2000-03-01March 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 1,
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,
County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg, and Clerk, Ella W. Carey.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:01 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.
Ms. Drew Stevenson spoke on behalf of the Friends of White Hall, which is an organization of
concerned citizens who want to preserve the rural flavor of the historic town of White Hall. She added that
everything for which White Hall is loved is being directly threatened by the plans for the new White Hall Post
Office. The Friends of White Hall secured a site plan, and they understand that the plan is to transform one
of the most beautiful historic corners in White Hall into an industrial parking lot setting with a trailer in the
middle. She then appealed to the Board to put this project on hold long enough to gather community input
about the situation. The uninformed decision for this post office does not live up to the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan, and she appealed to the Board to support the White Hall community and find a
solution that is in keeping with the citizens’ vision for the future. (See presentation to the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors by Drew Stevenson for the Friends of White Hall, dated March 1, 2000.)
Mr. Perkins stated that he would discuss this situation later in the meeting.
____________
Mr. John T. Daggett, Board member of Christmas in April for the Charlottesville area, commented
that the organization was founded in 1988 in Texas by a student at the University of Texas, and it has grown
to 240 affiliates across the country. The Charlottesville chapter was formed in 1991 by Darden students,
and it is still being executed by Darden students with advice and input from their Board members. The
primary purpose of this organization is to rehabilitate homes for the elderly, disabled and low income
homeowners, and the mission is to try to salvage communities, streets, areas and individual homes that
would otherwise be abandoned. This year there is funding for approximately ten homes to be rehabilitated.
He added that work will be done on three or four homes in the County, as well as in the City, and work will
be done on a couple of homes in Barboursville and elsewhere. Funding is complete for this year, but the
organization is looking forward to financial support from the County next year. Financial support has been
received from the City for this year to rehabilitate four homes there, and work begins on Saturday, April 1.
He has distributed literature and street addresses to the Board of Supervisors, and he hopes they will visit
any of the various work sites to see the type of work that is being done. He noted that all of the work is
being done by volunteer labor, and Darden students represent the majority of the labor. However,
donations will be received in kind from a number of institutions, as well as donations of labor from some of
the churches and individuals who happen to know about the organization and feel the cause is worthy. He
stated that by next year, the organization hopes to be able to undertake 12 to 15 homes in the City, County
and greater Charlottesville area, not only financially, but in terms of logistics.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Christmas in April organization works under the same constraints as AHIP
or if it can do spot repairs to houses. Mr. Daggett answered that the average cost his organization puts into
a home is anywhere from $1,000 to $3,000. This amount of money could include a roof, furnace, hot water
heaters, dry walls, painting, siding, etc. He stated that his organization does not have federal funds, so it
has different guidelines than AHIP. He reiterated that all the work is done by volunteers, but Supervisors
oversee the work at each site.
Mr. Dorrier inquired about the amount of money the Board of Supervisors has contributed to the
Christmas in April organization in the past. Board members answered that they have not contributed to this
group in the past. Next, Mr. Dorrier asked how much the City has contributed. Mr. Daggett answered that
the City has appropriated $10,000 to his organization.
Ms. Humphris wondered about the source of the City’s funding. Mr. Tucker replied that the funding
came from the City’s Neighborhood Planning Services.
____________
Mr. Elmo Wright stated that he is representing the members of the SOCA Organization of
Charlottesville and Albemarle. He distributed literature to the Board members and noted that SOCA
members have been working with Mr. Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation for Albemarle
County, on a proposal to donate substantial improvements to Darden Towe Park, specifically to improve
two fields for soccer use there. He called attention to the proposal before the Supervisors and indicated
that this same proposal is being sent to Mr. Mullaney and to the Director of the City Parks and Recreation
Department. He believes the County leadership recognizes that the County needs more and better soccer
March 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
fields. This has been demonstrated in the approval of the 1996 County Parks and Recreation study which
called for more soccer fields to meet the needs of the great number of soccer players who participate in
County sports. It has also been demonstrated by the Board of Supervisors’ approval a couple of years ago
of the South Fork project where SOCA is undertaking on its own initiative and with its own money to put
together a soccer field complex in the County. He added that the County staff and City officials have
indicated that they would approve SOCA’s proposal to do the field improvements or donate the money it
would take for the County to improve the fields. However, the Board of Supervisors needs to establish a
climate of speedy approval for this proposal, and the SOCA organization needs to know specifically who will
approve this project. The approval needs to be expedited as rapidly as possible this spring in order for
grass to grow and for fields to get into place so they can be used this fall. SOCA representatives also need
to know how to turn their proposal into a legal document with which the Supervisors and SOCA
representatives will be comfortable so that when the money or improvements are donated everybody will
understand the situation. This is the first step toward making some improvements for the County soccer
players and area soccer players in Charlottesville and Albemarle. If this project happens, and it can be
demonstrated to the public that good soccer fields can be built for the children to play on, then there should
be good support to make the South Fork project happen as rapidly as possible. If a couple of fields look
good this fall, it should generate some public enthusiasm, support and donations to this effort. He
remarked that when the South Fork project is done it will raise the level of athletic field capability and
soccer playing ability for the children and the process will go on from there. He emphasized that the Board
of Supervisors’ approval of the process is needed now in order to expedite it and make sure it happens this
spring and summer.
Mr. Martin responded that he and Mr. Bowerman have heard most of the Board members’
sentiments concerning this proposal. He stated that if Mr. Mullaney can e-mail information to them tonight,
and if other Board members concur, they will approve or disapprove the proposal. The information will then
be given to the County Attorney in order for him to prepare a legal document.
Mr. Bowerman wondered if a Towe Park Board meeting is necessary. Mr. Martin said the Towe
Park Board meeting can be held, if desired. Ms. Humphris indicated that this is the first time the whole
Board of Supervisors has been presented with this proposal. Mr. Tucker suggested that the Supervisors get
a report from Mr. Mullaney on this matter. Mr. Martin told Mr. Wright that if this is the case, the matter will
not be expedited quickly. Ms. Thomas noted that the matter can be handled quickly, but not instantly. Mr.
Bowerman explained that there is a process in place to handle such matters. Mr. Martin then suggested
that a meeting of the Towe Park Board be held soon where this plan can be explained. He also suggested
that perhaps Mr. Mullaney can give the Board of Supervisors an update of the request later this afternoon.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Mullaney is familiar with the request, and he should have an opportunity to share his
comments with the Board of Supervisors.
