2003-09-03(Regular Day Meeting - September 3, 2003)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
September 3, 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, Mr. Dennis S. Rooker and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Senior Deputy Clerk, Georgina Smith, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 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. Mark Shore, Director, Charlottesville-Albemarle Visitor's Bureau, was present to bring the
Board up-to-date on their activities. He said they had been requested by the Management Committee to do
a strategic planning process after last year's review of the CACVB's current operating agreement between
the County, City, Chamber of Commerce and the University of Virginia. They had engaged the services of
Mr. Joe Lathrop with OCG of Orlando, Florida, for this work. He then listed for the Board several ways to
achieve the mission of the Bureau (see copy of those items on file in the Clerk's Office with the permanent
records of the Board of Supervisors). Hopefully, a new organization will be up and running by July 1,2004.
Mr. Thomas von Hemert said he is the Criminal Justice Planner for the Thomas Jefferson Area
Criminal Justice Board. He also chairs the Charlottesville-Albemarle Prevention Coalition. He presented
to the Board a copy of the First Response Community Connection Card. He said the Prevention Coalition
developed and printed this document to help local agencies support people in the community who need
quick, direct access to community services. This guide lists the primary critical agencies needed to get
people connected to community services. He also presented a copy of the "Quick Guide to Family
Resources" which contains detailed information for agencies listed in the Resource Guide. He said 1400 of
these guides were printed using funds from a grant, so there was no cost to the County.
Mr. David Blount, Legislative Liaison for the Thomas Jefferson Planning District, was present to
remind the Board that it is time to put together a draft of legislation for the 2004 Session of the General
Assembly.
Mr. Dorrier asked when the Board would be having a meeting with the County's legislators. Mr.
Tucker said it will probably be in late December. Mr. Blount said the TJPDC will host a luncheon again this
year, probably before Thanksgiving, and there will be legislators present who represent all the localities in
the Planning District.
Ms. Thomas said the Historic Preservation Committee is looking into an item which was discussed
a couple of years ago. That had to do with enabling legislation for a revolving loan fund. The Committee
will be getting comments from some of the banking lobbies and if that comes out positively, the County
might wish to include that request again for the 2004 Session.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda.
(Note: Mr. Rooker said he will recuse himself from voting on the Consent Agenda today as he has
a client which has a matter listed on that agenda. A Disclosure Form is on file in the Clerk's office.)
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve Items 5.1 through
5.7 on the Consent Agenda, and to accept the remaining items for information. Roll was called, and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Rooker.
Item 5.1. Approval of Minutes: March 17(A) and April 2, 2003.
No minutes had been read. This item will go forward to the next meeting.
Item 5.2. Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE), request to extend application deadline
until September 30, 2003.
(Regular Day Meeting - September 3, 2003)
(Page 2)
It was noted in the staff's report that Section A.1-110(I) of the ACE Ordinance allows the Board to
waive or extend any requirement or deadline if, for good cause, it is shown that circumstances exist which
warrant such action. In addition, one of the powers and duties of staff and the ACE Committee is to
periodically review the program's ordinance and recommend to the Board any changes needed to improve
the administration, implementation and effectiveness of the program.
Soon after the purchase of four easements from the year 2000-01 pool of ACE applicants last
summer, the ACE Committee held a ceremony on the Powell property (a first round applicant) in North
Garden to celebrate closings on these properties, to recognize the landowners and to publicize the
program. In the weeks immediately following the ceremony, staff received numerous inquiries and interest
in the ACE program. In an effort to generate a similar boost in the public awareness of ACE, staff hopes to
hold another, less formal ceremony or press conference for the year 2001-02 class. Since none of the
current applicants expressed an interest in holding the ceremony on their property and ACE only recently
closed on most of the properties from this class, it is too late to hold a ceremony prior to the established
application deadline of September 1. Furthermore, staff and the ACE Committee believe the summer
months are an ineffective time for a deadline because people are on vacation and the farming community is
extremely busy. Therefore, staff is proposing that the application deadline be extended to September 30,
2003. This would provide ample time to plan a closing ceremony and, more importantly, to establish a
(new) application deadline that would be more effective in getting the attention and response of prospective
applicants. By extending the deadline by one month, all other deadlines in the ACE ordinance would
necessarily be pushed forward by one month.
Staff recommends that the Board approve the request of staff and the ACE Committee to extend
the application deadline to September 30, 2003.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the request of staff and the ACE
Committee to extend the application deadline to September 30, 2003.
Item 5.3. Greenways Study Committee Report.
It was noted in the staff's report that on June 6, 2001, the Board authorized staffto establish a
Greenways Study Committee to assist in the development of the County greenway and blueway system.
The committee was to serve for 18 months and at the end of that time period make a recommendation to
the Board regarding the establishment of a permanent Greenway Advisory Committee as recommended in
the County's Comprehensive Plan. That Greenways Study Committee now recommends that: 1) A formal
Board-appointed Greenway Committee is not recommended at this time; 2) The Parks and Recreation
Department organize and coordinate a committee and information-sharing network, to initially consist of the
several agencies and organizations, with other organized user and interest groups being included as they
are identified or developed; 3)The group will meet on a quarterly basis and develop an information network
to share information between meetings; 4) Quarterly meeting agendas will be coordinated with TJPDC trail
meetings to avoid redundancy; and, 5) The primary functions of the Committee will be to coordinate/
reconcile greenway plans in the City, County and adjacent localities as they develop, identify and coordinate
potential multi-jurisdictional funding requests.
Staff recommends that the Board accept the recommendations of the Greenways Study
Committee and direct the Parks and Recreation Department to proceed as outlined in the Committee's
report.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board accepted the recommendations of the
Greenways Study Committee and directed the Parks and Recreation Department to proceed as
outlined in the Committee's report.
Item 5.4. Rin-Ran Farm Lane Road Name Change.
It was noted that the Albemarle County Road Naming and Property Numbering Manual allows a
road name change to be forwarded to the Board for approval upon validation that landowners of more than
50 percent of the parcels served by the road in question have signed a petition in favor of a common road
name, and that the proposed road name is otherwise consistent with other road name guidelines and is not
a duplicate name.
A sole landowner has requested that the name "Rin-Ran Farm Lane" be changed to "Apsara Farm
Lane". The landowner will be responsible for costs associated with new signage. This change meets the
above criteria for road name changes. Staff recommends that the Board approve the new road name as
requested and grant staff the authority to coordinate/implement the change.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved changing the name of "Rin-Ran
Farm Lane" to "Apsara Farm Lane" as requested and granted staff the authority to
coordinate/implement the change.
Item 5.5. Peter Jefferson Place Road Name Change.
It was noted in the staff's report that the Albemarle County Road Naming and Property Numbering
Manual allows a road name change to be forwarded to the Board for approval upon validation that
(Regular Day Meeting - September 3, 2003)
(Page 3)
landowners of more than 50 percent of the parcels served by the road in question have signed a petition in
favor of a common road name, and that the proposed road name is otherwise consistent with other road
name guidelines and is not a duplicate name.
Landowners have requested that the name "Peter Jefferson Place" be changed to "Worrell Drive".
The landowners will be responsible for costs associated with new signage. This request meets the criteria
for a road name change. Staff recommends that the Board approve the new road name as requested and
grant staff the authority to coordinate/implement the change.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved changing the name of "Peter
Jefferson Place" to "Worrell Drive" as requested and granted staff the authority to
coordinate/implement the referenced change.
Item 5.6. Proclamation recognizing Friday, October 3, 2003, as Bike-to-Work Day.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the following proclamation:
BIKE TO WORK DAY
WHEREAS, the quality of life for citizens in our community includes preservation
of the natural environment; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle has adopted a traffic reduction policy to
decrease the volume of single occupancy vehicles, traffic and parking congestion; and
WHEREAS, more commuters are choosing alternative transportation to save
time, money and the environment; and
WHEREAS, bicycling is an environmentally sound, healthy, efficient and energy
saving mode of transportation;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Chairman on behalf of the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, do hereby proclaim
Friday, October 3, 2003
as
BIKE TO WORK DAY
and encourage all citizens to choose alternative transportation to preserve our
community's special quality of life.
Mr. Dorrier read the proclamation into the record and presented same to Mr. Juan Wade,
Transportation Planner for the County.
(Discussion: Ms. Thomas suggested that all employees in the County Office Building be asked
the question: "What would get you to ride a bike to work?" Mr. Wade said staff is working with the
Information Technology Department on a county-wide survey which will look not just at biking alternatives,
but walking, transit, etc.)
Item 5.7. FY 2002-03 Appropriations for Education Programs and Grants.
It was noted in the staff's report that the Code of Virginia. 15.2-2507 stipulates that any locality may
amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the
adopted budget. This section further stipulates that if the total of such amendment exceeds $500,000, a
notice and public hearing must be held before amending the budget.
The Department of Finance has received three FY 2002-03 appropriation requests totaling
$63,580.95, from the School Division. The appropriation total is less than the statutorily required $500,000
threshold, therefore, no public hearing is necessary at this time. Due to the ending of the fiscal year, and in
order to have a clear picture of ending balances, it is requested that these appropriations be approved at
this time. A detailed description of the requests is provided on Attachment A of the staff's report (on file in
the Clerk's Office).
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved of the budget amendment and
adopted the following Resolutions of Appropriation:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION #2003-076
APPROPRIATION DATE: 9/3/03
EXPLANATION: DONATION TO MERIWETHER LEWIS ELEMENTARY
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
(Regular Day Meeting - September 3, 2003)
(Page 4)
1 2206 61101 114100 SALARIES-T.A. J 1
1 2206 61101 210000 FICA J 1
2 2000 18100 181109 DONATION J 2
2000 0501 ESTIMATED REVENUE
0701 APPROP
TOTAL
3,042.00
233.00
3,275.00
6,550.00
3,275.00
3,275.00
3,275.00
3,275.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION #2003-077
APPROPRIATION DATE: 9/3/03
EXPLANATION: DRIVER SAFETY FUND FOR SCHOOL SYSTEM
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 3305 61235132100 P/TWAGES-TEACHER J 1 23,236.95
1 3305 61235 210000 FICA J 1 1,777.63
2 3305 24000240771 STATE REVENUE J 2 25,014.58
3305 0501 EST REVENUE J
3305 0701 APPROPRIATION J
TOTAL 50,029.16
25,014.58
25,014.58
25,014.58 25,014.58
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION #2003-078
APPROPRIATION DATE: 9/3/03
EXPLANATION: APPROVAL OF FY [~03 MISC SCHOOL GRANTS
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 3104 60209 800200
1 3104 60210 601300
1 3104 60211 601300
1 3104 60212 601300
1 3104 60213 601300
1 3104 60214 601300
1 3104 60215 601300
1 3104 60253 601300
1 3104 60304 601300
1 3104 61101 132100
1 3104 61101 210000
1 3104 61101 601300
1 3104 61311 580500
2 3104 24000 240207
2 3104 51000 510100
3104 0501
3104 0701
ADP EQUIPMENT J 1 8,811.81
ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 498.68
ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 535.62
ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 16,995.96
ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 59.95
ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 199.82
ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 801.65
ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 939.65
ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 1,494.75
P/T-TEACHERS J 1 824.42
FICA J 1 63.07
ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 3,551.79
STAFF DEVELOPMENT J 1 514.20
J 2 1,000.00
J 2 34,291.37
J
J
EST REVENUE
APPROPRIATION
TOTAL 70,582.74
35,291.37
35,291.37
35,291.37 35,291.37
Item 5.8. Update on Education/Life Long Learning Strategic Planning Work Group (summarized
below).
It was noted in the staff's report (full report is on file in the Clerk's Office) that one of the Board's four
major goals in the County's Strategic Plan is to "Provide High Quality Educational Opportunities for
Albemarle Citizens of All Ages", a goal that was envisioned as a combination of School Board goals and
broad community goals centered around life-long learning for all ages.
To achieve the goal of high quality educational opportunities for Albemarle citizens, a strategic
planning group has been organized to work together over the next five months to develop goals, objectives
and strategies to support the overall Strategic Plan. This plan will provide a framework and an action plan
for the next three years and will identify measurements, outcomes and the resources required. The plan
will also address steps to implement new strategies and approaches. The team should complete its work
by January, 2004 and submit the recommended plan to the Board for its review and approval. Once
approved, the plan will become part of the overall strategic plan managed by General Government's
Leadership Council.
