, a primary source of revenue, and an exemplary corporate participant in community life.
Perhaps, Albemarle would have been interested in an adhesive processing plant which has about 15 high
paying jobs, and which made about a $6.0 million investment. The choice Albemarle made was not to
consider the possibility. The economic condition of the region is that Albemarle and Charlottesville drive the
engine that supports the surrounding communities. He urged the Supervisors to join the partnership in
making the future.
Dr. Robert Friedman, President, Piedmont Virginia Community College, said his main interest is
individual opportunity. That is the opportunity that people get to better their lives through education. He
said they are in the middle of fall registration at PVCC. They will have about 4500 students this fall, and at
least one-half of them attend so they can get better jobs and make more money. He is not an economist,
but when he looks at the economy of the region, he sees it as being divided. There are a lot of high-level
professional jobs requiring advanced degrees, mostly fueled by the University of Virginia. He sees a large
number of Iow-skilled, Iow-wage jobs, fueled by the service economy, and by tourism. Missing in this region
are the mid-level jobs that are semi-skilled and skilled and which pay $4.00 or $5.00 an hour more than
unskilled jobs pay. These are the jobs that give people an opportunity to advance their career, and give
them upward mobility. When a region has this kind of economy, it creates issues about affordable housing
and issues about wages. From his perspective, the problem is getting worse. Mid-level jobs have been lost
as a result of several industries closing or relocating. People must then either leave the area or take a
lower paying job. When the Wal-Mart distribution center opened at Zion Cross Roads, they were worried
that they would not get enough applicants for their jobs. Since they pay a higher hourly wage than most
service sector jobs in the area, they had 10,000 applications for their 500 jobs. Fourteen percent of their
workforce lives in Albemarle County. For those 500 people it meant better jobs, more money to spend, and
many of them spend it in Albemarle County supporting small businesses in the County. He believes this
Board shows leadership when it makes opportunities available for the citizens. One way to address that
leadership is to join the TJPED. It is a cost-effective way for the Board to lead the region in the area of
policy and initiatives. He hopes the Board does not wait until there is a crisis situation due to job loss. He
speaks for the thousands of students he serves each year at PVCC. He believes they would be
appreciative of this Board taking action to be involved and to be a leader in creating opportunities for them.
Ms. Colette Sheehy said she is the Vice President for Management and Budget at the University of
Virginia. Mr. Leonard Sandridge was to have appeared this morning, but was not able to do so, but asked
her to come in his stead and explain why the University feels it is important for the County to join the TJ
Partnership. She and Mr. Sandridge are involved with the University's long-range planning. The University
is the largest employer in this region. The University, itself, is a public member of the partnership. They are
proud of what the Supervisors have accomplished over the years. Forty-five years ago, Mr. Sandridge was
a student bus driver in Albemarle, and this enabled him to attend the University. It is out of respect and
admiration for what the Supervisors have lead the County to achieve, that the University and Ms. Sheehy
and Mr. Sandridge ask the Supervisors to join the partnership. Each member of the Supervisors has his
views on a broad variety of issues. They expect the members to vote their conscience on what is best for
the citizens. At the same time, they have observed the important role that opened this course to the views
of others, and the way collaborative processes play in all decisions of the Supervisors. It is for this reason
that they find it difficult to understand why the elected representatives do not choose to be at the table when
important work affecting the future of the community is being debated and addressed by every other
jurisdiction in the region. The absence of Albemarle County as a participant in the partnership is
inconsistent with the high standards the Supervisors exhibit in all other parts of their work. To refuse
membership in this regional effort means that the elected representatives of many of UVA's faculty, staff
and students are not in a position to influence decisions in development and the future of the community.
At a time when several long-time, major employers are either reducing the number of jobs they have, or
leaving the area entirely, when the County is changing rapidly, and its future is challenging and uncertain,
the Supervisor's absence as a member of the partnership is a loss to all. She
asked that the Supervisors take the opportunity to influence the County's future and the decisions reached
(August 6, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
by the partnership by becoming a formal member.
Mr. Rooker said the Board had decided that this would be a topic of discussion at its next retreat. He
thanked everyone who had make a presentation, but thinks that if the Board is going to seriously consider
this idea, it should schedule a public hearing and let everyone be heard before making any decision.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks the Board members know there has been an intern working on this idea
this summer. She has been impressed with what staff is developing. She thinks the Board will be better
able to consider this matter after having a full discussion.
Mr. Martin said he has always been in favor of joining the partnership. However, he agrees with Mr.
Rooker that the Board should not take a vote today, but should wait until after its retreat in September. At
the retreat, he would like to get an answer to the questions posed earlier by Mr. Jack Marshall as to what it
would mean if the County joined the ASAP or the TJPED. The only argument against joining the
partnership which makes sense to him is that the Board has not historically joined advocacy groups. If you
take that argument off of the table, in his opinion there is no argument left. He personally thinks it is
important for the County to be a part of this partnership. He does not see the ASAP as being the opposite
of the TJPED. He sees no reason why this Board could not participate with these groups.
Mr. Bowerman said that philosophically he would have no problem joining the partnership. He read
their charter, and it does not mention some of the things he would be interested in doing. He was looking
forward to discussing this at the Board's retreat with all the information available to the Board at that time.
He thinks that the way it was presented today was premature, and there is no way he could support it until
after having that discussion.
Mr. Rooker said he has questions about whether this group is covered by the Freedom of Information
Act. When this matter was discussed previously, there was a legal opinion issued which said the members
of the Board of Supervisors could not serve on the partnership. Also, the County is a member of TJPDC
which has an economic development plan in which this County participates. It is not that the County is not
interested in regional planning. The County belongs to the PACC, the MPO, and the TJPDC. The County
does participate in regional planning on a regular basis. The issue is whether the Supervisors want to join
groups which were formed originally to be private advocacy groups. He thinks that question needs to have
substantial debate.
Mr. Martin said there is a letter in the packet from Mr. Coates in Culpeper. Culpeper is a member.
He thinks if there were a question of legality, some of those people would have already resolved that issue.
He does agree it is something the Board needs to think about. However, if a vote were taken today, he
thinks it would be a tie vote.
Mr. Dorrier asked that the County Attorney furnish an opinion at the retreat on Mr. Rooker's question.
Mr. Perkins agreed that this question should go through the public hearing process. He personally
feels the Board should be at the table to represent Albemarle County, not necessarily to advocate getting
additional employers. He does think the partnership helped Albemarle County when ConAgra closed. In
some cases, they might be able to prevent businesses from pulling out of the County. When he (Mr.
Perkins), was Chairman of this Board, he and Mr. Tucker visited ConAgra and were given a glowing report.
However, five years later they closed and moved, but that is the way national corporations operate. He
does not know what the partnership could have done to have changed that situation.
Mr. Dorrier said he supports joining the partnership. The Board will consider the question at its retreat
in September, and then make a decision later in the year.
Agenda Item No. 10. Overview of RideShare and Travel Demand Management Strategies.
Presentation by Rhonda Edmunds, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission.
Ms. Rhonda J. Edmunds, Transportation Program Manager for the PDC, and manager of the
RideShare program, said the purpose of the program is to help reduce traffic congestion by decreasing the
number of single-occupant vehicles on the roads. This becomes more important as the area faces an
increase in population, a decrease in funding for the transportation network, and increased strain on the
transportation system. The RideShare program is housed in the PDC so works with the overall
transportation team including the Metropolitan Planning Organization and Rural Transportation Program.
Ms. Edmunds said RideShare was formed in 1985 by the Department of Rural Transportation and by
JAUNT. It was formed to provide a car pool and van matching service for commuters, as well as support.
The program is funded by State grants, and the localities. Albemarle County does support the program.
Ms. Edmunds said RideShare provides a free carpool and van pool matching service, helping
commuters find others who live and work near them who are interested in sharing a ride to work. A
database of over 1000 commuters is maintained. Once a match is made, RideShare provides the
information necessary to form a carpool. Most people do not want to take an alternative source of
transportation to work because they are afraid of being stuck at work in the event of an emergency. In
1997, the RideShare program formed a "guaranteed ride home" program. This program offers a free ride
home to any commuter who uses an alternative method of transportation at least two times per week. They
can get a ride home by calling either a taxi company, or a rent-a-car company. That feature of the program
(August 6, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
can be used up to five times per year at no cost to the commuter.
Ms. Edmunds said RideShare is also involved in the Park and Ride Program around the region.
These lots provide free parking to people where they can meet either car pools or van pools or transit. CTS
and JAUNT provide transit from some of the Park & Ride lots, particularly in Albemarle County. She said
they have been fortunate to have Mr. Juan Wade help them with the Park & Ride Committee. He has
actually helped to get some of these lots started.
Ms. Edmunds said they are involved in a lot of Travel Demand Management Strategies. These
strategies are in place to help manage the demand of travel on the transportation network. These are not
just commuter-based trips, but are also home-based non-work trips, as well as trips to special events. One
new thing they have been involved with is the formation of a school pool program. This works with the
schools to help parents carpool to the schools if they do not want their child to ride a school bus. This will
help reduce congestion on school grounds. TDM strategies are useful when developing policies for a
region. Albemarle County has taken the lead on this by requiring that TDM plans be part of a developer's
plans. Most recently, they commented on Martha Jefferson's TDM plan for their new facility on Pantops.
That is a very important aspect for the Planning Department. Also, TDM's, as well as all of the other
RideShare strategies, are part of the UN JAM Plan for the entire region. She thanked the Board for its
support and encouraged it to continue to place TDM's high on the priority listing.
Ms. Edmunds said they serve as a member of the Commuter Information Team which includes
JAUNT, CTS, RideShare, UTS and Greene County Transit. They work together to offer commuters all the
options that are available. They work with employers to help them formulate traffic reduction programs.
Mr. Juan Wade is active in assisting with Albemarle County's program.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Board members had questions.
Ms. Thomas asked if Albemarle County as an employer has been participating in RideShare. Ms.
Edmunds said she has not made a presentation to County employees. They did attend the County
Government Day Fair back in the spring. She has been working with Juan Wade and he has been taking
the lead on developing a program for Albemarle County as an employer.
Ms. Thomas said she recently read that more than 40 percent of Charlottesville City workers get to
work by some method which does not involve a single occupancy vehicle. She asked if that is a goal the
County can work toward. Ms. Edmunds said one of the things coming out of the MPO's Community Mobility
Committee is the employee traffic reduction survey which will be conducted to find out current modes of
transportation for employees.
Mr. Martin said he was interested in the comments about school pooling. He said if there is any
success with that idea at all, he thinks there would be more success with after-school sports sharing.
Mr. Dorrier thanked Ms. Edmunds for her report.
Agenda Item No. 11. Airport Master Plan, Presentation by Bryan Elliott.
Mr. Michael R. Matthews, Jr., Chairman of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority, spoke. He
said that last year was one of the worst years economically in the history of aviation. In spite of that, this
Airport set an all time record for passenger enplanements. There is more commercial jet activity now than
in the history of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport. There is also a record number of aviation aircraft
based at this field. They are excited about the bidding later this year by VDOT for the rebuilding of Airport
Road (Route 649). It will provide a four-lane, divided median roadway with bike lanes and sidewalks. Also,
with a lot of help, a roundabout was designed, funded and approved for construction at the entrance to the
Airport, the first such facility in the area.
Mr. Matthews said there is a new rental car facility under construction, and they are planning a
number of T-hangers and box hangers. They also participated in the Lewis & Clarke celebration. He said
the Airport receives no funds from the County or the City. It actually generates revenues through property
taxes on airplanes, and through other fees. Their most pressing problem relates to Mr. Elliott's
presentation. That is a problem with the Airport property itself as it looks to meet the demands of the future.
The County's Growth Area Boundary is actually along the western edge of the airfield, the runway itself. It
does not follow the fence at the Airport. That puts over 100 acres of the Airport's growth area not in the
County's Growth Area. That has important implications for things like water and sewer. It is an issue which
will have to be addressed by the Board of Supervisors in the near term if the Airport is going to continue to
address the needs of the community. He asked Mr. Elliott to go into further detail about this issue.
