2000-05-03May 3, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May 3,
2000, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr.
Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W.
Davis, Clerk, Ella W. Carey, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:05 a.m. by the Chairman, Mr. Martin.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public.
Mr. John Martin said he lives in Free Union. The watershed is fragile. As the County develops
infrastructure for a burgeoning population, the watershed must be carefully managed and protected. He
suggested that the Board review the Countys representation on the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authoritys
==
Board of Directors. He said this matter was last addressed by the Board 15 years ago. He feels it may
be appropriate to review and either confirm the existing mechanism for County representation or to make
a change in that representation. He said the Moormans River and all rivers and streams are that
important.
__________
Mr. Wilson Cropp said he is a resident on Rocky Hollow Road (Route 769). He has addressed
the Board in the past regarding this road. He has discussed a number of measures with residents on that
road trying to find a way to maintain it. The nature of the road makes it difficult to maintain, especially
since it is gravel. His concern today has to do with the maintenance practices of that road. He has
pleaded with the Highway Department not to grade the road as much, since when the surface is disturbed
and there is no rain, within 48 hours there is a cloud of dust. That is unhealthy to the residents and to
their cars. If there is a rainy period right after the road is graded, then there are about three inches of
solid mud. If it rains very hard, all of that muck and rock goes into the stream. It is a real problem.
Mr. Cropp said that in the past seven weeks the road has not been graded and it is packed tight.
There have been some good rains that helped to wash out the washboards and now there are some
potholes. In order to make repairs, the State has to bring in large equipment, and it creates an
environmental problem. He does not know what the answer is, and feels it would be a good business
decision to surface treat the road. There are now over 40 houses on that road. On paper, there is an
additional 36-lot subdivision at the end of the road. He asks that the Board look at the road to see if some
other tactics could be employed other than disturbing the entire road every time there is a rain.
Mr. Dorrier asked which district this road is in. Mr. Martin said it is in Rivanna. There is a large
landowner who will not donate the needed right-of-way for the road to be paved. He said the Board will
discuss it more later in the meeting.
_______________
Motion
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. to approve Items 5.1 through 5.16a and to accept
seconded
the remaining items on the Consent Agenda as information, was offered by Ms. Humphris and
by Ms. Thomas (Note: Any conversation concerning an item on the consent agenda, will be found with
that item). Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item 5.1. Appropriation: HUD Section 8 Housing Assistance, $322,668 (Form #99069).
It was noted in the staffs report that the Section 8 Housing Program is an on-going rental
=
assistance program offered by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The
Section 8-003 Family Unification Program has recently been awarded an additional 50 vouchers which
are funded by a $322,668.00 Federal grant. There is no local match. Staff recommends approval of
Appropriation Form #99069 in the amount of $322,668.00.
By the recorded vote shown above, the following Resolution of Appropriation was
adopted:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1999-00
NUMBER: 99069
FUND: GRANT
May 3, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR 50 ADDITIONAL HOUSING
VOUCHERS
EXPENDITURE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1227 81922 579001 HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS$322,668.00
TOTAL$322,668.00
REVENUE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 1227 33000 330017 SEC 8-003 FAMILY UNIFICATION$322,668.00
TOTAL$322,668.00
__________
Item 5.2. Appropriation: Allocation of Budgeted Decompression Funds to Departments,
$129,550.00 (Form #99071).
It was noted in the staffs report that as a result of implementing the 1996 Hendricks Pay Plan
=
and previous pay studies, some county employees with varying years of experience have been
"compressed" relatively close to one another within their respective pay grades. In April, 1997, based on
employee concerns expressed to the Board, a combined local government/school work team was
organized to look at the pay scale compression issue. The group determined that there was a
compression problem, and went on to develop a decompression formula that both Boards approved, and
which was implemented over a three-year period beginning in July, 1998. As part of the FY 1999-2000
Budget, the second year of implementation, the Board approved allocations to General Government of
$202,734.00.
Based on analysis of actual compensation increases received in July, 1999, $129,550.00 of the
budgeted $202,734.00 "decompression pot" will need to be allocated to various departments to cover the
cost of implementing decompression for FY 1999-2000. This amount reflects the cost of implementing
the decompression formula. Staff recommends that the Board approve the appropriation transfer, totaling
$129,550.00, as detailed on Appropriation Form #99071.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appropriation was
adopted:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1999-00
NUMBER: 99071
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ALLOCATION OF DECOMPRESSION FUNDS
EXPENDITURE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1000 11010 110000 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS - COMPRESSION ADJUSTM$760.00
1 1000 12010 110000 COUNTY EXECUTIVE - COMPRESSION ADJUSTM4,220.00
1 1000 12013 110000 COMMUNITY RESOURCES - COMPRESSION ADJUSTM 1,380.00
1 1000 12141 110000 FINANCE-ADMINIS - COMPRESSION ADJUSTM2,460.00
1 1000 12142 110000 FINANCE-ASSESSMENT - COMPRESSION ADJUSTM11,640.00
1 1000 12143 110000 FINANCE-ACCOUNTING - COMPRESSION ADJUSTM2,740.00
1 1000 12144 110000 FINANCE-REAL ESTATE - COMPRESSION ADJUSTM10,140.00
1 1000 12145 110000 FINANCE-PURCHASING - COMPRESSION ADJUSTM550.00
1 1000 12000 110000 INFORMATION SERVICES - COMPRESSION ADJUSTM1,690.00
1 1000 31012 110000 POLICE-COMM SVCS - COMPRESSION ADJUSTM410.00
1 1000 31013 110000 POLICE-PATROL SVCS - COMPRESSION ADJUSTM52,760.00
1 1000 31016 110000 POLICE-ANIMAL CONTROL - COMPRESSION ADJUSTM970.00
1 1000 32011 110000 FIRE RESCUE-ADMINIS - COMPRESSION ADJUSTM2,240.00
1 1000 32013 110000 FIRE RESCUE-PREVENTION - COMPRESSION ADJUSTM 460.00
1 1000 34000 110000 INSPECTIONS - COMPRESSION ADJUSTM1,810.00
1 1000 41000 110000 ENGINEERING - COMPRESSION ADJUSTM1,700.00
1 1000 41030 110000 WATER RESOURCES - COMPRESSION ADJUSTM1,290.00
1 1000 43001 110000 STAFF SVCS-ADMINIS - COMPRESSION ADJUSTM140.00
1 1000 43003 110000 STAFF SVCS-CUSTODIAL - COMPRESSION ADJUSTM220.00
1 1000 53011 110000 DSS-ADMINISTRATION - COMPRESSION ADJUSTM1,390.00
1 1000 53012 110000 DSS-BENEFITS - COMPRESSION ADJUSTM4,090.00
1 1000 53013 110000 DSS-SERVICES - COMPRESSION ADJUSTM940.00
1 1000 53014 110000 DSS-EMPLOYMENT SVS - COMPRESSION ADJUSTM470.00
1 1000 53015 110000 DSS-MEDICAID - COMPRESSION ADJUSTM1,490.00
1 1000 71011 110000 PARKS-ADMINISTRATION - COMPRESSION ADJUSTM2,100.00
1 1000 71012 110000 PARKS-MAINTENANCE - COMPRESSION ADJUSTM1,120.00
1 1000 71014 110000 PARKS-RECREATION - COMPRESSION ADJUSTM2,260.00
1 1000 81010 110000 PLANNING - COMPRESSION ADJUSTM4,620.00
1 1000 81017 110000 PLANNING-E911 - COMPRESSION ADJUSTM200.00
1 1000 81030 110000 HOUSING - COMPRESSION ADJUSTM4,860.00
1 1000 81040 110000 ZONING - COMPRESSION ADJUSTM8,430.00
1 1000 95000 999977 TRANSFERS - COMPRESSION ADJST -129,550.00
TOTAL$0.00
May 3, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
REVENUE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
TOTAL$0.00
__________
Item 5.3. Appropriation: Education, $89,978.82 (Form #99072).
It was noted in the staffs report that Education has received various school grants and
=
donations as follows:
Virginia Department of Education
: Albemarle County Public Schools received a
partial reimbursement in the amount of $5,250.57 from the Virginia Department of Education to
help cover the cost of Due Process Hearing expenditures incurred by the Albemarle County
Special Education Department.
Touring Assistance Grant from the Virginia Commission of the Arts
: Three
Albemarle County Schools have been awarded Touring Assistance Grants from the Virginia
Commission for the Arts in the total of $988.00 - Broadus Wood Elementary, $250.00; Henley
Middle, $150.00; and, Jouett Middle, $588.00. This Program helps to strengthen the quality of
education in the elementary and secondary schools by linking the arts with non-arts curricula.
Donation - Henley Middle School
: Henley received donations from Douglas and
Sarah Dupont in the amount of $1,000.00 and the Frederick S. Upton Foundation in the amount
of $1,000.00. These funds will help provide Henleys students with an interdisciplinary arts
=
program.
Individualized Student Alternative Education Program:
Albemarle County Public
Schools will implement an Individualized Student Alternative Education Program (ISAEP)
according to Virginia Department of Education requirements. This program will provide
counseling, academic and occupational services to address a growing population of students at-
risk of dropping out of school, not meeting attendance requirements, and/or academically not
meeting the requirements for a standard high school diploma. The cost of the program is
$23,576.00 and is funded 100 percent by Virginia ISAEP Grant Funds. The Charlottesville/
Albemarle Technical Education Center (CATEC) will administer the ISAEP program.
Albemarle County Adult Basic Education:
Adult Basic Education provides tuition
classes tailored to the individualized needs of the clients of private companies, institutions and
agencies when needed to supplement existing classes. Donations totaling $6,206.00 have
been received in the following amounts: $700.00 from Albemarle and Charlottesville Social
Services Agencies and $150.00 from Trinity Presbyterian Church for classes to prepare their
Virginia Initiative for Employment, not Welfare (VIEW) clients to pass the Virginia Driver's
License Written Examination. Also received was $2,100.00 from Abdullah M. Al-Enezi and
$3,256.00 from the Farmington Country Club for intensive Beginning English-As-A-Second-
Language class.
Migrant Education Grant:
The State Migrant Education Grant was increased by
$51,958.25 from the original budget amount of $27,000.00. It is requested that these funds be
appropriated in the 1999-00 Fiscal Year to cover expenses.
Staff recommended that the Board approve the appropriations totaling $89,978.82, as
detailed on Appropriation Form #99072.
(Mr. Martin asked if the reimbursement for due process hearings is to cover the cost of
hearings where decisions made by the Special Education people are questioned. Mr. Tucker
said that is his understanding. Mr. Martin asked if parents and teachers are present at this
hearing, or it is a legal aide. Mr. Davis said once an appeal is filed, it ends up in Federal Court,
and typically there is special counsel employed by the Schools for these specialized cases.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appropriation
was adopted:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1999-00
NUMBER: 99072
FUND: SCHOOL/PROGRAMS
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR SCHOOL DONATIONS AND
PROGRAMS
EXPENDITURE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 2112 62110 312100 PROF SVC LEGAL FEES$5,250.57
1 3104 60201 580000 MISC EXPENSES250.00
1 3104 60252 580000 MISC EXPENSES150.00
1 3104 60253 580000 MISC EXPENSES588.00
1 3104 60252 312500 PROF SVC INSTRUCTION2,000.00
1 3142 60410 312700 PROF SVC CONSULTANT23,576.00
1 3116 63348 132100 TEACHER WAGES4,207.62
1 3116 63348 210000 FICA321.88
May 3, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
1 3116 63348 600200 FOOD SUPPLIES500.00
1 3116 63348 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES1,176.50
1 3103 61101 112100 SALARIES TEACHERS10,951.00
1 3103 61101 132100 PT WAGES-TEACHER27,146.16
1 3103 61101 210000 FICA2,932.58
1 3103 61101 221000 VRS1,575.14
1 3103 61101 231000 HEALTH INS895.16
1 3103 61101 232000 DENTAL INS25.68
1 3103 61101 312000 TUITION FEES146.00
1 3103 61101 520100 POSTAL SVCS119.43
1 3103 61101 520302 TELEPHONE-LD270.90
1 3103 61101 550100 TRAVEL-MILEAGE1,201.36
1 3103 61101 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES4,327.50
1 3103 61311 115000 SALARIES-OFC CLERICAL1,638.71
1 3103 61311 210000 FICA125.36
1 3103 61311 221000 VRS218.58
1 3103 61311 231000 HEALTH INS156.48
1 3103 61311 232000 DENTAL INS5.04
1 3103 61311 601700 COPY SUPPLIES223.17
TOTAL$89,978.82
REVENUE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 2000 24000 240212 VA DOE DUE PROCESS$5,250.57
2 3104 24000 240362 GRANT-BROADUS WOOD250.00
2 3104 24000 240361 GRANT-HENLEY150.00
2 3104 24000 240356 GRANT-JOUETT588.00
2 3104 18000 181221 MISC REVENUE DONATION2,000.00
2 3142 24000 240360 ISAEP GRANT23,576.00
2 3116 18000 189900 ADULT ED6,206.00
2 3103 24000 240257 MIGRANT ED GRANT-MERIWETHER LEWIS51,958.25
TOTAL$89,978.82
__________
Item 5.4. Appropriation: School CIP Fund, $44,300,00 (Form #99073).
It was noted in the staffs report that a new baseball field is being constructed for Western
=
Albemarle High School (WAHS) which is located on the north side of the Henley/Brownsville School
property. The original project, which was an extensive renovation and enlargement of the existing
baseball field, could not be accomplished at the WAHS site because of a new County ordinance
protecting streams since it does not allow grading or relocation of streams in the drinking water
watershed. A press box, a concession stand and restrooms were not part of either the original project or
the revised project. The new outside restroom at Henley was to serve the baseball field. The WAHS
Baseball Boosters want to enhance the project by building a press box, a concession stand and
restrooms to serve the new field. Anticipating a total project cost of $75,000.00, the Athletic Department
and the Boosters will be soliciting donations of goods, e.g., scoreboard, building supplies, etc., totaling
approximately $25,000.00, as well as cash donations of approximately $50,000.00. Appropriations
totaling $5,700.00 were approved for this project on April 5, 2000 (Appropriation Form #99066). This
request would appropriate the remaining $44,300.00 required to receive the cash donations. To date,
cash donations totaling $18,200.00 have been received.
The Building Services Department will assist in coordinating the design, the procurement and
inspection of the project to insure that established procurement procedures and construction stan-
dards/policies are followed. If the collected funds are not sufficient to support the project, the project will
be canceled and the previously collected money will be used for another capital project at WAHS.
Staff recommends that the Board approve the appropriations totaling $44,300.00 as detailed on
Appropriation Form #99073.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appropriation was
adopted:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1999-00
NUMBER: 99073
FUND: SCHOOL C.I.P.
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR PRESS BOX AT WAHS
EXPENDITURE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 9000 60302 800651 WAHS BASEBALL PRESS BOX$44,300.00
TOTAL$44,300.00
REVENUE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 9000 18100 181112 WAHS BASEBALL PRESS BOX$44,300.00
TOTAL$44,300.00
__________
May 3, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
Item 5.5. Appropriation: General Fund - Republican Primary for Seventh Congressional District,
$10,975.00 (Form #99074).
It was noted in the staffs report that the Republican Party of Virginia has announced its decision
=
to select a candidate for the Seventh Congressional District through a primary to be held on Tuesday,
June 13, 2000. Ten Albemarle County precincts fall within the boundaries of the Seventh Congressional
District. It is anticipated that expenses relating to this primary will total $10,975.00. Staff recommends
that the Board approve the appropriation totaling $10,975.00 as detailed on Appropriation Form #99074.
By the vote shown above, the following Resolution of Appropriation was adopted:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1999-00
NUMBER: 99074
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR REPUBLICAN PRIMARY FOR
THE SEVENTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
EXPENDITURE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1000 13020 120000 OVERTIME-WAGES$815.00
1 1000 13020 129100 TO/WAGES-CUSTODIAL60.00
1 1000 13020 210000 FICA 65.00
1 1000 13020 312510 ELECTION OFFICIALS6,000.00
1 1000 13020 350000 PRINTING & BINDING400.00
1 1000 13020 360000 ADVERTISING325.00
1 1000 13020 390000 OTHER PURCHASED SERVICES2,500.00
1 1000 13020 520100 POSTAL SERVICES60.00
1 1000 13020 520300 TELECOMMUNICATIONS500.00
1 1000 13020 540200 LEASE/RENT-BUILDINGS50.00
1 1000 13020 550100 TRAVEL-MILEAGE100.00
1 1000 13020 600100 OFFICE SUPPLIES50.00
1 1000 13020 601700 COPY SUPPLIES50.00
TOTAL$10,975.00
REVENUE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 1000 51000 510100 GENERAL FUND BALANCE$10,975.00
TOTAL$10,975.00
__________
Item 5.6. Appropriation: Education, $12,601.64 (Form #99075).
It was noted in the staffs report that approval is needed for the schools to disburse several
=
donations and a tuition reimbursement to the Albemarle County Resource Center, as follows:
Donation - Strings for Students Project:
Albemarle County Public Schools received a grant
from the Charlottesville-Albemarle Community Foundation in the amount of $3,500.00. This grant will be
matched by donations from PTO's and local fund-raising in the amount of $4,920.00. The funds will be
used for the project Strings for Students. Sets of stringed instruments will be available for rent at a
reduced/waived rate so all students can participate in the county's new String Orchestra.
Donation - Murray Elementary School:
Murray received anonymous donations in the amount
of $310.00 to be used to purchase data processing supplies, instructional materials and miscellaneous
supplies.
Donation - Cale Elementary School:
Cale Elementary School received a donation in the
amount of $1,000.00 from the Core Knowledge Foundation to be used to purchase instructional materials
for the school.
Tuition Reimbursement - Albemarle County Resource Center:
The Resource Center
received reimbursements in the amount of $2,871.64 as follows: for training provided by Albemarle that
other schools attended, $1,168.33; City of Charlottesville School Board, $233.31 for a workshop
attended; reimbursement for a graduate course attended at the JMU Content Academy, $140.00;
enrollment fees, $850.00; and, reimbursement in the amount of $480.00 for providing snacks and drinks
for the courses.
Staff recommends that the Board approve the appropriations totaling $12,601.64 as detailed on
Appropriation Form #99075.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appropriation was
adopted:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1999-00
NUMBER: 99075
FUND: EDUCATION
May 3, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: AUTHORIZATION TO EXPEND DONATED
FUNDS AND REIMBURSEMENTS
EXPENDITURE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 3143 61101 540410 RENTAL-INSTRUMENTS$8,420.00
1 2215 61101 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES50.00
1 2215 61101 601600 DATA PROCESSING SUPPLIES 200.00
1 2215 61411 580000 MISC EXPENSES60.00
1 2214 61101 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES1,000.00
1 2114 61311 580500 STAFF DEV2,871.64
TOTAL$12,601.64
REVENUE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 3143 18000 181240 CHVILLE/ALBEMARLE GRANT$3,500.00
=
2 3143 18100 181241 DONATIONS-STRINGS PGM 4,920.00
2 2000 18100 181109 DONATIONS1,310.00
2 2000 19000 190227 TUITION-REIMB-ARC2,871.64
TOTAL$12,601.64
__________
Item 5.7. Hydrogeologic Testing Report (Report on Verifying Adequate Groundwater for Rural
Subdivisions and Establishment of a Technical Groundwater Committee), and authorize staff to establish
a groundwater committee.
It was noted in the staffs report that over the course of several years, the issue of hydrogeologic
=
testing has been a subject of public discourse. Hydrogeologic testing refers to any number of techniques
that can be used to study and provide quantitative and qualitative information on a site's potential water
supply in cases where groundwater will be used. This is pertinent to Albemarle County's Rural Areas,
where all development is groundwater-dependent, either through central well systems or private,
individual wells. Hydrogeologic testing can be a tool to help verify that groundwater resources are
adequate to serve a proposed level and/or density of development.
During review of the Walnut Hills rezoning application in Earlysville, the Planning Commission
specifically asked staff to provide information on what other jurisdictions in Virginia have done with regard
to a hydrogeologic testing program. The Peacock Hill Homeowners Association request for service area
=
extension last summer due to difficulties with their central well system highlights the timeliness of this
information. This report is in response to the Commission's request, but is also meant to initiate an
informed discussion on how Albemarle County can proceed to explore this topic. For background
purposes, it is important to note that hydrogeologic testing is addressed in the Groundwater Protection
Study (1990), The Pilot Groundwater Study for the Hardware Watershed (1994), and the Natural
Resources and Cultural Assets Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan (1999). Specifically, the
Comprehensive Plan contains various groundwater strategies, including the formation of a groundwater
committee to guide implementation of the other strategies.
Through contact with local and State agency staff, most of the counties in Virginia that have a
hydrogeologic testing requirement were identified. In most cases, the requirements reside in these
communities' subdivision ordinances. The counties that were interviewed for this report include:
Loudoun, Fauquier, Rappahannock, Orange, Chesterfield and Roanoke. The report outlines the
elements of each county's program (report on file in the Clerks Office). The report was reviewed by the
=
Planning Commission at its March 21, 2000, meeting. The Commission approved a Resolution of Intent
to establish a Technical Committee to review the report and other pertinent County documents, with the
eventual result being an ordinance amendment that would incorporate language for hydrogeologic
testing.