An external consultant, Lori Strumpf, will facilitate the process of developing the strategic action plan
with the work group. The first meeting of the work group has been scheduled for September 11,2003,
from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at Zehmer Hall at the University of Virginia. It is expected that the team will
meet at least six times between September and January, in a combination of full and half-day meetings.
This does not require any action from the Board, but is furnished as information only. If the work
group moves forward as scheduled, a recommended plan will be brought to the Board for review and
(Regular Day Meeting - September 3, 2003)
(Page 5)
approval in February or March.
(Discussion: Ms. Thomas said she did not see any literacy group listed as a part of this committee.
She thinks they should be part.)
This item was received as information.
Item 5.9. VDOT Monthly Report for September, 2003, was received as information.
Agenda Item No. 6a. Transportation Matters: Draft Statement of Priorities for Six-Year Primary Road
Improvement Plan Preallocation Hearing.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff gave the Board a copy of the County's improvement priorities adopted on
March 5, 2003. Usually the Preallocation Hearing occurs in the Spring, but this year VDOT accelerated the
process. Staff has some new language for the County's priorities. Priority emphasis is placed on Route 29
North and the study completed last year with Phase 2 of that study beginning this year. Also there are
improvements north of the River which staff feels are important now that there have been proffered
improvements associated with the Hollymead Town Center. Once the Board makes its final comments on
this list, staff can develop the final presentation for the CTB's regional meeting on October 7 in Culpeper.
Mr. Martin asked the rationale for stopping the VDOT improvements to Route 29 North at Hollymead
Drive. Even though there are now proffers in place, the original improvement went beyond Airport Road.
Mr. Cilimberg said the improvements proffered from Hollymead Drive north of Airport Road would
essentially be what VDOT was to do when they were to undertake the improvements which were removed
from the Six-Year Plan.
Mr. Martin said if VDOT had followed through with Phase 3, then the CDA's (Community
Development Authority) could have been used for parallel roads, or improvements to intersections such as
Route 20/Proffit Road, etc. He wonders what staff's thinking was in terms of those issues. Mr. Cilimberg
said there has been nothing funded for a couple of years for Route 29 North, north of the South Fork
Rivanna River. There are specific proffers for improvements which will be getting underway from south of
the new crossover and signal at Hollymead Town Center to Airport Road. Staff was trying to get money
back in the Six-Year Plan to fill the gap, money that was originally in the Plan for construction from the River
up to that point. If VDOT were willing to fund improvements all the way to Airport Road that would be
better, but he does not know what the status of those moneys which were proffered would be since the
proffers were very specific. Basically, those moneys would not be directed elsewhere.
Mr. Rooker said those improvements are not to be made with CDA money. They are specific
improvements the developers are doing as part of their project. He thinks Mr. Cilimberg is trying to match
up south of that point with what is being done in that area.
Mr. Martin said it may be that asking for a small amount of funding would be a better strategy. He
thinks the Board should be looking at where it can hold VDOT responsible for road improvements. Under
normal circumstances, ten years ago all would have thought Route 29 improvements would have been built
all the way to Airport Road by now.
Mr. Rooker said the County does have some proffers which will help build part of that improvement.
If any State money is forthcoming, maybe the southern part can also be built. If the northern part is built,
there will be a six-lane Route 29 with continuous turn lanes, and then suddenly the road would narrow. He
believes the State may think there is some importance to filling that gap.
Ms. Thomas said there are a couple of things she would like to see changed. For the Meadow Creek
Parkway, she suggested adding a sentence to say that "funding should be included from Pedestrian Bike
and Recreational Access Funds to enhance the park concept and the growth of the Parkway." VDOT just
recently announced that it is willing to put more money into pedestrian and bikeways than in the past. She
thinks it would be good to recognize that for the Meadow Creek Parkway and also for Crozet. The County's
Enhancement Grant request was denied last year, and there is not much money this year for such grants.
Mr. Perkins suggested that Item 2 on Page 5 be reworded to say: "Reconfigure intersection and
install traffic signals at the Route 22/231 and Route 250 intersection."
Motion was then offered by Mr. Rooker that the Board approve the "Virginia Department of
Transportation, October 7, 2003, Pre-allocation Meeting for the Interstate, Primary and Urban Systems, and
for Mass Transit, Statement, as attached to the staff's report for this meeting, with the changes mentioned
by Ms. Thomas and Mr. Perkins.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
(Regular Day Meeting - September 3, 2003)
(Page 6)
Agenda Item No. 6b. Transportation Matters: U.S. 29/Hydraulic Road - Hydraulic/U.S. 250
Intersection Study- Phase II Scope of Work.
Mr. Harrison Rue from the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission said City Council, last
night, accepted the Scope of Work for this project. The project was endorsed by VDOT leadership, so they
got $250,000 to go ahead with Phase II. Phase I met all the goals, and the recommended edits from any of
the technical team members became a part of the study. There were 28 people on that first team. These
members will remain, but membership of the team will be expanded. There is a project management
team. Mr. Mark Graham is part of that team, along with the City's Planning Director and Mr. Jim Bryan from
VDOT. They will be looking at solutions other than those presented previously. At the end of this study,
they are expected to present two buildable, feasible sets of alternatives. If they cannot do that within the
time frame all ready set, they will take longer to get to something that is technically feasible, or get the
required community consensus to build. They will be putting out an RFQ (not an RFP) for consultant
services.
Mr. Tucker asked if City Council accepted the report as presented. Mr. Rue said they suggested
some fine tuning of language, but accepted the scope of work as presented. All of those suggestions will
be presented to the MPO Policy Board next week. He said that if there are any grant funds left from this
study, they will use them to extend the study in the northern Route 29 area, and their contract with VDOT
and the contracts with consultants will be worded so that the same team could look into the whole Route 29
North corridor, or just specific intersections.
Mr. Rooker noted that Item 3 under "Economic Development Tasks" discusses assessing impacts on
local revenues, and how those revenues will be replaced. Also under Item 4 there is discussion of the
impact on retail sales. He said the 80+ page report that came from the initial study, and the conceptual
plans made of the various corridors indicate that over the long term there would be increased revenues.
This would be due to the increased opportunity for retail and office locations in the area. He would,
therefore, like to be certain that this study does not just look at short-term impacts during construction, but
at the long-term impacts on the community. It is also important to note that people do not buy less because
access in a particular area is more difficult. He finds it hard to accept the statement that retail sales will be
lost. People continue to buy, but have to go to another store location for a period of time.
Mr. Rooker said the various focus groups who looked at traffic flow in the area recommended
removing the stop light at Angus Road and Route 29. Now, a stop light is being constructed at the entrance
to BestBuy which is immediately off of the Route 250 ramp on Route 29, in addition to the Angus Road light
still being there. That should be considered in this study. He was dismayed to see this happening. In July,
at the MPO's meeting, he asked City Council members if there was a light going in at that location, and was
told there would be no light at that location. He asked the question because there seemed to be work going
on in the median. At the MPO's August meeting he brought up this same question and was told by Council
members that they knew nothing about it. Since then, he has heard from several sources that the City is
paying for the light, and that it was offered to BestBuy as an inducement to get them to locate there. The
study clearly recommended that there be no light at Angus Road, and no light at BestBuy. It has long been
the plan to add a lane to the Route 250 Bypass ramp at that point. He understands there was no
reservation of right-of-way for that ramp in the plans for BestBuy. He thinks it is important as this
transportation study proceeds that there be some integrity in the information. He said that the last study
was before the MPO on at least three different occasions, and at no time was it ever mentioned that
discussions were underway to locate a major retailer on that site. He discovered this by reading about it in
the newspaper when the study was only two weeks from being concluded. So, none of the input from the
original study included any information about the major potential retailer going on that site, much less that a
stop light would be installed at that location.
Mr. Rue said he shares Mr. Rooker's disappointment. He met with City staff members yesterday, and
they assured him they told BestBuy there will be other changes necessary based on the outcome of this
design exercise. In terms of the timing, BestBuy hopes to be open in November so they can get some
money from Christmas sales. It will be after the Technical Workshop and before they start to work on the
design. The team will be able to go out and observe the new intersection after BestBuy opens and do
some rough counts, etc. He thinks City staffwill be more actively involved with the team this time. The
City's Traffic Engineer will be a part of the team. Conversations with City property owners in the area call
for different changes to that area. Mr. Rue said he recommends that this study move forward, and he will
monitor the situation at that intersection.
Mr. Rooker said he is glad Mr. Rue has had a dialogue with City staff, but they seem to have ignored
the original study in making the decision to allow a stop light to go in at that location now. That does not
give him any confidence when Mr. Rue says that is on the table for discussion. It bothers him that there was
no sharing of information on the transportation plan for BestBuy either during the study or afterward.
Obviously there were commitments made early in the process to BestBuy that the City would pay for that
stoplight, not just that they would look at the potential for putting a light at that location.
Mr. Bowerman said it is difficult to work with an entity that is not up-front during the discussion phase
of a project, in this particular case, in that triangle. He is shocked. There is probably only 300 feet of
separation between the two stop lights. He asked why VDOT had nothing to say about it on a primary
highway.
Mr. Rooker said the MPO has asked VDOT to look into this issue. He does not believe it is a good
(Regular Day Meeting - September 3, 2003)
(Page 7)
decision from a transportation standpoint. They seem to be dismayed about it also. The CTB
representative for the area was very upset by this.
Mr. Bowerman said he understood that although the City has responsibility for secondary roads, it still
needs approval from VDOT to make changes, and he would think that is also true for primary highways.
Mr. Rue said the rules seem to be different for cities and counties in that respect. Speaking to the technical
merits, his team felt the light should not go in, but if it did, the light at Angus Road should be removed. He
thinks the team can look at other technical solutions. Typically the City wants to have negotiations with
developers privately. He said his team asked that they be allowed to work with the City and be a part of
those initial conversations. The City did not have much faith in the Phase I study, and staff does have faith
at this point.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there were any further comments from Board members.
Ms. Thomas moved that the Board approve the U.S. 29/Hydraulic, U.S. Route 250 Bypass
Intersections Study, Phase 2 Scope of Work, as presented to the Board this date. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 6c. Transportation Matters: Meadow Creek Parkway Alignment and Parkland.
Mr. Jack Kelsey, County Engineering Department, referred to maps posted on the Board Room wall.
He said the plan on the wall shows the most current alignment of the Meadow Creek Parkway that VDOT
has prepared. Through the process there was concern over discrepancies in the alignment VDOT was
preparing versus what Jones & Jones recommended. Staff worked with VDOT and they finally have an
alignment that matches the Jones & Jones study. The only point where there is a discrepancy is at
Melbourne Road. For some reason the Jones & Jones alignment did not match up with the City's portion of
the Parkway. There was about a 30-foot difference between the two plans. VDOT made sure their
alignment matched the City's portion. He said staff is satisfied with the alignment. They met with City
representatives and went over the plan.
Mr. Kelsey said there is a separated pedestrian/bike trail which starts at the intersection of the
Meadow Creek Parkway and its connection to existing Rio Road. The pathway is to cross Meadow Creek at
the bridge: they are thinking of either providing a separate pedestrian trail bridge, or actually hanging one
from the side of the bridge's superstructure, making it lower than the road. After crossing the Creek, the
trail would follow an old railroad bed, drop down a ridge line to the existing trail, and follow along Meadow
Creek eventually winding itself back up to the intersection at Melbourne Road. That alignment was shown
to City representatives who were pleased with it.
Mr. Kelsey said another issue which was discussed concerned the proposed public lands. He has
shown on the plan existing public right-of-ways, some of which are dedicated rights-of-way, and some are
just prescribed easements. Also shown is an area of proposed public lands and proposed public
easements so density of development can be maintained on some of the land. It is possible that through
rezonings, etc., the County can get some land dedicated as public land. He showed on the plan another
area of about one acre which could be potential public land. Half of it is residue left from the CATEC
property. The other half is private land at this time.