Mr. Elliott, Airport Manager, referred the Board members to the hand-out which had been provided to
the members today. He said they are working with Delta Airport Consultants, Inc., on an update of the
Airport's Master Plan. They are required to maintain a comprehensive plan which looks twenty to thirty
years into the future. The Plan was last updated in 1994. At that time, they worked with the County to roll
that plan over into the County's Comprehensive Plan and the Site Plan Development process. They are
seeking active public participation in this process. The Authority Board formed a 15-member working group
to work with staff and the consultants to mold this process. There will be public meetings held
throughout the two-year planning window, and they will keep this Board updated as this planning effort
progresses.
(August 6, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
Mr. Elliott said they are looking at a strategic context for the Airport, not only in terms of where the
Airport fits in the northern part of Albemarle County on about 750 acres of land, but where it fits in the
eastern region of the United States. Charlottesville and Albemarle County are in a high growth area. Of all
the metropolitan statistical areas in the eastern region, Charlottesville is the fourth fastest growing. These
statistical areas range in size from 100,000 to over one million in population. There is a need for continued
air transportation facilities well into the future. There are some specific strategic planning issues related to
the Airport that are being looked at. First is whether the runway length is sufficient to accommodate the size
of aircraft now and twenty years out. Will terminal facilities and hangar facilities and infrastructure be
sufficient to handle the demand anticipated? What do they do about the west side of the property? They
own about 132 acres on the west side of the runway, and it is completely undeveloped. All infrastructure at
the current airport is centered on the east side. They are maximizing those land resources to the greatest
extent possible. At some point there will be a need to look at development of the west side as to any
obstacles to development, and how to accomplish that in order to remain a viable air transportation network
for the long term.
Mr. Elliott said that as the preliminary stages of the planning process begin, at least three airport
growth issues have been identified. One has to do with land access. Improvements to Route 649 will
enhance the ability of people coming from Route 29 to get to the Airport. Ways will have to be found to
move people from all areas of the County and City to the Airport in a manner which is convenient. Since
this Airport does not always offer the lowest prices, it comes down to a matter of convenience. If it is difficult
for people to get to the Airport, they might decide to go to Richmond, or Lynchburg, or the Shenandoah
Valley, instead.
Mr. Elliott said another growth issue has to do with the land uses surrounding Airport property.
Density in the northern part of the County is increasing. They need to work cooperatively with the County to
insure that the land uses in and around the Airport remain compatible with Airport uses, such that the noise
impacts from aircraft do not impede or have a negative impact on surrounding land uses. Lastly is the issue
of capacity. They have 700+ acres which is very small for an airport. As more and more density occurs
around the Airport, that capacity will be squeezed. They need to be creative as to how to maximize that
acreage and make it beneficial for air transportation in the future.
Mr. Elliott said that within 18 months they should have a solid plan which they will share with this
Board. He offered to answer questions.
Ms. Thomas asked about the security situation. Mr. Elliott said in terms of passenger and baggage
screening that has settled down. There has been a year of service by the Transportation Security
Administration. Now, they are looking at other areas of security, but no one knows if they will create
financial impacts on the Airport.
Agenda Item No. 12. Cable Franchise Agreement, Discussion of.
Because of time constraints, this item will be discussed in the afternoon portion of this meeting.
Agenda Item No. 13. Ivy Area, Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional (Service)
Area Designation for Public Water, Discussion of.
Mr. David Benish said the Board initiated this request for information at its meeting on July 9, 2003,
based on information from Mr. J. W. Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority,
regarding a ClP project for water service in the Ivy area. Staff was requested to research the jurisdictional
area designation for public water service in the Ivy area.
It is stated in the staff's report that Ivy was designated a Village as a result of the first Comprehensive
Plan adopted by the County in 1971 but lost its Village designation as a result of the adopted 1989
Comprehensive Plan (Ivy's new designation became Rural Areas). During the latter part of 1980, the Board
of Supervisors approved the redrawing of the Service Authority's jurisdictional boundaries. Amendments to
the 1977 Comprehensive Plan for jurisdictional areas included the following:
Water Only: Water only districts are recommended for those areas where existing
customers, proximity to the existing transmission lines, and/or planned densities of
development make water service both feasible and desirable. There are two water only
areas in the staff recommendation:
The Ivy village area, following the boundaries of the old Area #5, with an extension
east to Ivy Creek, in order to include existing customers; and
The North Pines Subdivision, just to the west of the Piney Mountain village area,
due to the conditions of approval requiring water for the development.
Therefore, it appears the jurisdictional area maps were amended to include areas along the Route
250 West corridor between the designated urban area to, and including, the then Village of Ivy. This area
was given the designation of "water only." This designation limits service to properties to only water (no
sewer) but does not limit service to only existing structures. New construction on these properties (and
(August 6, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
subsequent lots subdivided from these properties) could be eligible for public water.
Mr. Benish said much of the Ivy area is designated for "water only" service which is a designation that
limits the service that can be provided to water. It does not restrict service to just existing structures. It also
does not restrict service if lots which are undeveloped are subsequently subdivided. Current practice has
been that service is only extended to properties not designated for development, and only if they have a
documented health or safety issue and the property is adjacent to an existing line. If service is approved,
current practice has been to provide the limited service designation.
Mr. Benish said this designation for water only in much of the area along Route 250 West, including
the Ivy area, was done back in the early 1980s for various reasons which staff has not been able to clearly
document. Staff is still researching the Board's minutes to determine if there was a definitive action that
indicated a "water only" designation for the Ivy area. As it stands now, much of the old Ivy Village area is
designated for "water only." That would allow service to be provided to vacant lots.
Mr. Benish offered to answer questions. He said Mr. Paul Shoop is present from the ACSA this
morning to answer the issues with the ACSA request. Also, the ACSA has provided a map showing the
connections made in this area for water service.
Mr. Shoop referred to the map mentioned previously. He said each dot on the map represents a
water meter, and the map is probably 96 percent accurate. It gives a fair representation of properties
served west of town, primarily north of Route 250 West. He said that Farmington used to be served by an
old water system that belonged to the City of Charlottesville. West Leigh and Flordon were each on private
well systems. In the early 1970s when the 12-inch waterline to West Leigh was installed, the well systems
were converted to public water. With the exception of those subdivisions, the other areas developed after
the waterline was installed.
Ms. Thomas said that in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the County was involved in annexation
battles with Charlottesville. It was in the County's best interests to expand waterlines so could prove to the
court that water service was being provided to citizens. There was also a plan to have a General Electric
plant at the Ivy interchange of 1-64. So, a very large waterline was brought out to that interchange sized to
serve that plant. When the wells that served West Leigh subdivision failed, it was in the County's interests
to extend the line. She said this background is very different from how the County feels now about
expanding jurisdictional areas. She was interested in the fact that the Ivy area which does not have water
service now is a commercial area. Yet, it has this water designation. The Board just learned a few weeks
ago that if sprawl continues out Route 250 West, the road will not be able to handle the expected traffic
increase from Crozet and traffic from the sprawling development. Having a limited water situation is one of
the ways the County has been able to keep down development in the commercial area of Ivy. The project
put in the CIP of the ACSA is for six houses, so that is not commercial. She guesses this got on Radio
Station WINA as being an outrageously expensive project, and Mr. Brent sent an E-mail to all Board
members saying (paraphrasing) "it is only outrageously expensive if it stops at those six houses, but it could
go to Glenaire or Peacock Hill, Murray School, Duner's, and on and on." She said this is the very area
where the County has been restricting water so there is no strip development along Route 250, and the
County is not encouraging more development in an area which is in the watershed of the Reservoir. She
said this matter is on the agenda because a couple of Board members spoke up, and not because the
Board has anything to do with the ACSA's decision.
Mr. Shoop said the ACSA received a request for service for homes just a little east of Duner's.
Duner's and the converted motel are all in the designated service area. The ACSA looked at a project
which would serve the homes, Duner's and the businesses in the old motel. Duner's is the end of their
service area, so the line was sized to serve the group in that corner property only, and also to provide them
fire protection. When a request is received for property within their service area, the ACSA Board acts on
the request. Requests for service outside of their service areas comes before this Board first.
Ms. Thomas said she wanted to know some more about this story. There was an interesting
sentence in the staff's report which stated: "There are 'water only' areas beyond the Crozet Growth Area
boundary, as is the case for Scottsville along Route 6 west of town. Similarly, a water main does not exist
along Old Lynchburg Road, but the area is designated for water service beyond the Growth Area
boundary." She thinks the Board needs to look at these situations to see if the jurisdictional area
boundaries and the County's designated Growth Area boundaries match.
Mr. Rooker said he believes West Leigh was put on public water because of well failures. Ms.
Thomas said her house is not connected to public water. Mr. Rooker asked how Candlewyck, West
Woods, and all the other areas got in the jurisdictional area when they are clearly in the Rural Area.
Mr. Tucker said he believes that when Meriwether Lewis School was upgraded, a decision was made
to extend water to that school. That got water close to West Woods which was having water problems at
the time. When areas started having water problems, either quality or quantity, and lines were nearby, the
Board expanded service.
Mr. Dorrier said he does not remember having a meeting with the Albemarle County Service Authority
Board of Directors. He thinks it might be a good time to have a joint meeting to discuss some of these
issues.
Ms. Thomas said there is still the issue of the six houses which have requested service. There is also
the question of areas in Ivy which have the "water only" designation for commercial structures.
(August 6, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
Mr. Martin said staff had said that additional information is needed.
correct before the Board discusses this question further.
Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. Tucker to set up a work session.
He thinks that recommendation is
Agenda Item No. 14. Public Hearing: To consider granting a request to amend the Albemarle
County Service Authority jurisdictional (service) area boundary to provide water and sewer service to certain
property located on Route 240 and identified as Tax Map 56, Parcel 86, Lots 14 and 15 (Barry Easter),
located within the Crozet Development Area. White Hall Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published
in the Daily Progress on July 21 and July 28, 2003.)
Because the Board was running far behind the published schedule for this meeting, the Board
decided to forego hearing the staff's report (report on file in the Clerk's Office with the official records of the
Board of Supervisors).
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Easter was present in support of the request.
With no member of the public rising to speak, the hearing was closed, and the matter placed before
the Board.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve the request for
public water and sewer service property designated as Tax Map 56, Parcel 86, Lots 14 and 15. Roll was
called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The Board skipped Agenda Items No. 15 and 16, and will hear them on the afternoon
agenda.)
Agenda Item No. 17. SP-2003-41. St. John's Baptist Church Amendment (Sign #44). Request to
amend SP-99-05 to allow expansion of an existing church in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.35 of the Zoning
Ordinance. TM 66, Ps 77 & 78, contains 3 acs on each parcel. Znd RA. Loc on Rt 640 (1595 St John Rd)
approx 2400 feet S of Rt 231 (Gordonsville Rd). Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published
in the Daily Progress on July 21 and July 28, 2003.)
The staff's report noted that the applicant has requested a special use permit to allow a 4775 square
foot expansion with 58 parking spaces to an existing 2875 square foot church. The one-story expansion
would consist of two classrooms, four bathrooms and a new 3192 square foot, 175-seat sanctuary. The
existing church building would become a fellowship hall/dining room. A kitchen and pastor's study are also
located in the existing structure. Two church services and Sunday school would take place on Sunday. All
activities and meetings would be associated with the church. Community meetings and outdoor
playgrounds are not planned to be a part of this use.
Mr. Cilimberg said he will focus his comments on the Planning Commission's discussion at its
meeting last night where they recommended denial of the request by a vote of 3:1. He said staff had
recommended approval subject to a number of conditions intended to address the relationship of the
expansion to the historic property and the fact that these structures contribute to the Southwest Mountains
National Historic District. The Commission discussed whether or not the conditions recommended are
appropriate. One Commissioner felt the conditions were appropriate, while others felt they would be
difficult to enforce because of interpretations. The Commission tried to rewrite the conditions, but could not,
so requested that the applicant defer the request for one month while the conditions were worked on. They
also wanted time so the applicant could talk to some of the neighbors about concerns related to the church.
The applicant declined, and the Commission then voted 3:1 to deny the request. The Commission did
formulate conditions that could be applied if the Board approved the request today. He then handed to the
Board a list of modified conditions for consideration (on file).
Mr. Cilimberg said the Board granted this applicant a fast hearing date, and the staff has been caught
in a crunch in terms of preparation for today's hearing. What he has handed out is not a list of conditions
acted on by the Commission, but rather, it is a list of conditions they developed during the meeting that they
thought were necessary, at a minimum, to substitute for those recommended by staff. They rewrote
Condition No. 1 in its entirety, modified Condition No. 3 relating to setbacks from the neighboring property,
eliminated Condition No. 8 concerning a commercial entrance, and added a new Condition No. 8 (allowing
five years before commencing construction) and a new Condition No. 9 relating to parking. He then offered
to answer questions.