Staff recommended that it be authorized to establish the Groundwater Committee in accordance
with the Planning Commission's resolution. The committee should be facilitated by Department of
Engineering & Public Works staff, with representation from the following agencies or groups:
Department of Mines, Minerals & Energy, Division of Mineral Resources
Virginia Department of Health
Consulting Hydrogeologist
Department of Planning & Community Development
County Attorney's Office
Development Community (e.g. Chamber of Commerce, Design Review Committee, etc.)
Environmental (e.g., League of Women Voters, Piedmont Environmental Council, etc.)
(Ms. Thomas said she asked staff to get the Board a copy of the Planning Commissions
=
resolution. Mr. Hirschmann had told the Commission that it was important to give the committee
objectives and a time frame. She went back to the 1989 Comprehensive Plan, and it was recommended
then. It has been a long time, and she is beginning to get eager.
Mr. Hirschman was present. He said that a standard for hydrogeologic testing could be six
months. What the committee may get into concurrently, or after dealing with the hydrogeologic testing, is
that there are two projects which are funded at this time; groundwater data base and the hydrogeologic
study. The committee would also oversee those projects which are on a fiscal year time line. To develop
standards and an ordinance should not take more than six months.
May 3, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
Mr. Tucker suggested getting a status report to the Board in January, 2001. Ms. Thomas said
she hopes that report will include a proposed ordinance.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the same resolution as that
adopted by the Planning Commission, and said that a technical committee be appointed to review
Mr. Hirschmanns report and such other matters as may be appropriate in developing a
==
groundwater policy for Albemarle County with a view toward work on an ordinance that would
ultimately incorporate the policies that are adopted.
___________
Item 5.8. Adopt Resolution accepting FY 2000-2002 Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control
Act (VJCCCA) Funds and Authorize County Executive to Execute Plan.
It was noted in the staffs report that the 1995 Virginia General Assembly enacted the VJCCCA
=
Act effective January 1, 1996, replacing the block grant funds. In order to access these funds,
Charlottesville and Albemarle have developed a combined plan showing how the VJCCCA funds will be
spent to serve this population in FY 2000-2002. In the Charlottesville/Albemarle community, these funds
have historically gone to the Community Attention programs that include the Community Attention Home,
Family Group Homes, Outreach Services and Teens Give. This will continue with additional funding for
the following programs: the Juvenile Court Assessment Center that provides assessment and crisis
intervention services for delinquent and first time offenders; the Intensive Probation Program which
provides intensive supervision for youth on probation; the Electronic Monitoring Program that provides
in-home supervision for delinquent youth; the Court Services Fund that provides purchase of services
funds for court youth; and, the Juvenile Justice Coordinator which provides VJCCCA administration and
juvenile justice planning. The development of this plan is a collaborative effort between the City of
Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle to provide a continuum of services for this population.
Albemarle will receive $202,444.00 annually, and Charlottesville will receive $627,760.00 annually from
the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice. In order to receive these funds, the County must continue to
contribute $52,231.00 annually, which is already funded in the FY 01 budget. The City of Charlottesville
>
must continue its annual maintenance of effort in the amount of $108,415.00.
The Board needs to affirm the County's intent to participate in the VJCCCA program and
authorize the County Executive to approve a local plan on behalf of Albemarle County.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution affirming
the Countys intent to participate in the VJCCCA Program and authorizing the County Executive to
==
approve a local plan on behalf of Albemarle County.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS
, the 1995 Virginia General Assembly enacted the Virginia Juvenile
Community Crime Control Act to establish balanced, community-based systems of
sanctions, programs and services for juvenile offenders effective January 1, 1996, and
WHEREAS
, the Department of Juvenile Justice has approved funding for the
County of Albemarle through the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime control Act, and
WHEREAS
, the County of Albemarle has submitted a plan together with the
City of Charlottesville to the Department, designating Charlottesville as the fiscal agent,
to use the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control funds to provide services to
youth who come before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT
the County of Albemarle will
participate in the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act and accept
appropriate funds for the purpose set forth in this Act until written notice to the contrary
is provided to the Department of Juvenile Justice; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT
the County Executive is hereby
authorized to execute a local plan on behalf of the County of Albemarle.
__________
Item 5.9. February, 2000 Financial Report for the General, School and Capital Funds.
It was noted in the staffs report that General Fund revenue projections were revised as part of
=
the 2000-2001 budget process. Car tax revenues from the State are classified as local revenues where
budgeted, not State revenues where received, for comparison purposes. General Fund expenditure
projections have not been revised at this time.
Education revenue projections have not been revised at this time. Education expenditure
projections reflect a 7.5 percent, $453,125, operating expense holdback, net $35,743 compensation lapse
adjustment. (Copy of the entire report is on file in the Clerks Office with the official records of the Board
=
of Supervisors.)
By the vote shown above, the February, 2000 Financial Report was approved as presented.
__________
May 3, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
Item 5.10. Request to Fund Fifth Bright Stars Four-Year Old Program at Scottsville Elementary
School.
It was noted in the staffs report that the 1994 Virginia General Assembly committed $10.3 million
=
to help localities serve four-year old children who were at-risk for school failure and who were not being
served by either Head Start or Title I. Through this initiative, Albemarle County established the Bright
Stars Program. At-risk factors are based on a variety of criteria that include such things as parental
illiteracy, poverty, domestic violence, substance abuse, chronic illness, criminal activity, developmental
disabilities, and behavior, oral language, social or personal difficulties. This initiative allowed the County
to address one of it's major goals as outlined in the County's Human Services Plan, which is to design
and develop prevention and early intervention programs that provide long-term solutions to the rising
increases in child abuse and neglect cases, foster care and juvenile delinquency cases. The Bright Stars
program now operates in four elementary schools, Stone-Robinson, Greer, Agnor-Hurt and Cale and
serves 64 children and their families.
The 2000 Virginia General Assembly made additional funds available to Albemarle County to
serve a larger number of at-risk children. The State has increased its estimate of the number of unserved
children in Albemarle from 59 to 82, which would allow the County to access approximately $41,500 in
additional State revenues. This presents the County with the opportunity to open a fifth Bright Stars
Program in the southern part of the County, a priority area for the School Division. The consensus is that
the best location for a fifth Bright Stars program is at Scottsville Elementary School with the anticipation
that some eligible children may also be pulled from the Red Hill School district. If this occurs, there may
be some additional transportation costs, which are unknown at this time. Each program by State
regulations may not serve more than 16 children at one location, but since the State reimburses per child,
the program must serve 16 children in order to receive the full reimbursement.
The cost of a new program to serve 16 additional children is approximately $88,000.00;
$80,000.00 in personnel costs for a teacher, a teacher aid and a 0.4 FTE family worker (the other 0.6 FTE
of the family worker is paid by IV-E Federal funds through the Family Support Program), and $8,000.00 in
annual operating costs. Additional start-up costs are estimated to be $3,000.00 for furniture and
equipment and $30,000.00 for a trailer with no bathroom facilities. The Scottsville principal, Jeanette
Orrock, has agreed to house the Bright Stars program within the school, so the newly-purchased trailer
would be used to house the displaced elementary classroom.
State revenues, which are based on the Countys composite index, will provide approximately
=
$41,500.00 of the operating costs, leaving a required local contribution of $46,500.00. School Division
staff is proposing to fund 50 percent of the operating costs, or approximately $23,250.00 and $3,000.00
for the furniture and equipment costs. This request will go to the School Board for consideration at its
May 1, 2000, budget meeting. Department of Social Services staff is requesting $23,250.00 or 50
percent of the operational costs for the new program from the Boards Fund Balance. The one-time
=
revenues of $30,000.00 for the new trailer will come from carry-over funds from the Bright Stars fund,
$10,000.00 from FY 98 and an anticipated $20,000.00 from FY 00 due to salary lapse and a mid-year
>>
teacher position change.
Staff recommends approval of the request to initiate plans for a fifth Bright Stars program at
Scottsville Elementary for the fall of FY 01 which requires funding of approximately $23,250.00 from the
>
Board as part of the proposed funding package. The School Division contribution is conditional upon final
approval from the School Board at its May 8, 2000, meeting. Should the Board approve this request, staff
will proceed to work on the final budget numbers with the School Division and incorporate the additional
funding into the Annual Appropriation Ordinance that will come to the Board for approval in June.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the request to initiate plans for a
fifth Bright Stars program at Scottsville Elementary School for the fall of FY 2001, which will
require a funding allocation of approximately $23,250.00 from the Board of Supervisors.
__________
Item 5.11. Authorize County Executive to sign Memorandum of Understanding regarding the
Scottsville Police Department.
It was noted in the staffs report that Sheriff Ed Robb has been meeting with officials from the
=
Town of Scottsville over the past several months regarding the provision of police protection. Through
these discussions, the Town has determined that it can best meet its goals for police protection through
the establishment of its own police department. Because the County currently has an agreement to
provide these services to the Town, cancellation of the current agreement is necessary. An agreement,
signed by both the Mayor of the Town and the Sheriff, establishes an understanding of the conditions for
termination of the current agreement. Staff recommended that the County Executive be authorized to
sign the agreement.
By the recorded vote set out above, the County Executive was authorized the execute the
following Memorandum of Understanding with the Town of Scottsville and the Sheriff of
Albemarle County:
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
Tuesday, April 04, 2000
May 3, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
TO:Christopher Long, Mayor, Town of Scottsville, Virginia
FROM:Edgar S. Robb, Sheriff of Albemarle County, Virginia
SUBJECT:Scottsville, Virginia Police Department
1.The Town of Scottsville agrees to establish its own police department.
=
2.The Town of Scottsville is now taking steps to establish police proce-
dures and is now advertising for qualified police officers.
3.The amended 1998-1999 tripartite agreement for law enforcement in
Scottsville, Va. between Albemarle County, the Town of Scottsville, Va.
and the Albemarle Sheriffs Office will remain until the Town of
=
Scottsville hires a Town Sergeant, at which time the agreement will
terminate or June 30, 2000 which ever is first.
4.Any amendments to this document by any party must be mutually
agreed upon and must be in writing and attached to this agreement.
Seen and Agreed:
Town of Scottsville
(Signed by) Christopher J. Lee, Mayor
Sheriff of Albemarle County
(Signed by) Edgar S. Robb, Sheriff
County of Albemarle County
(Signed by) Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
__________
Item 5.12. Resolution to accept Summer Lane in Earlysville Meadows Subdivision into the State
Secondary System.
At the request of the Countys Engineering Department, the following Resolution was
==
adopted by the recorded vote set out above:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS
, the street(s) in Earlysville Meadows Subdivision described on the
attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated April 19, 2000, fully incorporated herein by
reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS
, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation has advised the Board that the street(s) meet the requirements
established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
, that the Albemarle Board of County
Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the road(s) in
Earlysville Meadows, as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated April
19, 2000, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to 33.1-229, Code of
'
Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED
that the Board guarantees a clear and
unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and
drainage as described on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED
that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to
the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1)Summer Lane from the intersection of Route 743 (Station 10+0)), to the
cul-de-sac (Station 22+55) as shown on plat recorded 4/10/90 in the
office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book
1095, pages 666-668, and drainage easement plats dated 2/28/00,
recorded in Deed Book, 1897, pages 71 and 75; and drainage
easement plat dated 4/17/00, recorded in Deed Book 1910, page 35;
with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.24 mile.
Total Mileage - 0.24 mile.
__________
Item 5.13. Proclamation recognizing April 30 through May 6, 2000, as Municipal Clerks Week.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following Proclamation was approved:
May 3, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
MUNICIPAL CLERKS WEEK
WHEREAS
, the Office of the Municipal Clerk, a time honored and vital part of
local government, exists throughout the world; and
WHEREAS
, the Office of the Municipal Clerk is the oldest among public
servants; and
WHEREAS
, the Office of the Municipal Clerk provides the professional link
between the citizens, the local governing bodies and agencies of government at other
levels; and
WHEREAS
, Municipal Clerks have pledged to be ever mindful of their neutrality
and impartiality, rendering equal service to all; and
WHEREAS
, the Municipal Clerk serves as the information center on functions
of local government and community;
WHEREAS
, Municipal Clerks continually strive to improve the administration of
the affairs of the Office of the Municipal Clerk through participation in education
programs, seminars, workshops and the annual meetings of their state, province,
county and international professional organizations;
NOW, THEREFORE, I
, Charles S. Martin, Chairman, on behalf of the
Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby recognize the week of
April 30 through May 6, 2000,
as
MUNICIPAL CLERKS WEEK
and further extend appreciation to our Municipal Clerks for the vital services they
perform.
__________
Item 5.14. Proclamation recognizing May 9 through May 15, 2000, as Small Business Week.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following Proclamation was approved:
SMALL BUSINESS WEEK
WHEREAS
,small businesses, defined as companies having fewer than 50 employ-
ees, create over 95 percent of our private sector jobs; and
WHEREAS
,small businesses provide a significant portion of the real and personal
property tax revenues for our region and a substantial amount of the
goods and services our local citizens enjoy; and
WHEREAS
,a week in May is traditionally designed as National Small Business
Week;
NOW, THEREFORE,
I, Charles S. Martin, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors, do hereby recognize the week of
May 8 through May 15, 2000,
as
SMALL BUSINESS WEEK
and extend our sincere appreciation for the many exemplary small
business employers who strive to build a better community and who
work to ensure the economic growth and stability of the region.
__________
Item 5.15. Proclamation recognizing May 14 through May 20, 2000, as Emergency Medical
Services Week.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following Proclamation was approved:
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK
Whereas
,emergency medical services is a vital public service; and
Whereas
,the members of emergency medical services teams are ready to
provide lifesaving care to those in need twenty-four hours a day, seven
days a week; and
May 3, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
Whereas
,access to quality emergency care dramatically improves the survival
and recovery rate of those who experience sudden illness or injury; and
Whereas
,emergency medical services providers have traditionally served as the
safety net of America's health care system; and
Whereas
,emergency medical services teams consist of emergency physicians,
emergency nurses, emergency medical technicians, paramedics,
firefighters, educators, administrators, and others; and
Whereas
,nationally, approximately two-thirds of all emergency medical services
providers are volunteer, and in Albemarle our emergency medical ser-
vices system is totally dependent on volunteers; and
Whereas
,the members of emergency medical services teams, whether career or
volunteer, engage in thousands of hours of specialized training and
continuing education to enhance their lifesaving skills; and
Whereas
,Albemarle County residents benefit daily from the knowledge and skills
of these highly trained individuals; and
Whereas
,it is appropriate to recognize the value and the accomplishments of
emergency medical services providers by designating Emergency
Medical Services Week; and
Whereas
,injury prevention and the appropriate use of the emergency medical
services system will help reduce national health care costs;
Now, Therefore
,I, Charles S. Martin, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors, in recognition of this event, do
hereby proclaim the week of
May 14 through May 20, 2000
as
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK
and encourage the community to observe this week with appropriate
programs, ceremonies, and activities.
__________
Item 5.16. Proclamation recognizing June 1 through June 8, 2000, as Nursing Assistants' Week.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following Proclamation was approved:
NATIONAL NURSING ASSISTANTS WEEK
==
Nurse Assistants: Caring-Time To Make It Personal
AA@@
WHEREAS
,the health and happiness of many citizens residing in nursing homes
and other long term care settings depend upon the professional and
loving care given by Career Nursing Assistants; and
WHEREAS
,Career Nursing Assistants are instrumental in promoting and
safeguarding the physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual health and
well being of the residents and the residents family; and
=
WHEREAS
,Nursing Assistants may be identified by a variety of titles including, but
not limited to, Nurse Assistant, Care Assistant, Home Care Aide, Care-
giver, Geriatric Aide/Assistant, Resident Assistant, Restorative Aide;
and
WHEREAS
,Career Nursing Assistants are trained professionals who collaborate
closely with other health care providers to provide quality care and
elevate the status of their chosen vocation; and
WHEREAS
,the nursing homes and agencies providing long term care in this
community are sponsoring activities in recognition of the contribution of
all Career Nursing Assistants and other direct care providers;
NOW, THEREFORE,
I, Charles S. Martin, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle
Board of County Supervisors, commend and applaud the
dedicated efforts and the important contributions of Career
Nursing Assistants to the citizens of this community by
proclaiming June 1, 2000 as Career Nursing Assistants Day,
=
and
May 3, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
JUNE 1 THROUGH JUNE 8, 2000
as
NURSING ASSISTANTS WEEK
==
Caring-Time to Make It Personal
AA@@
and encourage all the citizens of this community to join in recognizing
these important health care workers.
__________
Item 5.16a. Proclamation recognizing May 14 through May 20, 2000, as Business Appreciation
Week.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following Proclamation was approved:
BUSINESS APPRECIATION WEEK 2000
WHEREAS
,the County of Albemarle is pleased to have a thriving base of business
and industry to support the local economy; and
WHEREAS
,these businesses provide essential employment opportunities for the
citizens of the County of Albemarle; and
WHEREAS
,these businesses provide local revenues from which the entire local
citizenry benefit; and
WHEREAS
,these businesses make significant contributions in our communities to
promote educational opportunities for our children and promote a
variety of activities which increase the quality of life of the area; and
WHEREAS
,we recognize and appreciate these businesses;
NOW, THEREFORE
,I, Charles S. Martin, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors, do hereby recognize our existing
businesses, and by virtue of this proclamation give notice to
our citizens that we are "Honoring a New Century of Business
in Virginia", and further recognize the week of
May 14 through May 20, 2000
as
Business Appreciation Week
in the County of Albemarle and extend our appreciation for the many
businesses that strive to help make this a better community.
__________
Item 5.17. Year 2000 Draft Consolidated Plan for the HOME Consortium, was received as
information as follows.
It was noted in the staffs report that the Year 2000 Consolidated Plan sets the affordable housing
=
and community development goals for the region and specifically guides the use of the Thomas Jefferson
HOME Consortium funds managed by the Planning District Commission and the Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds in the City of Charlottesville. The Consolidated Plan, a required
document submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, is used to set forth the
overall housing policy for the region that assists in the receipt of additional resources. Although a public
hearing was not required, at the request of the Housing Committee, the Board held a public hearing on
February 16, 2000, to receive public input on the Consolidated Plan relative to Albemarles housing goals
=
for the next three years. Public comment was received by AHIP, which has used Albemarles annual
=
HOME funds to rehabilitate five to seven homes each year. Habitat for Humanity also spoke on the need
for an affordable housing requirement within the growth areas. The Planning District Commission will
hold a public hearing on the Consolidated Plan for the region on Thursday, May 4, and subsequent to
their approval, will be forwarding the final plan to HUD by May 15.
__________
Item 5.18. Third Quarter Report for JAUNT Services for FY 2000, was received as information.
__________
Item 5.19. Copy of Resolution adopted by Scottsville Town Council on April 17, 2000, concerning
the placement of a fire station to serve the southern part of the County. was received as information.
(Mr. Dorrier said the Fire Department and Town Council asked him to find out if there would be a
hearing or any discussion of this issue and, if so, when it would be. Mr. Tucker said there is not a hearing
scheduled. The Board can decide later if it wants a hearing. Mr. Bowerman said the location has been
discussed by all of the chiefs of the volunteer companies, and they do not all agree to the proposed
location. There is information available, it just has not been presented to Town Council at this time. Mr.
Dorrier suggested having somebody from the County make the presentation to Town Council.)
__________
May 3, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
Item 5.20. Notice from the State Corporation Commission of a Joint Petition filed by NiSource,
Inc., New NiSource, Inc. and Columbia Energy Group (Case No. PUA000024), for approval of agreement
and plan of merger under Chapter 5 of Title 56 of the Code of Virginia. The proposed transaction will
result in New NiSource acquiring control of Columbia Energys wholly owned subsidiary, Columbia Gas of
=
Virginia, Inc. This notice was received for information.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: November 3 and November 18A, 1999; January 5,
February 2, February 9, February 16, March 1, March 8 and March 15(N), 2000.
Ms. Thomas had read November 18, 1999 (Afternoon), and February 2, 2000, page 18 (Item No.
9) to the end, and handed to the Clerk a list of typographical corrections to be made.
Mr. Martin had read November 3, 1999, and February 16, 2000, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Bowerman had read March 15, 2000 (Night), and found them to be in order.
Mr. Perkins had read March 8, 2000, and found them to be in order.
Motionseconded
was offered by Mr. Bowerman, by Ms. Humphris, to approve the minutes as
read. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7a. Transportation Matters: Earlysville Road (Route 743) Truck Restriction,
Discussion of.
Mr. Cilimberg said a resident on Earlysville Road has requested VDOT and the County to restrict
through trucks for a section of Route 743 between Route 606 and Route 631. If the Board decides to
request this through-truck restriction, VDOT will conduct an evaluation of the request based on their
criteria. Staff has made a preliminary assessment of this request and believes a through-truck restriction
on Route 743 could meet four of VDOT's five criteria. Trucks with a destination or origination within the
restricted road section are not prohibited from travel along the posted section.
Mr. Cilimberg said based on staff's review, this request appears to be a reasonable and justifiable
request for consideration by the Commonwealth Transportation Board. The alternative truck route would
consist of Routes 606, 649, 29, and 631 and is more suitable than the current route because of the
volume of truck traffic. If authorized by the Board, staff will take the necessary steps to officially request
VDOT to restrict through trucks on Route 743 between Route 606 and Route 631. This will include a
County public hearing, an evaluation by VDOT and, ultimately, approval from the Commonwealth
Transportation Board. He said staff recommends that the Board authorize it to begin the necessary steps
to officially request VDOT to restrict through trucks on Route 743 between Route 631 and Route 606.
The first step would be for the Board to hold a public hearing.