Mr. Kelsey said the plan shows about 40 acres of existing public land. The area in green is about 50
acres of proposed public land. The right-of-way itself is about eight acres of new right-of-way as compared
to eight acres of existing right-of-way.
Mr. Dorrier asked for comments.
Mr. Rooker asked if the date for the design hearing has been set. Mr. Tucker said "no." Mr. Rooker
said he thinks it is essential that a date be picked, and the County move toward that date. Mr. Kelsey said
VDOT staff in Culpeper wants the issue about the public land resolved before they begin the hearing
process.
Mr. Bowerman said the City owns a small portion of land on Melbourne Road which actually lies in
the County and there is no right-of-way to it now. He asked how that right-of-way can be obtained. Mr.
Tucker said VDOT can acquire that right-of-way once the final alignment is known. Mr. Kelsey said staff
has discussed it with city staff. One issue is a remnant of City property, and the idea is that they would
create that as a public land, or park for recreational use as part of their dedication. They are aware of the
idea that they will need to dedicate the right-of-way in the County portion of the Parkway. Mr. Tucker said it
is interesting to note the amount of land that this represents versus the amount of land being lost in Mclntire
Park. There is about 90 acres of proposed public land shown on the plan in green. Only nine or ten acres
is being lost in Mclntire Park.
Mr. Dorrier asked if staff needed the Board to take any action on this matter. Mr. Tucker said it was
presented today to let the Board see the final alignment of the Parkway, and the actual way lands are
proposed for use. Following up on Mr. Rooker's comments, the Board may want to adopt a resolution
requesting VDOT to move expeditiously forward with a design public hearing in the fall.
(Regular Day Meeting - September 3, 2003)
(Page 8)
Mr. Rooker immediately offered motion to adopt the following resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
None.
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
MEADOW CREEK PARKWAY
WHEREAS, the proposed corridor for the Meadow Creek Parkway consists of
approximately two miles in length, with the first segment being within the Charlottesville
City limits between Route 250 and Melbourne Road, and the second segment in
Albemarle County between Melbourne Road and Rio Road; and
WHEREAS, on June 20, 2001. the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
amended the Albemarle Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the "Meadow Creek
Parkway Final Report, dated May, 2001", as prepared by Jones & Jones Architects and
Landscape Architects; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has designed the alignment
of the second segment of the Meadow Creek Parkway to be consistent with the "Meadow
Creek Parkway Final Report, dated May, 2001" and provided a separate pedestrian/bike
trail alignment consistent with direction provided by the Albemarle County Department of
Engineering; and
WHEREAS, the alignments of the parkway and pedestrian/bike trail, and
recommendations for proposed public land and public easement were presented to the
Board of Supervisors on September 3, 2003;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Board of County Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia hereby endorses the alignments of the parkway and
pedestrian/bike trail, and the recommendations for proposed public land and public
easement, and does hereby adopt a Resolution of Intent to request the Virginia
Department of Transportation to expedite the Design Public Hearing for the Meadow
Creek Parkway (VDOT Project: 0631-002-128, C502) to be held as soon as possible
during the Fall 2003.
Mr. Martin asked how this project will connect to Phase 2.
Mr. Bowerman said he thought Phase 1 and 2 were more together. The plan shows an offset
between the two phases.
Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. Bowerman was referring to Phase 1 as all of the City's portion and the
County's portion. Mr. Bowerman said "yes," the entire part south of Rio Road.
Mr. Kelsey said the Free State Connector is shown in purple on this plan. That could potentially serve
as an area where the Meadow Creek Parkway could be extended. Yet to be decided is the how the
connector works its way up the developable tract.
Mr. Bowerman asked how the plan works from the terminus of Phase 1 of Meadow Creek Parkway to
the beginning of Phase 2. Mr. Kelsey said there has been some discussion about whether Meadow Creek
Parkway would provide the primary through movement, or whether Rio Road would be the through
movement and the MCP actually come in at a "T" intersection. The future of that connection has not been
determined.
Mr. Graham said that in Dunlora there has been some reservation of right-of-way to provide for the
possibility of a continuous road. That option is not being eliminated so there can be free flow movement in
the future.
Mr. Martin said as Free State Road is developed, he thinks there will be opportunities there for
developers. Now that there is more thought being given to CDA's and proffers, he thinks Phase 2 should
be approached with the idea in mind that the County could get some help in taking Phase 2 to Route 29, or
at least to the river.
Mr. Rooker said the MCP might have to be built in phases depending on how development proceeds
through that area.
Agenda Item No. 6d. Transportation Matters not listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Jim Bryan, Resident Engineer, said having to acquire more right-of-way for the MCP will certainly
increase the price of the project.
Ms. Thomas asked if he was referring to the parkland included in the project. Mr. Bryan said "yes."
(Regular Day Meeting - September 3, 2003)
(Page 9)
Mr. Martin asked how much condemnation VDOT will be required to do. Mr. Bryan said he has seen
figure of 35 acres which VDOT would buy. Mr. Martin asked if there will be any condemnation. Mr. Bryan
said he does not know at this time.
Ms. Thomas said there are possibilities for "naming rights" and a wonderful viewing spot which is at
the high point in the trail, and then the zig-zag down. If anyone would like to have the park named after
them, they might have a deal.
Mr. Bryan said he would like to add to the conversation Mr. Rue had about the study of Route 29.
VDOT generated a mission statement which is now the foundation and bones of the scope of work. He
said the final say on the project is up to the City Council and the Board of Supervisors. They would like both
bodies to adopt a resolution at the end of the study saying that the study is either supported or not
supported. There have been many studies of the Route 29 Corridor, but VDOT is looking for something
that is feasible, doable and ready to go into the Six-Year Plan.
Mr. Bryan said the storm has been keeping VDOT busy with debris and downed trees. He
appreciates the patience and courtesy of all.
Mr. Bryan said the two bridge projects on Route 250 East will be completed in the next two weeks.
Mr. Bryan said he had talked with Mr. Perkins about the Jarmans Gap Road project. VDOT expects
to hold a public information meeting in the fall.
Mr. Martin asked for an update on the concept of having two left-turn lanes coming off of Route 20
North turning east onto Route 250 East. Mr. Bryan said the curb has all ready been chopped back on the
island on 250. The left-turn lane is being extended, and once that work is completed, a change must be
made in the traffic light, and then the road restriped. He said this project was done in-house.
Mr. Rooker said he has received a number of requests from bicycle riders on Earlysville Road that
the road be widened.
Mr. Rooker said he has noticed that a lot of the sidewalks have grass growing out through the cracks.
He knows VDOT did some cutting of the grass, but he thinks there should be some chemical used to take
care of this problem because it is causing the sidewalks to crumble in places.
Ms. Thomas said she received a copy of a letter addressed to Mr. Mark Graham from a citizen who
lives on Whippoorwill Road. Originally, they were not happy when a centerline was placed on the road, and
they have taken a survey which showed that 83 percent of the residents on this road are not in favor of the
yellow line, and they have requested that the yellow line not be repainted.
Mr. Bowerman said with the development of the Hollymead Town Center and the road that goes to
Route 743 and 606, there will be more traffic on Route 743. That road really cannot handle more traffic
because it is fairly dangerous now. He thinks the County needs to begin looking at improvements to that
road as part of the parallel road system.
Mr. Rooker suggested looking at spot improvements along the road as a temporary measure for
safety improvements.
(Note: At this time, being ahead of schedule, and since staff was present, the Board went to Item
12.)
Agenda Item No. 12. Community Development Project Status Report.
Mr. Mark Graham, County Engineer, said quarterly updates have been provided to the Board over the
last two years on the status of Neighborhood Model implementation. The Community Development
Department believes the Board could be better served by expanding this update to include discussion of
other department-managed projects. The expanded update would provide information in an easily
understood form that provides perspective on the Department's work load. It is hoped this will allow the
Board to more easily advise the Community Development Department on the projects currently being
worked on and provide for a better understanding of project status.
Mr. Graham listed a few projects on which the staff is presently working. The revised Community
Facilities Plan will go the Planning Commission soon. The Volume II Zoning Ordinance amendments have
essentially been finished by staff. Hopefully, they will be in the process by fall with completion in December,
2003. Changes to "Critical Slopes" have been put on hold, and will remain so until the issue of Relegated
(Regular Day Meeting - September 3, 2003)
(Page 10)
Parking is finished. Mr. Cilimberg said there have been four work sessions with the Planning Commission
so far. The Commission wants the issue placed before the public now.
Mr. Graham said the second work session with the Commission on the Crozet Master Plan is next
week. Simultaneously, staff is working on an implementation plan for that Master Plan. There are many
recommendations as to a second master plan. Mr. Cilimberg said staff will be discussing that with the
Board at its meeting on October 1.
Mr. Rooker asked if that plan will be for the Pantops area. Mr. Cilimberg said "no", it has been
decided to focus on the northern, urban area in the next plan.
Mr. Graham said as to changes to Subdivision Street regulations, staff has an understanding with
VDOT which will allow the County to do a good portion of the recommendations for the Neighborhood
Model. They are also working with a subcommittee of VDOT representatives on changes to those
regulations.
Mr. Cilimberg said there is a national effort at this time toward overhauling the standards used by IT.
He participated in a meeting of professionals at the Urbanism Conference in Washington, D.C. to overhaul
the standards which apply to urban streets. There is a meeting in Nashville in November which he and Mr.
Graham would like to attend. Ultimately, what VDOT will do in the future is what comes out of IT.
Mr. Martin said DISC discussed whether or not to challenge VDOT and not change. After it was
decided to challenge them, it thought that nothing would ever happen, so it sounds good to him talking
about getting most of what the County wants in the way of changes.
Ms. Thomas said the different administration in Richmond has made a lot of changes. Mr. Graham
said there have been many changes at VDOT. The whole idea of bikeways and sidewalks being a regular
part of what VDOT maintains is new. He has had traffic engineers suggest the solution for intersections
may be roundabouts. That is an amazing change. As far as other things concerning streets,
water/sewer/fire protection, staff has worked through all of those issues. There is an agreement with the
Albemarle County Service Authority and VDOT as to the placement of water and sewer lines within
roadways. Affordable housing amendments recommended by the Housing Committee will probably be
heard at a public hearing of the Planning Commission in October. Work is still going on for parks and
recreation facilities. Staff is near to completion of a needs assessment.
Mr. Graham said the Board will be discussing the issue of groundwater later today. The Groundwater
Committee report has been finalized. The Rural Area Comprehensive Plan amendment is before the
Planning Commission next week. An ordinance change for Wireless Towers has been prepared by the
County Attorney's Office. The public review process will begin in December. Also there are amendments
recommended for signs. As to Strategic Planning initiatives, staff has finished an implementation strategy
for completed neighborhood master plans, and is working to see what resources are required for
implementation. The Rural Area Policies are being formulated with consideration of the Rural Area Plan.
Staff is still on schedule with the Water Resources Plan for December, 2004. For the long-term Solid
Waste strategy, a steering committee has been created and will begin work in the fall.
Mr. Graham said the Community Development Department reorganization is still on-going. There
should be process mapping and operating procedures completed by October. After that, they will decide
how to switch people to the new department which should be fully operational by July, 2004.
Mr. Bowerman asked the meaning of "sexually-oriented business" which is listed with the
Zoning/Subdivision text amendments. Mr. Cilimberg said the County Attorney's office suggested a couple
of years ago that this might be addressed due to the way the Zoning Ordinance is presently worded. The
Planning Commission adopted a resolution of intent to do so at that time. Mr. Davis said this is an issue that
Henrico County, Chesterfield County, and some other localities have struggled with recently when there
have been adult-oriented businesses locating in their localities. There are some zoning authorities which
can be exercised to regulate those types of industries, but Albemarle has nothing on the books at this time
to address that use.
Mr. Graham asked if the Board members would prefer to receive an update such as that attached to
the staff's report (on file), compared to previous updates. Assuming this type of update is preferred, the
Board should advise staff as to any changes they would like to see in the update and any changes to the
prioritization of projects.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks this is a step in the right direction.
(Note: At 10:25 a.m., the Board recessed. They reconvened at 10:32 a.m., without Mr. Bowerman
and Mr. Martin being present.)