Mr. Martin asked if the Commission could have acted last night if they had had this wording for the
conditions. Mr. Cilimberg said they had the wording last night, but could not get a consensus based on
what Condition No. 1 said, and the fact that the applicant and the neighbors had not gotten together.
Mr. Bowerman said his appointee to the Commission called him this morning and said he did not
know why Condition No. 1 was recommended. He did not think it belonged on this permit.
(August 6, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
Ms. Thomas said she spoke with the Commission's chairman, and he thought the congregation and
neighbors should have a discussion, and that Condition No. 1 might or might not be the proper solution.
Mr. Martin said there are a lot of people present this morning who want to speak at a public hearing.
The Board only has five minutes before it must adjourn for another function. It would make more sense to
him to defer this hearing until next week. He asked for another alternative.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board might defer this item until about 12:15 p.m. He asked if the people present
would prefer to come back at 12:15 p.m. or have the matter deferred until next week. After a short
discussion, because a lady in the audience did not want to return to the meeting later, Mr. Dorrier opened
the public hearing and invited her to speak.
Ms. Venceni Bonarelli, who lives on St. John Road, said her house joins the church property on the
side bordering the old schoolhouse. She understands the need to have a church expansion, but has three
concerns. The old schoolhouse is abandoned. It has windows without glass panes, so exposes the interior
to the elements. Birds are stuck between glass windows, the front door is missing a pane and slams when
it is windy so she can hear it from her house. It is in a general state of neglect, and she did not see any
preservation plan put forward, not any intent to use the building. Second, when she walks out of her front
door, there is an eyesore. One can see straight through the existing church since all the trees and
shrubbery have been removed. She is close to what had been the proposed parking lot, but no one from
the church came and asked her opinion. She appreciates the willingness of the church to redesign the
parking lot. But, she thinks there is a need for more time and discussion for the community to work this out.
Finally, she requests that time be allowed since her property is so close to the church's boundary. She
hears the service on Sunday morning, and what is being proposed are two services. With this expansion
and increased activity, it ups the noise level, etc. She thinks this could be worked out to the betterment of
all.
(Note: At 11:25 a.m., the Chairman recessed the meeting so the Board members might attend a
ground breaking ceremony at Court Square. The Board reconvened at 12:25 p.m. Mr. Bowerman and Mr.
Martin returned at 12:30 p.m., with Mr. Davis returning at 12:32 p.m.)
The public hearing continued. Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Keith Hawkins said he is a trustee of the church. He just met with some members of the
congregation, and they looked at the revised conditions of the Planning Commission as presented to the
Board today. They find no reason not to agree to Conditions 1 through 9. They want to be good neighbors
and take into consideration the neighbors need for a 30-foot buffer between the adjacent landowner on the
south side. They are agreeable to that. He thinks they need consistency in expansion when dealing with
the rural area. A vineyard was put in the area a couple of years ago, and there was talk last night about the
impact their project will have on the community. The vineyard took a beautiful pasture and turned it into a
grape yard. He thinks that is an eyesore. What the church is doing is nowhere close to that. He spoke with
a representative of the Historical Preservation Department in Richmond, and they have no restrictions as to
demolishing or remodeling a church. He was told that the locality might have some concerns.
Mr. Hawkins mentioned an article in the newspaper about the request of another church. The
Assistant County Attorney was quoted as saying the First Amendment to the Constitution states that
localities must employ the least restriction necessary when looking at a religious, institutional land use.
County staff reported that the Church's seating capacity is within the range allowed in the rural areas. The
range was quoted as being from 25 to 500. This church will hold 175, so is on the lower end of the scale.
As to the request for a deferral last night, he was shocked to see the number of neighbors who came
forward last night. Since the church broke ground for the project four or more months ago, if any neighbors
had concerns with the project, they have had ample time to come forward and ask questions. They would
have been willing to sit down and talk with any of the neighbors about their concerns. There was talk that
adding onto the existing church affected the historical district. He showed some pictures of the addition to
Mount Olivet on Garth Road, and said St. John's is proposing almost exactly what they are doing.
Mr. Hawkins said the church did not want to defer the request because their contractor is ready to
start work. If they do not start soon, considering the fact that the cost of lumber is increasing, their contract
would need to be renegotiated. They want to be good neighbors. They had a chance to discuss the
conditions during the Board's recess, and are agreeable to all of the conditions listed on the sheet Mr.
Cilimberg handed out earlier today.
Mrs. James Butler said they are requesting permission to put an addition onto the church. They
recognize that it is an historic church. They do not plan on destroying anything. Many times the Board has
been invited to the church. If one had seen it, they would know that St. John's is small, but the congregation
is growing. They also need additional parking, and will abide by whatever the Board asks.
Mr. Kelvin Hawkins said a large portion of their church family is present today. He is the assistant
pastor. Last night they discussed deferring the project. The Planning Commission wanted 30 additional
days, but they are asking that the Board approve the special use permit for an addition to the church. The
adjacent neighbor commented about the schoolhouse that they purchased. Last night she said the church
had owned the building for two years, but that is incorrect. It was just purchased this past January. They
plan on renovating that part when they can, but are concentrating on the addition to the church edifice at
this time. They do need space. They have a lot of young people in the church, and space is cramped.
They ask approval of the request without delay.
(August 6, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
Ms. Kathy Greissler Best said she lives across the street from the church. She supports its
expansion, and is delighted they have the congregation that can do that. She does object to moving ahead
as quickly as they are proposing. She was never notified about this, but did get a letter last week about
today's meeting. She asked that approval be denied, so she has time to look into things. All the reasons
for denial are the same as the concerns expressed by the Commission last night. There should be time to
discuss the proposal with the neighbors and find reasonable solutions. There should be time to discuss the
use of an historic schoolhouse. There should be time to discuss moving the church expansion and the
parking back into the property. There are at least six acres so why should the expansion be directly on the
road where it disturbs the rural byway? Deferral would give the church time to make the expansion honor
the historic importance of the existing structure and not compromise it as an historic resource. Last night it
was said that the church had recently added a kitchen and bathroom at the back of the church so they
cannot put this addition on the back because it would disturb that addition. That should have been thought
about earlier. Ms. Best said she is a professional interior designer and she thinks they should consider the
total property. That old schoolhouse could be the classrooms that they need. It is the mass on the road
that she thinks disturbs things. She said the applicant is pushing for immediate approval, but is also
requesting a five-year extension waiver. It seems they are trying to "railroad" this through the system without
proper planning and other considerations.
Mr. John Henry Jordan said he is a landowner about one-quarter mile away. He is not trying to
suppress or stop expansion of the church. He just wants them to take into consideration the rural nature of
the area and the historic issues. He said there has been a lack of concern about an historic building. The
current design shows no attempt to conform to the recommendations of the County Planning staff, the
Department of Historic Resources in Richmond, or the Secretary of the Interior's Standards of Treatment
for Historic Properties. There has been lack of contact by the parish for any of their neighbors. When
making changes of this nature, he think responsibility to contact the neighbors lies with the applicant.
Concerning the reference to Mount Olivet Church, he would like to know the setbacks on that property. The
setback in this case is in contention. He does not think the neighbors should suffer the consequences for
the applicant's failure to plan. He is curious as to how the applicant can have a contractor start work
immediately when their plan still has to be approved by the County first, and they must be issued
construction permits. There is also the issue of St. John's Road which is lined with horse pastures, open
fields and single-family homes. The existing structure is closer to the road than any other structure along
that road. In its present form, it is a pleasing, quaint, old country church. If the permit is approved, with the
building located where it is shown on the existing preliminary site plan, the small buildings will be lost in a
new structure which is approximately 150 feet long, and which sits 30 feet off of the roadway. The original
structure will be dwarfed by the new taller sanctuary. He appreciates the willingness of the church to
redesign the parking lot and their offer to accept the revisions to the staff's proposed conditions. Those
revisions do not satisfy all of his concerns. He asked that the Board deny the application until all issues can
be heard. When this Board decided to move this item forward by 30 days, it disallowed time for the normal
discussion. He asked for a return to the original schedule to allow the neighbors time to work out some
concerns, and this item be returned to the Planning Commission.
Mr. David Best said he lives across the street from the church. He does not want to stop the church
from expanding, and he has no issue with there being 175 seats. His issues have to do with the impact on
an historical resource and changing the character of the rural byway. There was a lengthy discussion at the
Commission meeting last night as to the kind of language needed to address the issues. The Commission
did not come to any consensus. He asked that this request go back to Planning staff as an independent
third party to work with the neighbors and the applicant to get some restrictions that take into consideration
the historical resource, and the rural character of the area.
Mr. Herbert Branham said he is a trustee at St. John's Church. He said they need the expansion. He
mentioned that they did plan, and pointed to a copy of a plan posted on the wall. He feels it is a good plan.
He brought the Board's attention to all of the young people in attendance today, and said they are the
future. He asked that the Board approve the permit.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
placed before the Board.
Mr. Rooker asked why the church is asking for a five-year time in which the special use permit can be
exercised when they are in a hurry to get construction started.
Mr. Hawkins said he was approached by County Planner, Ms. Joan McDowell, last week. She said
this is something that is normal, and asked if it were something he wanted. He sees no reason why the
church should not have it. But, it is their intent to start construction as soon as possible.
Ms. Thomas asked what "starting as soon as possible" is in terms of the time needed for permitting.
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant must file a site plan, but staff recommended to the applicant that they wait
because of changes in design that could result from the special use permit approval which is based on the
concept plan and the conditions before the Board tonight. The Commission indicated that they want to
review the site plan, so that can take up to 60 days. They can seek a site plan waiver, but that also would
go to the Commission and could take up to 60 days. Regarding the five-year limit on the permit, this is
something often seen with requests for churches. It takes a couple of months to get through the planning
process. Of course, any deferral of the special use permit would delay their filing.
Mr. Martin asked that some staff member address the issue of proper notification. Mr. Cilimberg said
this petition was originally scheduled to be heard by the Commission last night, with the request to come
before this Board next month. The original notice would have contained those dates. Also, signs would
(August 6, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
have been posted on the site. Because the hearing date change was approved by the Board at its last
meeting, a new letter would have been mailed giving the new dates. He does not know when the letters
were mailed.
Mr. Martin asked that the County Attorney address the legal possibilities regarding a church. Mr.
Davis said consideration by the Board of a special use permit for a church is different than that given to
other special use permits. This results from a Federal law adopted in 2000 which is called "The Religious
Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act." It provides that no local government will impose or implement
a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person
(and it specifically applies to churches), unless it is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest
and is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. Land use can be a compelling governmental
interest because it affects property rights, and health, safety and welfare of the community. When the
Board looks at conditions for a special use permit for a church, it has to take the least restrictive means
necessary to fulfill the obligations of the County in examining the land use impacts. That was the approach
staff took with this special use permit rather than recommending denial. They recommended approval with
conditions they felt appropriate to address the land use impacts. The Commission took the same approach
last night. They tried to fashion reasonable conditions which would allow the use without any substantial
impacts.
Mr. Martin said that in telephone conversations, someone mentioned that they had heard a rumor that
he (Mr. Martin) was a member of this church, or had family members in the church. He wants to dispel that
rumor in public. He does not belong to St. John's Church, and has no family members who attend the
church.
Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. Cilimberg about the notifications for this petition. Mr. Cilimberg said he found
one letter dated July 18 notifying adjacent property owners of the Commission and Board hearing dates.
That letter was sent by the Planning Office. The Clerk's Office sent a follow-up letter dated July 28 notifying
the adjacent property owners of the Board's meeting today.
Mr. Rooker said there is a dichotomy going on. On one hand there is the church with six acres of
land. Technically, they could knock down the historic structure and build a new church. They would have
to respect the setback requirement. The County wants to encourage people to maintain historic structures
so the structures do not fall into disuse or be abandoned. He agrees with the comments of the historic
preservation designer who looked at this property. He questions whether this Board has the authority to
impose those comments when the County does not have an Historic Preservation Act. He thinks the Board
would be imposing things on this church it is not imposing on others in the community who own historic
properties. He believes the conditions, which are now acceptable to the church, are a reasonable approach
even though they do not do everything the neighbors would like to see done.