Mr. Bowerman said he had asked staff to investigate this request from a single complainant. It
made sense to him to bring the request to the Board. There have been calls from other people
commenting on the number and increase of this type of vehicle in the area, which is on a road which is
not substantial enough for that type of traffic. Alternative routes do exist. He supports staffs
=
recommendation to move forward.
motion
Mr. Bowerman offered to authorize staff to begin the necessary steps to officially request
VDOT to restrict through trucks on Route 743 between Route 631 and Route 606. The motion was
seconded
by Ms. Humphris.
Mr. Martin asked the chances of passage of such a request. Mr. Juandiego Wade said if the
Board approves it, then it has to be approved by the CTB. In the resolution, the County has to indicate its
willingness to enforce the restriction. Mr. Bowerman said he feels it is a reasonable request. The traffic
will increase further and that type of traffic is not wanted on Route 743 which is a residential, commuter
road when Route 29 and Airport Road are both being upgraded. Mr. Cilimberg said staff will make Mr.
Carter Myers aware of this request.
At this time, roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7b. Route 250 West Corridor Study, Presentation of.
Mr. Cilimberg said Mr. John Maddox, the consultant for this project, was present this morning.
Mr. Maddox said he will give a short overview of what he presented several months ago. The
document provided to the Board showed existing conditions on Route 250 West, noted the geometry of
the road and pointed out deficiencies. The accident rate was higher on the eastern end of the corridor
than statewide averages. The document also showed current and future travel demands being placed on
May 3, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
the corridor based on the Countys approved land use plan. They found that 95 percent of the traffic
=
using Route 250 was generated locally. For most of the people who live along Route 250 West , it is the
only road to use to get to any other facility. It is very important to that area of the County.
Mr. Maddox said the study documented the multi-model aspects of a road: ride-sharing, tele-
commuting, transit systems. There is good documentation on those types of improvements in the
document. The facility currently does not provide for any pedestrian or bike facilities. When their short-
range alternatives were presented to the public and the Citizens Advisory Committee, there was no
strong opposition expressed. They did say that anything funded or proposed along Route 250 should go
through a public process so the public could have input into any improvements along the corridor. The
consultants looked at 14 different long-range alternatives out to the year 2022. They did five in detail and
presented them to the public at a meeting in February, 1999. As part of the process, they also involved
the Citizens Advisory Committee which took a position against widening of Route 250 because they want
to maintain the present scenic and community character of the corridor. At that meeting, citizens
expressed concern about transportation problems along the facility, but were not in support of widening
the facility.
Mr. Maddox said in looking at the traffic being generated by the planned growth in that area, it
was evident that the existing facility cannot meet the future traffic demands placed on it. They developed
an engineering recommendation which is basically to widen the facility from the Mechum River at its
intersection with Route 240 to the western corporate limits of Charlottesville. They hoped this could be
used in the long-range planning for the facility to be sure right-of-way is reserved when different
improvements are made. Mr. Maddox said they studied the current travel time to traverse the corridor. In
1997 when they did the study, it was about 29 minutes. With their engineering recommendations that
travel time would remain the same in the year 2022. Without any improvements, that travel time will
increase to about 48 minutes. They presented a lot of traffic simulations at the public meeting. The
public does have an idea of what they will be looking at in the future if Route 250 West remains a two-
lane facility.
Mr. Maddox said in closing, they hope the document has provided the Board with the information
needed to assess the different impacts and alternatives. In reality, the future of the Route 250 West
corridor will be much different from the present facility. As traffic continues to grow, there will be
additional signal lights installed and the rural highway will become more urbanized in nature regardless of
the improvements that are planned along the corridor. He offered to answer questions.
Mr. Perkins said it was not mentioned that the Committee looked at alternative routes. The
people living in the Crozet area suggest that traffic be directed toward I-64 so there does not have to be
the ultimate widening of Route 250. That is an important component of this whole scheme. Mr. Maddox
said in coordination with the Citizens Advisory Committee, they looked at alternatives to make I-64 more
desirable including adding additional lanes on I-64 to draw traffic from Route 250. It did not draw enough,
in an engineering aspect, to reduce the need for improvements on Route 250, and that is because of the
local traffic.
Mr. Bowerman said the only growth scheduled for that area is in the Crozet Community which is
at the western end of study area. Ms. Thomas said there is some growth in the Ivy area, but most of that
growth will use Garth Road. She said the Board should be aware that not doing anything to Route 250
will significantly increase the traffic on Garth Road. Mr. Bowerman said that is not a planned area of
growth like Crozet. Ms. Thomas said the area is already zoned, and has a lot of subdivision activity.
Mr. Martin asked if there were anyone present to speak to this report.
Ms. Diana Strickler said she was present to speak for the Route 250 West Citizens Advisory
Committee. She reiterated the Committees unanimous opposition to any widening of Route 250 West.
=
Their position is spelled out on Page 28 of VDOTs final report dated January, 2000. The focus of the
=
Committee was on the long-term future of the road. As a result, there was little discussion and no
resolution of their position on short-term recommendations for the corridor. She confirmed that the
Committee is opposed to the realignment of Route 250 at its intersection with Route 240 and to replacing
the railroad bridge in Ivy. At its final meeting in May, 1999, the Committee expressed an interest in
having on-going citizen input related to any proposed changes to the corridor. Ms. Strickler said she
would like to respond to Mr. Maddox because he said there was no strong opposition by the Committee to
the short-term recommendations, and on page 14 of the VDOT report there is a statement saying the
Citizens Advisory Committee generally concurs with the intersection improvements included in the
proposal. They feel that is an overstatement. The Committee did not focus on short-term changes to the
corridor, and that is why they continue to feel some kind of on-going citizen involvement is important.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Committee had available to it the actual graphics of those improve-
ments. Ms. Strickler said there were graphics for the two major improvements. They were presented at
the public meeting. As to some of the smaller things like turn lanes, she does not recall seeing any
graphics. Their focus was on the overall issue of whether Route 250 should be widened. She said 95
percent of the traffic on this road is local. Last September she said to this Board, if the people who use
Route 250 daily are willing to accept a level of service lower than C in exchange for the preservation of
A@
the essential character of the corridor, the Committee feels this should be allowed.
Mr. Scott Peyton said he is president of the community association know as Scenic 250. Last
week he directed the Boards attention to a memo outlining their position on VDOTs proposal for
==
widening the road. He reiterates the very strong sentiment of opposition that was expressed at the public
hearing last fall. That has not changed. They are more committed to their focus of maintaining the
May 3, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
existing community nature and scenic characteristics of the Route 250 corridor. They oppose any
widening along that area. They encourage a dedication of time being made to creatively look at ways to
take best advantage of I-64 which parallels Route 250 from the western border of the County to the
Charlottesville City limits. They encourage the Board to get input from the community to review any of the
so-called short-term improvements presented in VDOTs proposal. They do not think those short-term
A@=
improvements are minor and do presuppose a widening of the entire corridor. Scenic 250 encourages
the Board to reject any widening of Route 250 and to set up a process to scrutinize with public input any
proposed modifications or changes to the Route 250 West corridor.
Ms. Humphris said it concerns her that the County had the Ivy Road Study and report as an
entirely separate thing much earlier than the current study. The Board made some decisions to go
forward with that report which called for widening and landscaping, and making Route 250 more bicycle
and pedestrian-friendly. The resolutions and things she is seeing simply say as relates to widening from
A
Route 29 to the Mechum River. She thought the Board had made a firm decision and had planned to go
@
ahead with those upgrades from Emmet Street to the Route 250 Bypass. Mr. Cilimberg said he thinks
that was the intention. It actually would be from the Bypass westward. Ms. Thomas said that is what it
should say. Ms. Humphris said there are a number of places in the document where that wording needs
to be fixed. Ms. Thomas said one part is an urban street to the Bypass, and the other is a suburban/rural
highway.
Mr. Dorrier said this seems to be different from other requests because there is the alternative to
use I-64 which is a high speed alternative to a road that is more local. He is concerned that in the Route
250 study, there are two intersections that have safety hazards, the Owensville Road intersection with
Route 250, and the Tilman Road intersection with Route 250. He wonders if VDOT could look at those
intersections with the idea of making them safer without incorporating the entire project of four-laning
Route 250.
Ms. Angela Tucker said about five years ago VDOT had plans to improve and add turn-lanes to
Route 250 at Owensville Road. It was decided not to move forward with that project. They do not have
plans for adding turn-lanes to Route 676 (Tilman Road). Both of those areas should be looked at closely
as VDOT is considering closing Route 738 on a cut-through issue. VDOT will have to look again at
adding turn-lanes at both intersections. Mr. Dorrier asked if VDOT will look at those two improvements
independently of the four-laning recommendation in the Route 250 report. Ms. Tucker said yes.
A@
Ms. Thomas said those are the types of things she called spot improvements in the resolution
A@
she proposes. She thinks the consultants have come up with a document that will be useful and show
the engineering solution. At the public hearing, they showed some good simulated traffic jams and how
they will impact other roads in the County if the Board decides not to go forward with the four-laning. On
the other hand, they showed how this road becomes a sponge for a lot of traffic, and in the end, is not
creating a much better situation. Ms. Thomas said she gives Mr. Maddox credit for working with a
Committee that represented this community very well. She has drafted a resolution which she hopes the
Board will adopt. Copies have been furnished to the Board members.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the committee can have representation from both the Scenic 250 committee
and the other committee. All agreed that was possible.
motion
Ms. Thomas said she would offer a to adopt the resolution as proposed (and set out in
second
full below) . Mr. Perkins said he would that motion.
Mr. Martin said the people in Forest Lakes and Hollymead did not want the T-connectors which
were originally proposed for their area. Those roads are there basically to serve the people in those
communities, so the Board did not push it upon them. He sees this as the same situation where the
people who will use the road dont want the improvements. Although, in both situations he sees the
=
possibility of things changing in the future and those people may change their minds. He will vote for the
resolution.
Roll was called, and the motion to adopt the resolution set out below, carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ROUTE 250 WEST CORRIDOR STUDY RESOLUTION
WHEREAS
, the Virginia Department of Transportation's consultants have
completed their study of the Route 250 West corridor and have issued a final report
dated January, 2000; and
WHEREAS
, the report presents an "engineering recommendation" to the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, which recommends construction of a four-lane
highway from the Charlottesville City line west to Mechums River, and maintenance of
the present two-lane configuration from Mechums River west to the Yancey Mills
intersection with Interstate 64 (the western termination point of the study). The report
also recommends a series of six short-range improvements; and
WHEREAS
, VDOT has committed to defer to the Board of Supervisors to make
the final decision about the future of the Route 250 West corridor, based on the VDOT
May 3, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
study, its engineering recommendations, input from the Citizens Advisory Committee
and members of the public, and a balancing of all relevant factors, including traffic flow,
impacts on the scenic and historic values of the corridor, costs, and personal and visual
impacts to those living on and using the corridor; and
WHEREAS
, Route 250 West is a Scenic Virginia Byway with significant
historic, natural, and scenic qualities. The proposed widening would destroy the very
qualities that make the Route 250 West corridor so special to Albemarle County
citizens. As arguments against the widening point out, Interstate 64 parallels Route 250
West and provides an alternate, fast-moving and free-flowing route into the City. As the
consultant's traffic projections demonstrate, widening Route 250 West would act as a
"traffic magnet," significantly increasing vehicle trips. There is also concern that
widening would foster an increase in commercial and other developments along the
corridor; and
WHEREAS
, public opposition to widening the corridor has been overwhelming.
The Citizens Advisory Committee appointed by the Board of Supervisors has voted
unanimously to oppose widening of the roadway. At the VDOT public meeting in Febru-
ary, 1999, approximately 90 percent of the attendees opposed proposals to widen the
roadway. In addition, public opposition has been expressed by hundreds of Albemarle
County citizens who have signed formal petitions or participated individually or through
their organizations at the public hearing of the Board of Supervisors on September 15,
1999. In addition, neither the public nor the Citizen Advisory Committee had what the
Board of Supervisors regard as adequate opportunity to review and comment on the
consultant's recommended short-range improvements;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
, that having reviewed the Route 250
West corridor study and having received public input from the Citizens Advisory
Committee and other individual citizens of Albemarle County, the Board of Supervisors
takes the following action with regard to the Route 250 West corridor:
(1)Reject the consultant's engineering recommendation as it relates to
widening Route 250 West for that section of the corridor between the
Route 29/Route 250 Bypass and Mechums River, and commit the
County to preserve the community, scenic, and rural character of the
corridor, and, to that end, to maintain the present two-lane
configuration of the corridor from the Route 29/Route 250 Bypass
intersection west to the County line. To ensure implementation of this
decision, the Board of Supervisors directs its representatives on the
Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO to ensure that future CATS plans and
other local transportation plans affecting Albemarle County clearly state
the County's commitment to maintain the two-lane configuration of the
corridor from the Route 29/Route 250 Bypass west; and
(2)Propose that any short term or spot improvements on the Route 250
West corridor be as non-intrusive and as consistent as possible with
the special character of this Scenic Byway; and
(3)Do not adopt any of the proposed short-range improvements recom-
mended in the Route 250 West corridor study.
AND FURTHER RESOLVED
, that the Board of Supervisors will:
(1)Appoint a citizens committee to review and make recommendations to
the Board of Supervisors with regard to all proposals for dealing with
spot problems (including additional traffic lights) on the Route 250 West
corridor; and
(2)Review, with public participation, each proposal prior to approval or
inclusion in any request for funding. Since the County's Six-Year
Primary Road Improvement Plan has for several years included, under
Safety Projects, improvements to Route 250 West along the business
corridor in Ivy, the committee's review should start with that area as
well as the area of the intersection at Tilman Road.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7c. Other Transportation Matters.
Mr. Martin asked Ms. Tucker if she had any transportation matters to discuss this morning. Ms.
Tucker said she has no new matters to discuss. In reference to the Earlysville Road through-truck
restriction, she has not yet reviewed the information furnished by County staff.
Ms. Humphris said the CTB have several such requests on their agenda each month, and they do
approve many of those requests.
__________
May 3, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
Mr. Perkins said he had asked for a speed study on Browns Gap Turnpike (Route 680) and
=
asked if that had been completed. Ms. Tucker said it has been completed, and Mr. Perkins should
receive the results soon.
__________
Mr. Perkins said the speed limit on Route 810 from Crozet to White Hall has been lowered, and
he thanked VDOT for doing that and also for the extensive brush cutting along that road.
__________
Mr. Perkins said extensive brush cutting is needed on Route 680 because it overhangs the
roadbed.
__________
Mr. Dorrier asked that VDOT look at other areas on Route 20 South south of Monticello High
School where the speed limit could be reduced from 55 mph to 45 mph. Ms. Tucker responded that the
entire corridor is being scheduled for review. She will advise the Board as sections of the study are
completed instead of waiting for the entire corridor to be reviewed.
__________
Ms. Thomas thanked Ms. Tucker for her advice on the potential closing of Morgantown Road.
She said this proposal should be on the Boards agenda later this month.
=
__________
Mr. Martin mentioned a problem on Proffit Road in front of a Mr. Fletchers house. Ms. Tucker
=
said the permanent solution has been discussed with Mr. Fletcher which is to enclose the ditch line with
some pipe, make sure the drainage goes away from his home, and install a short stretch of guardrail from
the Better Living entrance up to his entrance (the jog in the road where traffic leaves the road and runs on
his yard). She said Mr. Fletcher seems satisfied with this proposal as a first step.
__________
Mr. Martin asked about a problem for Mr. Horniak in Stony Point. Ms. Tucker said that is under
review.
__________
Mr. Martin said that last month, this Board adopted a resolution concerning the parallel road
mostly on the west side of Route 29 from Airport Road into town. He asked for a progress report in terms
of a public hearing. Ms. Tucker said it is tentatively set for a Citizens Information Meeting (July 29, 2000,
location and time not set) and a formal public hearing (August 23, 2000). They want to be sure that all of
the required environmental documents are complete and ready for that public hearing. It is the next
phase of the Route 29 widening improvements which now includes six-laning instead of eight-laning plus
the reverse frontage roads.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Ms. Tucker is having the same discussions with Greene County in terms
of frontage roads for Ruckersville. Ms. Tucker said that type of frontage road is in keeping with the
access management plan Greene has adopted. They are currently trying to update their land use plan in
accordance with that access management plan. That will be tested with the big box proposal at Route
A@
607 and Route 29.
Mr. Martin said he knows staff is concerned about there being a four-lane road parallel to Route
29. That will be in opposition to what the Board has been trying to do in devising a community on the
west side of Route 29 that would be a model of DISC recommendations, with sidewalks and bicycle trails.
He asked if there is any flexibility. Ms. Tucker asked if Mr. Martin was saying there would be two lanes on
each side of Route 29. Mr. Martin said that is correct. Ms. Tucker said the reverse frontage roads are
two-lane roads, one in each direction. One would serve the east side of Route 29 and its existing
development, and there would be a similar two-lane road to serve the west side.
Mr. Bowerman said he had never heard there were to be eight-lanes north of the river. He
always thought it was to be six lanes. Ms. Tucker said she only mentioned it to compare it to the
improvements which have already occurred.
Mr. Martin asked if it is possible to negotiate with VDOT staff and the community in that area in
terms of the parallel road to make it more conducive to the kind of community being built in that section.
Ms. Tucker said as a minimum it will be a two-lane rural section to serve as a reverse frontage road. As
development occurs, they expect that bicycle lanes might have to be added. It is possible it might need to
be a four-lane road.
Mr. Bowerman asked if VDOTs plans are flexible enough to accommodate residential type
=
speeds, as well as commercial type of uses along this frontage road. Ms. Tucker said it has not been
looked at for things like traffic circles and they have not analyzed the need for signals at the interior
intersections.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there will be secondary roads. Ms. Tucker said they will be classified as
local streets. Ms. Thomas asked if they will be a rural, and not an urban cross section. Ms. Tucker said
the reason for proposing a rural two-lane road is that they are the most easily widened, built upon or
added to as development occurs along the frontage. An example of that is Berkmar Drive Extended
where VDOT agreed to three lanes instead of five, and as properties are developed, each gets its own
right-turn lane instead of there being a continuous right-turn lane.
May 3, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
Mr. Cilimberg said it has been staffs request that the parallel roads be urban cross sections with
=
bike lanes and sidewalks. Mr. Bowerman asked if they are limited access roads. Mr. Cilimberg said they
are controlled access roads. Access to Route 29 will be very controlled and limited to intersections. This
will be the street system that supports new development. They believe it should be the same as the
current design for Airport Road of an urban cross section with bike lanes and sidewalks. That has been
the request, but is has not gone to public hearing yet.
Mr. Martin said all of this information will be presented as part of the two meetings mentioned by
Ms. Tucker. Ms. Tucker said at the request of County staff, VDOT is being careful as to what it puts in
place as versus what a developer will be required to put in place.
Mr. Bowerman asked how many different property owners Ms. Tucker has been working with.
Ms. Tucker said they have worked with about all of the owners developing property in the southwest
quadrant of Route 649 and Route 29.
Mr. Bowerman asked the number of property owners of land between Route 649 and the River on
the west side of Route 29. Ms. Tucker said there are probably six. They are also working with owners on
Route 649 because another piece of this is to coordinate these improvements with the Route 649
improvements. At the same time that all of this design has been happening, the UREF Park has been
under design. UREF has been coordinating their design with these other two projects.
Mr. Bowerman asked what type of ownership reception there has been in terms of VDOTs
=
concept. Ms. Tucker said there has been good cooperation. A good portion of the road system will be
put into place by potential developers. The southeast quadrant is already fairly well developed. VDOT
has seen plans for a drug store on that property, and the developers have worked with VDOT to have
access from the interior instead of it being from either Route 649 or Route 29.
Ms. Thomas asked if the goal is to not have stop lights at the intersections presently in existence.
Ms. Tucker said those intersections will be signalized. They are trying to preserve the corridor and do
away with a lot of private accesses. They are having to deal with the amount of commercial access
already in existence as one approaches Airport Road. They are looking ahead to keep commercial
access from being placed on Route 29 since that commercial traffic will be mostly local and can be taken
care of by the local reverse frontage roads.
__________
Mr. Perkins asked for an update on Rocky Hollow Road (Route 769). Ms. Tucker said VDOT
receives numerous calls from the residents on this road wanting the road attended to. She said they are
now being critiqued about how they maintain the road. When VDOT has to take a large piece of
machinery out to a gravel road, it is more cost-efficient to machine the whole road. Depending on the
road, they do this three to six times a year. Now, they are considering machining only those locations
where pot holes are located.
Mr. Bowerman asked if it would be possible to just prime and double seal the road. Would it not
be like pave in place? Ms. Tucker said she would like to take advantage of that, but its not a win-win
A@=
solution. Mr. Martin said it is just one of those situations where the people who live on the road disagree
on what should be done. When the problem was first brought to the Board about eight years ago, it was
because it could not be paved, and there was no maintenance.
Ms. Tucker said she needs to meet with the property owner who does not wish to have the road
paved. Their main concern is that it will open the road up for development. She said development is
occurring in that area by right, and that is increasing the traffic on the road. Without that owner actually
dedicating right-of-way and losing it, VDOT might be able to work in a temporary easement that would
revert back to that property owner and keep a new paved road within the 30 feet. That might work on this
road because of the little grading required as this road leaves Route 20. She suggested that both she
and Mr. Martin meet with this property owner. Mr. Martin agreed.