Agenda Item No. 7. Board-to-Board Presentation, School Board Chairman.
Ms. Diantha McKeel, Chairman of the Albemarle County School Board, was present. Before the
presentation began, a video which was produced by Albemarle County students regarding Virginia's
repealed sterilization law, was shown. The video had been the recipient of an award.
(Regular Day Meeting - September 3, 2003)
(Page 11)
Ms. McKeel said the School Division hosted a community gathering at Western Albemarle High
School on August 19. It was an opportunity for the school community to celebrate its success and to kick
off the new school year. She said Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Thomas both attended.
Ms. McKeel said there was a successful opening day of school last week. There were 12,200
students in the schools. The enrollment figure will not be finalized until September 8. Building Services
worked hard to make improvements to the schools with major renovations taking place at Jack Jouett
Middle School. The Transportation Department made routing improvements, and there are a total of 275
bus routes, with 135 regular busses and a number of special education busses, traveling 10,000 miles each
day. This was done without any major problems or incidents. This year, for the first time, the bus drivers
called each family before the first day of school to let them know who was driving. Many principals said it
was a quiet, smooth opening day of school.
Ms. McKeel said there was one glitch on Friday at Walton Middle School. There was no electricity
due to storms, so the students were dismissed at noon that day.
Ms. McKeel said the National Association for Gifted Children names Dr. Castner "Administrator of the
Year" in light of his exemplary work and efforts in increasing the scope and quality of gifted programs at
every level in the School Division. Since he came to the Division in 1995, the gifted program has made
steady gains in increasing the number of children in the program. His vision has been an inclusive program
for Albemarle County students, as opposed to being an exclusive program. The gifted program in
Albemarle County is not just a program where five children in a classroom are pulled out for two hours and
then sent back to the regular classroom. The gifted program is intermingled into the curriculum in all
classrooms.
Dr. Castner said when the SOL's first began, everyone wondered what would happen to the most
able students. If there is a good program, it should help all levels. While there has been increasing
success with the SOL's, the number of students taking calculus has tripled. One out of every two students
graduating, is taking an AP course. At the same time as they are working with some of the lesser able
students, there are also more students taking the more rigorous courses, math and science. Whenever
there is increased focus on instruction, all students benefit. The community needs to know that. Increasing
the number of students involved with the gifted program created a need for additional staff. That became a
priority in the budget which the Supervisors supported.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this will help Albemarle County schools become recognized nationally. Dr.
Castner said "yes."
Mr. Martin said he applauds Dr. Castner's willingness to stand steadfast and show that this approach
is beneficial to everyone. When he was a member of the School Board there were many parents that were
in total opposition to that philosophy. To them, to increase the numbers in the gifted program, by definition,
meant that you did not have a gifted program.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this program will continue to improve in the future. Dr. Castner said there is still
not the diversity in the higher level classes that is present in the School System. He thinks that will keep
improving. When the top ten or twenty percent of the graduating class stands, it does not represent the
diversity in the system.
Ms. McKeel said that next month she will bring a list of the School Board's Priorities, and it will show
that they are addressing some of what has been mentioned. This is a wonderful award not only for Dr.
Castner, but also for the whole school system.
Ms. McKeel said the Virginia Association for the Gifted, Outstanding Teacher of the Gifted for Region
V, named Mr. Andy Johnson, teacher at Crozet Elementary School, the outstanding teacher for Region V.
His dedication and productivity in the field of education provides a model for excellence in curriculum and
instruction for the division and region.
Ms. McKeel said the School Board is scheduled to approve its revised 2002-04 School
Board/Superintendent priorities, at its meeting on September 11.
Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing: FY 2004 Budget Amendment. (Notice of this public hearing
was published in the Daily Progress on August 24, 2003.)
Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance, noted that 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. This proposed FY 2004 Budget amendment totals $16,731,593.18. The
estimated expenses and revenues included in the proposed amendment are shown below:
(Regular Day Meeting - September 3, 2003)
(Page 12)
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
General Government
Local Government Programs/Grants
Education Programs/Grants
Capital Improvement Program
800 MHz Radio System
Computer Aided Dispatch
TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES - All Funds
$ 7,654.00
$ 328,653.42
$ 422,781.30
$ 97,269.00
$15,603,307.65
$ 271,927.81
$16,731,593.18
ESTIMATED REVENUES
Local Revenues
State Revenues
Federal Revenues
Borrowed Funds
Fund Balances
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES - All Funds
$ 4,581,174.81
$ (29,866.00)
$ 334,785.08
$11,494,628.65
$ 350,870.64
$16,731,593.18
Mr. Breeden said this budget amendment is comprised of 14 separate appropriations. One was
approved by the Board at its August 6, 2003, meeting. This appropriation, totaling $2000.00, transferred
funds from the Contribution Fund to the Fire/Rescue Department. The 13 new appropriations are as
follows: two appropriations for Education-related donations, grants and programs total $422,781.30; one
appropriation for the U.S. Forestry Grant for Greenways totals $7654.00; one appropriation for the 800 MHz
Radio System is in the amount of $15,603,307.65; one appropriation for a grant to Offender Aid and
Restoration (OAR) is a reappropriation of funds totaling $271,927.81 for the CAD Project; three
reappropriations of grant revenues for the Police Department total $117,818.34; two appropriations for
Police Department grant funds in the amount of $196,502.08; and, one appropriation for Fire Dispatch in
the amount of $97,269.00.
Mr. Breeden said a detailed description of these appropriations was provided on Attachment A to the
staff's report (on file). After the public hearing, staff recommends approval of the FY 2004 Budget
amendment in the amount of $16,731,593.18, and then approval of Appropriations No. 2004-001, No.
2004-002, No. 2004-003, No. 2004-004, No. 2004-005, No. 2004-006, No. 2004-008, No. 2004-009, No.
2004-010, No. 2004-011, No. 20040-12, No. 2004-013, and No. 2004-014 to provide funds for various
General Government and School programs.
Mr. Bowerman said it appears that the County is paying a disproportionate share of the 800 MHz
radio system. He asked how the shares were determined. Mr. Breeden said the County is actually
financing the entire program, and the City and University will be reimbursing the County each year for their
share of the debt service. The total project is $15.0+ million.
Mr. Bowerman asked the difference between the $11.5 million being financed, and the $15.0+
million. Mr. Breeden said that is the amount the localities are contributing in cash toward the program, and
it is primarily for the individual radio units. The cost of the program is roughly 45 percent for the County,
about 15 percent for the University, and the other amount for the City.
Ms. Thomas said she is distressed that OAR and the Jefferson Area Community Corrections are
getting a decrease in funds. There is money coming in so the County will be prepared for terrorism, and at
the same time, OAR and the people who help keep people from being repeat offenders are receiving a
decrease in funds. She said the terrorism funds do not reflect her priorities. She asked if the funds have to
be used for those purposes.
Mr. Martin said many grants were received, and it looks like they can pick and choose how to spend
little pockets of money. He thinks it would have been nice for the County to have received "x" amount and
set its own priorities.
Mr. Tucker said staff applies for these grants because they are available. Some of the moneys would
be received even without applying. He said the Board has encouraged staff to apply for possible grant
funds. Some agencies have received less funding.
Mr. Martin said the boards who run the individual agencies will decide what the priorities are for that
year's pot of money. When there are grants which fit the localities priorities, those grants get funded
quicker. Next year the focus may be different.
Mr. Breeden said OAR is an on-going program, rather than being a grant program. The Board may
notice some of these things more since the implementation of GAS-B34 regulations. Staff included more
things in the original budget than it has in the past. In the past, some items did not receive appropriations
until the funds were actually received. For OAR, included in the original budget were estimates of
revenues. When the notice was received, the funds were actually less than estimated, and that is the
reason for the decrease.
At this point, 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 immediately offered by Mr. Rooker to approve the FY 2004 Budget amendment in the
(Regular Day Meeting - September 3, 2003)
(Page 13)
amount of $16,731,593.18, and to adopt Resolutions of Appropriation No. 2004-001, No. 2004-002, No.
2004-003, No. 2004-004, No. 2004-005, No. 2004-006, No. 2004-008, No. 2004-009, No. 2004-010, No.
2004-011, No. 2004-012, No. 2004-013 and No. 2004-014. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION #2004-001
APPROPRIATION DATE: 9/3/03
EXPLANATION: SCHOOL PROGRAMS AND GRANTS
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT
CREDIT
1 3002 63115 139320 P/T CAFE SP EVENTS J 1 100,000.00
1 3002 63115 210000 FICA J 1 7,650.00
1 3002 63115 600200 FOOD SUPPLIES J 1 60,000.00
1 3002 63115 800100 EQUIPMENT J 1 30,418.00
1 3204 61311 580500 STAFF DEV J 1 3,232.02
1 3206 61311 160300 STIPENDS J 1 10,500.00
1 3206 61311 210000 FICA J 1 803.25
1 3206 61311 580500 STAFF DEV J 1 5,485.59
2 3002 16000 161247 AIMRSUMMER FOOD SVC J 2 198,068.00
2 3204 51000 510100 G.E. ELFUN FUND J 2 3,232.02
2 3206 51000 510100 G.E. EXTRA CUR GRANT J 2 16,788.84
3002 0501 EST REVENUE J
0701 APPROPRIATION J
3204 0501 EST REVENUE J
0701 APPROPRIATION J
3206 0501 EST REVENUE J
0701 APPROPRIATION J
TOTAL 436,177.72
218,088.86
198,068.00
198,068.00
3,232.02
3,232.02
16,788.84
16,788.84
218,088.86
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION #2004-002
APPROPRIATION DATE: 9/3/03
EXPLANATION: U S FORESTRY GRANT FOR GREENWAYS
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT
CREDIT
1 1000 71018 800100 MACH & EQUIP J 1 7,654.00
2 1000 33000 330620 U S FORESTRY GRANT J 2 7,654.00
1000 0501 EST REVENUE J 7,654.00
0701 APPROPRIATION J 7,654.00
TOTAL 15,308.00 7,654.00 7,654.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION #2004-003
APPROPRIATION DATE: 9/3/03
EXPLANATION: 800 MHZ RADIO SYSTEM
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT
CREDIT
1 4110 31060 312700 CONSULTING J 1 436,800.00
1 4110 31060 800300 COMM EQUIPMENT J 1 148,565.00
1 4110 31060 800305 RADIO SYSTEM J 1 9,114,475.00
1 4110 31060 800308 SUBSCRIBER UNITS J 1 4,108,679.00
1 4110 31060 800625 UTILITIES J 1 26,000.00
1 4110 31060 800635 TOWER SITES J 1 65,000.00
1 4110 31060 999999 CONTINGENCY J 1 1,346,272.00
1 4110 31060 930300 REIMBURSEMENTS J 1 357,516.65
2 4110 16000 160502 CITY J2 1,240,560.00
2 4110 16000 160503 COUNTY J2 2,106,445.00
2 4110 16000 160512 UVA J 2 625,399.00
2 4110 16000 160534 AIRPORT J 2 136,275.00
2 4110 41000 410500 LOAN PROCEEDS J 2 11,494,628.65
4110 0501 EST REVENUE J
15,603,307.65
(Regular Day Meeting - September 3, 2003)
(Page 14)
4110 0701 APPROPRIATION J 15,603,307.65