Ms. Humphris asked if it is legally correct for the Supervisors to give priority to a group because of a
donation of funds over any other group at one of the public parks. Mr. Martin suggested that these types of
questions be answered later this afternoon when Mr. Mullaney can meet with the Supervisors and a full
discussion can be held. He apologized to the other Board members and explained that he thought this
subject had been discussed at another meeting last month. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the information
was distributed only through e-mail, and it has evolved through a process that has been ongoing between
the City and County. However, there has not been a meeting on the matter. Mr. Davis commented that he
received the information last week, but he has not had a chance to review it. Mr. Martin told Mr. Wright that
the Supervisors would try to decide something in the afternoon.
Mr. Wright then introduced the coach who is the lead person with SOCA, as well as the Director of
Coaching and Player Development, who has been working with Mr. Mullaney on the proposal. Mr. Wright
indicated that he or another SOCA representative could return for the discussion with Mr. Mullaney later in
the afternoon. Mr. Martin suggested that someone from the SOCA Organization should call around 2:00
p.m. to get an idea of the time the Supervisors will be discussing this matter.
Mr. Dorrier inquired if Mr. Wright is requesting funding from this Board. Mr. Martin said the
discussion would continue this afternoon when the Supervisors will meet with Mr. Mullaney and a
representative from the SOCA organization. He apologized to the Board members again, and stated that
he thought they all had been getting e-mails on the matter.
____________
Next, Mr. Perkins referred to Ms. Stevenson’s comments about the proposed replacement of the
White Hall Post Office. He pointed out that this project has gone through the proper process, whether or
not it is the right thing to do. He noted that a lot of the requirements mentioned in Ms. Stevenson’s
presentation are County requirements such as lighting and erosion control, etc. VDoT has reviewed the
plan, and a portion of it represents VDoT requirements. He added that all of these things do not make it a
good project but, at this stage, he does not know what this Board can do to slow down the process or
change it. The trailer has been in place for six months, and it was brought here from Atlanta. It has a post
office logo on it, as well as the hours of operation, but it is out of character for White Hall. He has
mentioned to Ms. Stevenson that perhaps this Board needs to review such things in a different manner,
since only adjoining landowners are notified in these types of situations. This project is on a lot at the
corner of Routes 810 and 614, it is a 1.4 acre lot, and it is appraised at $32,000. He remarked that
something was going to be done on that piece of property, anyway, because the landowner cannot afford to
pay such high taxes on a piece of property that small without getting some return for it. He has talked to
Joe Jones, the owner, who also appeared before this Board. There were some concerns expressed by
various members of the Planning Commission, and some changes were made to the site plan. He added
that it met the approval of this Board, although perhaps the Supervisors did not examine it closely enough.
March 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
He reiterated that it is out of character for White Hall but, at this point, he does not know what the
Supervisors or anyone else can do about it other than appeal to the Postal System.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Postal System voluntarily complied with the County’s
recommendations. Mr. Perkins answered affirmatively. Mr. Bowerman noted that these types of federal
projects are not required to comply with the County’s recommendations.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Cilimberg could enlighten the Board about the situation, since the project went
through a site plan review process. The Planning Commission also reviewed it.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that the project started with a review for compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan, as well as a site plan review. It was deferred because Mr. Finley, who was the
commissioner for that district, was not at the Planning Commission meeting. There were some concerns
raised about how well the commissioners could view the plan based on the information before them. A
couple of weeks later a second meeting was held with the Planning Commission, and in both cases time
was allowed for public comment, but there was none. There were comments in the second meeting
regarding some letters of correspondence that had been received by the County from owners in the area
about the postal service facility. In the second meeting, one of the Commissioners offered several
conditions for the site plan, and if they were followed, the facility would be found in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission found compliance with those conditions, and it was
required that they be abided by as part of the site plan. The preliminary site plan actually was not approved
by the Planning Commission until approximately two months later because the applicant was incorporating
those comments into the plan. He pointed out that the project was actually before the Commission on
three different occasions, and the first two times, the focus was mostly on compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Martin commented that it seems as though the plan has gone through the proper procedure,
and Mr. Perkins is wondering what can be done at this time. Mr. Martin suggested that discussions not be
held during this portion of the agenda about new items just being presented to the Board. He also
suggested that Mr. Cilimberg put his comments about the White Hall Post Office project in writing with a
conclusion as to what the possibilities might be for this Board to do at this point. The matter could be put on
next week’s agenda either as a Consent Agenda item or as an item for discussion.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Jones is the applicant and not the Postal Department. Mr. Tucker
answered that this is correct. At this point, it may be Mr. Jones who can control how this is expedited
through the process. Mr. Jones could consider the proposal of the Friends of White Hall and deal with their
expectations, and Margaret Pickard, in the Planning Office, could work with them in terms of trying to
improve the aesthetics of the site. Although, he does not know if there is anything legally this Board or the
Planning Commission can do at this time. However, the applicant and owner can probably have more
influence on how this process is proceeding.
Mr. Dorrier remarked that local governments can very much influence the postal system. He noted
that the post office was going to be moved out of Scottsville, and the Town Council voted against it and met
with the postal officials. The post office remained in Scottsville, which means local government may have
some power, although it may not be from a legal
standpoint. Mr. Tucker pointed out that local government has already reviewed the plan and given
approval. Mr. Dorrier said the decision by local government could be changed. Mr. Tucker stated that the
Board would have to direct this change.
Mr. Martin commented that the Board members need to find out if there is anything they or anybody
else can do. When this is determined, it can be put into terms as far as what Mr. Perkins may want to
accomplish with the Friends of White Hall. Rather than trying to make a decision at this point, he would
rather get information back next week that can be considered.