__________
Mr. Martin asked about a boat dock on Route 643 near the bridge at the South Fork Rivanna
Bridge. Ms. Tucker said VDOT has received a formal request from the Parks and Recreation Director to
look into that matter. The contractor working on the bridge project on Route 29 North is required to
establish a job site and they make those arrangements directly with the private property owner. There is
not anything the local VDOT office can do on this project to make that happen. The County would need
to take it up with the private property owner.
Mr. Bowerman said he did not even know this was a possibility. Mr. Tucker said he had asked
Mr. Mullaney to make the request. Mr. Martin asked that the County continue to look into this possibility.
_______________
Note
(: The Board was ahead of schedule so Mr. Martin took the next few items out of agenda
order.)
Agenda Item No. 21. Cancel Board of Supervisors meeting of May 10, 2000.
Motionseconded
was offered by Ms. Thomas, by Ms. Humphris, to cancel the Boards regular
=
meeting scheduled for May 10, 2000, since there were no public hearings scheduled. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
May 3, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. Request to set a public hearing to amend the service area boundaries of
the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) for water only service to Patricia Flowers (Tax Map 60A,
Section 9, Parcel 20).
It was noted in the staffs report that the applicant, Patricia Flowers, is requesting water service to
=
a two-acre parcel zoned RA, Rural Areas, which is located in an area designated as Rural Area in the
Countys Land Use Plan. This property is currently in the ACSA Service Area, with a designation of
=
"water only to existing structures." There was an existing home on the property that was uninhabited in
the early to mid-1980's. The property owner was experiencing problems with trespassing and vandalism
to the home and, as a result, removed the home from the property. At the time, the applicant was
unaware of the service area designation limiting service to that existing structure. Service was never
provided to the original structure. The applicant now wishes to locate a new home on the property, but
cannot receive water service based upon the current service area designation. Neither County staff or
Service Authority staff are aware of this type of situation occurring in the past. There is no history of
Board action on this type of request.
The subject property is located in the designated Rural Area, and is not within a Development
Area. It is staff's understanding that the "service only to existing structures" designation was intended to
recognize certain properties that were located outside the Development Area boundaries, but located
adjacent to existing service lines and that were already developed in a more urban manner. The
designation permitted the existing level of development to have service, but precluded additional, or more
intensive, development of the property from receiving public service. There is no documentation on file
specifically noting the reason why this property has this designation. Huntwood Townhomes are located
on the west side of this property and are served by public water and sewer. There is no documentation of
a health or safety problem with the on-site water source. The applicant has indicated that the taste of the
water was always of poor quality.
The property, zoned RA, Rural Areas, is two acres in size; it cannot be further subdivided. It is
staffs opinion that approval of a service area designation for "water service to one structure only" would
=
be consistent with the original service area designation (providing water service to one residential unit
on-site). It would not encourage more intensive development of this property or serve a use which is now
inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan policies for the Rural Areas.
motion
Ms. Humphris offered to set this request for a public hearing on June 7, 2000, at 10:45
seconded
a.m. The motion was by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 22. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
Mr. Tucker mentioned that there were two budget items which had not been dealt with during the
work sessions. They were mentioned at the public hearing. One is a request from the Library Board to
fund its pay plan in the amount of $35,000. The City has funded its share of the pay plan and staff
supports that. If the Board agrees it can be added to the Appropriation Ordinance in June. The other
was a request from the Small Business Development Council for $10,000. Staff did not support the
request, but did not know if the Board was supportive of the request.
Ms. Humphris said she is in favor of the Librarys request, but she is not in favor of the other
=
request. Mr. Martin agreed.
_______________
Not Docketed
: Mr. Cilimberg said on April 19, 2000, action on ZMA-99-18 and SP-99-75 for the
Charlottesville First Assembly of God, were deferred so the Board could have the proffers since they had
been left out of the materials forwarded to the Board for that meeting. He has received those proffers, but
said the Board may want to defer action again until May 17, 2000, in order to have a copy of the proffers
in their hands.
Mr. Davis said the Board has seen the proffers, the only question had to do with the signatures.
Ms. Thomas said the mistake was the Countys. As an aside, she has talked to staff and asked them to
=
determine if the parking lot surface can be porous, which just means gravel, and it is possible.
Mr. Tucker said if Mr. Davis has approved the proffers, the Board is free to take action now. He
asked Mr. Davis to phrase motions if the Board wants to take action at this time. Mr. Davis did so.
Motionseconded
was then offered by Ms. Thomas, by Mr. Bowerman, to approve ZMA-99-18,
Charlottesville First Assembly of God (request to rezone 1.496 acs from CO to R-4 to allow church
expansion to be in residential rather than commercial zone on Tax Map 61, Parcel 153A, on property
located on East Rio Road [Route 631] between CATEC and the railroad bridge), subject to the proffers.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
May 3, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
Note
(: The proffers are set out in full below.)
PROFFER FORM
Date: 3/29/00
ZMA # 99-18
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s) 61-153A0
1.496 Acres to be rezoned from CO to R-4
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly
authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be
applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the
requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for
the conditions; and, (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning
requested.
(1)The use of the property shall be limited to a church use and uses that are
accessory to a church use. Nothing in this proffer obviates the need for the owner
to obtain a special use permit for a church use in the R-4 zoning district.
(2)The owner shall grant temporary construction easements in relation to the Rio
Road widening project that is part of the Meadowcreek Parkway road construction
project as shown on the attached drawing dated 1/14/00.
Signatures of All Owners Printed Names of All Owners
(Signed) Richard J. Braza (Signed) Richard J. Braza
(Date) 4/20/00
Trustee, Charlottesville First Assembly
(Signed) Melvin Knight (Signed) Melvin Knight
(Date) 4/20/00
Trustee, Charlottesville First Assembly
(Signed) Donnie J. Murray (Signed) Donnie J. Murray
(Date) 4/20/00
Trustee, Charlottesville First Assembly
__________
Motionseconded
was then offered by Mr. Perkins, by Ms. Thomas, to approve SP-99-75,
Charlottesville First Assembly of God, (request to allow church expansion on Tax Map 61, Parcels 153A
and 153A1) subject to the five conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
Note
(: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1.Church development shall be limited to the building addition and overflow
parking areas, as generally shown on the minor site plan amendment dated
3-14-2000 and incidental improvements such as storage sheds, picnic tables,
children's play equipment, and walkways;
2.The minor site plan amendment shall be modified to conform with all zoning
and engineering requirements. If shared parking is to be continued, the
applicant shall provide for a walkway between CATEC and the church and shall
provide an updated letter granting permission to the church for use of the
CATEC lot;
3.The applicant shall complete the improvements and repairs recommended by
Mark Graham in his letter dated 13 January 2000 for the stormwater basin and
dam, prior to approval of a building permit for the modular classroom by a date
determined by the Program Authority. With these improvements and repairs,
the stormwater basin and dam shall be improved to conform to its original use.
This will require the use of compacted earth for the dam repairs;
4.Day care use shall be prohibited unless approved through a special use permit
amendment; and
5.Parcels 61-153A0 and 61-153A1 shall be combined prior to approval of a
building permit.
May 3, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
Note
(: At 10:23 a.m., the Board recessed and reconvened at 10:39 a.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. School Board Presentation.
Ms. Susan Gallion, Vice-Chair of the Albemarle County School Board, was present to make the
monthly presentation. She said the School Board is deeply appreciative of the stand the Supervisors took
this year on behalf of the children, students and parents. She and Ms. Diantha McKeel attended the
National School Boards Conference in Orlando, Florida. She learned, in talking with school board
members throughout the country, that this school division is leaps and bounds ahead of most. She has
been talking with people in the school system in Broward County, Florida. That system spends twice as
much per student and has many more students to educate. They are just dealing with issues Albemarle
has already tackled and gone forward with. It is quite satisfying to be a part of this school system in
Virginia.
Recently she heard a presentation from Ms. Diane Behrens, Principal at Agnor-Hurt. That school
has about 40 percent of its students on free and reduced cost lunches. Every year, 30 percent of their
students move in or out of the school, but their third grade SOL scores have increased tremendously
since 1997. She attributes this to the money appropriated by the Supervisors to help these children learn.
Ms. Gallion handed to the Board a set of charts showing SOL Comparisons for 1997-98 and
1998-99. She went over them in detail. She said there have been quantum leaps in the areas of
History/Social Studies and that has to do with the way the curriculum was aligned before SOLs and how it
is aligned currently. It is aligned to the tests currently.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Ms. Gallion agrees with the realignment dictated by the State. Ms.
Gallion said the School Board had some questions about the social studies area. For instance,
economics are being taught to the students from kindergarten through the grades. She looked at the
economic strand for the SOL for third grade, and it was very difficult. She has taught both sixth and
seventh grade classes, and thought that some of the information on the third grade test would be better
placed at the sixth grade level. She believes that is how some teachers feel. A first grade teacher told
her last week that she has to teach economics to six-year old students. She asked for a way to define the
difference between products and services for these students. The SOLs do not provide means on how to
teach these kids. They give a goal and leave it to the teacher to find a way to arrive at that goal. The
teachers are working very hard to provide children from five years up, with a way to understand some of
the difficult concepts. She does think the State Board of Education is listening to the local divisions more
than ever.
Ms. Gallion said that as of Monday night the School Board passed a balanced budget, thanks to
this Board. They did change several things in the budget presented to the Supervisors initially. They
took out the Governor's School, partly because of information presented that seemed to show it did
nothing that the school system was not already doing. The School Board directed more of its resources
to the literacy initiative. They also voted to begin a Bright Stars Program at Scottsville.
Ms. Thomas asked for information on literarcy versus growth. A major part of what she and
others talked about concerning the tax rate increase was that both the salary increase and the growth
increase could be accommodated. Ms. Gallion said the Division took funds from the differentiated
funding and put some of those funds in the classrooms. They changed direction and their focus was to a
reading specialist, and not just to a particular classroom teacher. This will not hit the schools that were hit
when the system went to differentiated funding. It will redirect moneys from those schools which already
had that extra funding. It will not cause greater numbers in classrooms throughout the division. It just
changed the funding formula and how resources are allocated to provide more staff, and it will provide
concentrated staff for those children who need it the most.
Dr. Castner said baseline funding for each school is the same as it was the previous year. The
schools are staffed based on the number of students in the school. Schools that have a greater number
of students on free and reduced lunch fees, will get a few more positions than just supporting growth.
There will be more adults working with children in this formula, but it is structured to support a significant
amount of staff development. They are asking all of the teachers to take courses on literarcy. Then there
will be a coach in the school to support it on an everyday basis and to tutor individual students. That type
of focus is creating something in all of the schools, as opposed to just Agnor-Hurt, which was already
doing some of these things.
Ms. Gallion said the School Board has adopted the 2000-2001 School Division Calendar. School
will begin on August 28, 2000, and with no unpredictable weather will end school on June 8, 2001. They
are in the midst of redistricting students from Cale Elementary School. Next Monday their meeting will
begin early. They will be recognizing 137 students who have placed first, second or third in State
competitions. Recently, 17 teams went to Destination Imagination in Richmond, which is a collaboration
of teens from throughout the State. Four of those teams placed, which means they will be going to Iowa
in a few weeks for the world competition.
Ms. Gallion said the School Board will receive a report on administrator and teacher evaluations
in May. It is also working on an After-School Enrichment Program, and changes to that program will be
reviewed in the next month. They will have a Retreat in June, and a special meeting in July. She offered
to answer questions.
May 3, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
Mr. Dorrier asked about the hiring of teachers for next year. Ms. Gallion said they have good
news. They are actually ahead of where they were last year at this same time.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the starting salary had increased. Ms. Gallion said she believes the
starting salary is $28,803, an increase of about $1,500.
Ms. Thomas said she would like to encourage the School Board to look at some non-monetary
ways to be sure they are doing the best that can be done in the area of teacher retention.
Mr. Martin thanked Ms. Gallion for the report.
_______________
PUBLIC HEARING
Agenda Item No. 9. to consider an ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter
4, Animals and Fowl, Article II, Dogs and Other Animals, of the Code of Albemarle, in Section 4-213, in
certain areas, to add subsection (38) Westmont Subdivision as one of those areas where dogs are
prohibited from running at large. (Public Hearing advertised in the Daily Progress on April 17 and April
24, 2000.)
Mr. Tucker said that under Section 4-213 of the County Code, homeowners may request the
restriction of dogs from running at large in certain areas approved by the Board. Of the three
homeowners located in Westmont Subdivision, two have signed a petition supporting the adoption of the
leash law; one homeowner is opposed.
Mr. Martin opened the public hearing.
Mr. Philip S. Saccacio said he lives in Westmont Subdivision. (He was interrupted by a lady
speaking from the audience. Mr. Martin advised her that she could speak later.) Mr. Saccacio handed to
the Board a copy of the covenants for the subdivision. He also had photographs of dogs on his property,
the dogs belonging to his neighbor. He has been living in the subdivision almost two years. There are
presently three residences, with a fourth under construction. There are, in addition, three vacant lots.
His neighbor, Mr. Gay has had up to nine dogs, four goats and fifteen guinea fowl hens on his property at
one time. Since this application was filed, he has seen four dogs, and another dog was added. Three of
the dogs roam the neighborhood. They do damage to his property, bark and snarl at his wife, himself,
delivery people and cars along his driveway. They do the same to his neighbor, Mr. Mawyer. He has
called the animal control people several times and was told that since there is no leash law, they could do
nothing. It was suggested that he file a petition for a leash law. He and his neighbor tried to speak to Mr.
Gay, and he refused to speak to them. They have written him a letter, and have corresponded with his
attorney. Mr. Saccacio said he would like to apologize for taking up the Boards time with this matter
=
since the covenants state that dogs are to be retained on the owners property. This is the only course
=
they have, other than going to civil court.
Mr. Peter Gadwa said he has a house under construction on Lot 2. It is approximately 800 feet
from Mr. Gays house. He has two children, three and seven years of age. He has seen the dogs on his
=
property. It never bothered him directly, but if it should, he thinks that he should have some way to
defend his interests. This leash law is the only opportunity he sees for doing that. He asked that the
leash law be adopted.
Ms. Hoffman said she lives at the residence. The Saccacios have a problem with the animals
=
because they aggravate them. They have threatened to shoot them. They use foul language. They do
not knock on the door, but will come beyond the property line. There have been many problems since
they moved in. There are other issues, including financial ones. They have been a nuisance to them.
They have harassed the children. One of the dogs is a stray that adopted them. There are other dogs in
the neighborhood who roam around. They live in the country. Each lot is six-plus acres. There has
never been a problem with any of their pets. She has talked with Sharon Tate and she complained that
Mr. Saccacio is a nuisance to her. They do have guineas, but they are confined in a coop, but they can
be heard. They have a problem with ticks and guineas like to eat the ticks. That is why they like to have
them around. They were confined behind a fence until Mr. Saccacio brought a shotgun home and
threatened to shoot them. There are more issues than just the animals.
Mr. Bobby Mawyer said he lives at 9055 Critzer Shop Road which is next door to Mr. Saccacio.
He was present to support the dog ordinance. The dogs come on his property and bark and growl at him.
(Ms. Hoffman interrupted from the back of the room. Mr. Martin said there is someone speaking, and he
deserves respect.) Mr. Mawyer said that recently he had workers at his house, and the dogs came up to
his house and barked at them. He is in favor of having this ordinance passed just to protect and live
peacefully in a neighborhood without having to tolerate someone elses animals.
=
Mr. Saccacio said he never threatened the dogs. (Ms. Hoffman interrupted again.) He said he
has never owned a shotgun and never threatened to shoot any dogs. (Ms. Hoffman interrupted again.
Mr. Martin said if necessary, he would call the Sheriffs Department and have her removed.) Mr.
=
Saccacio said the pictures he took were taken from his property.
At this point, Mr. Martin declared the public hearing closed and placed the matter before the
board.
Mr. Perkins asked if because of the Boards existing policy in this matter, they are required to
=
grant a leash law where the majority of the people have asked for it. Mr. Davis said the Board has the
discretion to adopt the ordinance or not adopt the ordinance.
May 3, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
Ms. Thomas said she would like to point out to this neighborhood that just because there is a
leash law, they cannot take the law into their own hands. This is not a declaration of war. This is a leash
law which says the animals shall stay on the owners property, and if they dont, they can call Animal
==
Control.
Mr. Perkins said the County has no right to enforce the covenants of the subdivision. With the
leash law, they would be able to call the Dog Warden. Mr. Tucker said yes.
A@
Mr. Dorrier asked if the majority of the owners in the subdivision have approved this reqeust. Mr.
Tucker said that the Boards policy says the residents currently living in the subdivision can request this
=
law, but it will cover the whole subdivision, including empty lots. Later, when more people move in, they
could always request that the law be rescinded.
Ms. Thomas said she was impressed at seeing it in the covenants of the neighborhood.
motion
At this time, Mr. Perkins offered to adopt An Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Chapter
4, Animals and Fowl, Article II, Dogs and Other Animals, Division 2, Running At Large, of the Code of the
County of Albemarle, Virginia, by amending and reordaining Section 4-213, In Certain Areas, by adding
Subsection (38) Westmont Subdivision, to Section 4-213A, as one of those areas where dogs are
prohibited from running at large.
seconded
The motion was by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
Note
(: The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 00-4(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 4, ANIMALS AND FOWL,
OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED
by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, that Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl, Article II, Dogs and Other Animals, Division
2, Running At Large, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending: Section 4-213. In certain areas.
CHAPTER 4. ANIMALS AND FOWL
ARTICLE II. DOGS AND OTHER ANIMALS
DIVISION 2. RUNNING AT LARGE
Sec. 4-213. In certain areas.
A.It shall be unlawful for the owner of any dog to permit such dog to run
at large at any time within the following designated areas of the county:
(1) University of Virginia grounds lying within the county. (7-19-73)
(2) Orchard Acres Subdivision, Crozet, as platted and put to record in
the clerk's office of the county: Section l, Deed Book 322, page 146; section 2, Deed
Book 471, page 401. (7-19-73)
(3) Woodbrook Subdivision as platted and put to record in the clerk's
office of the county: section l, Deed Book 358, page 297; section 2, vacated, Deed
Book 414, page 115; section 3, Deed Book 386, page 39; section 4, Deed Book 397,
page 177; section 4A, Deed Book 408, page 215; section 5, Deed Book 402, page 111;
section 6, Deed Book 408, page 215; section 7, Deed Book 419, page 359; section 8,
Deed Book 459, page 209; section 8A, Deed Book 481, page 231. (8-22-73)
(4) Georgetown Green as platted and put to record in the clerk's office
of the county in Deed Book 440, page 93. (9-26-73)
(5) Crozet areas, beginning at a point, a corner common to parcels 96,
46 and 45B of section 56 of the county tax maps; thence, in a westerly direction along
the southern boundaries of parcels 45B and 39, section 56 of the county tax maps to
the centerline of State Route 240; thence with State Route 240 north to the intersection
of the northeastern corner of parcel 11 of section 56 of the county tax map; thence, in a
westerly direction with the northern boundary of parcel 11 to a corner with parcel 10D of
section 56 of the county tax map; thence, in a southerly and westerly direction with the
eastern and southern boundaries of parcels 10D, 10 and 9 of section 56 and parcel 69
of section 55 to a corner with parcels 69 and 71A of section 55; thence, with the
boundaries of parcel 71A of section 56 in a southerly, westerly and northerly direction to
May 3, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
the corner with parcel 70F of section 55; thence, in a westerly direction with the
southern boundaries of parcels 70F, 72 (13), and 72B of section 55 to the southwestern
corner of parcel 72B, a corner common with parcels 74 and 75 of section 55; thence,
with the eastern boundary of parcel 74 in a northerly direction to the center of State
Route 691 and continuing in a northerly direction across State Route 691 and along the
eastern boundary of parcel 66 of section 55 to a corner with Orchard Acres (section
55C); thence, with Orchard Acres in a clockwise direction to its intersection with the
Chesapeake and Ohio Railway and continuing across the railway to its northern
right-of-way; thence, in an easterly direction along the C&0 right-of-way to its
intersection with the western boundary of parcel 51 of section 55 extended; thence, in a
northeasterly direction across State Route 788 to its intersection with the western
boundary of parcel 51 of section 55; thence, in a northeasterly direction along the
western boundaries of parcels 51, 50, and 49 of section 55 and parcel 1 of section 56 to
a corner with parcel 48 of section 55; thence, in a northwesterly and northeasterly
direction along the southern boundary of parcel 48 of section 55 and the southern and
western boundary of parcel 47 of section 55 continuing in a northeastern direction along
the western boundaries of parcels 1, 3 and 5E of section 56 to a corner with parcel 5E
of section 55, parcel 17 of section 40 and Sunrise Acres (section 40A); thence, with
Sunrise Acres in a clockwise direction to the intersection with the centerline of State
Route 810; thence, in a southwesterly and southeasterly direction with State Route 810
to the intersection with the southern boundary of parcel 64 of section 56; thence, in an
eastern direction with the southern boundary of its intersection with parcel 66 of section
56; thence, in a southerly and easterly direction around the western and southern
boundaries of parcel 66 of section 56 to its intersection with parcel 66B of section 56;
thence, in an eastern direction along the southern boundary of parcel 66B, section 56,
to a corner with parcel 58 of section 56A(2); thence, in a southerly and easterly
direction along the western boundary of parcel 58 to section 56A(2) to its intersection
with State Route 240 and continuing across State Route 240 and parcel 60 to section
56A(2) and the C&0 Railway to a corner common to parcels 67 and 68 of section
56A(2) on the southern right-of-way of the C&0 Railway; thence, with the southern
right-of-way of the C&0 Railway in a westerly direction to its intersection with a corner
common to parcel 58 of section 56 and parcel 71B of section 56A(2); thence, in a
southerly and easterly direction along the western and southern boundary of parcel 58
of section 56 to a corner with parcel 57A(1) of section 56; thence, in a southerly and
easterly direction along the western and southern boundary of parcel 57A(1) of section
56 and the southern boundary of parcel 57 of section 56 to a corner with parcel 55 of
section 56; thence, with parcel 55 of section 56 in a northeasterly direction to a corner
with parcel 54 of section 56; thence, in a southeasterly direction with the southern
boundary of parcel 54 of section 56 to its intersection with parcel 48 of section 56;
thence, in a southeasterly and southern direction along the eastern boundary of parcel
48 of section 56 to its corner with parcel 47 of section 56; thence, in a southerly
direction along the eastern boundaries of parcels 47 and 46 of section 56 to the point of
beginning. (11-15-73)
(6) Jefferson Village Subdivision as platted and put to record in the
clerk's office of the county in Deed Book 449, page 637 and Deed Book 452, page 87.