Mr. Martin then moved that the Board approve SP-2003-041 with the nine conditions placed before
this Board today which included changes to Conditions No. 1, No. 3, a deletion of staff's recommended
Condition No. 8, the addition of a new Condition No. 8 and a Condition No. 9. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Bowerman.
Ms. Thomas said on the last petition for a church she had urged the neighbors and the church
members to consider each other, and get together and have a discussion. After the hearing, to her surprise
some of the congregation members said that was the most valuable thing to come out of that experience.
She does not know if they have gotten together, but just wanted to say the same things tonight. Any issue in
a community can tear a community apart or it can bring it together. Last night, the Commission met for a
long time considering this request, and came up with some useful things. As Mr. Rooker said, she also
would have preferred to see the new wing come off of the church where the new dining room is located, so
it is setback from the road. The church is set closer to the road than any other structure in the area. She
thinks there will be a great deal of anger if people think the builder can get started this week. It will actually
be a long process in getting all of the necessary approvals. There is still time to discuss the site plan with
the neighbors even if this petition is approved today.
Mr. Martin said he hopes the neighbors can get together. In his opinion, there are some dynamics
going on, but he does not think there is any intention by anyone to harm anyone else.
With no further comments from Board members, roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1)
2)
3)
On that portion of the addition that connects the Existing Church to the New
Sanctuary (identified on the Application Plan for St. John's Baptist Church, dated
July 7, 2003 [the "Application Plan"] as the area for "New Classrooms"), the roof
pitch, roofing material, and the siding materials shall be the same as is on the
Existing Church;
The area of assembly shall be limited to a maximum one hundred and seventy-five
(175) seat sanctuary;
Commercial setback standards, as set forth in Section 21.7.2 of the Albemarle
Zoning Ordinance, shall be maintained; except that the setback on the south side
(August 6, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
of TM 66-77 shall be thirty (30) feet;
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a
separate special use permit;
Health Department approval of well and septic systems shall be required prior to
the issuance of a building permit;
The two properties, TM 66-77 and TM 66-78, shall be combined into one (1) parcel
prior to the issuance of a building permit;
The existing trees on the south property line adjacent to TM 66-76 between the
schoolhouse and St. John Road shall be retained. Tree protection measures,
subject to the approval of the Planning Department, shall be employed during
construction;
Construction of the church, as shown on the Application Plan, shall commence
within five (5) years of the date of the approval of this special permit or this special
use permit shall expire; and
The parking area between the Route 640 right-of-way and the Existing Building
(Vacant) shown on the Application Plan (the "Existing Building") shall be limited to
one (1) aisle containing double rows of parking spaces, with a standard turnout at
the end of the travel aisle. This parking area shall be centrally located between the
Route 640 right-of-way and the Existing Building. The areas between the parking
area and the Route 640 right-of-way, and the parking area and the abutting parcel
to the south (TM 66-76) shall be planted in native evergreens such as cedars
sufficient to screen the parking area from Route 640 and the abutting parcel, as
determined by the Director of Planning and Community Development. All other
required parking shall be located behind the Existing Building.
Agenda Item No. 18. Closed Session: Personnel Matters.
At 1:03 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 and review appointments to
boards and commissions; under Subsection (3) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding the
acquisition of a property for park purposes; and, under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff
regarding specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice relating to pending litigation
concerning the Police Department. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called, and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 19. Certify Closed Session.
At 1:58 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was immediately offered by Ms.
Thomas that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member's 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. Perkins. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin and Mr. Bowerman.
Agenda Item No. 20. Appointments.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to:
Reappoint Dr. EIIora Young to the Jordon Development Corporation, with said term to begin on
August 13, 2003, and expire on August 13, 2004.
Appoint Ms. Donna May as the Albemarle County representative on the Jefferson Area Disability
Services Board, with said term to expire June 30, 2004.
The motion was seconded Mr. Perkins. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin and Mr. Bowerman.
(August 6, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
(Note: The following three petitions were heard concurrently.) (All items were deferred from July 16,
2003.)
Agenda Item No. 21. ZMA-2001-020. Hollymead Town Center (Sign #56). Request to rezone
37.13 acs from C-1 & LI to PD-MC to allow mixed-use development. TM 32, Ps 41D, 43A, 44, 45 & 46.
Loc on Rt 29 N at Timberwood Blvd/Rt 29 intersec. (The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as
the Hollymead Town Center in the Hollymead Community & recommends Mixed Use/Regional
Service/Community Service uses.) Rio Dist.
Agenda Item No. 22. SP-2003-030. Hollymead Town Center. Request to allow residential uses in
accord w/Sec 25A.2.2.1 of the Zoning Ord. TM 32 Ps 41D, 43A, 44, 45 & 46, contains 37.13 acs. Znd LI &
C1. Loc on Rt 29 N at Timberwood Blvd/Rt 29 intersec. Rio Dist.
Agenda Item No. 23. ZMA-2002-002. Hollymead Town Center (Signs #58 & 59). Request to rezone
24.1 acs from RA to NMD to allow mixed-use development. TM 32, Ps 46 & 41D. Loc on Rt 29 N at
Timberwood Blvd/Rt 29 intersec. (The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as the Hollymead
Town Center in the Hollymead Community & recommends Mixed Use/Community Service & Urban Density
uses.) Rio Dist.
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of
the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said all the information provided by staff is
straightforward. He said that today staff received a new proffer from Area D that increases the contribution
they are offering from $400,000 to $475,000 and $237,500 of that would be paid up-front. He said these
are in addition to other proffers which are associated with their projects. These proffers have an effect on
two County needs, one is a new fire/rescue station site in the Hollymead area, and the second is the
extension of Ridge Road, referred to as Road "C" to Airport Road. The applicant also hopes that they can
get approval for a connecting road to Deerwood to cross over the dam that will be the holding facility for the
stormwater lake shown in the northern part of Area "D". That is not a decision the Board has to make
today.
Mr. Rooker asked if any traffic analyses have been run to indicate utilization of such a connection.
Mr. Cilimberg said there was an allowance for that connection in the Deerwood Subdivision plans. Mr.
Rooker asked if Deerwood is close enough that people can walk to shopping instead of driving. He thinks
some kind of traffic model should be run on this road connection.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks most people would drive to a grocery store. She thinks it would be better
to drive this connection than out onto Airport Road.
Mr. Martin returned to the meeting at this time, and asked Mr. Rooker to summarize what he had just
said.
Ms. Thomas said on Page 2 of the Area "C" proffers, the fourth line talks about Tax Map 32, Parcels
41 D1 and 41A, and something which came from the County Attorney last month said it was Parcel 43A.
The cover page of the staff's report for today's meeting mentions Parcel 43A, which makes her believe it is
43A and not 41A. Mr. Cilimberg said it is Parcel 43A in the legal description, so he is guessing that 43A is
correct. The applicant might wish to speak to that.
Mr. Dorrier asked if someone was present to represent the applicant.
Mr. Steve Runkle said he was not going to say anything, but could answer questions.
Ms. Thomas noted receipt of an E-mail (not of record) outlining the additional things involved in the
project other than what is officially proffered. She found it useful.
Mr. Katurah Rouell, representing Virginia Land Company, said they will look closely at the tax map
and parcel numbers to verify that they are correct. He said that Parcel 41 D1 is part of the (Valente
property) near the CVS at the front. They have two parcels in the eastbound lanes. They will sort out the
question about 43A. He said the street is already constructed in Deerwood almost to its boundary. The
residents in Deerwood are happy with the proposal. There are 135 single-family homes in the subdivision,
and it only has one access to Airport Road. As far as the rest of the Town Center, he is looking forward to
working on the designs for the Plaza Center which should be a significant community area. He said Parcel
41A is the parcel to the north where the extension of the road to Airport Road is located.
Mr. Dorrier asked the pleasure of the Board.
Mr. Martin said he would move for approval of ZMA-2001-020, Hollymead Town Center, subject to
the proffers which were furnished to the Board members in their packet of materials today. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
(August 6, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
NAYS: None.
ZMA-01-20
PROFFERS
Hollymead Town Center Area C
July 25, 2003
TAX MAP 32, Parcels 41 D, 43A, 44, 45, 46
37.1 Acres
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Code (the "Code"), the owners,
or their duly authorized agents, hereby voluntarily proffer the conditions listed below
which shall only be applied, except as specifically set forth herein to the area identified as
Regional Service Area C on the Application Plan, (defined below) comprising all or some
of the above referenced tax map parcels (the "Property").
These conditions are proffered as part of the requested zoning 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:
Development shall be in general accord with the Application Plan entitled
Rezoning Application Plans for Hollymead Town Center Regional Service Area C,
(Sheets A-l, A-2, only), prepared by Rivanna Engineering & Surveying, PLC,
revised, last revised, July 7, 2003 ("Application Plan"). The standards of
development and central features and major elements within the Property
essential to the design of the development shall be in general accord with the
Block Exhibit, the Code of Development's Narrative, and the Code of
Development's tables and appendices set forth in the attached Application Booklet,
entitled "Hollymead Town Center, Application Booklet, ZMA-01-20 (Area C)." The
Owners have presented, as part of their rezoning application, a number of
conceptual plans and illustrations for various purposes, but principally to provide
justification for the rezoning actions they are seeking. Unless specifically
referenced in these proffers, all plans and illustrations submitted as part of
Applicant's rezoning application, other than the Application Plan as defined above,
shall be deemed illustrative only, and such plans and illustrations shall not be
deemed proffers. The Owners reserve the right to reconfigure the internal block
improvements, consisting of buildings, parking and drive aisles and drive-through
window features and as shown on the Application Plan in order to: i) comply with
conditions imposed by Special Use Permits, and ii) assure compliance with ARB
requirements, iii) and provide all necessary storm water management and BMP's
as necessary.
The Owners of Area C, as shown on the Application Plan (the "Owner") shall
cause completion of the following road improvements that shall be roads
constructed to VDOT standards and either be accepted by VDOT or be bonded for
VDOT's acceptance as follow:
Construction of Timberwood Boulevard, as depicted on the Application Plan
and further described as follows: i) from the intersection at US Route 29 to
a new terminus within Hollymead Town Center that is shown at the
extension of the VDOT future road improvement project of Airport Road,
this will provide the connection to Airport Road from Route 29 as previously
proffered as part of ZMA-94-08. The constructed improvements shall
include two Eastbound lanes in conjunction with the improvements
designed for TM 32 Parcels 41 D1 and 41A to the first dual lane roundabout
at access road B and Westbound lanes of dual left lanes, one thru lane and
one continuous right turn lane from the roundabout at access road B to the
intersection with Route 29, from the roundabout at access road B a two
lane section shall be constructed to the VDOT extension, with additional
turn lanes at intersections located in Area C pursuant to road plans
approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") and the
County as part of the Area C site plan.
Construction of dual left turn lanes at the intersection of Route 29 and
Timberwood Boulevard, from northbound Route 29 into Timberwood
Boulevard. The turn lane and taper lengths will be determined with final
road plans to be reviewed and approved by VDOT.
Signalization at Timberwood Boulevard and Route 29 shall include
reconstruction at the Forest Lakes Subdivision entrance location, as
scheduled in coordination with VDOT. All turn movements shall be
signaled at the intersection of Route 29 and Timberwood Boulevard, as
approved by VDOT. The existing intersection exiting Forest Lakes shall be
reconstructed to maintain the dual left lanes, the continuous right turn lane
(August 6, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
and add a through lane according to the final design in the previous
paragraph.
The Owner proffers to dedicate land and construct a third through lane on
Route 29 (consisting of lane width, shoulder and drainage improvements)
southbound from the entrance road, (Timberwood Boulevard) at the
Property's Northern boundary. The Owner also shall dedicate land or
cause to be dedicated and construct: i) a continuous through lane 500 feet
to the Southern boundary of Area C, ii) a taper lane consisting of a 200 foot
taper beginning at the Southern boundary and Route 29 (in the event area
B is not rezoned and their proffers accepted), and iii) a continuous right turn
lane starting at the right-in at the Northern boundary of TM 32 Parcel 41A to
the right-in at the Southern entrance of Area C.