Ms. Thomas stated that ordinarily she would totally agree with Mr. Martin, but she believes this is a
situation where time is important. If there is anything that can be done to actually stop the process, she
thinks it should be done now. She suspects there is nothing the Supervisors can do, but if there is anything,
taking care of the matter this week rather than next week, is going make a difference. Mr. Martin said he
does not believe this Board can make a decision without the information available. Mr. Tucker indicated
that the only other alternative would be for the Board to make a decision about this matter later in the day.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks the approach that needs to be taken is for the applicant, Mr. Jones, to
talk with postal representatives. This is clearly a money saving move by U.S. Postal Service officials,
because they do not feel the site will justify spending enough money to build a conventional building. He
believes the Friends of White Hall, Mr. Jones and the County government should focus attention toward the
Postal Service to do something different, whether it is improving the appearance of the trailer or putting a
conventional type building there.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested that the way to expedite the matter would be for the appropriate Planning
staff person to work with the applicant and the Friends of White Hall toward this approach. Mr. Martin
concurred. He is suggesting that this approach be followed between now and next week. Then, the Board
members can consider what has taken place during the week, or they may have other suggestions.
Mr. Dorrier stated that the Board of Supervisors could also instruct the County Executive to write a
letter to the Postal Department indicating that the Board is considering some new actions and asking that
improvements be delayed until a decision is made. Mr. Martin stated that this is fine with him, although he
March 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
does not think the letter will get to the proper person quick enough to get a response by next week.
Mr. Bowerman commented that he believes whatever is done has to be voluntary at this point, and
he thinks Mr. Cilimberg’s suggestion is a good one.
Mr. Martin remarked that the Board also needs to consider the other side of the matter. The project
has gone through the proper process, and this issue was brought to the Board at 9:10 a.m. today. If at 9:30
a.m. the Board reverses a process that has taken months to accomplish, it puts the Supervisors in a bad
light. He believes the Board should use some level of organization by having Mr. Perkins work with the
Friends of White Hall. This will allow as much as possible to be accomplished over the next week, and at
next Wednesday’s meeting, the Supervisors can consider the matter. He stated that with this approach, the
Supervisors will at least be informed.
Board members concurred.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: October 6, November 3, November 10 and December 1,
1999; January 12 and January 19, 2000.
Mr. Perkins reported that he had read the minutes of November 10, 1999, as well as January 19,
2000, and found them to be in order.
Ms. Thomas noted that she had read the October 6, 1999 minutes, Pages 25 to the end, and found
them to be correct.
Mr. Dorrier indicated that he had read the January 12, 2000 minutes and found no errors.
Mr Bowerman said he has read the minutes of December 1, 1999 and found them to be in order.
Ms. Humphris offered a motion to approve the minutes of November 10, 1999, October 6, 1999
(Pages 25 to end), December 1, 1999, January 12, 2000 and January 19, 2000. Mr. Bowerman seconded
the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
(Mr. Martin noted that he had mistakenly skipped over the Consent Agenda.)
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Mr. Bowerman offered motion, seconded by Ms.
Humphris, to approve Consent Agenda Items 5.1 and 5.2; defer action on Item 5.3 until the April 5, 2000
day meeting; and to accept for information Items 5.4 through 5.6.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
____________
Item No. 5.1. Appropriation: United Way Childcare Scholarship Program, $474,000 (Form
#99060).
The United Way Child Care Scholarship Program helps low and moderate income working families
in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District maintain employment through direct fee-subsidies to pay for child
care. The program promotes quality childcare for children, especially “at risk” children, by allowing the
parent to select a licensed or certified provider. Scholarships are awarded based on a sliding scale fee with
parents paying a portion of the cost.
A 1992 agreement between Albemarle, Charlottesville, and the Virginia Department of Social
Services approved United Way to administer the pool funds. The 1999-00 program will expend $474,000
for direct scholarship and administrative fees. The pool is funded by $237,000 in federal funds, $91,866 by
the City of Charlottesville, $64,916 by the County of Albemarle and $80,218 by the United Way. The
Albemarle local match was approved in the 1999-00 operating budget and requires no additional funds.
Albemarle County serves as the fiscal agent and therefore, is required to appropriate the total program
funds.
Staff recommends approval appropriation #99060 in the amount of $474,000 for the United Way
Childcare Scholarship Program.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 99/00
NUMBER: 99060
March 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR UNITED WAY CHILD CARE SCHOLARSHIP
PROGRAM
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 1550 53110 390056 ADMIN FEE-UNITED WAY $39,000.00
1 1550 53110 567910 DAY CARE GRANT $435,000.00
TOTAL $474,000.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1550 33000 330014 HHS UN WAY GRANT$237,000.00
2 1550 33501 160502 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE 91,866.00
2 1550 33501 160525 UNITED WAY 80,218.00
2 1538 51000 512004 TRANSFER FROM GEN'L FUND 64,916.00
TOTAL $474,000.00
_______________
Item No. 5.2. Appropriation: Education Grant, $12,644.75 (Form #99061).
Donations: Broadus Wood Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $1,518.75.
This donation will be used to fund the salary of the Spanish teacher at Broadus Wood Elementary School.
Albemarle County Schools received a donation from Mr. Brian Wheeler in the amount of $75.00.
This donation is to be used for the general support of the schools.
VEA Mini-Grant Awards: Two Albemarle County Public School teachers have been awarded
Virginia Education Association (VEA) Mini-Grant Awards: Steve Gissendanner, Broadus Wood Elementary
School, in the amount of $500.00 and Marshall Chase, Stony Point Elementary School, in the amount of
th
$500.00. The grants will fund a project that will provide field trips for 5 grade students to do authentic
rd
scientific research and 3 grade students with a project to promote self-esteem through the completion of a
community action project.
Teacher Incentive Grants: Six Albemarle County Schools have been awarded Teacher Incentive
Grants from the Virginia Commission for the Arts in the total amount of $7,186.00. Broadus Wood
Elementary in the amount of $300.00; Greer Elementary in the amount of $300.00; Hollymead Elementary
in the amount of $586.00; Meriwether Lewis Elementary in the amount of $300.00; Stony Point Elementary
in the amount of $3,000.00; and Woodbrook Elementary in the amount of $2,700.00. The Teacher
Incentive Grant Program has been established to help strengthen the quality of education in and through
the elementary and secondary schools and to encourage innovative projects which link the arts with non-
arts curricula.
Refugee School Impact Grant: The Albemarle County Public Schools has received a Refugee
School Impact Grant award from the Virginia Department of Education’s Secondary Office of Instruction in
the amount of $2,865.00. These funds will be used to provide additional services for Albemarle’s
increasing multicultural population, which includes refugees. The grant program will run in coordination
with the evening Adult ESL classes, targeting K-12 Limited English Proficient (LEP) refugee students with
special emphasis placed on reading, writing and mathematical concepts.