1 9010 31000 800305 RADIO SYSTEM J 1 2,106,445.00
2 9010 51000 512027 TRANSFER FROM SURCH. J 2 1,435,173.72
2 9010 51000510100 ClPF/B J2 671,271.28
9010 0501 EST REVENUE J 2,106,445.00
9010 0701 APPROPRIATION J 2,106,445.00
1 4101 93010 930024 TRANSFER TO ClP J 11,435,173.72
2 4101 51000 510100 SURCHARGE F/B J 21,435,173.72
4101 0501 EST REVENUE J 1,435,173.72
4101 0701 APPROPRIATION J 1,435,173.72
TOTAL 38,289,852.74
19,144,926.37
19,144,926.37
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION #2004-004
APPROPRIATION DATE: 9/3/03
EXPLANATION: GRANT FUNDS FOR OAR PAPIS GRANT
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT
CREDIT
1 1520 29406566121 PAPISGRANT J 1 52,733.00
2 1520 33000 330409 PAPIS GRANT J 2 52,733.00
1520 0501 ESTIMATED REVENUE 52,733.00
0701 APPROP 52,733.00
TOTAL 105,466.00 52,733.00 52,733.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION #2004-005
APPROPRIATION DATE: 9/3/03
EXPLANATION: GRANT FUNDS FOR OAR COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS GRANT
ADJUSTMENT TO ORIGINAL BUDGET
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT
CREDIT
1 1520
1 1520
2 1520
1520
29406 566120 CC GRANT- OAR J 1
29406 562500 CC GRANT- TJ PLAN DIST J 1
24000 240440 DCJS J 2
0501 ESTIMATED REVENUE
0701 APPROP
TOTAL
(38,400.00)
(2,000.00)
(40,400.00)
40,400.00
40,400.00
(80,800.00) 40,400.00 40,400.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION #2004-006
APPROPRIATION DATE: 9/3/03
EXPLANATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF C.A.D. PROJECT
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT
CREDIT
1 4105 31061 800306 C.A.D. J 1 271,927.81
2 4105 16000 160502 CITY-47.92% J 1 130,307.81
2 4105 16000 160503 COUNTY-43.29% J 2 117,717.55
2 4105 16000 160512 UVA-8.79% J 2 23,902.45
4105 0501 ESTIMATED REVENUE
4105 0701 APPROP
TOTAL 543,855.62
271,927.81
271,927.81
271,927.81 271,927.81
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION #2004-008
APPROPRIATION DATE: 9/3/03
EXPLANATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF DEPT OF JUSTICE GRANT
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1536 51000 510100 FROM FUND BAL J 2 20,533.99
(Regular Day Meeting - September 3, 2003)
(Page 15)
2 1536 15000 150101 INTEREST J 2 100.00
1 1536 31013 120000 OVERTIME WAGES J 1 5,233.62
1 1536 31013 210000 FICA J 1 400.37
1 1536 31013 800100 EQUIPMENT J 1 15,000.00
1536 0501 ESTIMATED REVENUE
0701 APPROP
TOTAL 41,267.98
20,633.99
20,633.99
20,633.99 20,633.99
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION #2004-009
APPROPRIATION DATE: 9/3/03
EXPLANATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF FUND BALANCE FOR 2002 BLOCK GRANT 02-LB-BX-0895
(POLICE DEPARTMENT)
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1537 51000 510100 TRFS FROM FUND BAL J 2 36,982.43
2 1537 15000 150101 INTEREST J 2 400.00
1 1537 31013 120000 OVERTIME WAGES J 1 34,725.90
1 1537 31013 210000 FICA J 1 2,656.53
1537 0501 ESTIMATED REVENUE
0701 APPROP
TOTAL
74,764.86
37,382.43
37,382.43
37,382.43 37,382.43
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION #2004-010
APPROPRIATION DATE: 9/3/03
EXPLANATION: REAPPROPRIATION FOR ICAC GRANT
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1528 33000 330414 FEDERAL REV J 2 9,002.08
1 1528 31013 120000 OVERTIME WAGES J 1 1,375.59
1 1528 31013 21000 FICA J 1 105.14
1 1528 31013 550403 TRAINING J 1 3,572.87
1 1528 31013 580000 MISC EXPENSES J 1 567.30
1 1528 31013 600100 OFFICE SUPPLIES J 1 900.00
1 1528 31013 800100 MACHINERY&EQUIP J 1 2,481.18
1 1528 0501 ESTIMATED REV J
0701 APPROPRIATION J
TOTAL 18,004.16
9,002.08
9,002.08
9,002.08 9,002.08
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION #2004-011
APPROPRIATION DATE: 9/3/03
EXPLANATION: RADIO SYSTEM FOR FIRE DISPATCH
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 9010 32010 800309 RADIO-FIRE DISPATCH J 1 97,269.00
2 9010 51000 512028 TRS FROM E911 J 2 97,269.00
9010 0501 ESTIMATED REVENUE J 97,269.00
9010 0701 APPROPRIATION J 97,269.00
1 4101 93010 930025 TRSTO ClP J 1 97,269.00
2 4101 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE J 2 97,269.00
4101 0501 ESTIMATED REVENUE J 97,269.00
4101 0701 APPROPRIATION J 97,269.00
TOTAL 389,076.00 194,538.00 194,538.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION #2004-012
APPROPRIATION DATE: 9/3/03
EXPLANATION: FUNDING FOR EDUCATION PROGRAMS AND GRANTS
SUB LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT
GENERAL LEDGER
DEBIT CREDIT
1 3104 60207 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 1,000.00
1 3104 60211 312500 PROFSVCINST J 1 2,880.00
1 3139 60607 152100 SUB-WAGES TEACHER J 1 8,000.00
(Regular Day Meeting - September 3, 2003)
(Page 16)
1 3139 60607 160300 STIPENDS J 1 50,000.00
1 3139 60607 210000 FICA J 1 4,437.00
1 3139 60607 580100 DUES J 1 6,000.00
1 3139 60607 580500 STAFF DEV J 1 46,825.44
1 3302 61101 112100 SALARIES-TEACHER J 1 42,887.32
1 3302 61101 152100 SUB-WAGES TEACHER J 1 792.00
1 3302 61101 160300 STIPENDS J 1 9,111.00
1 3302 61101 210000 FICA J 1 4,056.68
1 3302 61101 221000 VRS J 1 4,071.00
1 3302 61101 231000 HEALTH INS J 1 4,608.00
1 3302 61101 232000 DENTALINS J 1 160.00
1 3302 61101 580500 STAFF DEV J 1 2,256.00
1 3302 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 17,608.00
2 3104 51000 510100 SAM'S CLUB AWARD J 2 1,000.00
2 3104 24000 240355 AIERES-STONY POINT J 2 2,880.00
2 3139 51000 510100 APPRO-FUND BALANCE J 2 115,262.44
2 3302 33000 330001 READING FIRSTGRANT J 2 85,550.00
3104 0501 EST REVENUE J
0701 APPROPRIATION J
3139 0501 EST REVENUE J
0701 APPROPRIATION J
3302 0501 EST REVENUE J
0701 APPROPRIATION J
TOTAL 409,384.88
204,692.44
3,880.00
3,880.00
115,262.44
115,262.44
85,550.00
85,550.00
204,692.44
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION #2004-013
APPROPRIATION DATE: 9/3/03
EXPLANATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF COPS MORE 2002 GRANT
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT
CREDIT
1 1541 31000 800700 EQUIPMENT J 1 187,500.00
2 1541 33000 300001 FED GRANT REV J 2 187,500.00
1541 0501 ESTIMATED REVENUE
0701 APPROP
TOTAL 375,000.00
187,500.00
187,500.00
187,500.00
187,500.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION #2004-014
APPROPRIATION DATE: 9/3/03
EXPLANATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF DEPT OF JUSTICE EQUIPMENT GRANT
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT
CREDIT
2 1528 51000510100 FROM FUNDBAL J 2 59,801.92
1 1528 31091 800100 EQUIPMENT J 1 28,012.28
1 1528 31092 800100 EQUIPMENT J 1 31,789.64
1528 0501 ESTIMATED REVENUE
0701 APPROP
TOTAL 119,603.84 59,801.92
59,801.92
59,801.92
59,801.92
Agenda Item No. 9. Appeal: ARB-2003-86. Dick's Pylon Sign. Loc on W side of Rt 29 at Rio Hill
Shopping Center. TM 45, P 94A0. Znd PD-Sc & EC. Rio Dist.
Ms. Margaret Maliszewski, Planner, summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office
with the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. She said the request is to replace a panel in the
existing pylon sign at Rio Hill Shopping Center with a new panel for Dick's Sporting Goods Store. The new
panel would look like the existing panels having red letters on an illuminated white background. The ARB
guidelines state that the background of internally illuminated cabinet signs must be opaque so the proposal
does not meet those guidelines. The ARB approved the sign refacing with the conditions that only the word
"DICK'S" be internally illuminated.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Davis what the Board can do on this appeal. Mr. Davis said it is a de novo
review by the Supervisors. The Supervisors have the ability to reverse, approve or modify the decision of
the ARB.
(Regular Day Meeting - September 3, 2003)
(Page 17)
Ms. Thomas said she has always supported the decisions of the ARB. In this case she was taken by
the applicant's proposal that this panel match the existing panels even though none of those panels meet
what the ARB would require if the sign were new. They agreed that if there is ever any other change to the
sign, then all the panels will be changed. If the ARB's requirements are followed in this case, with the other
panels looking as they do, it would defeat the idea of consistency in appearance. She said the Board could
allow the applicant to have the sign he requested, and forget the Entrance Corridor standards in general.
She does not think that would be the right thing to do. She was taken by the option of letting this panel go in
wrong, but matching the existing panels with the promise that when there is the next change, all the panels
will be changed over.
Mr. Rooker suggested the language "The property manager will proffer the blacking out of the entire
sign when there is a two store change, or when the next store comes along."
Ms. Thomas said she did not know how the Board could require that legally, but if no other Board
member likes that idea, there is no reason to discuss it further.
Mr. Martin said the way it is being required, the sign will actually look like something is broken.
Mr. Davis said a condition could be added to this approval that at such time as another sign is
replaced on this structure, it would have to conform to ARB guidelines. It would be binding on Dick's sign,
and not the other signs, but he thinks it would have the same result. If the intent is to bring the entire sign
into a consistent appearance, there would be incentive for them to do it at that time.
Mr. Bowerman said that request could have been made on this application, and they all could have
been changed.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board had not heard from the applicant.
Mr. Chuck Lebo said his firm manages the Rio Hill Shopping Center and performs the leasing
activities there. He showed a picture of how the sign would look if the background for Dick's Sporting
Goods was blacked out. He thinks it would look like an eyesore. They did not realize this was going to
happen and did not have enough time to go to the other stores to see if they were agreeable to blacking out
their signs. He has to get their approval, and it will take some time. Dick's Sporting Goods wants to open
next month.
Ms. Thomas said she understands that if Dick's Sign goes in and matches the others at this time, that
when there is any change to this sign, that the entire sign will be changed. Mr. Lebo said that is correct.
Mr. Bowerman then offered motion that the Board of Supervisors modify the ARB's decision on
Dick's to allow the panel to have internal illumination, with the other proviso that the applicant is making the
statement that the next time this comes in for one of the other stores having to change, at that time, he will
make them all consistent with ARB guidelines, which is to have an opaque background.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 10. Appeal: ARB-2003-114. Seminole Plaza Landscape Changes. Loc on E side
of Rt 29 N, N of Hilton Heights Rd intersect, adj to & N of Dan's Auto Mart. TM 45B1, Sec 5, Block C, P
14A. Znd EC & HC. Rio Dist.
Ms. Margaret Maliszewski, Planner, 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. She said the site plan for the Plaza
was approved by the ARB in June, 2001. The current request regarding the dogwood trees was reviewed
by the ARB on August 4, 2003. The request is to keep an existing dogwood tree planted in the parking
island at the southwest corner of the building. The tree is considered an interior parking lot tree, and ARB
guidelines call for two and one-half inch caliper trees for interior parking lots. The site plan was approved
with a landscape schedule which identified the dogwood trees at two and one-half caliper, seven feet in
height. Those measurements do not correspond. The accurate height for a two and one-half inch caliper
shade tree is actually twelve to fourteen feet in height. That discrepancy should not have been approved.
When the inspectors go to the site, they look at the height of the tree. Based on the eighteen-inch
difference, the ARB action was to require replacement of that tree with a standard sized tree.
Mr. Rooker asked if the ARB required that a certain species of tree be planted. Ms. Maliszewski said
"no", the applicant chose this tree.
Ms. Thomas said the ARB is not requiring that the tree be replaced with another dogwood tree and
that sounds reasonable to her.
Mr. Martin said he sympathizes with the applicant. The existing tree seems to be growing.
Mr. Rooker said the ARB's standards are no good unless enforced in most cases.