Construction of one additional continuous right turn Northbound lane
starting 1090 feet south of Timberwood Boulevard at the location of the
beginning of the turn and taper of Worth Crossing and Route 29, and
terminating at Timberwood Boulevard.
Access Road C, between Area A and its intersection with Timberwood will
be built or bonded before the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy
within Area B. If bonded, the road will be constructed for acceptance by
VDOT within one year of the first certificate of occupancy.
The road improvements listed in proffer 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E and 2F above
shall be constructed, in accordance with road plans submitted by the Owner
and approved by VDOT. All of the foregoing improvements shall be i)
constructed to VDOT design standards pursuant to detailed plans agreed to
between the Applicant and VDOT, and ii) accepted by VDOT for public use
or bonded for VDOT's acceptance as a condition for issuance of any
certificate of occupancy for Area C improvements (except as otherwise
provided in proffer 2F). The width, length, location, (inside median or
outside existing pavement), type of section (e.g., urban vs. rural), and
geometrics of all lane improvements shall be as required by VDOT design
standards and detailed plans submitted by the Owner and approved by
VDOT.
All road improvements listed in proffer 2 above shall be substantially completed
prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy in Area C; notwithstanding
the foregoing, the road proffers described in proffer 2 above shall be satisfied if the
Owner has submitted plans for all such road improvements for review by VDOT,
and although such improvements are not fully completed by the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for Area C, sufficient bond has been supplied to satisfy all
costs to complete such improvements in accordance with plans approved by
VDOT. Substantially complete for the purposes of these proffers shall mean
approved sub-base gravel, curb and gutter, intermediate surface and necessary
storm water management improvements and satisfactory completion of road
improvements required for public safety, and signalization; but shall not include
final activated signals which are subject to testing and synchronization according to
VDOT inspection. All proffers to make road improvements contained in proffer 2 of
these proffers are conditioned upon VDOT's approval of an entrance permit at the
Timberwood Boulevard intersection with Route 20 as shown on the Application
Plan. The Owner shall submit to VDOT plans for such road improvements within
30 days of the rezoning and shall diligently pursue such approvals from VDOT.
Upon request of the County, the Owner shall contribute $10,000.00 to the County
or VDOT for the purposes of funding a regional transportation study for the Route
29 Corridor. The $10,000.00 contribution shall be made within 30 days after
requested by the County after the first final site plan or subdivision plat is approved
in Area C and, if not expended for such purposes within three years from the date
the funds were contributed, such funds shall be refunded to the Owner.
The Owner shall contribute $200,000.00 (the "total contribution") to the County for
the purpose of funding capital improvements related to the Hollymead Town
Center. The contribution shall be paid as follows: $100,000.00 shall be
contributed to the County within 30 days after the first final site plan or subdivision
plat containing dwelling units is approved in Area C; the remainder of the
contribution shall be paid on a pro rata basis at the time a certificate of occupancy
is issued for each dwelling unit; the pro rata contribution shall be based upon the
number of dwelling units approved as part of the first final site plan or subdivision
plat. If five years after the date of approval of the first final site plan or subdivision
plat the total contribution has not been fully paid, the Owner shall contribute the
unpaid balance within 30 days upon the request of the County. If the fund is not
exhausted within 10 years from the date the last contribution is made, such
unexpended funds shall be refunded to the Owner.
(August 6, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
Upon the request of the County, for any parcel used for non-residential purposes in
the portion that is currently zoned Light Industry that will be rezoned to PDMC the
Owner shall petition for and consent to a Community Development Authority
("CDA") established pursuant to Section 15.2-5152, et seq. of the Code of Virginia
("Code") to be created for the purpose of financing, funding, planning, establishing,
constructing, reconstructing, enlarging, extending or maintaining Route 29 and
roads and other improvements associated therewith, which shall include, but may
not be limited to improvements to Route 29 from the South Fork of the Rivanna
River to Airport Road, the extension of Ridge Road as depicted on the Master Plan,
to the South and across the Rivanna River to connect to Berkmar Drive.
Submitted as of the 25th day of July 2003, by: Post Office Land Trust
By: (Signed) By: (Signed)
Charles W. Hurt, Trustee Shirley L. Fisher, Trustee
Mr. Martin offered motion to approve SP-2003-030, Hollymead Town Center. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Martin then offered motion to approve ZMA-2002-002, Hollymead Town Center, subject to the
following proffers. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
PROFFER FORM
Date: August 5, 2003
ZMA # 02 - 02
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s) 32-46
24 Acres to be rezoned from RA to NMD
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) The Owner shall contribute $475,000 (the "total contribution") to the County for the
purpose of funding capital improvements related to the Hollymead Town Center. The
contribution shall be paid as follows: $237,500 shall be contributed to the County within
30 days after the first final site plan or subdivision plat containing dwelling units is
approved in Area D; the remainder of the contribution shall be paid on a pro rata basis at
the time a certificate of occupancy is issued for each dwelling unit; the pro rata
contribution shall be based upon the number of dwelling units approved as part of the
first final site plan or subdivision plat. If five years after the date of approval of the first
final site plan or subdivision plat the total contribution has not been fully paid, the Owner
shall contribute the unpaid balance with 30 days upon the request of the County. If the
fund is not exhausted within 10 years from the date the last contribution is made, such
unexpended funds shall be refunded to Birckhead LLC or its designee.
(2) Upon request of the County, the Owner shall contribute $6,000 to the County or
VDOT for the purpose of funding a regional transportation study for the Route 29
Corridor. The $6,000 contribution shall be made within 30 days after requested by the
County after the first site plan or subdivision plat is approved in Area D and, if not
expended for such purpose within three years from the date the funds were contributed,
such funds shall be refunded to Birckhead LLC or its designee.
(3) Upon the request of the County for any parcel used for non-residential purposes, the
Owner shall petition for and consent to a Community Development Authority ("CDA")
established pursuant to Section 15.2-5152, et seq., of the Code of Virginia should such
an authority be established for the purpose of funding transportation improvements
relating to the Hollymead Town Center and the Route 29 North corridor, including but not
limited to Route 29 North, roads within Hollymead Town Center, and roads and other
improvements associated therewith.
(4) After construction of the 10' paved greenway path and residential units in the areas
identified as Blocks I and III on the Application Plan, to dedicate to Albemarle County a
(August 6, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
100 foot wide greenway within Block I as measured from the center of the stream on the
western edge of Block I, except for land that is required for the purpose of storm water
management as determined by the County Engineer, and a 50 foot wide greenway within
Block III as measured from the center of the stream on the western edge of Block III,
except for land that is required for the purpose of storm water management as
determined by the County Engineer. The 50 foot wide greenway within Block III will
terminate at the Greenway Park located in the northern portion of Block III. The path
shall be constructed with the development of the adjacent residential units and dedicated
to Albemarle County prior to the issuance of the last certificate of occupancy in Block I
and III.
Birckhead LLC by:
(Signed)
Stephen A. Runkle, Manager, Birckhead LLC
Date: August 5, 2003
Mr. Davis said there are waivers attached to Areas B, C and D which need to be addressed by the
Board.
Mr. Martin offered motion to grant waivers to Sections 21.7.1-3 and 4.11.1 for Area B. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Martin offered motion to grant waivers to Sections 21.7.1-3 and 4.11.1 for Area C. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Martin offered motion to grant waivers to Sections 21.7.1-3 and 4.11.1 for Area D. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Not Docketed: Ms. Thomas mentioned a letter received several weeks ago in which Mr. Jim Bryan,
Resident Engineer, pointed out that none of the traffic impacts north of Airport Road and south of Ashwood
are dealt with in the proffers for the Hollymead Town Center. There is, and still will be, a level of Service F
at Rio Road, Airport Road, Hollymead, etc. She thinks that has occurred by following the County's
Comprehensive Plan. There is nothing in the decision made today that is new, or goes against the County's
Comprehensive Plan, but it makes a major impact on traffic. There will be a public hearing Monday at the
MPO meeting on CHART recommendations. She said CHART does not deal with anything past Airport
Road. She remains concerned about a Community Development Authority and the amount of money it will
bring it. If it brings in $1.5 million annually at build-out, that would be debt service for $20.0 million in
improvements, and would be more improvements than could otherwise be accomplished. But, the figures
coming out of current plans for the community are in the hundreds of millions. There is a long way to go
before solving any transportation problems.
Mr. Martin said he does not believe transportation problems will ever be solved. However, he thinks
that if Ridge Road gets to Berkmar Drive, that will make a huge difference on Route 29. He knows the
Board has always fought to have a buffer from the South Fork Rivanna River out to Hollymead long Route
29, and he thinks the Board should continue that fight. He does not necessarily see any reason why west of
that buffer the Board could not allow something like Berkmar Drive to come all the way through. He thinks
that would give developers an opportunity to build that road and still make some money.
Ms. Thomas said she has always said to her constituents who are opposed to the Western Route 29
Bypass that when the land is returned to the landowners that is where the bridge will go across the River.
She thinks the County needs to hold onto that land because that bridge will be needed.
Mr. Rooker said the land Ms. Thomas is referring to and the extension of Berkmar Drive do not line
up. Mr. Bowerman said the Board needs to start looking at that. Ms. Thomas said she knows CHART is
interested in that road, as is Commissioner Butch Davies.
Mr. Martin asked how the Board members would feel if the developer of Area A and whoever owns
the rest of the land out to Berkmar Drive came forth with a proposal to build that road allowing for a good
buffer.
Mr. Rooker said he would be interested in looking at any such proposal, but the whole concept would
need a lot of study by the County. He thinks the County needs the proposed plan for Area "A" first.
Mr. Martin asked how the other Board members would feel about such an idea after Area "A" is
(August 6, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
completed.
Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Wendell Wood mentioned having other large retailers locate to the south of
Hollymead Town Center in some project which would make it possible for the developers of the Town
Center to build such a road.
Mr. Martin said he thinks that parallel road would be a good solution to the traffic problems in the
area. If someone is willing to work with staff and the Board, he thinks it would be worthwhile. He lives in
that area, and having a parallel road all the way into town would be a huge benefit to the people in that
sres.
Ms. Thomas said that for years there has been the possibility of having the Meadow Creek Parkway
built and extended to that area. More of the growth in that area is taking place on the east side of Route 29
than on the west side. Both of these proposed roads involve expensive bridges, so she thinks the County
would need to decide which road was the most valuable road.
Mr. Martin said the Meadow Creek Parkway would be just as valuable as the Berkmar connection.
He thinks the road connecting all the way into town on the west side would be more valuable.
Mr. Bowerman said there is still a half mile of road between the property being discussed, and the
River. There is another landowner involved, and Route 643 in there also, which could be hooked to, and
that would get the road right to the dam. He asked what buffer Mr. Martin was talking about.
Ms. Thomas said there has always been an open area between this property and Route 29. Mr.
Bowerman said it is not shown in the Comprehensive Plan as open space. Mr. Tucker said it is shown as
Rural Area and is not shown in the Plan for development. Mr. Martin said the County has always protected
that as a buffer area. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks there would be more intensive development along any
new connector rosa.
Mr. Rooker said the County would have to look carefully at approving any further commercial
development since it has just approved over 800,000 square feet with the Hollymead Town Center, and the
Albemarle Place proposal will probably be before the Board in the fall. The Comprehensive Plan change
for Albemarle Place has already been approved.
Ms. Thomas said staff thinks the Board is creating a lot more retail square footage than the
Comprehensive Plan calls for or that can be utilized.
Mr. Martin said he appreciates the other Board members indulging him in a "what if" kind of
discussion.
Ms. Thomas said there is no basis in the Comprehensive Plan so the Board can require that
development be phased. She does not believe the Board ever thought there would be so many
developments coming in for approval at the same time or that developers would build more than the
economy and the market required. She thinks the Comprehensive Plan should be revised at some point to
require phasing.
Mr. Rooker said this whole area is being developed according to a plan. If Route 29 had developed
up and down the corridor including the City, with 180-acre tracts, with through parcel connections and
connections back into a parallel road, the whole situation along Route 29 would look a lot different than it
does today.
Ms. Thomas said she believes the landowners and staff should be given a lot of praise for their work
on the Hollymead Town Center. A lot of people in the public put a lot of work into their comments also.