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the appropriations totaling $12,644.75, as
detailed on Appropriation #99061.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1999-00
NUMBER: 99061
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: VARIOUS CONTRIBUTIONS AND SCHOOL RELATED GRANTS
MONUMENT
EXPENDITURE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 2201 61101 132100 Broadus Wood PT Wages-Teacher$1,404.85
1 2201 61101 210000 FICA113.90
1 2410 60100 999981 School School Bd Reserve 75.00
1 3104 61311 420110 Incentive Grants Sch Transportation500.00
1 3104 61311 601300 Inst Mat500.00
1 3104 60201 601300 Inst Mat300.00
1 3104 60204 601300 Inst Mat300.00
March 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
1 3104 60205 601300 Inst Mat586.00
1 3104 60206 601300 Inst Mat300.00
1 3104 60211 601300 Inst Mat3,000.00
1 3104 60212 601300 Inst Mat2,700.00
1 3123 61101 132100 Refugee Grant PT Wages-Teacher2,292.31
1 3123 61101 210000 FICA189.89
1 3123 61101 601300 Inst Supplies382.80
TOTAL$12,644.75
REVENUE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation$1,518.75
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation75.00
2 3104 18000 181236 VEA Grant-Broadus Wood500.00
2 3104 18000 181237 VEA Grant-Stony Point500.00
2 3104 24000 240327 Incentive Grant-Broadus Wood300.00
2 3104 24000 240239 Incentive Grant-Greer300.00
2 3104 24000 240330 Incentive Grant-Hollymead586.00
2 3104 24000 240332 Incentive Grant-M-Lewis300.00
2 3104 24000 240355 Incentive Grant-Stony Point3,000.00
2 3104 24000 240344 Incentive Grant-Woodbrook2,700.00
2 3123 24000 240359 Refugee Grant2,865.00
TOTAL$12,644.75
_______________
Item No. 5.3. Statement for VDoT’s Primary Road Plan Pre-allocation Hearing in Culpeper.
On April 4, 2000, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) will conduct its annual pre-
allocation hearing in Culpeper for improvements to the interstate and primary system for the Culpeper
District. All roads with route numbers below 600 are primary roads (i.e. Route 29, Route 250).
The Six Year Primary Road Plan process differs from the Six Year Secondary Road Plan process in
that a specific amount of funds are set aside for secondary road projects in the County, whereas funds for
primary road projects are allocated for each construction district, and all primary road projects proposed
within all localities of the district compete for those funds. The Culpeper District includes Albemarle,
Culpeper, Fauquier, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, Madison, Orange and Rappahannock Counties.
Attachment A (on file in the Clerk’s office) is a draft copy of the County’s improvement priorities for
the primary system for the Culpeper District. This draft is based on the County’s 1999 priority list.
(Ms. Humphris said she had not had time to review the information, but she noted that the language
in the statement is based on the County’s 1999 priority list, but it doesn’t indicate any changes or additions,
etc. Ms. Thomas inquired if this is the 1999 statement. Mr. Cilimberg responded that it is this year’s
statement which has been updated from last year.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that there needs to be an update relative to the McIntire Park land, as well
as several other things. She wondered if this is the time to discuss the matter.
Mr. Tucker suggested that Board members could provide the staff with things they want updated,
since some of the Supervisors have not had time to review the information.
Ms. Humphris indicated that she has a problem every year with the way this statement is written for
a number of reasons. The logical thing to do would be to show the changes within the text when the Board
is updating the previous year’s document. She also suggested that the Executive Summary should show
any additions, etc. It is impossible for Board members to look at the statement and know whether it has
been updated. She recalled that one year it was not updated at all, and it had many errors. She inquired if
the Planning staff could prepare the document in such a way that the Supervisors will be able to see the
changes. Mr. Cilimberg answered affirmatively.
Mr. Martin mentioned that the sidewalk project on Route 20 North is mentioned under “Safety
Improvements,” as well as “Enhancement Projects.” He wondered if this project is being requested twice.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that it is being requested twice because there is a shortage of funds, and it is hoped it
will be funded in one place or the other. Ms. Thomas remarked that she thought it would be good to note
under “Safety Improvements” that the bus line has been added on Route 20 North. This would show the
Board’s effort to deal with the safety problem. She went on to say she has a number of suggestions, and
Mr. Tucker is suggesting that they be put in writing and given to staff.
Mr. Tucker indicated that it would be helpful to staff to have a copy of the Supervisors’ notes on the
document. He added that the staff could make the changes and bring the document back to the Board,
since there are still several weeks left to work on the matter.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that the statement should be used as a basis for priority requests. The
problem in the past is comparing the actual primary plans and getting them approved. This document is
the starting point, so the Supervisors need to make sure they are comfortable with the order of priorities.
He commented that the items have been kept in the same order as past years, which is why the staff
indicated that this is an update from last year. It is important to incorporate good descriptions, because the
document is used as a basis for the presentation at the public hearing, which is usually done by the
March 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
Chairman of the Board of Supervisors. The staff is trying to get the matter taken care of this month, since
the pre-allocation hearing is on April 4, 2000.
Mr. Dorrier mentioned that there have been a couple of deaths on Route 20 during the past two
months. He stated that he noticed improvements to Route 20 were included in the draft, and he wondered
if it takes into consideration the recent events that have happened there. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the
improvements, as they were identified several years ago, were to deal with such safety issues. He said
County officials have tried to emphasize to VDoT that there is a purpose for these improvements, and now
there is even more of a reason for the request.
Mr. Martin remarked that Board members will get their concerns and questions to Mr. Cilimberg,
and the document will be returned to the Board during the next couple of weeks. The Supervisors will
discuss the matter again at that time.)
_______________
Item No. 5.4. Memorandum dated February 17, 2000, from Ms. Theresa Tapscott, Executive
Director, and Mr. Nicholas Munger, Board President, AHIP, re: Year 2000 Revisions to Regional
Consolidated Plan, was received for information.
_______________
Item No. 5.5. Route 250 West Corridor Study Final Report, was received for information.