(Regular Day Meeting - September 3, 2003)
(Page 18)
Mr. Dorrier asked if there were anyone present to represent the applicant. Mr. Tucker said he just
discovered that staff had failed to notify the applicant of this hearing date, so the Board may wish to defer
any action on this request today.
Mr. Davis suggested that the Board defer a final decision today, and put this matter on the Consent
Agenda at the next meeting.
Mr. Rooker offered motion to defer this appeal to the Consent Agenda of September 10, 2003. If the
applicant wishes to appear, it could be pulled and put on the October 1 agenda for another discussion. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 11. Tax Relief for the Elderly and Disabled, Discussion of.
Ms. Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive, said that during budget work sessions, Board
members expressed an interest in pursuing higher eligibility limits for the Tax Relief for the Elderly and
Disabled program. At this time, State Code. 58.1-3210 to 58.1-3218 authorize localities to provide real
estate and mobile home exemptions for qualifying taxpayers if the person claiming the exemption is either
65 years of age or older; had been medically diagnosed as permanently and totally disabled; occupies the
dwelling as the person's sole dwelling; and the total combined income of the household members is
$50,000 or less and the total combined net worth (excluding the house and one acre of land) must be
$100,000 or less.
Ms. White said at this time, the County provides tax relief under reduced financial eligibility
requirements: the total combined income of the household must be $25,000 or less and the total combined
net worth (excluding the house and one acre of land) must be $80,000 or less. There is a graduated scale
for relief (set out in the staff's report which is on file).
Ms. White said staff has provided four options for the Board's review: Option 1 would provide 100
percent relief using the current $25,000 combined income and $80,000 net worth requirements. Option 2
would increase eligibility requirements ($30,000 combined income and $100,000 net worth) which is the
average limit offered by other Virginia localities whose net income and net worth requirements are equal to
or greater than the County's. Option 3 would increase eligibility requirements to $40,000 combined income
to meet the recommended Affordable Housing Policy income limits which are set at 80 percent of the
median income for the County's metropolitan statistical area as annually published by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development. The median income for a family of two is $50,875 and 80 percent is
approximately $40,700. The net worth requirement is based on the State maximum of $100,000. Option 4
would increase the eligibility requirements to the state maximums of $50,000 in combined income and
$100,000 in net worth.
Ms. White said Page 4 of the staff's report has charts showing the cost of each option. She said in
determining the cost of the program, staff had used the following assumptions: 1) There would be the
same participation rate. Of all the people estimated by Census data to be eligible, only 17.6 percent
participate in the program now. 2) When doing the 2005 tax year estimates, staff suggests they will reflect
a 12 percent increase in reassessment values. 3) Staff also projected this based on combined income, and
it is hard to figure what the participation rate would be with the new net assets figure.
Ms. White said she does not recommend Option 4 for several reasons: 1) The cost of the program
could be very high; and, 2) it would provide a maximum benefit to a small segment of the population when
almost 50 percent of Albemarle County households could qualify for this same tax relief benefit. If the
Board wishes to increase the income guidelines, staff recommends that they be raised only slightly and let
staff monitor the fiscal impact of that change. If further upward adjustments seem warranted, the limits
could be raised again at a later time.
Ms. White said when this was discussed previously, Ms. Thomas had a question about rental of the
property. She said the County Code does deny tax relief if anyone other than the owner, or an owner's
relative, lives in the property. The Code says the dwelling must be occupied as "the sole dwelling" of the
owner. That has been interpreted to mean that the applicant is the sole occupant of that dwelling.
Ms. Thomas said where the word "sole" appears in the sentence is important. If staff interprets the
"qualified applicant" to be the sole dweller in the unit, that is not how she reads the sentence in the Code. It
simply says that the real estate is the "sole dwelling" of the qualified applicant. That means that person
cannot have a home someplace else.
Ms. White said there are other localities, including the City, which interpret the sentence another way.
They do allow someone to be in the household if they are not related.
Mr. Davis said there are two issues. The way the ordinance is being applied is not a matter of
interpretation. The County's ordinance specifically says there can be no one other than a relative living in
the household. That stipulation has been in the ordinance since the beginning of the program, and it is
perfectly legal to have that kind of restriction. The State Code has parameters on how these programs
must operate. State Code language requires that the dwelling must be the sole dwelling of the owner.
That sentence in the Code is not an exclusion for those counties who may not want to have that
(Regular Day Meeting - September 3, 2003)
(Page 19)
requirement. However, other parts of the Code seem to indicate the intent that leads him to believe it was
not envisioned that non-relatives would live in the household. For example, the Code provides that if
someone has to temporarily leave their residence, and if they rent the home while they are in a nursing
home or a health care facility, they are disqualified from the program. Also, if relatives pay rent, the
relative's income has to be counted, but if it were a non-relative, the income would not have to be counted.
That creates an inconsistent process. From an administrative standpoint, it raises significant enforcement
issues in determining who is a relative and who is not a relative.
Ms. Thomas said she can argue against every point Mr. Davis just made. She thinks that if the Board
had asked him to find a way to do this, it would have gotten difference advice today. The word "sole", if it
appears in the State Code the way it appears in the Board's agenda notes today, would be an
ungrammatical use of the sentence. That sentence would then say the owner has to be the only person
living in the dwelling. It clearly says it must be the "sole dwelling" which means you can't have another
dwelling. If the State Code was trying to give an indication of intent, it was not clearly stated. Losing the
program because one goes into a nursing home is a separate issue. Living in the home and getting some
income, and even though the income level falls below what the County has set, still losing the program, is
another issue. The income of relatives is counted, although the income of non-relatives is not counted. If a
room were rented, and that income had to be taken into account, that is an easy distinction to make. She
said there are more and more elderly people avoiding going into a nursing home by having someone live
with them in their house. That person usually pays rent, and helps keep that person independent and in
their own house. She thinks the program would be more fair if rental income were included as an income
category and did not exclude that person from the program.
Mr. Bowerman said the real estate tax is very regressive insofar as it is applied. The State only gives
one class of people where an exemption can be made, and that is for the elderly. He thinks this program is
an attempt to make that tax a little more equitable.
Mr. Dorrier said this is an important issue, but he does not think the Board is ready to make any
decision today.
Mr. Rooker said what Ms. Thomas has suggested in the way of making wording changes in addition
to the number changes makes sense to him. He would like to see an ordinance change drafted along the
lines which have been discussed. He said there are anecdotal cases at every income level where people
could qualify for tax relief. He is in favor of adjusting the level at which people qualify. The Board can't
ignore the equity issue that every person who is 66 is not necessarily more entitled to tax relief than every
person who is 40 making the same income.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Board should consider this again during budget work sessions. Ms. White
said if a new ordinance is to be implemented, it has to go through the public hearing process first. Mr.
Breeden said from a tax standpoint changes need to be effective on January 1 of the year.
Ms. White said this report was presented to get input from the Board as to what changes it might want
to make. Staff can bring back a proposal based on the Board's input. The staff needs to know the Board's
feelings about a rental option.
Ms. Thomas said if this ordinance were amended as of January 1,2004, that would affect the FY
2003-04 budget which has all ready been adopted. That is why she thought the Board would talk about this
more during work sessions on the next year's budget, with the ordinance taking place the following year.
Mr. Rooker asked if there were a change in the program, when would notice have to go out to
taxpayers so they could apply. Mr. Davis said they can apply in April of the tax year unless they are first
time applicants.
Mr. Breeden said he would give the Board one caution. If the net worth limitation is raised from
$80,000 to $100,000, staff has no data on which to estimate how many additional people would take
advantage of this program. He noted that this $80,000+ figure does not include the house or one acre of
land. This figure would be for "other assets."
Ms. Thomas said she is interested in the issue of whether renter's income should count in a person's
income. She would like the Board to go ahead with rewording of that language. Mr. Breeden said he thinks
that could be interpreted either way, but from an administrative standpoint, it will leave a lot of openings in
the ordinance. There could be someone with $100,000 in income living in a home with an elderly person,
and the County would be providing a tax exemption on the piece of property where that person lives.
Mr. Davis said the ordinance clearly says (and it is not mandated by State law), that "dwellings shall
not be occupied by persons who are not relatives of the persons claiming the exemption, regardless of
whether such persons pay rent."
Ms. Thomas said she thinks there should be a change in the ordinance. Mr. Davis said there are two
questions. Does the Board want people who are not relatives living there regardless of whether they are
paying rent? Does the Board only want non-relatives living there if they are paying rent? Mr. Breeden said
some localities get into prorating the exemption farther. They take the square footage of rental space and
then do not provide an exemption on that portion of the property. There are many different options being
used by localities.
Ms. Thomas said she is in favor of rental being possible, and that the rental income count as income.
(Regular Day Meeting - September 3, 2003)
(Page 20)
Ms. White said any decision on this question will be deferred until budget work sessions with the idea
that any change would go into effect in January, 2005.
Mr. Rooker said if the ordinance were changed today, how would that affect the administration of the
program. Mr. Davis said it would allow some people prior to April, 2004 to apply who had non-relatives
living in their homes, regardless of whether they were paying rent. Mr. Rooker said he is in favor of making
an ordinance change this year. That way, people could apply next year under the new ordinance. That
would give the Board some information about usage of the ordinance, before the net worth figure is
changed.
Mr. Davis asked if the Board wanted to eliminate only the requirement that non-relatives cannot live in
the house. Or, is it to change the requirement that non-relatives can live in the house if they pay rent.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks Ms. Thomas was indicating that non-relatives can live in the house, but
anyone paying rent contributes to the income of the person owning the house.
Mr. Davis asked if just the amount of the rent would be counted, and not that person's net income.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks that is correct. Mr. Davis asked if the Board cares whether the non-relative is
paying rent. Ms. White said there may be benefits to having someone live in the house and they don't pay
rent, but are there as a caretaker.
Ms. Thomas said it does not matter to her if they pay rent or not. Mr. Breeden said that if someone
pays rent, it would then count as income of the owner. Mr. Davis said staff can draft such a change. Mr.
Tucker said he wanted to be sure the Board wants to finalize this change before the end of 2003. He
suggested the Board adopt a resolution of intent to amend the County Code to provide for rental as
discussed today.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Rooker, to direct staff to prepare an ordinance to
amend the County Code as discussed.
Roll was called on the foregoing motion which carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Groundwater Committee's Recommendations and Resolution of Intent to
Amend the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances, Work Session.
Mr. David Hirschman, Water Resources Manager, was present to make the report. He said that Mr.
Mike Malloy and Mr. Andrew Carter from ENSAT Corporation, the consultants, are present also. He said
the Board authorized the Groundwater Committee in May, 2000, but the idea of conducting some type of
groundwater assessment prior to development goes back further. It started with the Groundwater
Protection Plan in 1990, the Hardware Watershed Study made the recommendation in 1994, Chapter 2 of
the Comprehensive Plan in 1999 gave it more specificity, and the Committee was authorized in 2000. The
Groundwater Committee issued its report, "Underground Albemarle" in October, 2001. Since that time
there have been three work sessions with the Planning Commission, and three with the Supervisors. Phase
I and Phase II of the authorized County groundwater studies have been completed. He said there was an
excellent committee composed of trusted professionals in engineering, hydro geology, geology, and water
resources; people from State agencies, retired people, etc. They all volunteered their time, so the County
was fortunate to have that effort go into this report. He then introduced Mr. Malloy to discuss the Phase II,
County wide Groundwater Study, which includes availability and sensitivity mapping for the entire County.
Mr. Malloy said for the Phase 2 project, the scope of work included developing a county wide
groundwater availability study and a county wide groundwater sensitivity study. They also prepared a
County Groundwater Assessment Standards Manual. He said as to the availability assessment, the first
step to determining relative groundwater availability required them to develop an availability model. They
relied heavily on the work performed during the Phase 1 project on the Mechum Rivedlvy Creek watershed.