Mr. Tucker said that ideally phasing should have been discussed when Hollymead Town Center and
Albemarle Place applied for Comprehensive Plan amendments. In fairness to the people who did get
together to plan these developments, they have invested money and are moving forward with plans at this
time. It would be very difficult to say at this time that phasing is needed. The next time a plan needs a
Comprehensive Plan amendment, phasing will be discussed.
Mr. Rooker said the Board has a different report on retail absorption than it had previously. Prior
reports mentioned 2.0 million square feet, while recent reports mention only 1.0 million square feet. It is a
different situation when looking at a retail absorption rate that is 50 percent of what was indicated six to eight
months ago. Mr. Cilimberg said there was nervousness about the assumptions that went into the higher
amount of square footage. There is more than 1.0 million square feet of demand at this time. The problem
in trying to estimate that demand is that it is based on what might be brought in and what the County is
losing now that it might be able to retain. That is a more difficult number to determine and is the reason the
report was brought back to the Board.
At this time, the Board took up the agenda items which had been skipped on the morning agenda.
Agenda Item No. 12. Cable Franchise Agreement, Discussion of.
Mr. Tucker said things have changed since the staff's report was written (on file in the Clerk's Office)
due to recent discussions about the telecommunications tax. There was a meeting held in Charlottesville
last Friday and Mr. Davis and Mr. Melvin Breeden attended. Mr. Davis sent the Board members an E-mail
(August 6, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
spelling out the issues. He suggested the Board discuss those issues instead of discussing an actual
franchise.
Mr. Davis said there is a joint study committee looking at telecommunications taxes in Virginia. On
July 23, 2003, the Committee came forward with a blueprint for the reform of this tax. Included in that
reform package was a proposal to eliminate the cable franchise fee that localities are now collecting. The
proposal is fairly well advanced with the industry. VACo and VML both feel it is likely this proposal will be
introduced to the Legislature and replace all existing telecommunication taxes with a flat 4.5 percent tax that
would be collected by the state and then distributed back to the localities based on a yet to be determined
formula. It is intended to achieve revenue neutrality for the locality based on Fiscal Year 2004 collections.
Specifically, it would only allow for revenues to be counted if it had been enacted and in place prior to July
1,2003. The consequence of that for Albemarle County would be that the revenue that would be
generated by a cable franchise would not be included in the revenue that would be used to determine the
County's revenue neutrality. Under this scenario which would be effective July 1,2005, the County would
be able to collect a cable franchise fee up to that date. If the County instituted a franchise fee after that
date, the fee could not be collected, and the County would not be compensated for that revenue. There
are a number of significant expenses that can be associated with a cable franchise. Depending on the level
of cable service provided, staff has estimated those costs to be between $300,000 and $400,000 a year.
Mr. Davis said based on this development, he recommends that the Board delay pursuing a franchise
until later in the year. The bill is supposed to be drafted by November 1 and sent to the committee studying
the entire tax structure. The bill will probably be finished in this next session of the General Assembly.
Mr. Martin said he did not see anything in the staff report which said the County could not just take the
money and not do any kind of PEG. If that is the case, why not just take the money until it can't take it
anymore even if only for a couple of years. Mr. Davis said there would be significant expense going forward
with a franchise in hiring consultants and outside attorneys to implement the tax. It would probably take as
much as nine months before it could be implemented. That is only if the cable companies who respond to
an RFP are cooperative in moving forward through the process. Given the nature of this legislation, there
may be no incentive for them to do that. Also, there are 18,000 existing customers who do not pay a
franchise fee now, and they would be asked to pay a fee and get nothing in return.
Mr. Rooker said he wanted to move forward with the franchise fee, but at this time there does not
seem to be much incentive to do so.
Ms. Thomas said the VACo Finance Steering Committee will be discussing this issue and she will
mention Albemarle's concerns at their next meeting. She said the Committee does not seem to be taking
into account that Albemarle is a high growth community, or likewise, even if the County had been collecting
the tax at a lower rate than allowed, it would also be frozen. There are a few other communities who would
be impacted by the way this legislation is being proposed.
Mr. Tucker said what bothers him is that the State would be taking away from localities another
opportunity to raise revenue other than through property taxes.
Mr. Davis said that for Albemarle County this will also eliminate the E-911 tax. The County's tax is
currently $2.00 while the cap is $3.00. Some localities have maxed out the cap and would be fully
compensated for that, while Albemarle would have no ability to ever increase that amount.
Mr. Dorrier thanked the staff for the report.
Agenda Item No. 15. Public Hearing: To consider granting an easement/right of way to Dominion
Virginia Power. The proposed Right-of-Way Agreement with Dominion Virginia Power involves the
extension of an underground power line from the Wynridge Subdivision, across County property to connect
to a Dominion Virginia Power underground system at the Webland Park development. (Notice of this public
hearing was given in the Daily Progress on July 21 and July 28, 2003.)
Mr. Tucker said Dominion Virginia Power would like to extend their underground power line from the
Wynridge Subdivision, across County property, and connect to their underground system at the Webland
Park development. This extension will complete a loop that will improve service reliability to the residents of
these two developments as well as their commercial customers on Greenbrier Drive. The power line
extension will cross the property recently acquired by the County for the Birnam Regional stormwater basin
and the pedestrian/bike trail project. The requested right-of-way and power line will not impact the
stormwater basin, but will cross the proposed pedestrian/bike trail. Appendix A of the right-of-way
agreement includes provisions to assure installation of the power line will not obstruct or interfere with the
pedestrian/bike trail. The Assistant County Attorney and the Engineering Department have reviewed the
documents and are satisfied with the provisions. Following the public hearing, staff recommends that the
Board grant the easement and authorize the County Executive to execute the right-of-way agreement and
plat.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing.
The applicant did not wish to speak. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public
hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins to grant an easement to Dominion Virginia Power more fully
(August 6, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
described on Plat(s) Numbered 80-02-0090, attached to and made a part of the Right-of-way Agreement,
and to authorize the County Executive to execute the right-of-way agreement and plat. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 16. Public Hearing: Proposed FY 2003 Budget Amendment. (Notice of this public
hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on July 27, 2003.)
Ms. Roxanne White said 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, whichever is lesser, must be accomplished
by first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The
Code section applies to all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E-911, School Self-Sustaining,
etc. This proposed increase of the FY 2003 Budget Amendment totals $710,162.11. The estimated
expenses and revenues included in the proposed amendment are shown below:
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
Local Government Programs/Grants
School Fund
Education Programs/Grants
TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES - All Funds
$8,721.39
$7,400.00
$694,040.72
$710,162.11
ESTIMATED REVENUES
Local Revenues
State Revenues
Federal Revenues
Transfers
Fund Balances
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES - All Funds
$31,839.40
$63,182.00
$253,166.21
$3,690.39
$358,284.11
$710,162.11
This request involves the approval of six appropriations as follows: four appropriations for Education
related donations, grants and programs totaling $701,440.72; one appropriation for the Victim Witness
grant totaling $5031.00; and one appropriation for an EMS grant in the amount of $3690.39.
Staff recommends approval of the FY 2003 Budget amendment in the amount of $710,162.11, after
the public hearing, and then approval of Appropriations No. 2003-070, No. 2003-071, No. 2003-072, No.
2003-073, No. 20030-74 and No. 2003-075 to provide funds for various General Government and School
programs as described below:
Appropriation No. 2003-070, $5031.00. The Department of Criminal Justice Services
Victim Witness Assistance Program Grant funds personnel and supplies to provide
quality service to victims in the area of property crime and implements the Crime Victim
Rights Act. Revenue from the Department of Criminal Justice exceeded the original
appropriation by $5031.00. There is no local match.
Appropriation No. 2003-071, $500.00. Sutherland Middle School received a donation in
the amount of $500.00 from the Sam's Club Foundation. This donation will be used to
purchase umbrellas for the picnic tables at the school so the students can enjoy their
lunch outside.
Appropriation No. 2003-072, $14,841.90. Stone Robinson Elementary School received a
donation in the amount of $6900.00 from the Stone Robinson PTO. This donation will be
used by the teachers to purchase instructional/recreational supplies.
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB Act), Public Law 107-110, reauthorized the former
Title VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as Title V, Part
A-State Grants for Innovative Programs (Title V-A). For FY 02-03, there will be no new
Title VI funding. All new funds projected for the Title VI must not be reappropriated to
Title V-A. Title V-A provides formula grants to State and local education agencies and is
designed to increase the academic achievement and improve the quality of education for
all students. The Albemarle County Schools received an award in the amount of
$53,416.00. There is a grant balance of the former Title VI retained by the Department
of Education in the amount of $9453.00 to be reappropriated for FY 02-03.
Appropriation No. 2003-073, $95,813.82. The Preschool Grant was not fully expended in
the school budget for FY 01-02. The grant carryover amount of $17,176.42 was retained
by the State and may be appropriated for FY 02-03. These funds will cover incurred
additional preschool summer school expenses.
The Frederick S. Upton Foundation made a donation in the amount of $1000.00 to
Henley Middle School. This donation will support Henley's Cultural Enrichment Program
in funding three artists-in-residency programs: Sculpture, Writer, and Dramatic
(August 6, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
Interpretation. The projects will involve interactive activities to include hands on learning
experiences for students with performing, visual and musical arts.
Mr. Douglas and Mrs. Sarah DuPont made a matching donation in the amount of
$2000.00 to Henley Middle School for the Frederick Upton Foundation Grant. This
donation will support Henley's Cultural Enrichment Program in 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.
The Southern Poverty Law Center awarded Lee Webb, teacher at Woodbrook
Elementary School with a $2000.00 Teaching Tolerance Grant. This grant will be used
to purchase educational materials to help students move toward a better understanding
of tolerance-related issues, both in their lives and in our world.
The Virginia Commission for the Arts awarded Hollymead Elementary School two
Touring Assistance Grants totaling $450.00. The grant will help fund two performances
by the Virginia Opera.
Albemarle County Public Schools received a Refugee School Impact Grant award from
the Virginia Department of Education's Office of Secondary Instructional Services in the
amount of $4434.00. These funds will be used to provide additional services for
Albemarle County's growing multi-cultural population, which includes refugees. The
grant program will run in conjunction with the evening Adult ESL Program, targeting K-12
"Limited English Proficient (LEP)" refugee students with special emphasis on reading,
writing and mathematical concepts.
The Albemarle County Public Schools Character Counts Program received a donation
from Paul Newman c/o Newman's Own, Inc., in the amount of $10,000.00. This donation
was made at the suggestion of the Make a Difference Day. It honors the commitment
made by the students and coordinators of the Character Counts Program on the USA
WEEKEND's Make a Difference Day.
The Jefferson Region Destination Imagination (DI), which provides a regional DI
competition for county students and surrounding school districts, received additional
revenues in the amount $3676.40. Increases in participation resulted in additional
revenues in registration fees, T-shirt sales and miscellaneous fees. Albemarle County
will continue as fiscal agent for this region.
Stone Robinson Elementary School has been awarded an anonymous grant in the
amount of $1810.00. The grant is for a composting program at Stone Robinson to
reduce solid waste generation and to educate the 460-member student body about the
benefits of composting.
The Standards of Learning Algebra Readiness Initiative was approved by the 2000
General Assembly for implementation starting 2001-02. The purpose of the initiative is to
provide mathematics intervention services to students at the middle school level who are
at risk of failing the Algebra I end-of-course test. Albemarle County has chosen to
provide intervention services at the five middle schools.
Appropriation No. 2003-074, $590,285.00. Title VI, a Federally-funded program of the
Improving America's Schools Act of 1994, provides supplemental assistance to students
considered at-risk of not meeting established performance goals. There is a local fund
balance in the amount of $3180.11 from FY 01-02 and may be appropriated for FY 02-
03. These funds will pay for salaries and materials.
Title I is a Federally-funded program designed to help children meet challenging content
and performance standards. It supplements, not supplants, local funding in providing
services to students in Albemarle County. The program utilizes strategies that focus on
improving teaching and learning, and building stronger partnerships between schools and
communities to support the achievement of all children who are served. Funding for FY
02-03 was increased by $217,917.00 from the original budget amount of $800,000.00
The Reading Excellence Act Grant program is focused upon training teachers to provide
reading instruction that develops systematic phonetic decoding and comprehension skills,
and learn to diagnose reading problems and apply specific early reading intervention.
There is a local fund balance in the amount of $486.64 from FY 01-02 which may be
appropriated for FY 02-03. In addition, funding for FY 02-03 was increased by $7733.89
from the original budget amount of $100,000.00.