(Mr. Perkins asked what is meant by “Final Report.” Mr. Cilimberg answered that it is VDoT’s Final
Report. Mr. Perkins next inquired if the Board of Supervisors will have a discussion of the report at any
time. He wondered if the Supervisors have the responsibility to approve it or accept it. Mr. Cilimberg
responded that the intent was for the Supervisors to receive the report and then make a decision at a future
meeting about whether or not to hold their own public hearing. Mr. Perkins said he thought VDoT
representatives were supposed to make a final presentation to this Board. Mr. Cilimberg stated that such a
presentation could probably be scheduled for the Board’s next day meeting, and it will give everybody a
chance to review the report. He noted that the staff just received it. Mr. Martin said that makes sense,
because the report contains a lot of information.
Ms. Thomas inquired if the Board members would like for the Advisory Committee and the Scenic
250 organization to have a chance to make presentations at the same meeting. Mr. Martin said that is the
time for these presentations to be made in order for the contrasts and differences to be seen. Ms. Thomas
pointed out that the Committee members spent a lot of time on this issue, and she thinks they are entitled to
more than a three minute public hearing slot. Mr. Martin concurred.
Mr. Perkins asked if it is part of the consultants’ responsibility to report back to this Board. Mr.
Cilimberg said Juandiego Wade worked more closely than anyone else on staff with this project, so he will
know if this service is available. Mr. Wade noted that the consultants have already given their presentations
to the Board, so the presentation in March will probably come from VDoT’s central office employees. He
feels certain the consultants’ responsibilities are over now since they have completed the study. However,
he will check with them to be certain. Mr. Perkins said he just wanted to be certain there would be
someone available at the meeting to answer questions.
Mr. Martin stated that this will give the Supervisors a chance to examine the report, and he thinks it
is very important that the Route 250 Committee has a chance to give its views. He believes this will work
out fine for the Board of Supervisors’ next day meeting.)
_______________
Item No. 5.6. Letter dated February 25, 2000 from Ms. Angela G. Tucker, Resident Engineer,
Department of Transportation, to Ms. Ella W. Carey, regarding transportation matters discussed at the
January 5 and February 7, 2000 Board meetings, was received for information.
“We offer the following comments regarding transportation matters that were discussed at the
January 5 and February 7, 2000, Board meetings.
·
A petition to cul-de-sac the western end of Route 738, Morgantown Road, was submitted to the Board
of Supervisors. Additional right of way along Route 738 and Route 250 will be needed in order to
provide a right turn lane on Route 250 at the next intersection with Route 738, and to provide an
appropriate turn around at the dead end section of Route 738. If right of way is available through
dedication, these improvements can be made relatively soon. Otherwise, a project will need to be set
up in the Secondary Six Year Plan and prioritized accordingly.
·
We will address improvements to Routes 712 (Coles Rolling Road) and 606 (Dickerson Road) and 806
(Estes Ridge) in the Secondary Six Year Plan as requested.
·
We have completed the necessary maintenance to Route 806 (Estes Ridge) as requested.
·
We have requested a review of the passing zone on Route 20 in front of Vintage market. I will share
the results of this study with the Board once it is complete.
·
Repairs to the potholes on Route 663 (Simmons Gap Road ) have been completed.
·
I have discussed the request for guardrail installation on Route 20 north near Park Hill Lumber with a
March 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
concerned citizen. There currently exists no shoulders for standard guardrail installation, therefore,
delineators have been installed to indicate the lack of shoulder in this area and to guide motorists safely
around the curves.
·
The following is a list of names and phone numbers for all area superintendents in Albemarle and
Greene Counties. Please forward any maintenance issues directly to them and copy me or share them
directly with me.
Yancey Mills Area Headquarter
Lee Huff, Superintendent
804 823-5610
Huff_OL@vdot.state.va.us
Free Union Area Headquarter
Harold Gentry, Superintendent
804 973-5170
Gentry_HW@vdot.state.va.us
Boyd Tavern Area Headquarter
Kenneth Staton, Superintendent
804 977-6900
Staton_KW@vdot.state.va.us
Keene Area Headquarter
Eugene Rush, Superintendent
804 286-3201
Rush_EJ@vdot.state.va.us
Stanardsville Area Headquarter
Cecil Gibson, Superintendent
804 985-2500
Gibson_CA@vdot.state.va.us
Please share this information with the Board. I will be prepared to discuss this and other
transportation matters at the March 1 Board meeting.”
Agenda Item No. 7a. Transportation Matters: Presentation on Meadow Creek Parkway.
Ms. Angela Tucker, Resident Engineer with VdoT, indicated that she had distributed a one page
fact sheet to Board members to serve as a written reminder of the highlights she will be sharing with them
while she is presenting VDoT’s most recent version of the road plans for Phase One of the Meadow Creek
Parkway project. There is a set of road plans available and a vertical profile for the entire project, as well
as a very rough 3-D rendering that she will show after she has gone through the various points in the
presentation. VDoT has acknowledged seven critical elements that the County has identified as needing to
be addressed for this project. First, a proposed 35 miles an hour design speed is used throughout this
project. She said many of the vertical curves, particularly in the County’s portion now, are very close to
the maximum allowable grade, which means if a ten percent grade is allowed under a 35 miles per hour
design speed, then there are ten percent grades shown.
Mr. Perkins asked if ten percent grades are actually allowed. Ms. Tucker responded that eight
percent grades are specifically allowed. She went on to explain that while the horizontal curves are gentler,
increases in the overall vertical curvature would result in more earthwork. The grading and earthwork have
actually been increased somewhat dramatically on this project, and VDoT representatives feel it is a very
light fit on the land.
Ms. Thomas asked for an explanation of horizontal and vertical curves. Ms. Tucker pointed out the
differences in the types of curves. She went on to say that the road alignment has been adjusted slightly to
the west and moved as closely as possible to the ball field which serves two purposes. First, the ball field is
preserved and, secondly, the impacts to the stream are minimized. She then left the microphone and used
the map to show the areas to which she was referring. She noted the Route 250 Bypass heading north and
Melbourne Road. She also showed the City’s section coming into the County across Meadow Creek and
tying into the existing Rio Road, as well as the Charlottesville/Albemarle Technical Education Center
(CATEC), and the railroad bridge.
Mr. Perkins inquired if the ball field is next to Melbourne Road. Ms. Tucker answered affirmatively.