(12-19-73)
(7) Camelot Subdivision as platted and put to record in the clerk's
office of the county in Deed Book 450, pages 127 through 129; Deed Book 545, page
68; and Deed Book 653, page 79. (1-23-74; 5-21-86)
(8) Sherwood Manor Subdivision as platted and put to record in the
clerk's office of the county in Deed Book 504, page 114; and Deed Book 514, page 505.
(1-23-74)
(9) Four Seasons as platted and put to record in the clerk's office of
the county in Deed Book 467, page 378; and Deed Book 481, page 417. (3-27-74)
(10) Earlysville Heights Subdivision as platted and put to record in the
clerk's office of the county in Deed Book 452, page 165; and Deed Book 491, page 3.
(3-27-74)
(11) Westmoreland Subdivision as platted and put to record in the
office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county, as section 1, Deed Book 402, page
91; section 2, Deed Book 414, page 29; section 3, Deed Book 419, page 265; and
section 4, Deed Book 423, page 19. (5-22-74)
(12) Hessian Hills Subdivision as platted and put to record in the office
of the clerk of the circuit court of the county, as section 1, Deed Book 316, page 254;
section 2, Deed Book 327, page 327; section 3, Deed Book 370, page 145; Deed Book
379, page 365; and, section 4, Deed Book 378, page 107. (10-9-74)
(13) Knollwood Subdivision as platted and put to record in the office of
the clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deep Book 272, page 3. (Does not include
Old Forge Road or Hessian Hills Apartments.) (10-9-74)
May 3, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
(14) Stonehenge Subdivision as platted and put to record in the office
of the clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 543, page 409; Deed Book
545, page 660; Deed Book 548, pages 326, 345, 346, 347, 348, 522; and Deed Book
550, page 320. (1-22-75)
(15) Queen Charlotte Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office
of the clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 395, page 6. (3-10-76)
(16) Country Green Apartments as platted and recorded in the office of
the clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 453, page 553. (12-7-77)
(17) Oak Hill Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the
clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 360, page 105; Deed Book 362,
page 22; Deed Book 391, page 483; Deed Book 396, page 291; Deed Book 398, page
317; Deed Book 401, page 228; Deed Book 405, page 433; Deed Book 441, page 299;
and Deed Book 468, page 85. (5-22-78)
(18) Westgate Apartments (County Tax Map 61, parcels 42, 42C and
42D) as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county,
in Deed Book 497, page 636; and Deed Book 529, page 147. (5-22-78)
(19) Solomon Court Apartments (County Tax Map 61, parcels 42 and
43D) as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county,
in Deed Book 349, page 390; Deed Book 353, page 145; and Deed Book 430, page
181. (5-22-78)
(20) Carrsbrook Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the
clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 357, page 55; Deed Book 361,
page 127; Deed Book 376, page 224; Deed Book 380, pages 249, 251 and 253; Deed
Book 384, page 27; and Deed Book 387, page 469. (6-21-78)
(21) Deerwood Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the
clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 426, page 457; and Deed Book
455, page 16. (6-21-78)
(22) Greenbrier Heights Subdivision as platted and recorded in the
office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 550, page 601.
(10-7-81)
(23) Huntwood Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the
clerk of the circuit court in Deed Book 728, page 377; and Deed Book 728, page 378.
(5-13-87)
(24) Hollymead as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the
circuit court for the following areas: Sections 1 and 2 in Deed Book 531, pages 309
through 313; section 3 in Deed Book 714, page 444; Hollymead Square in Deed Book
633, page 330; tax map 46, parcel 28G in Deed Book 418, page 440; tax map 46,
parcel 26B2 in Deed Book 741, page 304; and tax map 46B1-01-1 in Deed Book 489,
page 381. (9-16-87)
(25) The urban area of the county, the communities of Hollymead and
Crozet and the village of Scottsville, all as defined in the Comprehensive Plan for
Albemarle County, Virginia, and as shown on a map which is on file in the office of the
clerk to the board of supervisors. (11-4-87)
(26) Waverly Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the
clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 697, page 382; and Deed Book
781, pages 267 and 270. (12-16-87)
(27) Whipporwill Hollow as platted and recorded in the office of the
clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 643, pages 285 to 292; Deed Book
644, pages 269 and 270; Deed Book 646, pages 220 to 221; Deed Book 657, pages
789 to 790; Deed Book 659, pages 561 to 565; Deed Book 694, pages 544 to 545; and
Deed Book 867, page 253. (12-16-87)
(28) Key West/Cedar Hills Subdivision as platted and recorded in the
office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 353, pages 193 to 197;
Deed Book 365, page 202; Deed Book 371, page 474; Deed Book 388, page 514;
Deed Book 393, page 417; Deed Book 410, page 577; Deed Book 420, page 259;
Deed Book 505, page 607; Deed Book 530, page 351; Deed Book 543, page 114;
Deed Book 661, page 44; Deed Book 692, page 453; and Deed Book 809, page 623.
(9-7-88)
(29) North Pines Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of
the clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 703, pages 742, 743 and 744.
(1-17-90)
May 3, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
(30) The Meadows in Crozet as platted and recorded in the office of
the clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 651, page 149. (8-8-90)
(31) Milton Heights Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of
the clerk of the circuit court of the county, in deed book 343, page 64. (8-17-94)
(32) Shadwell Estates Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office
of the clerk of the circuit court of the county, in deed book 339, page 458. (8-17-94)
(33) Thurston Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the
clerk of the circuit court of the county, in deed book 637, page 456. (12-7-94)
(34) Glenmore Planned Residential Development as recorded in the
office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county in deed book 1074, page 203; and
deed book 1209, page 257. (1-4-95)
(35) Peacock Hill as recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit
court of the county in deed book 589, pages 205-212; deed book 708, pages 286; deed
book 777, pages 039; deed book 904, pages 182; deed book 960, page 174; deed book
1025, page 610; deed book 1123, pages 071; deed book 1189, page 407; deed book
1310, page 128. (9-6-95)
(36) Lexington Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the
clerk of the circuit court of the county in deed book 564, page 088. (3-12-97)
(37) Bedford Hills Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of
the clerk of the circuit court of the county, in deed book 365, page 212. (12-2-98)
(38) Westmont Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the
clerk of the circuit court of the county, in deed book 1513, page 201; and in deed book
1617, page 510. (5-3-00)
B. For the purposes of this section, a dog shall be deemed to be running at
large while roaming, running or self-hunting off the property of its owner or custodian
and not under its owner's or custodian's immediate control. Any person who permits his
dog to run at large shall be deemed to have violated the provisions of this section, and,
upon conviction, shall be fined not less than five dollars ($5.00) nor more than
twenty-five dollars ($25.00). It shall be the duty of the animal control officer to enforce
the provisions of this section.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-00-010. Charlottesville Catholic School (Sign #47). PUBLIC HEARING
on a request to amend the conditions of an existing SP to allow an increase in enrollment from 180 to 220
for the 2000-2001 school year in accord w/Sec 20.4.2 of the Zoning Ord which allows private school. TM
61X2, P 4B contains 2.314 acs. Loc on Four Seasons Dr approx 1/4 ml from inter of Four Seasons Dr &
Hydraulic Rd. Znd PUD. Rio Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on
April 17 and April 24, 2000.)
Mr. Cilimberg said the Board, on May 1, 1998, approved a special use permit to allow a private
school to be located at this site on a temporary basis until the new permanent facility, located on East Rio
Road is completed. The applicant is requesting that the limit on maximum enrollment be increased for
the final year of this temporary facility from 180 students to 220. The applicant believes that there is
capacity within the existing facility to accommodate the additional enrollment and that the increased
enrollment limit will allow them to better address requests for enrollment.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 25, 2000, unanimously
recommended approval of SP-00-010 subject to the three conditions recommended by staff.
With no questions from Board members, Mr. Martin asked the applicant to speak.
Ms. Heidi Parker thanked Mr. Bowerman and the Board for expediting the hearing on their
petition. She said that in 1998 when the permit was first approved, there were three conditions attached.
One of those limited the student body to 180 students. That is creating a problem since 180 students
have already been signed up for next fall, and there are 42 names on the waiting list at this time. The
request is only for 40 additional students because that is all the faculty can serve. There will be no
external changes to the building. There will be no significant increase in traffic at this site. She has a
letter from both the presidents of the Four Seasons Townhouse Association and the Four Seasons Patio
Homes Association and neither has received a complaint about the school in the two years it has
operated there. She asked the Board to approve the application as recommended by the Planning
Commission.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to speak, the
public hearing was closed.
May 3, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
Mr. Bowerman said as far as he has been able to determine, the School has been a good
move
neighbor. It is a temporary use, so he will for approval of SP-00-010 subject to the conditions
seconded
recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was by Ms. Humphris.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
Note
(: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1.Maximum enrollment shall be 220 students;
2.Hours of operation shall be 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. provided that occasional
school-related events may occur after 6:00 p.m.; and
3.Site shall not be used as school after June 30, 2001.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Appeal: ARB-F(Sign)-2000-10. Jim Price Chevrolet Co sign. Review for
new faces on existing internally illuminated pylon sign situated at S end of site. Located on W sd of Rt 29
N, just S of Wal-Mart store. Znd HC & EC. TM 45, P 68. Rio Dist.
Mr. Cilimberg said that on April 3, 2000, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed an
application to replace the faces of an existing nonconforming sign with new faces at the Jim Price
Chevrolet auto dealership. The proposed faces were to have white backgrounds with red and blue
letters. The backgrounds of the sign would not be opaque. The ARB has consistently required that the
backgrounds of internally illuminated cabinet signs be opaque so that only the message portion of the
cabinet sign be illuminated and visible at night. In keeping with this practice, the ARB voted 4:1 to deny
the application as presented. The applicant has appealed that decision to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Cilimberg said Ms. Margaret Pickart, Design Planner who works for the ARB, has made him
aware today of a change suggested by the applicant. The change is to remove the lighting on the sign.
The sign would have lettering indicating the make and models sold, the dealers name, and a white
=
background, but no lights. Ms. Pickart has indicated that would be acceptable to the ARB. The sign will
be in area that is well-lit by parking lot lights. It does not need any kind of other illumination. The easiest
course for the applicant would be for the Board to approve that because if it is sent back to the ARB, it will
require additional review time.
Ms. Humphris asked for wording of a motion. Ms. Pickart said the Board should just approve a
motion
non-illuminated sign as proposed by the applicant. Mr. Bowerman said he will offer a to approve
second
the request as proposed with a non-illuminated sign. Ms. Humphris gave to the motion.
Mr. Martin said the applicants representative is present. He asked Mr. Ed Bain if he would like to
=
add a comment. Mr. Bain said he had no comments to make other than they can now support staff’s
recommendation.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
Note
(: The Board was ahead of the published schedule, so took a recess at 11:19 a.m. and
reconvened again at 11:24 a.m.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Virginia Piedmont Technology Council (VPTC), Presentation by David
Kalergis.
Mr. Kalergis said he appreciates the opportunity to speak to the Board today about a proposal for
a unique public/private partnership. If it comes to fruition, it will involve VPTC in partnership with the City,
the University and the County. Also involved will be some of the other political entities in the region such
as Piedmont Virginia College, the town of Scottsville, and the Virginia Center for Innovative Technology.
All will participate in a plan which is designed to organize and implement a strategy to use the Internet for
the benefit of the region. He said successful regions have recognized that the Internet has a lot of
different capabilities and capacities. Those regions who are smart enough, and work together in a
cooperative way can come up with a strategy to put that tool to use. He gave an example of Bangalore,
India, which is now the leading world marketer of data-based programming. He said it is a mid-level
technology, but it does require a very trained work force. They got into this because of the amount of
data that needed to be looked at for the Y2K problem. This all came about in a four-year period of time.
Mr. Kalergis said he would like to talk about the goals for the project they are calling the
connected community. One goal is to harness the Internet for broad-based regional advantage. The
A@
second is to create a world-class technology work force. The core of the project is to help train local
people in the base line skills of technology and Internet utilization, so they will be the ones who can step
into the technology jobs growing in Charlottesville.
Mr. Kalergis said he had neglected to introduce others from VPTC who are on the Board or are
officers. Many of them are involved in building technology companies. They hire people from the VPTC
May 3, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
work force, but in some cases, they have to go outside of the community to hire people. He introduced
Mr. Chris Holden from Microbrasion, Mr. Mark Giles who is president of Virginia National Bank, Mr. J.
Walter Levering who is chairman of DAX Media and Mr. Josh Chernila from iRenovate.com.
Mr. Kalergis said the third goal is a social component, which is to help close the digital divide.
Members of the community who do not have access to technology, are not getting the education, do not
have a computer in the home, and are in danger of being left behind making it more difficult for them to
catch up. VPTC is presenting a proposal which business can support, but which also has some good
social goals attached.
Mr. Kalergis said VPTC is a two-year old organization and their mission is to establish Central
Virginia as a technology leader while helping to preserve the quality of life. This Tech Council cares
about the quality of life and is looking for a way to participate in the technology revolution in a way that is
compatible with the goals in the greater community. They have 120+ members from small companies up
to the largest technology employers in the region. They can promote this because they see the benefit
from a broad based regional work force training program. Finally, their membership is looking for the
opportunity to be of public service. They are a part of the community and in the economy, and this is a
chance to give some of that back.
Mr. Kalergis said the benefits of participation to Albemarle County is that in crafting this, they
have been very aware of the Countys sustainability goals. Second, the Eastern District Planning
=
Initiative (EDPI), which was designed to look at land use patterns over the next fifty years as well as
transportation alternatives, has been factored into this project. For Albemarle County, they see the use of
the Internet as an alternative to traditional transportation. This is an area where, should the Board
choose to participate and make a financial investment, that investment would be targeted toward
telecommuting. They have been talking with the EDPI about light rail, and other types of transportation
methods, and there are many problems. A lot of people are needed to make it work, and it is very
expensive to get the infrastructure in place. He sees the Internet as a way to find a solution at a much
cheaper cost. There is a precedent, the successful Monticello Avenue program run by the Library.
Finally, he sees this connected community as a way of finding a common goal that everybody in the
A@
community can get behind and find ways to participate in without explicitly ruining the quality of life that
make this place so special.
Mr. Kalergis said when he talked to the University of Virginia, he talked to them about their desire
to have national Internet leadership. That has been a stated goal of President Casteen and fits in with the
new public service mission of the University which is interested in having relationships with the
technology sector in this region.
Mr. Kalergis said the City of Charlottesville has already made a financial commitment to this
project contingent upon participation by the University. He told the City their money would be targeted
toward the consolidation of several existing computer learning labs scattered throughout the City. In
particular, finding a home for the charity Computers4Kids which is a growing program. VPTC has located
a building, and the Citys money would go toward support of a physical structure from which their Tech
=
Council Headquarters would run the Connected Community program. Money from the University would
support programmatic, development of the metrics and figuring out how to measure success. Money
from the County would go toward the telecommuting issue. Other benefits to the City would be to support
the emerging undeserved neighborhoods because the Computers4Kids would be on the edge of a
transition zone near the Fifeville neighborhood. And also to extend the successful Monticello Avenue
Program, and the bio-tech training program which is something the University, the City and Piedmont
College started about a year ago. It has been very successful in getting the home grown work force into
jobs in bio-technology in the University Hospital instead of having to import employees from outside of the
community.
Mr. Kalergis said there are already a number of other participants. Piedmont Virginia Community
College is very enthusiastic about this project in which they have been involved since the beginning. It
has committed $20,000 unconditionally as a sign that they support the project. The Orange County
School System heard about this program and asked if they could be an initial partner. They contributed
$5000 from their school budget. They hope that Orange County can be a pilot for any of the projects
which might have distance learning involved. He has presented this to the town of Scottsville which has
some interest in economic development. He thinks they could be a worthy participant.
Mr. Kalergis said VPI started something like this in 1992 called the Blacksburg Electronic
A
Village. They were the first college in the nation to get a large-scale Internet program under way. It was
@
very successful and got national publicity. They are widely acclaimed as the best wired community in
America, but their project is mature and there is not a lot further they can take it. They are interested in
partnering with the University of Virginia. He said the Virginia Center for Innovative Technology has
supported the program and pledged $25,000 this year, and $25,000 next year. Finally, they are looking
at the Commonwealth and the United States Government. If this is a successful public/private
partnership with as many entities as they are trying to put together, it is very ripe material to bring to the
Federal Government for large-scale HUD grants or Department of Commerce grants that could continue
the process and have it carry into the next generation, so they would not have to come back to the Board
for money.
Mr. Kalergis said in the document he furnished the Board, there is an overview of the plan. He
also has a 45-minute presentation which goes through the plan step-by-step. He would like to chat with
the Board about how this plan would actually work. It revolves around organizational planning;
community education and consensus building; an inventory of existing resources; it is important to set
May 3, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
measurable goals; and, use that to establish a claim that this is a world class connected community. He
said a lot of work has gone into the funding plan. It has definition, but it is not complete. He is trying to
collect pledges from individual entities who are interested in the concept, and to show that there is some
regional unity. He is telling people that as they put money in, the money will go toward a specific goal of
theirs which connects with the connected community. Telecommuting might be of interest to the County,
but other things the County is involved in could be factored in. There is also the opportunity for significant
private sector in-kind. He has not been in touch with companies like SPRINT, CFW and Adelphia, but
they have been coming to him. Finally, as mentioned in the funding plan, when this program is up and
running, there will be a very persuasive case for Federal dollars. Bringing Federal dollars into this
community for work force training is something that he is committed to. He is asking the Board to
consider participating, after its review of the program. If it endorses the concept of the connected
community, he asks for a contribution of $150,000 over five years. Finally, he also encourages
participation in the inventory of Internet resources by County staff.
Mr. Dorrier said the list of benefits did not show Albemarle Countys school system. He had
=
asked Mr. Kalergis earlier if there were a way to guarantee a computer for every school child. Mr.
Kalergis said at this point, he wants to know how the County can use the Internet to see if they can help
the County in any way. The Computers4Kids project is going on now and they have already given many
computers. Mr. Dorrier asked if that is a City program. Mr. Kalergis said the headquarters are now in the
Sprint Building on Rio Road; it is a City/County program. VPTC worked with the State Legislature to get a
bill passed to free up the inventory of computers that is in a University of Virginia warehouse. That bill
passed and is effective July 1, 2000.
Mr. Humphris said Mr. Kalergis had said County money would be used to support County goals
as much as possible. She asked the point of the County sending $150,000 to his group instead of just
continuing to implement County goals itself without having the money pass through someone elses
=
budget. Mr. Kalergis said the County would get the synergies of working with their Tech Council. With
120 technology members and an active volunteer group, they have people who are on the cutting edge of
Internet implementation and computer technology. They are doing this as a public service. There is the
opportunity to cut across the usual jurisdictional lines with some pool of money, and partner on certain
projects that may be better suited to be done in a collective way.
Mr. Bowerman said he supports the work being done by Mr. Kalergis and his group, and the
concept of interconnectivity. Because the community has adopted long-term goals for its survivability, it is
a natural for this type of thing. What he is having difficulty with is that organically he thinks it will happen
anyway. The investment he, personally, is making now to interconnectivity is about $200,000. What the
Board would want to see is an exact program for the use of County funds in terms of interaction with the
school system, in terms of training, i.e., something specific. He thinks the infrastructure will be in place by
the private sector to accomplish this interconnectively. He thinks the market will drive a lot of the
interconnectivity that will be seen. It will naturally go where services are needed. Therefore, he is trying
to define what the county would get for its money. He endorses the concept of the Council. If the Board
gives funds, it needs to see something for the public that is tangible.
Mr. Kalergis said because the Internet and its use as a tool is so new, he thought it was
worthwhile to get in front of the people who make the decisions and talk about the concept. He
specifically rejected delineating line items of dollars. He felt that if the Board thinks this is a good idea
and is interested in participating, he would go back and work with County people to find areas of concern.
He thinks all would benefit from the collective financial commitment in terms of the knowledge on how to
spend those funds, knowledge on how to get access to the infrastructure, plus the opportunity to leverage
for the Federal dollars.
Mr. Martin said this meeting is beginning to run behind schedule. He believes all of this is too
much information to ingest in just 15 minutes. He would like to look at the possibilities and bring back it
back for a further discussion. He, personally, thinks it is an excellent concept. He is very interested in
work force development. He would like to see more specificity.
Mr. Dorrier asked if a committee of people from the school system and County staff could be set
up to deal with this idea.