The Bicycle Education Grant gives students an opportunity to increase school and
community bike safety awareness and promote lifetime fitness. Additional funds in the
amount of $2400.00 were received. These funds will be used to purchase a shed to
store bicycles and safety equipment.
The need to provide additional learning time for students at risk of not meeting
(August 6, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
benchmarks has been recognized by the School division and funding to provide
intervention during the summer has been allocated. In addition to local funding, the State
provides summer remedial funding. The Division has traditionally operated high school
summer school as a self-sustaining program. Local and State funding was provided for
elementary and middle school programs. Expenditures have exceeded appropriations
and revenues for the summer of 2002. Summer School is requesting that the fund
balance be used to cover expenditures that exceeded appropriations. It is requested that
$76,300.54 be reappropriated to the Summer School Fund.
Food Service, a self-sustaining fund, generates capital for food, labor and equipment by
operating in 24 schools. Operating expenses for this program have been rising for the
past several years based upon both benefits increases and minimum allowable wages as
determined by the School Board. Food Service is requesting an additional $287,000.00
in appropriations to cover increased costs in regular wages, overtime wages, health
insurance, contracted services and equipment costs. In an effort to decrease expenses
in the upcoming school year, the Food Service Department has, with the help of VDOE,
created a staffing formula based on enrollment and participation at each school that will
result in approximately a 15 percent decrease in staffing across the board. In addition,
there are no plans in place for Capital Improvements that will cause Contracted Service
and Equipment costs to exceed funding requests for FY 03-04. Food Service also
operates the AIMR Summer Food Program at Monticello. This program has generated
additional revenues sufficient to partially offset the shortfall within the Food Service
Program. Staff recommends partial use of the AIMR Summer Food fund balance to
offset this shortfall and partial use of the Food Service fund balance.
Appropriation No. 2003-075, $3,690.39. During Fiscal Year 2001-02, an EMS Grant was
received for the purchase of an Automated External Defibrillator. The state funds and
the local match were appropriated in the grant. The equipment was inadvertently
purchased from the General Fund leaving the unexpended money in the Grant Fund.
This appropriation will authorize the transfer of $3690.39 to reimburse the General Fund.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the
public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin to approve the FY 2003 Budget amendment in the amount of
$710,162.00, and to adopt Resolutions of Appropriation No. 2003-070, No. 2003-071, No. 2003-072, No.
2003-073, No. 2003-074 and No. 2003-075, all as set out below.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION #2003-070
APPROPRIATION DATE: 8/6/03
EXPLANATION: ADJUSTMENT TO FUNDING FOR VICTIM WITNESS GRANT
GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT
OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION
SUB LEDGER
CODE AMOUNT DEBIT
CREDIT
1 1225 31012 110000 SALARIES-REGULAR J 1 1,492.00
1 1225 31012 210000 FICA J 1 107.00
1 1225 31012 221000 VIRGINIA RETIREMENTSYS J 1
1 1225 31012 231000 HEALTH INSURANCE J 1 1,964.00
1 1225 31012 232000 DENTAL INSURANCE J 1 140.00
1 1225 31012 241000 VRS GROUP LIFE INS J 1 (416.00)
1 1225 31012 520100 POSTAL SERVICES J 1 666.00
1 1225 31012 520300 TELECOMMUNICATIONS J 1 2,400.00
1 1225 31012 520309 TELEPHONE-MOBILE J 1 780.00
1 1225 31012 550000 TRAVEL J 1 (3,423.00)
1 1225 31012 550100 TRAVEL-MILEAGE J 1 579.00
1 1225 31012 550200 TRAVEL-FARES J 1 251.00
1 1225 31012 550400 TRAVEL-EDUCATION J 1 1,740.00
1 1225 31012 550600 TRAVEL-SUBSISTENCE J 1 1,749.00
1 1225 31012 580000 MISC EXPENSES J 1 600.00
1 1225 31012 580100 DUES &MEMBERSHIPS J 1 250.00
1 1225 31012 600100 OFFICE SUPPLIES J 1 (6,626.00)
1 1225 31012 800700 ADP EQUIPMENT J 1 2,466.00
1 1225 31012 800710 DATA PROC SOFTWARE J 1 610.00
2 1225 24000 240500 GRANT REVENUE J 2 5,031.00
1225 0501 ESTIMATED REVENUE J
1225 0701 APPROPRIATION J
TOTAL
(298.00)
5,031.00
5,031.00
10,062.00 5,031.00 5,031.00
(August 6, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION #2003-071
APPROPRIATION DATE: 8/6/03
EXPLANATION: DONATION TO SUTHERLAND MIDDLE SCHOOL
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 2225 61101 800200 FURNITURE J 1 500.00
2 2000 18100 181109 DONATION J 2 500.00
2000 0501 EST REVENUE J 500.00
2000 0701 APPROPRIATION J
TOTAL 1000.00 500.00
500.00
500.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION #2003-072
APPROPRIATION DATE: 8/6/03
EXPLANATION: FUNDING FOR EDUCATIONAL V-A GRANT
GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION
SUB LEDGER
CODE AMOUNT DEBIT
CREDIT
1 2210 61101 601300 INST/REC SUPPLIES J 1 6,900.00
2 2000 18100 181109 DONATION J 2 6,900.00
2000 0501 EST REVENUE J 6,900.00
2000 0701 APPROPRIATION J 6,900.00
1 3216 61311 111400 SALARIES-OTHERMANAG J 1 31,000.00
1 3216 61311 114100 SALARIES-TEACHERAIDE J 1 2,033.00
1 3216 61311 160300 STIPEND-TEACHER J 1 2,000.00
1 3216 61311 210000 FICA J 1 2,680.50
1 3216 61311 221000 VRS J 1 2,926.40
1 3216 61311 231000 HEALTH INS J 1 1,622.10
1 3216 61311 232000 DENTALINS J 1 140.00
1 3216 61311 420110 TRANSPORTATION J 1 1,500.00
1 3216 61311 601200 BOOK/SUBSCRIPTIONS J 1 3,694.00
1 3216 61311 601300 INST/RECSUPPLIES J 1 5,820.00
2 3216 33000 330132 TITLEVPARTA J 2 53,416.00
3216 0501 EST REVENUE J 53,416.00
3216 0701 APPROPRIATION J 53,416.00
1 3102 61311 111400 SALARIES-OTHERMANAG J 1 (23,005.00)
1 3102 61311 210000 FICA J 1 (1,806.12)
1 3102 61311 221000 VRS J 1 (2,172.00)
1 3102 61311 231000 HEALTH INS J 1 (2,304.00)
1 3102 61311 550100 TRAVEL-MILEAGE J 1 (150.00)
1 3102 61311 550400 TRAVEL-EDUCATION J 1 (150.00)
1 3102 61311 580500 STAFF DEVELOPMENT J 1 (1,000.00)
1 3102 61311 601200 BOOK/SUBSCRIPTIONS J 1 (4,711.98)
1 3102 61311 601300 INST/RECSUPPLIES J 1 (10,175.00)
2 3102 33000 330105 TITLEVI J 2 (45,474.10)
3102 0501 EST REVENUE J 45,474.10
3102 0701 APPROPRIATION J 45,474.10
TOTAL 29,683.80 105,790.10 105,790.10
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION #2003-073
APPROPRIATION DATE: 8/6/03
EXPLANATION: FUNDING FOR EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS AND DONATIONS
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 3205 61102 132105 PFF WAGES J 1 15,948.26
1 3205 61102 210000 FICA J 1 1,228.16
1 3104 60252 312500 PROF SVCS INSTRUCTION J 1 3,000.00
1 3104 60212 601300 INSTSUPPLIES J 1 2,000.00
1 3104 60205 312500 PROF SVCS INSTRUCTION J 1 450.00
1 3123 61101 132100 PFFWAGES J 1 2,514.00
1 3123 61101 210000 FICA J 1 192.20
1 3123 61101 312700 PROFSVCSCONSULTANTJ 1 400.00
1 3123 61101 601300 INSTSUPPLIES J 1 1,327.80
1 3146 61101 131400 SALARY-OTHERMANG J 1 9,250.00
(August 6, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
3146 61101 210000
3129 61104 580000
3129 61104 601300
3104 60210 601300
3152 63333 132100
3152 63333 210000
3152 63333 231000
3152 63333 232000
3152 63333 242000
3152 63333 601300
3205 33000 330111
3104 18000 181221
3104 18000 181266
3104 24000 240366
3123 24000 240359
3146 18100 181256
3129 16000 161260
3129 18100 181109
3129 18000 189918
3104 18000 189900
3152 24000 240500
3205 0501
3205 0701
3104 0501
3104 0702
3123 0501
3123 0702
3146 0501
3146 0702
3129 0501
3129 0702
3104 0501
3104 0702
3152 0501
3152 0702
95,813.82
FICA J 1 750.00
MISC. EXPENSE J 1 2,606.40
INST SUPPLIES J 1 1,070.00
INST SUPPLIES J 1 1,810.00
P/T WAGES J 1 29,950.00
FICA J 1 2,317.00
HEALTH INS J 1 900.00
DENTAL INS J 1 50.00
GROUP LIFE - P/T J 1 50.00
INSTSUPPLIES J 1 20,000.00
PRESCHOOL GRANT J 2 17,176.42
UPTON GRANT J 2 3,000.00
TEACHING J 2 2,000.00
VA COMM GRANT J 2 450.00
REFUGEE GRANT J 2 4,434.00
PAUL NEWMAN DONATION J 2 10,000.00
JEFFERSON DI J 2 520.00
MISC FEES J 2 550.00
PROCEEDS-SALES J 2 2,606.40
STONE ROBINSON GRANT J 2 1,810.00
ALGEBRA READINESS J 2 53,267.00
EST REVENUE J
APPROPRIATION J
EST REVENUE J
APPROPRIATION J
EST REVENUE J
APPROPRIATION J
EST REVENUE J
APPROPRIATION J
EST REVENUE J
APPROPRIATION J
EST REVENUE J
APPROPRIATION J
EST REVENUE J
APPROPRIATION J
TOTAL 191,627.64
17,176.42
17,176.42
5,450.00
5,450.00
4,434.00
4,434.00
10,000.00
10,000.00
3,676.40
3,676.40
1,810.00
1,810.00
53,267.00
53,267.00
95,813.82
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION #2003-074
APPROPRIATION DATE: 8/6/03
EXPLANATION: SCHOOL PROGRAM AND GRANTS
GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION
SUB LEDGER
CODE AMOUNT DEBIT
CREDIT
1 3102 61311 111400
1 3102 61311 210000
1 3102 61311 221000
1 3102 61311 231000
1 3102 61311 232000
1 3102 61311 601200
1 3101 61101 111400
1 3101 61101 112100
1 3101 61101 210000
1 3101 61101 221000
1 3213 61101 601300
1 3153 61311 800100
1 2112 61102 420100
1 2112 93010 530007
1 3310 61120 132100
1 3310 61120 137100
1 3310 61120 210000
1 3310 61120 420110
1 3310 61124 132100
1 3310 61124 137100
1 3310 61124 210000
1 3310 61124 420110
1 3310 61125 132100
1 3310 61125 137100
1 3310 61125 210000
1 3310 61125 420110
1 3000 63100 119300
1 3000 63100 129300
SALARIES-OTHER MANG
FICA
VRS
HEALTH
DENTAL
BOOKS/SUBSCRIPTIONS
SALARIES-OTHER MANG
SALARIES-TEACHER J
FICA J
VRS J
INST SUPPLIES J
EQUIPMENT J
FIELD TRIPS J
TRS-SUMMER SCHOOL J
ELEM-P/T WAGES-TEACHER
ELEM-P/T BUS DRIVERS J
ELEM-FICA
ELEM-SCH TRANSP
MIDDLE-P/T TEACHER
MIDDLE-P/T BUS DR
MIDDLE-FICA
MIDDLE-SCH TRANSP
HIGH-P/T TEACHER
HIGH-P/T BUS DR
HIGH-FICA
HIGH-SCH TRANSP
WAGES-REGULAR
O/T WAGES
J 1 2,452.14
J 1 186.65
J 1 242.32
J 1 192.00
J 1 7.00
J 1 100.00
J 1 37,230.00
1 158,443.00
1 14,967.00
1 7,274.00
1 8,220.53
1 2,400.00
1 (4,730.18)
1 4,730.18
J1
1 4,475.92
J 1 2,711.43
J 1 7,588.94
J 1 12,220.25
J 1 5,264.22
J 1 1,337.57
J 1 5,813.28
J 1 3,065.00
J 1 969.44
J 1 309.66
J 1 1,577.22
J 1 61,120.00
J 1 9,456.00
30,967.61
(August 6, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
1 3000 63100
1 3000 63100
1 3000 63100
1 3000 63100
1 3002 93010
2 3102 51000
2 3101 33000
2 3213 33000
2 3213 51000
2 3153 33000
2 3310 16000
2 3310 51000
2 3310 51000
2 3000 51000
2 3000 51000
2 3002 51000
3102
3101
3213
3153
3310
3000
3002
210000 FICA J 1 5,399.00
231000 HEALTH INS J 1 27,194.00
301210 CONTRACT SERVICES J 1 85,831.00
800100 EQUIPMENT J 1 98,000.00
930024 TRS TO FOOD SERVICES J 1 143,381.00
510100 APPROP-FUND BALANCE J 2 3,180.11
330101 TITLE I FUNDS J 2217,914.00
330204 READING EXC GRANT J 2 7,733.89
510100 APPROP-FUND BALANCE J 2 486.64
300001 BICYLE ED GRANT J 2 2,400.00
161222 TUITION J 2 3,953.00
510100 APPROP-FUND BALANCE J 2 67,617.36
512015 TRS-STUDENTSERVICES J 2 4,730.18
510109 TRANSFERS J 2 143,381.00
510100 APPROP-FUND BALANCE J 2 143,619.00
510100 APPROP-FUND BALANCE J 2 143,381.00
0501 EST REVENUE J
0701 APPROPRIATION J
0501 EST REVENUE J
0702 APPROPRIATION J
0501 EST REVENUE J
0702 APPROPRIATION J
0501 EST REVENUE J
0702 APPROPRIATION J
0501 EST REVENUE J
0702 APPROPRIATION J
0501 EST REVENUE J
0702 APPROPRIATION J
0501 EST REVENUE J
0702 APPROPRIATION J
TOTAL 1,476,792.36
3,180.11
3,180.11
217,914.00
217,914.00
8,220.53
8,220.53
2,400.00
2,400.00
76,300.54
76,300.54
287,000.00
287,000.00
143,381.00
143,381.00
738,396.18 738,396.18
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION #2003-075
APPROPRIATION DATE: 8/6/03
EXPLANATION :EMS GRANTS REIMBURSEMENTS TO GENERAL FUND
GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT
OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION
SUB LEDGER
CODE AMOUNT DEBIT
CREDIT
1 1555 32015 930009 TRANSFER TO G/F J 1
1 1555 32015 930200 TRANSFER TO GRANTS J 1
2 1555 51000510100 GRANTF/B J 2
1555 0501 ESTIMATED REVENUE J
1555 0701 APPROPRIATION J
TOTAL
3,417.94
272.45
3,690.39
7,380.78
3,690.39
3,690.39
3,690.39
3,690.39
Agenda Item No. 24. Strategic Plan Quarterly Progress Report.