Ms. Tucker stated that the vertical curvature has been significantly reduced which can best be seen
by looking closely at the profile, and she explained how to decipher the profile. Mr. Tucker asked if this
design mirrors the City’s proposal. Ms. Tucker responded that it does. She brought the entire project today
to show that a consistent design has been applied. She added that the 3-D design shows a consistent
design throughout, although it is very rough. VDoT officials have tried to create an attractive road with an
enhanced viewshed, and the close fit of the road to the existing terrain increases the appearance of the
roadway and gives it a park-like setting. She mentioned a section of road as it avoids the creek where it
provides a nice viewshed over the creek basin. This could become a very attractive feature of the road as
March 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
the road leaves the City and comes into the County’s portion overlooking Meadow Creek. She remarked
that landscaping plans are not available but it is VDoT’s intent that they be designed to compliment the
natural surroundings of the area. She also referred to a suggestion to use the historical railroad bed. The
proposed enhanced pedestrian pathway runs parallel to the roadway, then leaves the roadway and follows
the old railroad bed. This could lead to special points of interest, or it could meander through the proposed
linear park. She explained that it also minimizes the grading necessary to include the trail along the
roadway, since it fits almost exactly on the historical railroad bed. The alignment as it relates to the creation
of a linear park provides park land on both sides of the road, and it is a careful fit to the existing topography.
She emphasized that this road lies most sensitively on the land, and VDoT would like to provide a refined
version of the computerized 3-D rendering similar to the City’s portion on the website. This might take six to
eight weeks after the design is firmed up with feedback from the County. She then briefly described
different views of the roadway with use of slides. She pointed out Route 250 Bypass looking north through
the City’s portion, and the proposed Meadow Creek Parkway looking north as it crosses Melbourne Road.
She noted the ball field that is impacted by the project, although it is avoided by this alignment, as well as
the tennis courts at Dunlora and CATEC. She pointed out the road as it ties back in across the railroad
tracks, and she noted the section of the proposed road looking from the County’s portion across Melbourne
Road into the City, as well as Meadow Creek as it parallels the road. The consultant can pull all of this
information together, and he will discuss other details if the Board so chooses. She is available for
questions.
Ms. Humphris referred to Number One on the Design Presentation sheet which mentions the 35
miles per hour design speed. It also points out that the vertical curves are close to the maximum allowable
grade, and the horizontal curves are gentler. She asked Ms. Tucker why these things make a better road.
Ms. Tucker replied that these things lend themselves to the desire of having the road lay lightly on the land.
She said with this design there is minimal grading involved by allowing the road to be basically as steep as
the existing hillside. She explained that if a higher design speed was desired, the vertical curves would be
flattened, and there would be more grading involved.
Ms. Humphris stated that the vertical and horizontal curves will have to fit together, and she
wondered how to get the best degree of integration in this situation. She asked what standards are used to
make these types of decisions. Mr. Fred Kiiffner, Project Manager for the Meadow Creek Parkway project,
stated that he works from VDoT’s Central Office, and he would like to answer Ms. Humphris’ question about
the horizontal and vertical curves. The horizontal curves are worked in to fit the terrain and then the vertical
curves are considered. He explained that if there is a sharp horizontal curve, it is not desirable to have a
vertical curve at the same point. The horizontal curves are flatter than the vertical curves. He stated that in
this situation, even though the vertical curves roll somewhat, it is flat through that area. The vertical curves
fit into the terrain because there is a side slope on the existing ground, and the contour already there can
almost be followed except for the knoll. He added that the vertical curves roll into the hillside. He
emphasized that the relationship between horizontal and vertical curves is done with design criteria for
speeds. This project was set at a 35 miles per hour design speed so it sets controls on the horizontal
curves as well as the vertical curves.
Ms. Thomas noted that the horizontal curve looks the same as it did for the 50 miles per hour
speed limit. Mr. Kiiffner replied that everything is not designed at the minimum design speed of 35 miles per
hour, because it does not always fit the terrain. It is desirable to develop a better design speed, but in order
for this particular facility to fit the terrain and the grades, there have to be more sweeping curves. If a sharp
curve had been used, it would not fit the terrain.
Mr. Bowerman inquired about the speed limit for the 85th percentile, if the road was in place and
traffic was on it. Mr. Kiiffner responded that this type of facility should have a speed limit of 35 to 40 miles
per hour. He noted that the plan a couple of weeks ago showed about a 60 or 70 percent cut in the hill on
the north side, but the bridge has now been moved to the north, and the cut in the same hill is
approximately ten feet.
Ms. Thomas asked if this is not the same design the Board saw two weeks ago. Mr. Kiiffner
answered that it is close to the same design, but it has been modified. Ms. Thomas wondered if this is the
reason the plan was not available to members of the public when they went to VDoT’s office yesterday.
The plan was supposed to be available to the public at that time. Mr. Kiiffner stated that the plan was just
brought in this morning, and it has been refined to the point where there is very little damage as far as cuts
and fills to the terrain. He also noted that the grade is going to be adjusted between the two lanes, and he
pointed to a profile of the current center of the road. A grade will be laid on both lanes, so the median can
be tilted to relieve the cuts and fills.
Mr. Perkins asked if the fine line on the vertical profile is the actual lay of the land. Mr. Kiiffner
replied that this is misleading, and he told the Supervisors never to look at the dash line under a profile. He
said when grades are laid on these types of jobs, he always uses the rights-of-way lines, because that is
where the road has to go. The middle of the profile can have holes or gulleys. The line to which Mr.
Perkins referred represents the ground line under the center of the road, but it varies when side hill cuts,
etc., are considered.
Mr. Perkins inquired if the high point shows the amount of cut that has to be made at that exact
location of the center line. Mr. Kiiffner answered affirmatively. He said, though, to the left there could be a
50 foot cut. Mr. Perkins stated that by using the contour of the land as much as possible, the yardage of dirt
that has to be moved can be decreased. Mr. Kiiffner concurred. He said when the grade alignment was
set, VDoT staff members actually took each cross section and moved it over every 50 feet, and fit it
throughout the terrain. He added that when the alignment was shown on the model it looked awful, so
March 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
VDoT members tried to find a solution. A lot of refinement has been done, although there are still some
things left to consider. He mentioned that the slopes will also be rounded off, and this particular model
does not do that.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if the slopes can be less than two to one. Mr. Kiiffner said they can be less,
and with areas where there are ten foot cuts, there can be three or four to one slopes. He stated that peaks
are normally rounded off to ten feet, but a 15 to 20 foot round off can be used. However, loss of vegetation
has to be considered beyond that point, but this will be examined with the landscape representatives.