Mr. Martin suggested the County Executive and Mr. Kalergis talk and then staff give the
Board a recommendation on how to proceed.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Closed Session: Legal and Personnel Matters.
motion
At 11:53 a.m., Mr. Bowerman offered that the Board go into Closed Session at 12:15 p.m.
pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to
Boards and Commissions; under Subsection (3) to consider the acquisition of property for school sites
and other public uses; and, under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific
legal matters relating to an interjurisdictional agreement and regarding pending litigation relating to the Ivy
seconded
Landfill. The motion was by Ms. Humphris.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
_______________
May 3, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
Agenda Item No. 13. The Board immediately recessed in order to participate in County
Government Day.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Certify Closed Session.
Motion
The Board reconvened into open session at 2:10 p.m. was immediately offered by Mr.
Bowerman that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board members knowledge
=
only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia
Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the closed session were heard,
discussed or considered in the closed session.
seconded
The motion was by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Davenport & Company, LLC, Financial Advisors, Presentation by.
It was noted in the staffs report that the firm of Davenport & Company was hired in March as a
=
financial advisor to analyze and assess the County's financial condition, to help develop a capital
financing plan, and, to assist in preparing for a possible bond referendum and bond sale. The staff has
met twice with them and provided material related to County financial audits and capital and operating
budgets. The presentation today will focus on the first phase of the work which was to provide an
overview of Albemarle County's financial position relative to other Triple A or Double A localities
throughout Virginia. This should give the Board a clearer picture of where the County stands now so it
can determine future financial policy parameters relative to a strong bond rating. This discussion will help
the financial advisors with the next phase of developing a capital financing plan within the agreed upon
financial parameters. Capital projects which may be funded within the Countys revenue and debt
=
capacities will be the focus of work over the next several months.
Mr. Tucker introduced Mr. James Traudt who will be making the presentation. He said the
presentation will be a comparison of Albemarle Countys financial profile as compared to that of other
=
counties which are Triple A or Double A and he will speak about other issues.
Mr. Traudt gave a slide presentation of the report. He said the County has a long list of needs.
As it wrestles with the issue of what it can afford, it needs a framework for decision-making. The starting
point today is to compare Albemarle County with other major jurisdictions in the State from the point of
view of economics, a financial profile, a debt profile and debt capacity. Long-term credit ratings from
major rating agencies are one of the ways to judge the overall financial and creditworthiness of a
jurisdiction. The strongest credit ratings in the market from Moodys and Standard and Poors are Triple A
=
ratings. There are only 24 counties in the United States out of 3000+ which carry Triple A ratings from
both Moodys and Standard and Poors. A higher credit rating is important because it reduces the cost of
=
borrowing, permits the locality to borrow money on more favorable terms, and permits the locality to
access markets under more difficult circumstances.
Mr. Traudt said that in the Commonwealth of Virginia there are a number of Triple A rated
Note
localities. He showed a slide listing these (: A copy of the slide presentation is on file in the Clerks
=
Office with the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors). He said that among those localities are
four of the 24 jurisdictions in the United States. Also shown were the Double A rated localities. He said
they are all as large, or larger, than Albemarle County.
Next was the economic profile which listed the population for each locality. With the exception of
Albemarle County, Charlottesville is the smallest of these jurisdictions. There is no Triple A jurisdiction in
the United States smaller than Arlington County which has about 200,000 in population. Over the past
five years, Albemarles population has grown at a faster rate than any of the Triple A jurisdictions in
=
Virginia, and significantly more than the averages. This is a very positive indicator. When looking at
income per capita, which is one of the more important economic indicators, Albemarles income is similar
=
to Charlottesville, Chesterfield and Henrico, and lags the three Northern Virginia Triple A jurisdictions.
Albemarles per capita income is very strong. It is slightly higher than some of the Triple A jurisdictions,
=
but a little below the average. He said the per capita income has grown over the past five years at a rate
that is equal to the best of the Triple A jurisdictions in the Commonwealth, and is significantly faster than
the Double A and the Triple A average. That is one more positive sign.
Mr. Traudt said the most recent unemployment numbers put Albemarle County with a lower
unemployment rate than any of the other Triple A jurisdictions in the Commonwealth, and with a stronger
number than either the Triple A or the Double A averages.
The next slide shows jobs as a percentage of population. This actually counts the number of jobs
within the County as a percentage of the total population. In Albemarle County, considering there are
young people, and old people that may be retired, other people who may not be working, it has 80
percent of the people in the County represented by a job. That means the County is a net importer of
labor. Only two of the Triple A jurisdictions have more jobs as a percentage of population. They are
May 3, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
Metropolitan Washington suburbs which have a high concentration of governmental-related job as
industry. Ms. Thomas asked if part-time jobs count as jobs? Mr. Traudt said what he is showing are full-
time jobs as counted by the U.S. Department of Commerce.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the chart shows a locality at 100 percent, does that mean people are
coming into the County to work, or going out of the County? Mr. Traudt said when it shows 100 percent,
that means people are actually coming into the County to work. He said that in Arlington where there is a
high percentage of office buildings, people commute in from the surrounding areas. In effect, at 80
percent, this is probably also happening in Albemarle County. There are probably more people coming
into the County to work than are going out of the County into Charlottesville or elsewhere to work. This is
a very positive economic indicator.
Mr. Traudt said the real property tax rate in the County remains the lowest of any of the Triple A
jurisdictions. Albemarles tax rate is very favorable by comparison. Mr. Bowerman asked if that is
=
positive or negative. Mr. Traudt said it means that relative to other jurisdictions, Albemarle County has
more room to meet needs or to meet adverse circumstances through a property tax increase. It is
generally considered a positive factor to have a lower tax rate, so long as the County is able to do all of
the things it needs to do. Overall, a lower tax rate gives future flexibility, so that is a positive
consideration.
Mr. Traudt said they took market value of real property and measured it on a per capita basis.
Albemarle Countys market value per capita is close to the Triple A average and is higher than three of
=
the six jurisdictions. The Northern Virginia jurisdictions have abnormally high market values per capita
because of the real estate valuations in that area. But, Albemarle Countys numbers compare very
=
favorably to that group as a whole.
Next was the five year growth of market value. Albemarle County is at the top of the Triple A
jurisdictions. The growth of about 27 percent over the last five years in total evaluation compares
favorably to this group. School enrollment as a percent of population is neither a positive nor a negative
factor. It is only factual information. Jurisdictions across the State vary considerably in this regard.
Growth in school enrollment has changed considerably over the years. Charlottesville actually
lost enrollment in the last five years, while Albemarle County looks just like any of the prototype Double A
or Triple A jurisdictions. Some are growing much faster than others.
Retail sales per capita show Albemarle County as being a little below the Triple A averages. The
fact that Charlottesville is here and has such high retail sales per capita, is part of the reason. The next
slide shows that over the last five years, Albemarles growth in retail sales is right on the averages, and in
=
fact, exceeds slightly the growth in the City. That is a very positive sign. Basically, those are the
economic and demographic indicators. He said aside from the fact that the County is relatively small
compared to the other Triple A jurisdictions, across the board the basic financial and economic indicators
position Albemarle County as a very strong county with a strong economy, and one which is very
attractive.
Mr. Traudt said that next he will discuss financial issues. They looked at tax revenue as a
percent of the total revenue base (this is both the General Fund and the Schools, in combination). When
looking at property taxes as a percentage of the total, Albemarle County looks exactly like the average
Triple A county in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Mr. Bowerman said Albemarles tax revenue versus total revenues is equal to the Triple A
=
average, but the tax rate was much lower than the jurisdictions shown with the Triple A rating. He asked
if he could equate that graph with the strong rating of the Triple A counties that had a higher tax rate per
one hundred. Mr. Traudt said this graph is showing the mix of revenue in the General Fund and School
funding if State Revenue-Sharing is deleted. He said some jurisdictions place a higher emphasis on non-
tax revenue sources (such as user fees). When looking at this information and then at property taxes, the
fact that Albemarle is right on the average as a percentage of the total revenue stream suggests that
Albemarles pattern is similar to theirs. The other one suggests, if you are funding the needs of the
=
community, you have been able to do so with a lower tax rate than some of the other jurisdictions. Part of
that is because Albemarles tax base has been growing at a faster rate than some of the other
=
jurisdictions. Expenditures are also an important consideration.
Mr. Traudt said local revenue per capita is a way of looking at the local tax burden imposed on
the individual. Albemarle Countys local revenue per capita from all sources is lower than any of the
=
Triple A jurisdictions in the Commonwealth. It is considerably lower than that of the City of Charlottesville.
This is an important statistic. Like the tax rate, it suggests that the local burden being imposed on the
average citizen is below that which is normally being imposed by other similar governmental units. The
second way of looking at that is by looking at local revenue as a percent of income. Measured against
the total income of the community, the burden is lower in Albemarle County than in any of those other
jurisdictions. Overall, taxes, fees, charges, everything Albemarle imposes on its citizens, the rate of that
effective burden is lower as a percent of income than any of those other jurisdictions. As to expenditures
per capita, on a gross basis, those expenditures are slightly lower than the Triple A or Double A average.
Mr. Traudt said as to expenditures as a percent of income, the numbers are very similar to the
overall Triple A jurisdictions. Part of this relates to the wealth levels of the jurisdiction. As for educational
expenditures per student (including capital expenditures), Albemarles are slightly below the Triple A
=
average.
May 3, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
Next, Mr. Traudt mentioned the fund balance, and said the undesignated fund balance of the
County is at 13 to 14 percent and that is a strong number. This is a very positive indicator of sound
financial condition. He said other jurisdictions do not account for their undesignated fund balance in
exactly the same way as Albemarle County does. There are no two localities in the State who treat
everything in exactly the same way. It is hard to draw exact parallels, but the Countys fund balance at
=
about the 10 percent level is a standard people are shooting for in the Triple A category. Some of those
localities in Virginia are not making that level.
Mr. Traudt said at the end of the year, looking at cash and investments, which is money in the
bank at a given point in time as compared to revenue, Albemarle had about 30 percent with all the tax
revenue coming in at the end of the year. The County does have a good cash position and that is a
positive financial indicator. He mentioned a couple of financial trends. The market value of property grew
about 30 percent over a five-year period of time. The tax rate was basically flat through last year. When
growth and expenditures are added, there is an upward trend in expenditures that was accomplished
while keeping the tax rate essentially flat. That was possible because in a certain sense growth has been
paying for growth. This graph shows that the County has been living within its means, and suggests that
the County has been well-managed financially over this period of time.
In terms of the debt profile, debt per capita is a common measure of debt position. Albemarle
Countys ratio is lower than the Double A and the Triple A average. That is a positive indicator.
=
Albemarles debt service as a percentage of its overall expenditures (this is measured against total
=
County general fund debt service and schools) is at about five percent. The Board has a ceiling of ten
percent in its policy. Only the City of Alexandria has a lower ratio. For debt as measured against total
personal income, Albemarle County, other than Alexandria, has the strongest ratio of that group.
Considerably stronger than the Double As.
=
Mr. Traudt said Albemarle County is considerably smaller than any other Triple A rated county in
the United States. That is an important factor because the size of the tax base makes a difference,
theoretically, in being able to respond to adversity. With that exception, from an overall demographic
perspective, Albemarle County measures favorably against any Triple A jurisdiction in Virginia. On the
financial side, they reached a similar conclusion. Whether talking about the composition of the tax base,
the fund balance, or other factors, Albemarle Countys financial performance and general financial
=
posture is extremely solid. On the debt profile side, the Countys numbers are very strong and, other than
=
the City of Alexandria which has low debt ratios, Albemarle Countys position is excellent. It would be
=
difficult for him to say that they can get the County a Triple A rating, but what is apparent, with the
exception of its size, Albemarle County has been very well managed. It is in a very strong financial
position and looks very much like a Triple A jurisdiction.
Mr. Traudt said they would like to look at some of the Countys plans in order to give the Board a
=
perspective on debt capacity. In the analysis, they had to make a few assumptions; population growth in
the future, growth in the tax base, levels of income, and general levels of expenditures. These numbers
are tied either to historical numbers or planning figures which the County has been using. In the case of
expenditures, the seven-percent mark is the revaluation estimate in terms of what growth has been. They
used a set of basic assumptions to look at how some of the variables may change. That allowed them to
look at some of the debt plans to see how they will affect the debt ratios in the future. He then went over
various scenarios. No. 1 is the existing Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan and they assumed that
$63.0 million in debt will be issued over the next five years to fund a portion of the capital needs. No. 2
boosts that amount to $103.0 million. No. 3 looks at ten years, started with the $63.0 million and added
$53.0 million in the out years to get a total of $116.0 million. No. 4 started with the same $63.0 million
and boosted the amount of funding in the out years by $108.0 million to a total of $171.0 million. These
are actual bonds planned to be issued over the next five years. These figures do not include cash, or
other sources of funding that would be involved.
It will be said that the County will change over the next five years, arent the ratios going to
=
change? They analyzed this for everyone of the Triple A jurisdictions, and the four-years from 1995-98,
debt per capita changed by only $80.00 per capita across all those jurisdictions. Debt versus market
value changed by three-tenths of a percent. Debt versus income changed by two hundreds of a percent.
Debt service as a percentage of expenditures went from 6.7 to 6.9 percent. In the greater scheme of
things, that is a way of saying basically that debt ratios changed very little over time. The ratios do not
change a lot because in one fashion or another debt is fairly closely tied to economic growth or change
that is occurring in the community.
Mr. Traudt said in looking at debt capacity for Albemarle County in this context, they are looking
at an average minimum capacity of approximately $55.0 or $60.0 million every five years over that ten-
year horizon. There is not a right or a wrong answer. On one side, Albemarle looks like a strong Triple A,
and on the other side, most of the ratios are within the Triple A parameters, but debt per capita grows
rapidly and looks more like a Double A type of level than a Triple A type of level.
Mr. Traudt said the Board does have some specific guidelines which have been around for a long
time. Two of those guidelines are fairly flexible. One of them is fairly rigid; the debt per capita number.
That is a number which the current CIP might exceed, and something that will need to be looked at during
this process. One of the next steps is to look at those policies to determine how they will affect the
County over the next five to ten years. He offered to answer questions.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks there must be some economies of scale dealing with debt per
capital. Mr. Traudt said capital expenditures can be divided into two categories. Some are absolutely
May 3, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
necessary, and then there are those that have an element of discretion. If the capital expenditures which
are necessary are not funded, that will create an adverse affect on the economy and the community and
the quality of life. On the other hand, many people have CIPs containing projects which constitute a
=
wish list. It might create financial stress if the County tried to fund all of those things. Part of the
A@
balancing act is figuring out from the debt side how much debt can be factored into the picture. On the
revenue side, when it is known how much cash is available, then they can work with staff to determine the
most efficient funding plan without getting debt out of control, or the budget out of control, and as many
projects as possible can be funded.
Mr. Dorrier said the analysis basically showed that growth is paying for itself. Mr. Traudt said as
long as the County can maintain a strong fund balance, which means that needs can be funded out of the
current budget, then, in effect, growth is paying for growth. As long as the County is meeting its needs,
and is able to meet all future needs, that is what the trends generally show. His firm has looked at that
type of analysis for every jurisdiction in Virginia with a population over 50,000. Albemarle County trends
compare favorably with many jurisdictions in the State. There are places where the picture may look
somewhat similar, maybe the expenditure line is a little higher, and the fund balance has been
dramatically depleted, that is not a positive sign.
Ms. Thomas asked how they judge the relative importance of the various factors shown in the
slides. She said the one place it appears Albemarle may have a red flag is in per capita debt. In all the
other factors, the County looks very strong. How much of a red flag is that? How much should the Board
be afraid of reaching the point where it goes above the Triple A average for per capita debt if everything
else is as shown? Mr. Traudt said that is a good question, but he does not have the answer to all the
questions today. They came to provide the Board with food for thought. They hope to get from the Board
some sense of where it wants to go. One of the next issues, as they begin to look at the question of
affordability is they know the numbers they are looking at are 50 percent higher than the Countys current
=
policy. The one note of caution in this entire analysis is that the only factor which does not seem to be
positive at first glance is the fact that relative to the jurisdictions they used in their analysis, Albemarle is a
small jurisdiction. That is an issue which needs to be compensated for in some fashion. He is not sure
what the answer to that question is. They know Albemarle will vary in some way from the other
jurisdictions. He thinks the best answer he can give today is that beyond the levels looked at today, it
would create trouble.
Mr. Dorrier asked if they are assuming an increase in tax rates and tax revenues based on past
history. Mr. Traudt said they did make an assumption of about a seven percent annual growth in
revenues. Mr. Dorrier asked if that is based on the assessed value of property. Mr. Traudt said partly.
A@
Mr. Tucker said staff and the consultants will get together and bring back additional information in
the next couple of weeks.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Appointments.
Motionseconded
was offered by Ms. Humphris, by Ms. Thomas, to reappoint Ms. Ruth L. Stone
as the joint City/County appointee to the Commission on Children and Families, with said term effective
May 3, 2000, through May 2, 2003.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Development Areas Initiatives Steering Committee (DISC) Implementation
Schedule, Discussion of.
Mr. Cilimberg said at its April 5, 2000, meeting, the Board established a committee of staff and
DISC representatives to develop a plan of action for implementing the recommendations of DISC.
Recommended steps for implementation of the Neighborhood Model have been drafted.
He said the recommended steps toward implementation of the Neighborhood Model are:
1. "Accept" the work of the DISC Committee and acknowledge that it is under review. It is
recommended that the Board direct staff to begin providing assessments of relevant rezoning and special
use permit proposals in relation to the Neighborhood Model as an informational item in staff reports. This
would be provided in much the same way fiscal impact analysis is currently, qualified as for information
only and would not be considered a basis for decision as it would not yet have standing as a part of the
Comprehensive Plan. The intent is to immediately begin providing the Planning Commission and Board
of Supervisors some picture of how development proposals are meeting Neighborhood Model
recommendations before the DISC recommendations are adopted into the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Adopt the Neighborhood Model (Volume 1) as part of the Comprehensive Plan. This is
necessary to begin basing relevant rezoning and special use permit decisions on the Model and before
undertaking regulatory changes and the Neighborhood Master Plans. Conduct a work session and public
hearing of the Commission and the Board in June, 2000 at which the staff would provide the Commission
and Board an overview of the Neighborhood Model and its component parts and answer questions. Staff
May 3, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
from departments whose work/projects will be impacted by the Neighborhood Model's adoption would
also be asked to attend this work session. The Board should then send the Neighborhood Model to the
Commission with a request that it conduct its review, public hearing and provide recommendations to the
Board by the September, 2000 day meeting of the Board. The Board is asked to review the
Neighborhood Model in September and hold its public hearing and adopt the Model in October, 2000. In
proceeding with this schedule, a decision needs to be made by the Board as to what type of staff
involvement is desired in Commission and Board review.
3. Appoint the DISC II Oversight Committee to monitor Neighborhood Model review, regulatory
changes and neighborhood master planning. The Board should appoint this committee by July, 2000 to
monitor this work. Recommendation as to membership in this committee will begin with DISC
appointment of an advisory committee in May, 2000.
4. Adopt the regulatory changes (Volume 2, Part 1, Section 2) dealing with the form of develop-
ment: subdivision and zoning ordinance recommendations, including steep slope provisions, and
modification of the water quality ordinance. Following adoption of the Neighborhood Model, conduct a
work session of the Commission and Board in November, 2000 to review the regulatory change
proposals. Staff from departments whose work/projects will be impacted by the regulatory changes would
also be asked to attend this work session. In consideration of these regulatory changes, it should be
understood that if the County is going to require certain project amenities from developers, such as
accessible and usable parks and open space, there is an expectation of County funding for maintenance.
With an understanding of the impact of these changes, the Board should pass a resolution of intent to
amend the relevant ordinances and forward this to the Commission with a request that it conduct its
review, public hearing and provide recommendations to the Board by the March, 2001 day meeting of the
Board. The Board is asked to review the regulatory changes in March and April, 2001 and hold its public
hearing and adopt the regulatory changes in May, 2001. Again, in proceeding with this schedule,
decision needs to be made by the Board as to the type of staff involvement in the Commission and Board
review that is desired.
5. Undertake the first Neighborhood Master Plan. Following adoption of the Neighborhood
Model, direct staff to proceed with the first Neighborhood Master Plan as a "pilot." This will require
issuance of an RFP for consultant assistance and appointment of a Master Plan committee for the
neighborhood in November, 2000. It is likely that the consultant will not be selected, a contract
negotiated and a notice to proceed issued before February, 2001. As part of the contract a time line will
be developed for completion of the Master Plan. Decision will need to be made as to which neighborhood
will be the subject of the first plan. Previously, staff has identified Hollymead and Crozet as the two most
likely candidates.
6. Adopt the policy changes (Volume 2, Part 1, Section 1, and Part 2), with special attention to
the items below, as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Following adoption of the Neighborhood Model,
conduct a work session of the Commission and Board in November, 2000 to review the proposed
changes. Staff from departments whose work/projects will be impacted by these policy changes would
also be asked to attend this work session. Major policy changes that must be considered involve: a)
schools and parks; b) VDOT road regulations; c) affordable housing; and, d) fire trucks and fire safety.
With an understanding of the impact of these changes, the Board should pass a resolution of
intent to amend the relevant sections of the Comprehensive Plan and forward this to the Commission with
a request that it conduct its review, public hearing and provide recommendations to the Board by the
April, 2001 day meeting of the Board. The Board is asked to review the policy changes in April and May,
2001 and hold its public hearing and adopt the policy changes in June, 2001. Again, in proceeding with
this schedule, a decision needs to be made by the Board as to what type of staff involvement is desired in
Commission and Board review.