They developed the model based on three variables, those being: background fracturing, thickness of
overburden, and saprolite permeability. They were able to use data from the Albemarle County Well Data
Base. To substitute for background fracturing values, they utilized reported well yields. For thickness of
overburden, they substituted in well casing length values. For saprolite permeability, they actually did in-situ
tests across the County. Once the model was developed, they looked at the County and delineated hydro
geologic units that had unique characteristics. They looked at available soils mapping, geologic mapping,
topographic mapping and performed saprolite permeability tests. He referred to a map which showed nine
hydro geologic units which were delineated during the project. The base map for this figure is actually the
soil survey digital information for Albemarle County. As most of Albemarle County has residual soils, it
maintains characteristics of the parent bedrock material so the residual soils help to delineate underlying
bedrock features.
Mr. Rooker asked if the nine delineations in the map are based on the three factors just mentioned by
Mr. Malloy.
Mr. Malloy said they are not. The map displayed with the nine hydro geologic units are units which
are unique. They have their own characteristics of parent bedrock material and topographic positions.
(Regular Day Meeting - September 3, 2003)
(Page 21)
They utilized their developed model on data from each of those hydro geologic units. So, data gathered
from each of the individual units was utilized to determine relative availability for those particular units.
Mr. Rooker asked how the three factors mentioned enter into this. Mr. Malloy said the actual model
includes the three variables. They used the Albemarle County data base (4900 points were geo-
referenced). They were able to look at geo-referenced well locations within the delineated hydro geologic
units. They were able to look at the average well yield, which was representative of background fracturing.
They were also able to look at the average case length numbers within the units, and plug those into the
model equation. Also, there were the permeability values.
Mr. Martin asked if the casing length is basically the depth of the well. Mr. Malloy said it is the depth
of the steel or PVC casing. It can be assumed to extend through the overburden material from surface
down to hard rock. That gives a good idea of how thick the spherulite is. They used that information
through all of the nine units, which were named, and then each was given a total score which is the number
generated from the model equation based on the data from the three variables. The total score was
broken down into three equal intervals and then came up with a classification scheme of one, two and
three; three being the more favorable.
Mr. Malloy referred to the map showing the nine hydro geologic units along with their determined
availability rating. There is another map which utilizes the U.S.G.S. topographic base map for ease of
location, including contour intervals and streams.
Mr. Malloy next mentioned the sensitivity assessment portion of the project. He said for this portion of
the project they looked at two things, potential contaminant threats, and areas of source value, particularly
public water supply sources. To identify potential contaminant sources, they looked at leaking underground
storage tanks and above ground storage tank site, particularly petroleum releases as identified by the DEQ.
They obtained geo-reference locations and locations for landfills, and Superfund contaminated sites. The
potential contaminated sites were assigned fixed radius buffers. They looked at all public water supply
sources as identified by the Virginia Health Department in Albemarle County. For community and central
wells, they located them with geo-reference points, and assigned a fixed buffer. For reservoirs and surface
water intakes, they also assigned a fixed buffer.
Mr. Rooker asked if it is less favorable to have a well near a public water supply. Mr. Malloy said he
can better answer that question later. The map he is referring to now shows what they deem to be sensitive
areas in Albemarle County. They are sensitive because they are areas which are potential contaminant
threats.
Mr. Rooker said his question is: Why would a public water supply area be considered sensitive from
a standpoint of digging wells near it? Mr. Hirschman said that can be addressed in the next part of the
presentation.
Mr. Malloy said one must keep in mind the potential for offsite impact for a new well use. He said the
map culminates in a recognized sensitive area. Next, they will speak about the Groundwater Assessment
Standards Manual.
Mr. Hirschman said the information contained in the Board's packet today was from the Groundwater
Committee, along with work from ENSAT who looked at programs around the country. He then showed
some slides which gave some answers to the question "why are we doing this program?" He said there are
five things shown: 1) Develop designs, plans & monitoring to promote the long-term sustainability; 2) Avoid
public waterline extensions in the Rural Areas; 3) Provide information to make better decisions at various
scales; 4) Reasonable level of diligence to understand groundwater prior to development; and, 5) County
responsibilities for data management, monitoring, and program development. He knows that the Board, in
overseeing the jurisdictional areas for public water, has a concern about where areas extend into the Rural
Area. That is an important reason for rural development to should stay reliant on groundwater instead of
looking to other sources.
Mr. Martin asked if Mr. Hirschman says this because that is the Board's policy, or because it is
advantageous for groundwater management. Mr. Hirschman said that will be discussed when they get to
discussion of the standards. He mentioned a situation in Red Hill where there are contaminated wells, and
said that even if the waterline could be extended, it would take more than seven miles of waterline for 12
houses. In the rural areas it is a feasibility issue, even if there were no policy.
Mr. Martin said he does not think the report should have contained the outcomes the Board wants. It
should have stated just straight facts and listed the best way of achieving the wanted results.
Ms. Thomas said all five of those bullets are policy decisions. She thinks it is just good government to
understand the County's groundwater prior to development. She said the second bullet is no different than
the other four of those bullets, which may not be the point Mr. Martin was making. He may have been
saying all five of those bullets should be wiped out, and a scientific report given.
Mr. Hirschman said the intent of the map shown by Mr. Malloy was not for macro-scale planning of
where to put community wells. When a rural subdivision comes in for approval, that is on a specific site.
They are trying to put that in the context of what kind of additional information is needed so that subdivision
can go forward with confidence.
Mr. Martin said he read the report, and understands what has been proposed. He asked that his
(Regular Day Meeting - September 3, 2003)
(Page 22)
question be ignored at this time.
Mr. Hirschman said the assessment standards are based on a tiered approach. Whether it is a new
subdivision, just a new structure requiring a building permit, the size and number of lots, residential versus
commercial, whether it is a site plan or a subdivision plat, and whether it is in an identified sensitivity area
because of a contaminant threat or a source value. He showed to the board a chart laying out whether it
would be a Tier 1 through a Tier 4 based on the type of activity proposed.
Mr. Hirschman said he would answer Mr. Rooker's question about why being close to a water intake
is important to identify in terms of saying that is a sensitive area. If a new development takes place, it
represents new demand on groundwater but also represents new drainfields being constructed. The
sensitivity areas where these things might take place, have been identified.
Mr. Rooker asked if it is sensitive due to the drainfields and other development activities, and not from
the existence of wells. Mr. Hirschman said the well represents additional water coming out of the ground so
there could be conflict of demand. For instance, when they looked at Walnut Hills in Earlysville, a lot of
people in the area asked how it could be guaranteed that the 70 new wells would not dry up their wells. He
said Tier 1 requires that a well be drilled prior to any building permit being issued. Tier 2 is for small
subdivision plats,, up to four lots. They did not want to put a burden on the person submitting the
subdivision plat, but thought the requirement could be satisfied by a County staff review using the yet to be
filled groundwater position. Tier 3 is for subdivisions of four or more lots and some commercial types of
uses. This requires a groundwater management plan which is similar to the existing stormwater
management plan.
Mr. Perkins asked who would do the groundwater management plans. Mr. Hirschman said it would
probably have to be done by a consultant, so the applicant would be responsible. Tier 4 gets into the bigger
projects, things like a golf course which would use significant amounts of water, or a large subdivision, or a
project in one of the sensitive areas. The applicant would do a groundwater management plan, plus
aquifer testing, which is drilling test wells and pumping them to try and understand how the groundwater
works in the area. A significant part of the Groundwater Management Plan in both Tier 3 and Tier 4 is that
the concept of a contingency plan was included, plus backup areas for wells when the primary well fails.
That has been done with drainfields. When a drainfleld fails there are lots of technologies to use to
rehabilitate it, relocate it, or make it smaller. But, for a well that fails, there has been no thought given to the
idea of a reserve well area, etc.
Mr. Hirschmann said the Groundwater Assessment Standards are the technical guidance. These are
not proposed to be in an ordinance, but only a chapter in the Design Standards Manual. They hope the
ordinance will be more concise and generally non-technical. He offered to answer questions.
Ms. Thomas said she had been asked by a constituent, why is the County interested in groundwater?
Everyone who lives in the rural area also has a septic tank, so all the water they take out is returned to the
ground. Mr. Hirschman said drainfields do return water to the ground, but generally water is taken from
deep out of the earth, and it is returned to the shallow ground. It can be two disconnected systems. The
amount of water from a drainfield which actually makes it down to the deep groundwater and recharges the
water supply is variable. Some of that water gets sucked up by vegetation immediately. Some of it runs
near the surface to the nearest spring or stream, and some fraction of it actually seeps down deep. It is a
very complicated question.
Mr. Perkins asked the current Health Department standards on the use of cisterns and gray water.
Mr. Hirschman said he has been told by the Health Department that they will look at that question on a
case-by-case basis. They want to be sure that water is not mixed in with a household's potable water
supply if there is inadequate treatment.
Mr. Perkins said there are parts of the world which live on cistern water. Mr. Hirschman said if there
are many years like last year, the idea will become more popular. The new Brown Auto dealer on Route 29
is collecting a large part of their runoff from the roof to wash cars.
Mr. Perkins said he has heard it said that gray water can be used for watering lawns and shrubs, etc.
He said the Board is being asked to look at an ordinance which sets out what someone will have to do
before they can get a building permit, but he wonders if the County can deny someone a building permit if
there are ways they can provide themselves with water.
Mr. Davis said the Building Code requires that there be an "approved water source." The County can
define that term.
Mr. Perkins asked what can be approved and what cannot be approved. Mr. Davis said that currently
the County would not allow a cistern to be a potable water source for a house.
Mr. Rooker asked if that is a Health Department standard which is applied throughout Virginia. Mr.
Davis said there are Health Department standards which are applicable.
Mr. Dorrier asked what action staff needed from the Board today.
Mr. Hirschman said in order to adopt the program, an ordinance must be drafted. A resolution of
intent to amend both the Subdivision Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance is needed to start work on that
ordinance.
(Regular Day Meeting - September 3, 2003)
(Page 23)
Mr. Davis said the ordinance would codify the tiered approaches to this program.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the Board should move forward. He then offered motion to adopt the
following resolutions of intent. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
None.
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, recognizing a critical need to protect groundwater, Chapter 2 of the
Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan recommends a series of strategies to protect
groundwater, including but not limited to collecting data at the watershed level;
conducting well-testing at the site level in order to determine water quality and quantity
and using this information to, among other things, collect site-specific groundwater data
and to determine the most appropriate site design; and to adopt regulations to ensure
adequate groundwater quality and quantity; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle has conducted a series of watershed-level
hydro geologic studies in order to characterize groundwater availability and vulnerability in
different parts of the County, and the Albemarle County Groundwater Committee has
studied site-level groundwater assessments, conducted a pilot groundwater assessment
program, and developed recommended technical guidance for conducting site-specific
groundwater assessments; and
WHEREAS, it is desired to amend Chapter 14, Subdivision of Land, of the
Albemarle County Code to establish a regulatory program implementing the
Comprehensive Plan and the studies described above that will include, but not be limited
to, requiring site-specific groundwater assessments for new development that will identify
existing water quantity and quality, requiring the submittal of groundwater management
plans for certain projects showing that a site's groundwater conditions have been
considered in the subdivision design, establishing or identifying by reference best
management practices and testing criteria for individual wells and central water systems,
establishing fees to offset the cost of program implementation, and making satisfactory
compliance with the applicable requirements of the program a condition of preliminary
plat approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity,
convenience, general welfare and the orderly subdivision of land and its development,
the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of intent to
amend the Subdivision Ordinance to achieve the purposes described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission will hold a public
hearing on the subdivision text amendment proposed pursuant to this resolution of intent,
and make its recommendation to the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date.
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, recognizing a critical need to protect groundwater, Chapter 2 of the
Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan recommends a series of strategies to protect
groundwater, including but not limited to collecting data at the watershed level;
conducting well-testing at the site level in order to determine water quality and quantity
and using this information to, among other things, collect site-specific groundwater data
and to determine the most appropriate site design; and to adopt regulations to ensure
adequate groundwater quality and quantity;
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle has conducted a series of watershed-level
hydro geologic studies in order to characterize groundwater availability and vulnerability in
different parts of the County, and the Albemarle County Groundwater Committee has
studied site-level groundwater assessments, conducted a pilot groundwater assessment
program, and developed recommended technical guidance for conducting site-specific
groundwater assessments; and
WHEREAS, it is desired to amend Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County
Code to establish a regulatory program implementing the Comprehensive Plan and the
studies described above that will include, but not be limited to, requiring site-specific
groundwater assessments for new development that will identify existing water quantity
and quality, requiring the submittal of groundwater management plans for certain
projects showing that a site's groundwater conditions have been considered in the site
design, establishing or identifying by reference best management practices and testing
criteria for individual wells and central water systems, establishing fees to offset the cost
of program implementation, and making satisfactory compliance with the applicable
requirements of the program a condition of building permit approval or preliminary site
plan approval, as applicable.