Mr. Tucker stated that this was brought to the Supervisors so they could see the new design that
VDoT has been developing. He recalled that at the last meeting, the Supervisors suggested that a Request
for Proposal (RFP) be developed for a consultant to work on this design. He said Ms. Tucker presented the
design a couple of weeks ago to members of the County staff, and Ms. Thomas was also able to attend.
He added that he thought it would be helpful for the Supervisors to see the work the VDoT staff is doing in
terms of a design, so they can determine whether the County should hire a consultant for a total review or
utilize VDoT’s development of this proposal as part of the design. The issue with the linear park is
important, and someone is needed to work with VDoT as far as this matter is concerned.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the County is taking part in designing the park. Mr. Tucker replied that staff
members will probably not take part in this design, although if a consultant is hired, staff members may
have some involvement in working with VDoT on the consultant’s recommendations. He noted that part of
the concern by this Board is how to position the linear park. It might be helpful to VDoT to have some
involvement with the City and County as far as working on the park design and making sure it fits well with
the design of the roadway.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that he is also interested in the undeveloped land between the existing
Rio Road and Meadow Creek as proposed in terms of the DISC Committee’s work regarding infill. He
would like to know how the road, itself, and the linear park fit into an overall development plan for that area.
Ms. Thomas stated that she thinks these types of things indicate why the County needs a
consultant. She added that there is no way VDoT can have the expertise or the interest in doing the
County’s urban planning. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that he does not even know how many acres are
involved. Ms. Thomas said urban planning is essential in that area as far as how this can be a park that is
an amenity to the County’s infill, as well as make the infill possible and attractive. The park needs to be
designed between McIntire Road and wherever the urban section begins. She thinks the Board made a
good decision last month, and the County Engineering Department has developed a good RFP. She is
appreciative of the design work that has been done by VDoT even in the last two weeks, but she does not
have the expertise to decide if this is the park with the road running through it that the County should have.
She commented that this is why the County needs to continue with the RFP. She added that this is a very
important park in the County’s midst, and it is not just any other mile of a road. Mr. Bowerman concurred
that this goes beyond the scope of VDoT. The number of acres needs to be determined and how they can
be developed with an access point.
Mr. Martin inquired if it is the consensus of the Board to move forward with the Board’s decision last
month to hire a consultant.
Mr. Perkins suggested that perhaps there needs to be a different focus on the things the consultant
will examine. There are only so many places the road can go, and VDoT has done a good job of fitting the
road to the land. He asked why a consultant should be hired to do what has already been done. He added
that there may be a need, though, to address the other things referred to by Mr. Bowerman. Mr. Bowerman
commented that the consultant may determine how the linear park connects to developable areas and how
it can be integrated to the plan. This is outside of the scope of the center line.
Mr. Dorrier wondered if there could be an ingress and egress off the proposed Parkway. Mr.
Bowerman and Ms. Thomas responded, “no.” Mr. Perkins said the consultant will review the plans to see if
they are accomplishing the desires of the County officials.
Ms. Thomas remarked that when the City was reviewing VDOT’s plans, things dragged. However,
things moved quickly, when a consultant was hired who laid out a center line. If the Supervisors want this
project to move quickly, they should include in the RFP that the consultant’s duties will involve making
suggestions about the center line. She does not want to create bad feelings, but every time VDoT staff
members have shown the Supervisors a design, they have indicated that, due to constraints, this is the only
way the road can go. She appreciates the fact that they did not say this today. She commented that now
they are improving the plan, and she appreciates very much these improvements. This leads her to really
want the expertise from an outside consultant to indicate the exact location of the road.
Ms. Tucker responded that it is in VDoT’s best interest, as well as the public’s and the County’s, to
develop the best road design possible. She added that VDoT’s interest is to make progress with this
project, and she thinks there are some critical times ahead. She is unsure if hiring a consultant will cause a
delay of any substantial nature but if it does, she would hate to see this happen, because good progress
has been made. She reminded Board members that VDoT representatives have worked with the Design
Advisory Committee for over two years, and they have met most if not all of the details that the Committee
has developed. She stated that VDoT representatives feel a good road design has been developed. She
emphasized that there are some severe restrictions involved, regardless of who designs the road, that will
have to be avoided. She mentioned that impacts to the flood plain will have to be minimized, as well as the
stream rechanneling. There are not but so many ways to avoid impacts to existing infrastructure, and VDoT
March 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
representatives feel there are not but so many locations to put this road in the County section.
Mr. Martin asked what is the pleasure of the Board. Ms. Thomas replied that a motion is not
necessary, because the Board has already moved to have the staff develop an RFP and hire a consultant.
She would like to go forward with this action. Mr. Perkins reiterated that it might be better to have a change
in the direction of the consultant’s focus.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that he thinks Mr. Kiiffner gave a very candid discussion, and he referred
to the center line when the ten foot cut was mentioned. Mr. Bowerman stated that when both lanes of traffic
are considered, it is recognized that in order to minimize the entire impact and have the center line in the
most desirable place, it is shifted back and forth so the overall roadway has less impact. He pointed out,
though, that Mr. Kiiffner indicated there could be more cutting in some places and more filling in others. Mr.
Bowerman said he thinks this is very candid information which indicates to him that the center line is
probably in the right place. VDoT has tried to mitigate with the topography in the area the very things about
which this Board was concerned. However, he commented that the information is somewhat misleading,
and he asked about the ratio on the vertical cross sections. Ms. Tucker answered that the ratio is five to
one.
Next, Mr. Bowerman asked how far in meters or feet is the distance between the lowest point and
the highest point of elevation on the vertical cross sections. Mr. Kiiffner replied that the distance would be
ten meters or about 40 feet. Mr. Martin asked what Mr. Bowerman is trying to determine. Mr. Bowerman
responded that it gives him an idea of the exaggeration or lack of exaggeration of the vertical cross
sections, and it shows that the VDoT staff tried to minimize the cut and filling within the 40 feet by the
horizontal placement of the center line.