Mr. Martin said the Committee wanted to be sure there were public hearings held before any
adoption of the Neighborhood Model, and then public hearings at the end of the process. Mr. Bowerman
said he likes the idea of beginning immediately, and then having public input at the beginning of the work
session process.
Mr. Perkins wondered why some of the findings of the DISC Committee cannot be incorporated
sooner. For instance, it is said that certain things are not allowed under current zoning. Why could not
some of the findings be incorporated in existing zoning in order to take advantage of these things now?
Mr. Martin said that is what they mean when using the word accept. Some things like zero lot
A@
lines are easier to do, and the Committee discussed moving forward with those things quickly.
Ms. Thomas said it is a year away before adopting regulatory changes. She asked if that is what
Mr. Perkins wants to speed up. Mr. Perkins said he is not referring to the whole process, but there might
be parts of things the DISC Committee has come up with that could be implemented as soon as changes
could be made to the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Dorrier asked if that included the neighborhood plan. Mr. Tucker said when the
Neighborhood Model is adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan, that will give the basis for all of the
things Mr. Perkins is talking about. He thinks Mr. Perkins is recommending that the Board not wait until
adopting a whole comprehensive change to the Zoning Ordinance, but to pick out the things that will give
the best bang for the buck and adopt those amendments earlier rather than waiting for staff to develop
A@
the whole comprehensive list of changes to the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Cilimberg said staff is looking at a
few of these changes now.
May 3, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
Ms. Thomas said she can support that idea. She said staff has asked that they be allowed to
incorporate DISC as soon as it is accepted. She asked if the applicants will be told immediately that that
will happen. Mr. Cilimberg said yes. Ms. Thomas said she does not think the Board should wait for
A@
anything further before starting to meet with VDOT about road standards. At the last MPO meeting, Ken
Lance said that he will be looking at street standards this year.
Mr. Martin said he has a problem with noting in staff reports at this point that DISC made a certain
recommendation, or even starting discussions with VDOT until there is the public input in July. It is not
policy, and the public has not had an opportunity to say how it feels about the whole report. Ms. Thomas
said street standards have been a concern for a long time without any DISC input. If there is a window of
opportunity with VDOT while they are looking at standards, she would hate to have the County wait and
let that window close. Mr. Martin said he does not want to get too far out in front and make assumptions
and act as if this is a done deal before the Board has the chance to hear public comment.
A@
Ms. Humphris said she does not think it hurts to say this is what the Board is thinking about. If it
doesnt do that, by the time the public hearing comes up, there will some group saying you sprang this
=A
on us.
@
Mr. Martin said he understands that. The only thing that has happened so far is that the Board
has heard from the DISC Committee and then taken a month to prepare a strategy for moving it forward.
He feels uncomfortable moving forward to the point of sounding as if it is a done deal when the Board has
not received any public comment. It is not a condemnation, or a stalling tactic, it is not an attempt to do
anything in particular. He just wants to be sure the Board doesnt get too far out before receiving public
=
comment.
Mr. Bowerman said he thought the Committee talked specifically about street standards at its
meeting on Monday as a separate topic. Mr. Cilimberg said they talked about not waiting on those areas
of policy until next year, to do them later this year. The subject of street standards will be a fairly long
process. The County will want to actively have VDOT consider changing the way they do business on
streets and roads in the County. Mr. Martin said the Board has been having that conversation for a long
time, and he does not want it done in the name of DISC until there is some public feedback.
Mr. Perkins said the impact the Neighborhood Model will have on other land uses in the County,
has to be kept in mind as the Board goes through this process. He said that everybody will not want to
live in one of these new neighborhoods. In fact, no one might want to live in one of these new
neighborhoods, so that has to be kept in mind so the Board will be aware of what the spin-offs from this
might be.
Mr. Martin said the Board cant put itself in a situation and say the only thing that can be built is
=A
this because these are the only choices we are going to give you for a place to live. He believes that
@
needs to be factored in. He agrees with Mr. Perkins. There are a lot of people, including himself, who
would not want to live in these neighborhoods.
Ms. Thomas said this model was never intended for one hundred percent of the people. Mr.
Martin said he dealt with this during the DISC meetings. Ms. Thomas said she was talking about the
issue of whether everyone will want to live in what is being proposed. Mr. Martin said the Board will not
be saying this is the only kind of thing that can be built in Albemarle County.
Ms. Thomas said that at one of the few DISC meetings she attended, various departments of the
County were asked their reaction to what they understood was being proposed. The ones she heard
speak were pretty negative about the idea. The kind of input she would like from staff, after the public
hearing is held and the Board has accepted the DISC Committee and started on the process of adopting
the Neighborhood Model, is to have staff from the departments say what will be necessary in their
departments in order to carry out this model and this policy rather than reiterating their negativity. She
assumed that was the sort of guidance staff wanted from the Board members today when asking what
kind of staff involvement is requested.
Mr. Tucker said staff will provide the information. They are trying to give the Board facts because
VDOT standards will not be easy to change. There are some standards concerning the Schools where
staff will have to work with the State and the schools. When it comes across that staff comments are
negative, that is not the way they are meant. Staff will look at it positively based on what is actually
adopted, and move forward with trying to implement the proposal as quickly as possible.
Mr. Martin said he does not want staff to withhold their comments. He does not want the Board to
take a step forward and staff wants to say you idiots, but they are too scared to say it. He wants to hear
A@
the negatives as much as the positives.
A@
Ms. Humphris said since she was not involved with the committee, she needs to know staff's
position on the issues. Once the Board accepts the proposal, then everybody has to be on the same
team.
Mr. Martin said if there were no further comments, staff can proceed with the recommendations
set out in the staffs report.
=
_______________
May 3, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
Agenda Item No. 19. Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Program Proposed
Ordinance, Discussion of.
Mr. Davis said that in the Boards packet today was the following Executive Summary, and a draft
=
ordinance prepared by his office.
At its February 2, 2000, meeting, the Board directed staff to draft an ordinance implementing the
ACE program, based on the ACE Committee's final report dated November 3, 1999, as supplemented by
subsequent work sessions and the January 12, 2000, public hearing. The form of the proposed
ordinance is generally modeled after the Virginia Beach Agricultural Reserve Program.
Administration of program: The ACE program is proposed to be administered by the director of
planning and community development, who is designated as the program administrator (Section 5.1-104).
The key functions of the program administrator will be to promote the program and other land protection
programs, develop procedures for implementing and administering the program, evaluate applications for
conservation easements and provide staff support to the program's committees and the Board. The ACE
committee will be a ten-member committee appointed by the Board. Its primary purposes will be to
evaluate and rank applications and make recommendations to the Board, and to annually review the
program's eligibility and ranking criteria and recommend changes to the Board (Section 5.1-105). The
appraisal review committee will be a five-member committee appointed by the Board whose purpose will
be to review appraisals and make recommendations on those appraisals to the Board (Section 5.1-106).
The Board will decide which conservation easements will be purchased (Sections 5.1-107 and 5.1-108).
Eligibility of parcels: The ACE program is proposed to be available for all privately owned and
controlled lands in the County (Section 5.1-102). In order for a parcel to be eligible: (1) the use of the
parcel subject to a conservation easement must be consistent with the comprehensive plan; (2) the
proposed terms of the conservation easement must satisfy the minimum easement terms and conditions
set forth in the ordinance; and (3) the parcel must obtain at least 15 points under the ranking criteria
(Section 5.1-107). The ranking criteria assign various points based on the parcel's open space
resources, threat of conversion to developed use, natural and cultural resources, and the availability of
other public or private funding to be applied to purchase the conservation easement (Section 5.1-108).
Procedure to establish conservation easements: The procedure to establish a conservation
easement under the ACE program is proposed to be an annual process. Applications will be submitted to
the program administrator by July 1 of each year, who will evaluate each application and submit a list of
ranked parcels to the ACE committee by August 1. By September 1, the ACE committee will evaluate
and rank the applications in the order of priority which it recommends the easements shall be purchased,
and forward its recommendation to the Board. The Board will then review the ACE committee's
recommendation, and determine on which parcels it desires conservation easements. The Board will
then rank those parcels on which it will seek to purchase conservation easements that year. Each parcel
identified by the Board will then be appraised by either the County Assessor or an independent qualified
appraiser, which must be completed by October 1. The appraisal review committee will review each
appraisal and submit its recommendation to the Board by November 1 (Section 5.1-110).
From the list of parcels, the Board will then identify the initial pool of eligible parcels for
conservation easements to be purchased. The size of the pool will be based on the funds available to
purchase easements in the current fiscal year. The purchase price will be determined by multiplying the
appraised value by a factor based on the average annual adjusted gross income of the owner. This
factor will decrease as the income of the owner increases (e.g., if the income of the owner is $50,000 or
less, the purchase price will be 100 percent of the appraised value; if the income of the owner is between
$100,001 and $110,000, the purchase price will be 64 percent of the appraised value; if the income of the
owner is $200,001 or more, the purchase price will be four-percent of the appraised value). The Board
will then invite the owners of the parcels in the pool to submit offers, and if an offer is made and accepted,
a conservation easement will be established. If an offer is not submitted or the Board elects not to
acquire an easement, an invitation will be sent to the next remaining parcel on the list of eligible parcels
not included in the initial pool. The purchase price and the terms and conditions of the conservation
easement will not be subject to negotiation (Section 5.1-111).
The proposed process requires all applications to be ranked in that the purchases occur at the
same time each year. However, the ordinance allows the Board to waive any requirement or deadline if it
is shown that exigent circumstances exist or that the requirements of the ordinance unreasonably restrict
the purchase of an easement (Section 5.1-110). This could allow the Board to set alternative dates for a
calendar year 2000 purchase of easements, if the Board desires to do so.
Terms and conditions of conservation easement: The minimum terms and conditions of the
conservation easement will: (1) prohibit the subdivision of parcels less than 100 acres, and allow parcels
larger than 100 acres to be subdivided into not more than as many 100-acre (or more) parcels as may be
created, plus one (e.g., an 850 acre parcel could be subdivided into nine parcels, eight of which are at
least 100 acres); (2) require the owner to use and maintain a mountain resource in a manner consistent
with the comprehensive plan, if the parcel was awarded points during the evaluation process for that
criterion; please note that, other than the mountain resource, the proposed easement will not require that
owners preserve or maintain the qualities of the parcel that made it eligible for a conservation easement,
except to the extent those qualities are preserved or maintained by density reduction; (3) prohibit the
owner from reacquiring the conservation easement; and (4) impose other standard conservation
easement restrictions regarding uses and activities allowed on the parcel, improvements that can be
made, management of forest resources, and the right of the easement holder to enter and inspect the
parcel to determine compliance with the terms and conditions of the easement (Section 5.1-109).
May 3, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
Because County funds will be used to purchase most easements, the County and another qualified entity,
such as the Virginia Outdoors Foundation or the Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities
Authority, will be the holders of each easement (Section 5.1-109).
Staff recommends that the Board consider setting a public hearing on the proposed ordinance for
its June 14, 2000, meeting. This will allow the Planning Commission to hold a work session on the
ordinance before the public hearing, although it is not required.
Mr. Davis said members of the ACE Committee have also reviewed the proposed ordinance
which sets out a process for formalizing the review for the decision-making process to acquire
conservation easements. He then summarized the ordinance as explained in the staffs report.
=
Mr. Davis said the Committee members have identified a couple of issues that need to be
addressed. One is how to protect resources once the easement is in place. An example is, if a property
were to be assigned points for having an historic house, is there a need for the easement the County
purchases to protect the historic house from being torn down? The way that has been addressed is, in
order to acquire points, the house has to be in an historic district which already offers some protection to
that feature. An alternative is to say that points are only given for an historic house if the owner agrees to
maintain the house in some minimum fashion. The one significant application of this issue within the draft
ordinance, regards mountain protection. If the owner receives points for a mountain ridge viewshed, the
draft ordinance proposes that development on the ridge line be limited to protect the mountain protection
resource. That is the only criteria where the ordinance specifically proposes that there would be a
limitation once the property is acquired other than the limitation on density.
Mr. Davis said staff has discussed how many times a year the County would actually purchase
property. Staff recommends a single program purchase date since that is the only way staff could
determine a process whereby all parcels being offered to the program could be ranked. In that way, the
Board could get the properties it wanted for the limited moneys available in any program year. If in the
first year of the program, the Board wants to purchase properties before December 31, 2000, there is a
process to modify the dates and have a start-up program with different dates, and going back to the
regular process dates for calendar years thereafter. He said the ordinance is a fairly simple, straight-
forward approach. Issues which might be brought to the Board in a public hearing would be an attempt to
fine tune some of the criteria for assigning points. If this approach is acceptable, staff is asking that the
Board set this ordinance for public hearing on June 14, 2000. That would allow time for the ordinance to
be presented to the Planning Commission in a work session, so the Board could get their input prior to its
public hearing, although the ordinance does not require Commission public hearing and review because it
is not part of the Zoning Ordinance. He offered to answer questions and he said Ms. Sherry Buttrick was
also present today.
Ms. Thomas mentioned a section on Page 6, No. 8, where it states the parcel is within the South
A
Fork Rivanna watershed. She asked if points are only given for frontage on those listed creeks or rivers.
@
Mr. Davis said that was the recommendation made by the Committee. He said that Ms. Buttrick has
suggested that the Hardware River be added to that list.
Ms. Sherry Buttrick said the original draft said three points would be given to property in the
watershed. Then, if the land were on a river corridor, more points would be given. The way the draft
ordinance was transcribed, those two items did not get separated out. Mr. Cilimberg asked if there were
a reason that Totier Creek watershed was not included. Ms. Buttrick said she thinks it was an oversight.
Mr. Davis said this ordinance requires that on an annual basis the Committee analyze the
purchase price chart and other criteria and then bring to the Board a proposal for adjustments to the
ordinance. That could be done prior to July 1 of every year. The Board would then hold a public hearing
and set the criteria for that purchase year.
Mr. Martin said he wants to make sure the County does not pay for land that people would
otherwise donate.
Ms. Buttrick said the specifics of the chart can change. The conceptual mousetrap that Nancy
A@
McLaughlin came up with is a real breakthrough. It may be used as a model for other things on the state
level. It is a better mousetrap than exists anywhere else. The Maryland Environmental Trust wishes
A@
they had done their program differently. They do not have financial criteria. The concept for this program
is good. She does not guarantee that the Committee has come up with the precise numbers, but the
concept is “cool”.
Mr. Dorrier said the ACE Committee ranks the various properties based on a numeric scale, and
then the Supervisors look at the ACE Committee report, and they also rank the properties. He asked if
the Boards ranking is discretionary. Mr. Davis said yes. The Board may not wish to purchase a piece
=A@
of property for some reason. The Board could decide not to make that purchase. He said this ordinance
is intended to create a framework for the Board to use in dealing with the purchase of conservation ease-
ments. It does not limit the Boards authority to buy conservation easements or property outside of the
=
scope of this ordinance. If the Board identified another piece of property and wished to buy conservation
easements on it, the Board could choose to bypass this program and do it directly. The intent is to
establish and organize a comprehensive process that would give the Board all the information needed to
compare properties and to do an on-going purchase program.
Mr. Martin said he has a question which had been posed to him. He said Albemarle County
strongly promotes agriculture and wants to continue the family farm. It wants farming to continue, in
May 3, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
general. Part of this ordinance is to provide assistance by purchasing easements from farmers so that
they might keep their property. He knows there are some people who think that once the division rights
are sold, the value of the property may still go up. Suppose the property does not increase in value, but
actually goes down in value. Suppose the person receiving the money from the County is in a situation
so that they have to spend it to keep the farm going. Has the County done that person a disservice?
Ms. Buttrick said presumably the farmer still has the farm to pass on to his heirs. It has to be
assumed that people will not squander their money. She does not think people can be protected against
lapses in judgment. She does not think a system needs to be created that absolutely insulates against
that kind of judgment problem because the market does not insulate people against ill-advised purchases.
Ms. Humphris said this program is totally voluntary. Every family has to make financial decisions
constantly. She does not see why the Board should try to preserve and protect somebody from having
bad judgment. Each individual has their own circumstances concerning their financial situation.
Ms. Buttrick said she and Mr. Davis have discussed who should pay which expenses. It needs to
be clear that whoever the applicant to the program is, that person needs to pay for and have his own legal
counsel. The County cannot do the transaction for them as a courtesy or convenience. If you are the
applicant, your counsel should look out for your well-being in these matters, and should inquire into the
kinds of questions just asked.
Mr. Perkins said he had a question about the timing of the applications. He thinks this program
will be something people have to get in the mood for. He thinks applications should be taken all year long
and acted on as the money permits. On Page 7, in Other Restrictions, he asked if people who give these
easements know there are restrictions. People are selling development rights, and they know they
cannot build houses on the property except on Part A, the part they are not selling. He has some concern
about the wording the parcel shall be subject to restrictions pertaining to uses and activities allowed on
A
the parcel.
@
Ms. Buttrick said part of what Mr. Perkins is saying that it would be best in the ordinance not to be
perceived as hiding the ball. She thinks the restrictions should be stated. She is nervous about the
A@
notion that there could be other restrictions that are not on the face of the ordinance that could come in. If
there are others, they should be spelled out, rather than indicating there may be others yet to be
revealed.
Mr. Corky Shackelford, President of the Albemarle Farm Bureau, said he would like for the Board
to know that they support this as an option for farmers. He would like to respond to Mr. Martins question.
=
If the County does not offer low-income people an easement, it may hurt them worse than if the easement
is offered. He hopes the County will not tie up the easements with too many restrictions. He does not
think the County will be mobbed with people wanting to apply.
A@
Mr. Davis asked if there was a consensus to go forward with a public hearing. Mr. Martin said
yes, for June 14.
A@
_______________
Not Docketed: Mr. Davis said there was a proffer made in 1992 regarding ZMA-91-04 by Forest
Lakes Associates which made a five-acre parcel available to the County upon request so that parcel
could be used for public use facilities. Staff is recommending that the County Executive be directed to
make that request, so the parcel can be transferred.
Motionseconded
to this effect was made by Mr. Bowerman and by Mr. Dorrier. Roll was called,
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
Note
(: The Board recessed at 4:00 p.m.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 23. Closed Session: Legal Matters.
The Board reconvened in Room 235 at 4:10 p.m. with members of City Council being present:
Mr. Blake Carvati, Mr. Maurice Cox, Ms. Virginia Daugherty, Ms. Meredith Richards and Mr. David
Toscano. Also present were: Mr. Clyde Goldman, City Attorney, and Mr. Gary O'Connell, City Manager.
Mayor Virginia Daugherty called Council to order.
Mr. Martin said work on the Fire Services Contract has been a long, tough process. The Board
has held many, many closed sessions on this issue, but a lot of growth came out of the negotiations.
Mr. Bowerman said it has been a great experience working with the volunteers. Reaching an
accord only came about through the cooperation of the volunteers.
Mr. Martin thanked the individuals from the City and County who negotiated the agreement on a
joint Fire Services contract. They were: Mr. Ben Powell and Charles Werner, negotiators from the City,
and Fire Chiefs, Doug Smythers, Fred Huckstep and Lanny Moore from the County. He thanked all of
them for their hard work. Ms. Daugherty said she appreciated everybody's work including that of the
attorneys.
May 3, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
Ms. Daugherty said, on behalf, of city Council, she would like to thank retired Judge Jay Swett for
acting as mediator, and the negotiating team for all their hard work and dedication. This agreement is just
the first in what will be many accomplishments in this new era of cooperation between the City and the
County. She then read the highlights of the agreement:
·
The contract provides for a coordinated fire services agreement that encourages cooperative efforts
in areas including training, education, standard operating procedures (SOPs), etc.
·
The contract establishes a protocol for city firefighters to respond into Albemarle County.
·
The contract creates a ten-year agreement between the two jurisdictions which will go into effect July
1, 2000.
·
The base cost of the first year of the contract is $644,427 with the provision for additional charges or
credits depending on the number of calls for service provided by city firefighters.
·
The agreement stipulates that up to two city engine companies with a three firefighter crew will be
available for calls into the county, and that the city fire engine company closest to a particular incident
in the county will respond to that call.
·
During the first three years the contract provides that the city will continue to respond to calls
throughout the county as deemed necessary as is the current system. After the first three years, an
automatic response district will be formed in the urban area of Albemarle County where the city will
provide full services. Outside of that district, the city will provide first response service only to
structure fires.
·
This final agreement was reached following the city and county's review of a preliminary agreement
created by a joint negotiating team consisting of firefighters from Charlottes'ville and Albemarle
County.
Ms. Daugherty then asked the City Council members who supported the agreement to say Aye.
A@
It was a unanimous Aye.
A@
Motion
Mr. Goldman asked City Council to take a roll call vote on this agreement. was offered by
seconded
Mr. Toscano, by Mr. Caravati, to approve the agreement. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Caravati, Mr. Cox, Ms. Daugherty, Ms. Richards and Mr. Toscano.
NAYS: None.
__________
Motion
Mr. Martin asked for a motion from the Board to approve the agreement. was offered by
seconded
Mr. Bowerman, by Ms. Humphris, to authorize the Chairman to execute the Fire Services
Agreement Between the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, and set out in full below.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: Mr. Perkins.