(Regular Day Meeting - September 3, 2003)
(Page 24)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity,
convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance to
achieve the purposes described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission will hold a public
hearing on the zoning text amendment proposed pursuant to this resolution of intent, and
make its recommendation to the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date.
Agenda Item No. 14. Closed Session: Personnel Matters.
At 12:45 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Board go into Closed Session pursuant
to Section 2.2-3711 (A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards,
committees and commissions. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 15. Certify Closed Session. The Board reconvened into open session at 2:00 p.m.
in Room 235.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman 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 Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 17. Joint meeting with the Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors.
Albemarle County Service Authority Board Members Present: Mr. William Bolton, Mr. Robert
Humphries, Mr. Robert Larsen, Mr. Hollis Lumpkin, Mr. John Parker, and Mr. Donald Wagner.
Also present was Mr. J. W. Brent, Executive Director.
All Board of Supervisor members were present.
The meeting was called to Order at 2:05 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Dorrier.
Agenda Item No. 18. Discussion of service (jurisdictional) areas outside of the County's Designated
Development Areas.
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development, provided a brief overview of the primary issue
for discussion, which is the existence of ACSA jurisdictional area designations for unlimited sewer and water
service within the designated Rural Areas of the County. He said these jurisdictional area designations are
inconsistent with the County's current policy for the provision of water/sewer service as adopted in the
County's Comprehensive Plan. The County's policy provides services only to the designated Development
Areas, with service provided to the Rural Area only in cases where public health or safety is in danger and
the property is adjacent to an existing water or sewer line. The existing jurisdictional area designations
which are inconsistent with this policy either predate the establishment of the Comprehensive Plan policy or
are based on decisions made related to specific areas of the County that were redesignated in the
Comprehensive Plan from Development Area to Rural Area. The water service designation in the Ivy area
is an example of this situation.
Mr. Dorrier asked for an update on the finances of the ACSA. Mr. Parker said their audit has been
complete and the Service Authority is in sound financial shape at this time.
Ms. Thomas said it is not the County's policy to provide water service to the rural areas because of
the effects on growth management.
Mr. Bowerman said the County has consistently discouraged development in the watershed. Mr.
Parker commented that the ACSA Board makes its decisions based on actions of this Board.
(Regular Day Meeting - September 3, 2003)
(Page 25)
Ms. Thomas asked how a designation change by this Board would affect the decision of the ACSA.
Mr. Parker said the Service Authority Board would go along with the Board.
Ms. Thomas said there are six households experiencing well problems at this time, along with an old
hotel and a restaurant. To expand service to all of those would change the character of the area. Mr.
Humphris said service could be limited to existing structures only.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board and Service Authority needs to work together to come up with a long range
plan. Mr. Parker said that the Service Authority makes engineering decisions based on information
provided by staff.
Mr. Perkins asked about a connection between Ivy and Crozet. Mr. Bolton suggested that area be
studied; it is possible service can be provided to the Crozet area from pipes in Ivy. Mr. Dorrier asked about
the cost. Mr. Perkins said the County would be paying most of the cost of the improvements.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is any type of agreement to cover this. Mr. Parker said he thinks the Four
Party Agreement envisions certain issues. Mr. Bolton said the agreement does include future projects by
Rivanna. Mr. Davis said he sees no reason why the Four Party Agreement would have to be renegotiated.
Mr. Rooker said that the cost formula might change. Mr. Davis responded that is correct.
Mr. Martin suggested the Board not rush into anything instead ask staff to bring back more
information at the next Board meeting. At that time, the Board can take further action if it so desires. Mr.
Davis suggested notifying the property owners involved before the Board takes action. Mr. Cilimberg said
staff needs to put together maps which may take some time. It was the consensus of the Board that staff
bring back additional information before a decision be made.
Agenda Item No. 19. From the Board and/or Authority Board: Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
There were none.
Agenda Item No. 20. At 2:56 p.m., the Board recessed, and reconvened in Room 241.
The scheduled continuation of the work session on the Groundwater Committee's Recommendations
was not needed, as this item was completed during the morning session.
Agenda Item No. 21. County Office Building (COB) South, Update.
Mr. Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive, was present to give the update. He said that staff, with a
consultant, did a space study to identify future needs. Space was estimated at between 113,000 and
141,000 square feet through the year 2025. Cost was estimated at between $28.825 million and $31.315
million. The estimated cost for purchase and renovation/construction of the Wachovia Building for the 25-
year planning period was $18.915 million. That was a savings of between $9.9 million and $12.4 million.
The Wachovia Building is projected to meet 100,000 square feet of the need, with the additional 41,000
square feet and parking structure to be built on the site after 2015.
Mr. Foley said the users of the building will be the two major public safety departments, Police and
Fire/Rescue. Also, the Department of Social Services and Housing will be in the building.
Mr. Rooker asked if there are any plans to provide public bus service to that area. Mr. Foley said it is
in future plans. He said that since the preliminary design has been finished, staff now recommends that
some of the construction costs which would have been in Phase 2 of the project be moved up into Phase 1.
This will create more space which can be rented out to community agencies. There is interaction between
those agencies which makes rental at this location beneficial to them. The Commission on Children and
Families could be located near Social Services. The EMS Council would be located next to Fire/Rescue.
This requires moving $2.379 million from Phase 2 to Phase 1. This can be done by shifting some moneys
in the budget over to debt payment for the building. Then, some new revenues would be needed for this
expense.
Mr. Foley said staff is recommending that the $2.379 million be moved from Phase 2 to Phase 1 to
create rental space which will generate revenue. Those revenues will help offset some of the additional
cost. For a number of years the County has been working on the 800 MHz radio project, and staff has
decided to go ahead and borrow money because of the Iow interest rates (3.5 percent) to fund the County's
portion of that project. That will free up all the cash which has been saved, so staff proposes to utilize
some of that savings for this work rather than borrowing funds. In terms of the two projects, the County
would be saving money by borrowing now at the Iow interest rate, rather than borrowing in the future.
Ms. Thomas said she thought the second floor of the warehouse would be used for storage. She
asked if that storage is not still needed. Mr. Foley said the storage space needed has been provided in the
design. Staff feels that there will be no need to continue renting the current facility once this space is
completed. For instance, the voting machines will be moved into a facility that is temperature controlled.
By putting on a second floor, 10,000 additional square feet will be created. That is a change from the last
report, and although it is an additional cost, adding a second floor instead of building a new structure
creates a savings per square foot.
(Regular Day Meeting - September 3, 2003)
(Page 26)
Mr. Bowerman asked what staff needs from the Board today. Mr. Foley said the Board does not
need to take any action today. Ultimately, the Board will need to make an appropriation for the project.
Staff would like to have the Board's acquiescence to move forward in the way described.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks the Board needs to consider providing bus service to the building as part
of the operating costs of the building. Mr. Foley said that was an issue which the committee felt was
important. More information will be provided on this question at a later time.
Mr. Davis asked if Mr. Foley had a time line to share with the Board. Mr. Foley said staffwill finish by
the end of summer or early fall next year.
Agenda Item No. 16. Appointments.
Mr. Rooker offered motion to:
Appoint Ms. Donna Plasket to the Community College Board of Directors to complete the unexpired
term of Mr. Raymond Carey, Sr., which expires on June 6, 2005.
Reappoint Ms. Diane Allen to the Board of Building Code Appeals, with said term to expire November
21,2008.
Reappoint Mr. David Booth to the Board of Building Code Appeals, with said term to expire November
21,2008.
Reappoint Mr. Richard Piccolo to the Public Recreational Facilities Authority, with said term to expire
December 13, 2006.
Reappoint Mr. G. David Emmit to the Public Recreational Facilities Authority, with said term to expire
December 13, 2006.
Reappoint Ms. Carolyn Fowler to JAUNT, with said term to expire August 30, 2006.
Reappoint Dr. EIIora Young to the Jordon Development Corporation, with said term to expire August
30, 2004.
Reappoint Mr. Jerry Jones to the Jordon Development Corporation, with said term to expire August
30, 2004.
Reappoint Mr. Joshua Goldschmidt to the Housing Committee, with said term to expire December 31,
2006.
Reappoint Mr. Vito Cetta to the Housing Committee, with said term to expire December 31,2006.
Appoint Mr. Leonard Winslow to the Housing Committee, with said term to expire December 31,
2005.
Reappoint Mr. Fred Shields to the Land Use Tax Advisory Board, with said term to expire August 1,
2005.
Reappoint Mr. Montie Pace to the Land Use Tax Advisory Board, with said term to expire August 1,
2005.
Reappoint Mr. Joseph Samuels, Jr. to the ACE Appraisal Review Committee, with said term to expire
December 31,2004.
Reappoint Mr. Ross Stevens to the ACE Appraisal Review Committee, with said term to expire
December 31,2004.
Reappoint Mr. Kurt Goodwin to the Joint Airport Commission, with said term to expire December 1,
2006.
Reappoint Ms. Norma Diehl to the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Citizens Advisory Committee, with
said term to expire December 31,2004.
Reappoint Ms. Diane LaSauce to the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Citizens Advisory Committee,
with said term to expire December 31,2004.
Reappoint Mr. Paul Howard, Jr. to the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Citizens Advisory Committee,
with said term to expire December 31,2004.
Reappoint Ms. Barbara Kessler to the Workforce Investment Board, with said term to expire June 3,
2006.
Reappoint Ms. Susan Cabell to the Workforce Investment Board, with said term to expire June 3,
(Regular Day Meeting - September 3, 2003)
(Page 27)
2005.
Appoint Ms. Janice ChandlertotheWork~rcelnvestment Board, with said term to expire June 3,
2006.
Appoint Mr. Charis RavanelltotheWork~rcelnvestment Board, with said term to expire June 3,
2006.
Appoint Mr. Paul Sisk to the Workforce Investment Board, with said term to expire June 3, 2006.
Appoint Mr. Rob Harrison to the Workforce Investment Board, with said term to expire June 3, 2006.
Appoint Mr. Kirk Train to the Route 250 West Task Force, with said term to expire August 5, 2006.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 22. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks it is time for the County to step up and identify a site for a permanent home
for the Albemarle County Fair. He said this has been mentioned several times in the past and a site
probably could be identified by the Parks & Recreation Department. The County may own land that could
be utilized for this purpose.
Mr. Dorrier agreed. He said citizens identify this as a County function even though the Fair
Committee is a separate entity and is private. He thinks the County can help out in ways that would make it
more successful.
Mr. Foley said staff all ready has a meeting scheduled with the president of the Fair Board. They
submitted a request to the County late in the budget process last year with an outline of their needs. The
CIP process is about to begin, so a meeting has been scheduled to talk more about their needs.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Board members want to receive copies of PACC's minutes. The group only
meets quarterly.
Mr. Rooker said PACC may want to look at providing more complete minutes than have been
provided in the past. The minutes have been generally very brief and did not reflect a lot of the discussion.
In looking back at some of his old minutes, he was astounded that there were only two pages of minutes for
a meeting which lasted two hours. Mr. Tucker said when these meetings occur in the County Building he
does not think that has been the case. Both Ms. Thomas and Mr. Rooker agreed that these were the
minutes transcribed by the University. Mr. Rooker said he just raises the issue if the minutes are going to be
circulated so that people will have an understanding of what took place at the meeting.
Agenda Item No. 23. Adjourn to September 6, 2003, at Zehmer Hall, Conference Room C-D,
University of Virginia, for a Strategic Plan work session.
At 3:27 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman to adjourn this meeting until September 6, 2003,
at Zehmer Hall at the University of Virginia, in Conference Room C-D. The motion was seconded by Ms.
Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisor
Date: 01/14/2004
Initials: GAS
(Regular Day Meeting - September 3, 2003)
(Page 28)