Mr. Tucker said that in the spring of 2002, the Board initiated a strategic planning process. It
developed the County's Vision, Mission and initial Goal Statements. Since that time, staff has developed a
framework and timetable, targeted ten priority objectives based on their level of importance and timing
considerations, and incorporated changes suggested by the Board at its October and January strategic
planning work sessions. Staff is now focusing efforts on achieving those ten priority objectives. The Board
received the first Strategic Plan quarterly progress report for the County's ten priorities in April, 2003. Staff
is currently developing outcome measures that will measure the results of these efforts in relation to the
Board's goals. Once these measures are developed and approved by the Board, future reports will reflect
the County's progress in relation to these desired outcomes. This report provides background to be used at
the Board's retreat in September. At that time, the Board will review additional data and update the
Strategic Plan as well as discuss processes to connect resources to the County's strategic priorities.
Agenda Item No. 25. Strategic Planning - Establishment of an Environmental Management System.
Mr. Tucker said a goal of the Strategic Plan is to "protect and preserve the County's natural, scenic
and historic resources". Objective 2.6.2 is the establishment of an Environmental Management System
("EMS"). An EMS is a comprehensive set of written environmental policies and procedures that identify an
organization's environmental goals and also establishes an effective program to protect the environment.
This objective was established to achieve the goal of providing for "environmentally sensitive government
operations at the local and regional level".
Mr. Tucker said both County and School staff have worked together over the past year to develop an
EMS for use by the County government and the School System. Through the assistance of a consultant,
(August 6, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
this effort included the evaluation of various School and County facilities and the development of a
compliance manual and checklists to guide ongoing efforts. In addition, staff reviewed the programs that
exist in other localities to gain insight into the development of an effective system for Albemarle County.
While the basics for the system have been developed through an Environmental Management Policy and
an Environmental Compliance Manual, staff will further refine new procedures and practices to ensure that
an effective program is in place. As a part of ongoing efforts, staffwill continue the process of evaluating
facilities and begin a more proactive approach to ensuring protection of human health and the environment.
This will include establishing more specific goals for a County EMS, training staff and assessing the long-
term needs of the organization.
Mr. Tucker noted that a copy of the Environmental Management Policy and table of contents for the
newly developed Environmental Compliance Manual had been forwarded to Board members. This policy
was designed to clarify and emphasize the County's commitment to environmental compliance, pollution
prevention, continuous improvement and communication. It is the basis for the County's efforts to ensure
that its operations are conducted in a way that is "environmentally sensitive". The new compliance manual
provides broad guidance regarding environmental compliance in all major areas of County operations.
Mr. Tucker said this will be an internal administrative regulation which will be administered by the
County Executive and the Division Superintendent and their respective staff. He does not believe it needs to
be approved by the Board, but staff wanted the Board members to see what is envisioned by the policy.
Mr. Bowerman asked the time frame for implementation of the EMS. Mr. Tucker said he thinks staff
will be finished with the policy within eight months. Mr. Tom Foley said it will be an on-going process. Staff
will be making an initial assessment of County facilities and making sure they are in compliance. That work
should be finished in this fiscal year. Additional assistance from consultants may be needed.
Mr. Bowerman asked if deficiencies are uncovered, when will staff start to make those deficiencies
whole? Mr. Foley said that is an on-going effort and is being done at this time. Mr. Davis said that at some
point in time, there will be a proposal to the Board as to how to establish an on-going program in the most
efficient manner. Mr. Foley said that will occur in the next few months during the budgeting process.
Ms. Thomas said she saw nothing in the policy which indicated the County will be taking a leadership
role in dealing with the environment. What is proposed is what will keep the County out of court. She thinks
the people who were members of the Sustainability Council and other things often seek to make the County
a model and good example for keeping in mind environmental issues before they threaten to get the
County into court. She asked if the Board needed to augment this policy in order to have that be its
statement of policy. Mr. Tucker said Ms. Thomas was talking about two different things regarding
sustainability for the entire County. Staff is focusing primarily on facilities that the government or the
schools operate.
Ms. Thomas said she understood that, but as an employer she hates for the County not to offer a
quality place for employees. That is partly because Albemarle County is one of the largest employers in
the county. Also, as an operator of buildings and someone who builds new buildings, she wants to be sure
the County is constantly looking for new technologies. When setting a policy, she thinks it would be good to
say the County will do that whenever it can.
Mr. Tucker said the "continuous improvement" part tries to get at that idea. It may not have the
words, but being innovative and that sort of thing is what he thinks Ms. Thomas is referring to. Staff can
look at this again to see if there is other language that would convey her thoughts.
Mr. Rooker said the categories are covered, but the question is whether the County is implementing
the bare minimum with respect to air emissions, or is the County going beyond that. He said every one of
these could be looked at and the same thing said. There are legal requirements and then there are some
things which could go beyond legal requirements. Mr. Tucker said there are costs associated with that
thought. Another goal the Board had was that the County operate within available revenues. Staff may be
able to redraft some language in the policy itself which would help the Board members.
Ms. Thomas said VDOT hired someone when the Western Bypass was a lawsuit issue with them. He
came and talked to the MPO and he said he had been hired by VDOT so they would not see the MPO in
court. In the time since then, he has discovered that VDOT should be more interested in local land use and
how it affects and fits in with what they are trying to do with the road. It is just an example of doing what you
can to keep out of court, and actually having an interest in the issue.
Mr. Foley said language can be added to say that Albemarle County wants to be a leader and go
beyond the bare minimums. The main reason it was not done in this policy is that staff is still assessing the
resources this will require. As a policy, adjustments can be made to this statement to set the bar a little
higher.
Mr. Bowerman said when this came up a year ago, staff pointed out that the Board was "behind the
eight ball." Staff talked about something that had happened in Roanoke. He is glad to see that the County
is up-to-date on this now.
Mr. Dorrier asked the date of the Board's strategic planning session. Mr. Tucker said it is on
Saturday, September 6, 2003, at Zimmer Hall, the Continuing Education Center at the University.
(August 6, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
Mr. Rooker said there was no mention in the staff's report of implementing master plans other the
one being formulated for Crozet at this. Mr. Foley said this would be a good topic to be discussed at the
retreat. Originally, this objective said there needed to be thinking about what would happen when the
master plans were completed. The strategies listed in the staff's report are the steps which will be applied
to every master plan as it is completed. He thinks what staff has proposed can be revised at the retreat to
be more specific about what will be in the budget over the next five years.
Mr. Bowerman said something about risk management in some document which Mr. Tucker said was
for the Police Department, and Mr. Bowerman said its name had been changed.
Mr. Rooker referred to Page 7 of one of the documents and said it refers to having established call
centers and a dispatch center for the Police and ECC. He asked if that is newer information than what the
Board had seen. He asked for a full copy of the information. Mr. Tucker said he can get the Board copies
of that. Mr. Dorrier asked what he was talking about. Mr. Tucker said he was referring to the call taking
and standards for Police and EMS. Mr. Rooker said there is mention of completing the initial development
and something about a home security grant. He asked the amount of that grant. Mr. Tucker said there are
several grants. Mr. Foley said staff is presently drafting a report that will cover both the Police, Fire and all
regional grant opportunities. Mr. Rooker said Page 10 refers to developing a pilot mentoring program and
asked for a written summary of this program.
Mr. Rooker asked what is going on with hiring a Director for the Office on Budget Management. Mr.
Tucker said the County will either have to readvertise for a replacement or make some other arrangements
with regard to that position. There was one very good applicant in the applications received, but he dropped
out. Mr. Bowerman asked the pay range. Mr. Tucker said it is in the mid-70s. Staff is working to fill the
position as quickly as possible.
Ms. Thomas said she recently mentioned the idea of a new library in Crozet and whether it could also
be used for affordable housing, or have space which could be rented out to ACAC, etc. Then during the
Hollymead Town Center process, the one thing which she felt did not go smoothly was the location of a
firehouse and how it was handled in the proffers. She now thinks that when the Board next works on the
CIP, it should have in mind that if a road is to be built in a certain location, that may be where the firehouse
should be located. She wonders how the County can make any capital project meet several of its needs.
Mr. Dorrier suggested that this be added to the agenda for the retreat.
Agenda Item No. 26. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that she had a constituent who is concerned about tax relief for the elderly
and how the County's ordinance is written. The ordinance says there can be no rental income from the
house, even if they are below the threshold allowed by the ordinance. That essentially eliminates that
person from getting the tax break allowed by the ordinance. Mr. Tucker said it is because of the way the
State law allows the ordinance to be enacted.
Ms. Thomas said there is also a limit of $105,000 in both assets and income that a person can have
in order to qualify. Just yesterday Fairfax County was talking about raising their threshold from $160,000 to
$240,000. She would like for staffto look at the absolute limit and how to deal with the rental issue.
Mr. Davis said the Board looked at this ordinance about five years ago. Ms. White said the Board had
mentioned this before, and staff said it would bring back a report which is actually scheduled for the Board's
September meeting. Mr. Davis said the rental issue is quite complicated. Some of it is due to the way the
State structures the program.
A report will be forthcoming from staff.
Agenda Item No. 27. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was
adjourned at 3:27 p.m.
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 01/07/2004
Initials: EWC