FIRE SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
CHARLOTTESVILLE AND ALBEMARLE COUNTY
This AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 3rd day of May, 2000, and executed in duplicate
City of Charlottesville
originals by the , a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the
County of Albemarle
, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia. In consideration of the
mutual promises and covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows:
Section 1. Definitions
.
For purposes of this Agreement, words and phrases set forth below shall be interpreted as they
are defined in this section.
Automatic Responses
are those responses routinely made by a City fire engine company into
the County according to a protocol agreed upon in advance by the City and the County. Such responses
occur without the need for or expectancy of a specific request from the County. Automatic responses are
to be distinguished from responses which occur only upon request from one party to the other, the
so-called special aid responses further defined below. The particular automatic response protocol for
each geographic area of the County (each numbered County fire fighting district) is reflected in writing on
an individual "Response Card" with a corresponding number.
Call(s)
occur when a fire engine company is instructed to respond (is dispatched) to deliver
services. Usually a call is made by amplified voice instructions on a particular radio frequency. Each call
is logged in as part of a complete incident report from which one can determine the details of what
happened after the call was received.
May 3, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
Consumer Price Index"CPI"
or refers to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price
Index (All Urban Consumers, U.S. City Average, All Items, Base Period: November 1996 = 100). For
purposes of this Agreement, the reference month for calculating the annual change in the CPI shall be
June. For example, at the beginning of the second contract year of this Agreement the parties will use
the percentage change in the published CPI for the period between June, 2000 and June, 2001 when
determining the annual adjustment required by Section 7.6 of this Agreement.
Dispatches
shall be synonymous with "Calls" for purposes of this Agreement.
Gross Call Load
is the actual sum of calls or dispatches, of all types, received by the City in a
given contract year to deliver fire engine service into the County. Gross Call Load includes both
automatic and special aid dispatches, but does not include any dispatches for the City to deliver fire
engine service to property which is subject to a separate fire services fee agreement between the City
and the property owner or owned and used for educational purposes by the University of Virginia.
Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as requiring the City to provide fire protection services to
those portions of the University of Virginia which are located within the County. The City reserves the
right not to deliver such services at any time unless a separate contract for fire protection services
between the City and the University is in effect.
Insurance Service Office, Inc. or "ISO"
is an independent agency which provides information to
insurance companies to assist those companies in setting premium rates for underwriting fire insurance.
Usually, a more favorable review by ISO results in more favorable insurance premiums for businesses
and consumers alike.
Special Aid or Special Aid Requests
are those made when one party requests a particular type
of fire service assistance from the other. Such request may be made by Volunteer Fire Fighting
Companies. Such assistance may include, but is not limited to, requests for special equipment or
specially trained personnel. Special aid responses do not occur absent a request and therefore are to be
distinguished from Automatic Responses.
Net Call Load
is the Gross Call Load for a given contract year adjusted downwards by deducting:
(a) the number of calls to which the City was unable to respond during the contract year, (b) the number
of Special Aid Responses by the County for the City in that same contract year (each engine company
shall count as a separate response), and (c) each time a County fire company fills in temporarily in a City
Station. "Unable to Respond" to an automatic request or special aid request shall mean failure by the
City to respond to the County, when obligated to do so by this Agreement, for any reason other than
because two (2) City engine companies are already providing service in the County or the request for
service has been canceled. For special aid requests, Unable to Respond also does not include a failure
A@
to respond because all City equipment or personnel is being utilized at the time of the request. A "Special
Aid Response" by the County shall mean any call to the County from the City requesting assistance
received by a County station which is manned and available to respond into the City.
Response Cards
are single sheets of paper roughly 6" by 8" in size, which contain the written
protocol for Automatic Responses by the City for fire service delivery into each fire fighting district of the
County. There currently are seventy-three (73) separate numbered County districts for fire fighting
purposes. The response to each district is governed by one (1) response card with the exception of the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport which has ten (10) such cards. The substance of each protocol
reflected in these cards was suggested initially by the County Volunteer Fire Companies. Each protocol
establishes the type of automatic response from the City desired by the County and its volunteer fire
fighters in each district. Different types of incidents covered by these protocols include incidents needing
services related to fire, emergency medical assistance, motor vehicle accidents, or incidents where one
fire fighting company has left its regular quarters and its absence needs to be covered by another
company. It is agreed that the response card system will be replaced by a Computer Aided Dispatch
("CAD") system as soon as possible. The CAD system will replace the response cards for all purposes.
During the term of this Agreement, any permanent changes to any Response Card or to the CAD system
must be approved by the County after review by the Albemarle County Fire and Rescue Advisory Board.
The County shall have the sole authority to make permanent changes to the Response Cards and the
CAD system at any time during the term of this Agreement.
Reported Structure Fires
are those in which there is a visual sighting of smoke or fire or both
coming from a building or structure and a report of such sighting made to the fire dispatch center.
Volunteer Fire Fighting CompaniesVolunteers
or are those fire fighting companies located in
the County and staffed primarily by citizens who volunteer their time as fire fighters without pay. The
Volunteers, in this capacity and for purposes of this Agreement, while currently representing the largest
part of the County's fire fighting service, are not employees of either the City or the County, and are not
parties to this Agreement. For purposes of this Agreement, however, responses by Volunteers are
County responses in determining Net Call Load.
Section 2. Goals
.
2.1. A Unified Approach. The vision and intent of the parties, as evidenced by execution of
this continuing services agreement, is to establish a cooperative, unified approach for fire and emergency
services for the Charlottesville-Albemarle community in an effective and fiscally responsible manner.
May 3, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
2.2. Continuing Services. Among other things, this means that the City will continue to deliver
substantial fire services, as described more particularly below, to the County for the term of this
Agreement; and, from time to time, the City will receive certain fire services from the County engine
companies.
2.3. New Cooperative Efforts. During the term of this Agreement, the parties intend to
enhance and improve their cooperative efforts at fire service delivery by studying; and, if feasible,
implementing the three items listed immediately below.
2.3.1. Joint Fire Service Training. Target Date for Implementation - June 30, 2001.
2.3.2. Joint Public Education. Target Date - June 30, 2001.
2.3.3. Establishment of Joint Fire Ground Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). The parties will
cooperate to agree upon an SOP, such as a unified command structure, that would apply when fire
service is being delivered simultaneously to one site by both City and County fire fighters. Target Date -
December 31, 2000.
2.4. Assistance for the County's ISO Review Process. At anytime during this Agreement,
when requested to do so, the City will use its staff expertise in an advisory capacity to assist the County in
the County's ISO review process.
Section 3. Automatic Response District
. (Effective June 30, 2003)
3.1. The Map. There is hereby established the Automatic Response District (the "ARD")
which is shown in detail on a Map dated April 1, 2000, a copy of such Map to be filed in the offices of the
fire chiefs of the City and County and a reduced illustration of the Map being attached to this Agreement
as Exhibit A and being made a part hereof. Generally, the ARD consists of that portion of the County
which is closest to the City and is the most densely populated or urbanized. Any modification of the ARD
area shall require the agreement of the City and County.
3.2.Reported Structure Fires. During the full ten (10) year term of this Agreement, the City
shall respond to Reported Structure Fires anywhere within the County (in or outside of the ARD). Such
responses shall be either through Automatic Responses or through Special Aid Requests and will be in
accord with the level of service described in this Agreement.
3.3. The First Three Years. For the first three contract years of this Agreement, from July 1,
2000, through June 30, 2003, the City will provide Automatic Responses and Special Aid Responses
anywhere within the County pursuant to the applicable Response Card or CAD protocol.
3.4. The Next Seven Years. After June 30, 2003, for the remaining term of this Agreement,
except for incidents of Reported Structure Fires, the City will provide Automatic Responses only for
incidents occurring within the ARD. Such responses also will be made pursuant to the applicable
Response Card or CAD protocol. The City shall be required to respond to any Special Aid Requests
inside or outside of the ARD unless it is Unable to Respond as previously defined herein.
Section 4.Contract Management
.
4.1. A Management Board. A Management Board ("Board") is hereby established to oversee
implementation of the Agreement, including its long range vision and specific goals. The Board shall be
advisory in nature to the City and County on the effective administration of this Agreement. The Board
will also, within the parameters of this Agreement, facilitate cooperation and coordination of the delivery of
fire services to the overall Charlottesville-Albemarle community.
4.2. Six Members. The Board shall consist of six (6) members: three (3) members appointed
by the Chief of the Charlottesville Fire Department, and three (3) members appointed by the Chief of the
County Fire and Rescue Division which shall include two (2) members acceptable to the Albemarle
County Fire and Rescue Advisory Board and will include the Chief, himself, or his designee.
4.3. Meetings. Meetings shall occur at least once every four (4) months, and shall also occur
when deemed necessary by any three (3) members of the Board.
Section 5.Level of Service by the City
.
5.1. Type of Service. Services delivered by the City pursuant to this Agreement shall include all
Calls or Dispatches to the City originating from incidents in the County, whether resulting in Automatic
Responses or Special Aid. Each Call or Dispatch shall be in accord with the terms and conditions of this
Agreement.
5.2. Staffing and Statutory Compliance. A City engine company responding to a County incident
shall be staffed with at least three (3) fire fighters.
5.3. The Number of Fire Engines. The type of City response required by this Agreement will
be one City engine company (one fire truck and the fire fighters that operate it) per County incident. Only
additional City engine companies provided at the request of the County shall be counted as an additional
call. Multiple engine companies provided at the discretion of the City shall count as one call for purposes
of calculating Gross Call Load. Responses shall be made with the City engine company closest to the
May 3, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
County incident which is operable and not providing service at the time of the call. For the safety of City
residents, no more than two (2) City engine companies shall be dispatched to the County at any one point
in time.
5.4. Minimum Equipment. The City shall provide all fire fighting equipment and maintenance
thereof necessary to perform its obligations under this Agreement. The City shall order by no later than
July 1, 2000, a replacement pumper to replace the pumpers owned by the County and housed in the City.
The two (2) County owned pumpers and all related equipment shall be returned to the County
immediately upon delivery of the City's replacement pumper. The related equipment to be returned to the
County is identified in Exhibit B, which is attached to this Agreement and made a part hereof. The City
shall use its best efforts to secure delivery of the replacement pumper by no later than July 1, 2001, but
the City shall not be responsible for any delay in delivery which results in whole or in part for reasons
beyond the City's control. Each of the three City engine companies which are primarily assigned or
designated to service the County under this Agreement shall be equipped with at least one suction sleeve
10 feet in length or longer.
Section 6.Term of the Agreement.
This Agreement shall be for an initial term of ten (10) years beginning July 1, 2000, (the "Com-
mencement Date") and expiring June 30, 2010, (the "Termination Date"). By mutual written agreement
executed prior to June 30, 2007, (at least three years prior to the Termination Date), the parties may
extend this Agreement for a second term lasting three (3) additional years, through June 30, 2013 at
which time the Agreement shall terminate.
Section 7.Annual Payments
.
7.1. Base Annual Payment. For the first contract year of this Agreement, beginning on July
1, 2000, the "Base Annual Payment" payable hereunder from the County to the City shall be $644,427.
At the beginning of each contract year after the first, the Base Annual Payment owed hereunder by the
County shall be recalculated by adjusting (increasing or decreasing) the Base Annual Payment applicable
to the preceding contract year by the percentage change in the City's base engine company cost during
the preceding contract year. The methodology to be used by the City to determine the percentage
change in the City's base engine company cost is shown in Exhibit C, which is attached to this Agreement
and made a part hereof. This annual adjustment shall not exceed 5% per year or the published change in
the Consumer Price Index (CPI) as defined herein, whichever is greater.
7.2. Total Annual Payment. For the second contract year and every contract year thereafter,
the total amount owed for any one year by the County ("Total Annual Payment"), shall be computed by
taking the "Base Annual Payment" as that sum has been adjusted from year to year for inflation pursuant
to the preceding section, and either adding the surcharges required under provisions of Section 7.5 or
deducting the credits required under provisions of Section 7.6 and adding the increase or deduction, if
any, required under Section 9.5. This same inflation adjustment for increasing or decreasing costs shall
also be applied annually to adjust the previous year's surcharge or credit imposed pursuant to Sections
7.5 and 7.6 (initially $250 per call).
For the first contract year, because there is no applicable inflation adjustment, surcharge or
credit, the Base Annual Payment and the Total Annual Payment shall be the same amount. An
illustration of how to calculate Total Annual Payments in subsequent years is shown, for illustration
purposes only, in Exhibit D.
7.3. Quarterly Installments and Due Dates. The Total Annual Payment due hereunder shall
be paid by the County to the City each contract year in four (4) equal quarterly installments on or before
the end of each quarter, beginning September 30th, 2000, and continuing with subsequent quarterly
installments on or before December 31st, March 31st, and June 30th. Each installment shall represent
payment for services rendered by the City for the quarter ending on the date the installment is due.
7.4. Determining the Call Load for the Preceding Contract Year. The Board shall monitor the
number of calls or dispatches during the contract year and report its findings to the City Manager and
County Executive. During the sixty (60) day period beginning July 1, 2001, and during a similar 60 day
period at the beginning of each contract year thereafter, the City Manager and the County Executive, or
their designees, will review the past year's records of calls or dispatches. This will be done to determine
for the immediate past contract year: (a) the Gross Call Load, and (b) the Net Call Load, as those terms
are defined herein. The system to be used to maintain the records required by this Agreement is the Sun
Pro system, which shall be changed or replaced only by the written agreement of the parties. Reports
from the approved records system shall be produced to provide information in any format supported by
the records system requested by the City Manager or the County Executive.
7.5. Surcharge Adjustments for the City's Benefit. For the Base Annual Payment described in
this Agreement, it is assumed that City fire engine companies will be Called or Dispatched to the County
2,400 times per year. Following any contract year in which the City's Net Call Load into the County, as
calculated in the preceding section, exceeds 2,400 Calls, the City shall be entitled to receive a surcharge
of $250 for each Call that occurred over and above the 2,400 Calls. This surcharge will be added to and
become a part of the next Total Annual Payment owed by the County under this Agreement. Beginning
with the second contract year, the sum of $250 per Call will be subject to inflation adjustments if any are
required pursuant to Section 7.2 above.
May 3, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
If the City's Net Calls into the County exceeds 3,200 Calls in any one contract year (a service
level by the City which far exceeds the parties' current expectations), the County shall undertake
immediate measures to reduce the Net Calls below 3,200 Net Calls for the next year. If the Net Calls
exceed 3,200 Net Calls in the next year or any subsequent year, the City shall have the option of
terminating the Agreement upon six (6) months written notice to the County unless the parties
successfully negotiate an amendment to this Agreement which accommodates the unexpected increased
service level. In the event of such termination by the City, the County shall pay to the City liquidated
damages in the amount established by Section 9.1 of this Agreement.
7.6. Credit Adjustments for the County's Benefit. Following any contract year in which the
City's Net Call Load into the County, as calculated above, is less than 2,400 calls, the County shall
receive a credit of $250 per call for the difference between 2,400 calls and the Net Call Load. The next
Total Annual Payment owed by the County hereunder will then be reduced by such credit or credits;
provided however, that in no event shall the County receive a credit for more than $200,000 per year
during the first eight years of the contract, nor a credit of more than $300,000 per year during the ninth
and tenth years of the contract. Beginning with the second contract year, the sum of $250 per Call and
the $200,000 and $300,000 credit limits will be subject to inflation adjustments using the same
methodology for such adjustments set forth in Section 7.1 and Section 7.2 of this Agreement.
7.7. An Annual Invoice. The amount of the Total Annual Payment, calculated in accord with
the provisions of this Section, and owed by the County for the then current contract year, shall be
presented to the County by the City in writing in invoice or similar form during the first sixty days of each
contract year.
Section 8.A Legal and Moral Obligation
.
The annual payments due hereunder for the initial ten (10) year term of this Agreement are
deemed both a legal and moral obligation of the County to the City.
Section 9.Additional Terms and Conditions
.
9.1. Default in Payment or Performance. Should the County fail to pay any portion of the annual
payment due the City hereunder in any year during the term of this Agreement, the City shall give 20
calendar days written notice to the County that the County is in breach of this Agreement. If the City or
County fails to perform any other material obligation of this Agreement, the other party shall give 60
calendar days written notice that such party is in breach of this Agreement and request that the breach be
cured. If the City or County fails to cure the breach during the 20 or 60 day period, as applicable, it may
be declared to be in default and, upon 30 days written notice to the breaching party, the party giving
notice may cease providing services or payment and/or compel performance by an appropriate action in
law or equity.
The parties agree that it would be difficult if not impossible to ascertain the amount of damages
sustained by the City or County in the event of a default as described in the preceding paragraph. It is
therefore expressly agreed and stipulated by the parties that in the event of such default by the County
which results in termination of this Agreement, the County shall pay to the City as liquidated damages
(and not as a penalty), a lump sum equal to twice the total annual payment owed to the City during the
preceding contract year. It is likewise expressly agreed and stipulated by the parties that in the event of
such default by the City which results in termination of this Agreement, the City shall pay to the County as
liquidated damages (and not as a penalty), a lump sum equal to twice the amount of the total annual
payment made to the City for the preceding contract year. In no event shall the City or County be
required to prove actual loss as a precondition to damages under this paragraph.
9.2. Mutual Agreement to an Amendment. The parties, without penalty, may cancel, amend,
supplement, or replace this Agreement at any time by mutual written agreement.
9.3. City Status. Should the City revert to town status or undergo any change in its form of
government which decreases the taxing authority of the County or increases the service responsibility of
the County during any term of this Agreement, the County shall have the option, without payment of the
liquidated damages described herein, of canceling this Agreement upon 90 days advance written notice.
9.4.Invitations Crossing Jurisdictional Lines. The parties understand that once this
Agreement is signed, the City Fire Chief, or his designee, will be given a standing invitation to attend all
meetings of the Albemarle County Fire and Rescue Advisory Board, and other similar type meetings in
the County. It is also understood by the same token that the City Fire Department will extend an open
invitation to a designee of the Albemarle Fire/Rescue Department and a designee of the County
Volunteer Companies to attend any City Fire Department Staff meeting once this Agreement is signed.
9.5. Dispatching Service. The City shall provide dispatch for all County fire service calls as part
of the services provided in consideration of the Base Annual Payment until June 30, 2002, or until fire
dispatch services are provided by the Emergency Communications Center ("ECC"), whichever first
occurs. If the ECC is not providing fire dispatch services for the County after June 30, 2002, the City and
County will negotiate a reasonable charge for City dispatching services delivered after that date for
County responses to calls for services in the County. Such charges will be in addition to the Base Annual
Payment owed the City under this Agreement. The City acknowledges that it presently has a license for
two low band frequencies which it utilizes to dispatch fire services. The City agrees that it will cooperate
with the County or the ECC to acquire and utilize any additional low band frequencies obtained under the
City's license for the purpose of providing fire dispatch services for the County. The County agrees to pay
May 3, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
for any equipment necessary to establish and operate such additional frequencies but shall not be
required to pay the City any additional fee for the use of these additional frequencies.
If the City continues to operate a separate fire service dispatch center after June 30, 2002, it shall
continue to dispatch calls which the City responds to in the County pursuant to this Agreement. The
County shall not be required to pay the City any additional fee for such dispatching services in any such
contract year except that the Base Annual Payment for such contract year shall be increased by an
amount equal to one-sixth of the approved budget for dispatch costs set forth in Attachment 2 of Exhibit
C. In addition, the methodology to determine the adjustment in the Base Annual Payment set forth in
Exhibit C shall be modified so that the approved budget for the City's Firefighting Division shall not be
reduced by the approved budget for dispatch costs to compute the City's Base Engine Company Cost for
the next contract year.
If in a subsequent contract year the City dispatch operation is relocated to the ECC as part of a
joint dispatching operation, the Base Annual Payment for that contract year shall be reduced by an
amount equal to one-sixth of the approved budget for dispatch costs set forth in Attachment 2 of Exhibit
C. The methodology set forth in Exhibit C, without any modification, would then be used to determine the
adjusted Base Annual Payment for the next contract year.
It is acknowledged by the City and County that this Agreement does not resolve whether the
current City fire dispatching operation which is presently located at the City's Ridge Street Fire
Department will be relocated to the ECC as part of a joint dispatching operation. The allocation of costs
and operating protocol for any joint dispatching operation would be determined outside of this Agreement.
EXHIBIT AEXHIBIT B
(Note: - Automatic Response District Map [ARDF] April 1st, 2000; -
EXHIBIT C
Returning Inventory List, Engine Company 10, and Inventory List, Engine 11; , Methodology to
Determine Adjustment in Base Annual Payment [BAP]; Attachment 1, Approved Budget for CFD
@@
EXHIBIT D
Firefighting Division; Attachment 2, Approved Budget for Dispatch Costs; , First Illustration
Calculating the Total Annual Payment and Second Illustration Calculating the Total Annual Payment, all
are on file in the Clerks Office with the official records of the Board of Supervisors.)
=
__________
motion
At 4:18 p.m., was made by Mr. Bowerman, that the Board go into Closed Session
pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel
seconded
and staff regarding pending litigation relating to the Ivy Landfill. The motion was by Ms.
Humphris.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
Motionseconded
for City Council to adjourn into Closed Session was offered by Mr. Blake and
by Ms. Richards. All Council members voted by voicing Aye.
A@
_______________
Agenda Item No. 24. Certify Closed Session.
Motion
At 6:10 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. was immediately offered by Mr.
Bowerman that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board members knowledge
=
only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia
Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the closed session were heard,
discussed or considered in the closed session.
seconded
The motion was by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 25. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was immediately adjourned.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date
Initials
May 3, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)