Mr. Martin inquired if Mr. Bowerman has reached a conclusion about the information before the
Board. Mr. Bowerman said he agrees with Mr. Perkins that the center line is probably correct. The scope
of the work really deals with the surrounding impact such as land use issues and how the linear park can
enhance development areas and become part of them.
Mr. Dorrier asked if Mr. Bowerman is implying that the study should relate to the park. Mr.
Bowerman reiterated that he concurs with Mr. Perkins that this last design is trying to find the correct center
line which minimizes the impact. He asked about the 85th percentile because he knew people were not
going to be traveling at 35 miles per hour, and the answer informed him that people could travel at 45 miles
per hour in some areas.
Mr. Perkins explained that certain things have to be considered for any project. He said first, the
starting and ending points have to be determined, and consideration has to be given to other points
throughout the project. He noted that the plan has to be broken down into segments. He stated that any
civil engineer can examine photographs and contours of this section of the road and indicate if it is the best
place to put the road as far as having a minimal impact on the land. There are only so many places the
road can go, and he does not know if the Board members want to hire somebody to make this decision, or
if the County’s own Engineering Department has time for this study. He does not see why a consultant has
to be hired to make this determination.
Mr. Martin then clarified the Board members’ positions. He noted that last month the Supervisors
decided to get a consultant to focus on the center line as well as the linear park. However, they didn’t really
indicate, but it was implied, that the consultant would also consider land use issues. He said now there are
three Board members who want to continue with the same RFP, but Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Perkins are
indicating that they want to continue with the RFP but the examination of the center line can be eliminated.
The Supervisors need to make a decision as to which one of these directions to follow.
Ms. Thomas suggested that if the center line is kept in the RFP, and if the new design has the best
center line, it will save the County money, because the consultant will not have to draw another center line.
She recalled that two weeks ago the Supervisors were told VDoT had developed the best center line and it
was the only place it could go. She said now there is a different one, the bridge has been changed 50 feet,
and she does not have the expertise to judge between the two designs. She noted that a month ago, the
Supervisors were told another center line was in the only place it could go by a different designer at VDoT.
If the Supervisors are going to be serious about this decision, cutting consideration of the center line out of
the consultant’s job is going to handicap the Supervisors in their decision making.
Mr. Martin stated that he is not a technician nor an engineer, so he can listen to other Board
members and VDoT, but he really doesn’t know what they are saying. He added that as far as the
technical aspect of the issue, he has to depend on other people. He said it appears that there are
members of this Board who have some concerns, and they want to keep the center line in the RFP. He
mentioned that another thing the Supervisors should keep in mind is that the City officials need to be in
agreement with actions regarding this project, because if this does not happen, there is the risk of not
having the Meadow Creek Parkway. This Board needs to do everything possible to make sure the project is
moving forward with as many people as possible in agreement. He thinks the choice is very simple, and the
RFP should be left as it is including the center line so everybody, including City officials, are all moving
forward in agreement with the same ideas in mind.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if the consultant can work with VDoT with this information. Mr. Perkins
noted that he has not seen the RFP, but he thought it was for the design of this road. He said now Ms.
Thomas is suggesting that the center line be reviewed by the consultant. He stated that he also suggested
it be reviewed.
March 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Mr. Martin asked Mr. Perkins to clarify whether or not he is requesting that the center line be
reviewed. Mr. Perkins responded that his question was whether or not this review should be done by the
County’s Engineering Department or a consultant.
Mr. Martin inquired if the Board members are in agreement to have a consultant consider the
center line as well as the linear park and the land use issues. Mr. Bowerman answered, “yes.” He
explained that if the information from VDoT is available that was just presented, it should be a fast process.
Ms. Humphris stated that the good news is that VDoT is still working on the design and still making
changes. She said, though, the bad news is the Supervisors have been told over and over by VDoT that
wherever the center line was on a given day was where it had to be put.
Mr. Bowerman commented that there is a matter of trust involved. Ms. Tucker responded that she
did not say at the last meeting that the design there was the final product. She indicated that VDoT staff
had focused, due to time constraints, between Melbourne Road and the bridge, and adjustments north of
that area still had to be made. These were done and shown today. She concurred with Mr. Bowerman that
it is a matter of trust, and there is not anything she can say today that she has not said previously. Her
participation in this project will give County officials the road they want, but time is her only concern. It is not
necessarily a matter of time once the consultant is hired, because he will then ask for VDoT’s information in
order to check the product. If the Supervisors feel they need this additional reassurance, then VDoT will
work with the situation. Her concern is the amount of time to bring this consultant on board, given the
pending City elections and knowing that the County wants this road built. If neither the County nor the City
wanted the road built, VDoT could move on to other projects.
Ms. Thomas remarked that the Supervisors share all of Ms. Tucker’s concerns. However, she
feels the best way to get the City officials to trust the County officials that this road is going to be a parkway
is to take the matter seriously. The best way to take it seriously is to have a consultant. Mr. Dorrier
commented that he would support the consultant’s duties in the RFP that the Board previously approved.
Mr. Martin said it seems all Board members are in agreement. Mr. Bowerman stated that he is
assuming working with VDoT should not be a long process for the consultant since VDoT has
computerized information. Mr. Martin agreed that this is probably true, as long as the County hires a
consultant quickly. Mr. Dorrier suggested that someone from the Board or staff should be overseeing the
consultant’s work, since it could be an expensive proposition, if he or she is given a free rein. Ms. Thomas
said the Board will trust the staff in this situation.
Agenda Item No. 7b. Other Transportation Matters.
Mr. Perkins thanked Ms. Tucker for the work done on the railroad bridge in Crozet. He asked if
would be helpful if the risers were painted white. Ms. Tucker replied that the risers will be painted soon.
She said pavement markers are being installed in that area.
____________
Next, Mr. Perkins mentioned that the Pughs are in the audience, and they had some questions
about Free State Road, which he could not answer. He wondered if they would like to ask these questions
to the staff or VDoT.
Mr. Mickey Pugh inquired if the supervision of the construction work on Free State Road will be the
responsibility of the County or the State. Mr. Tucker answered that the state will be supervising the work.
Mr. Pugh then asked if this is different from the plan the Supervisors approved at the December
Board meeting. He referred to the minutes of that meeting which stated that the County would supervise
the construction so the work would be expedited and would be a portion of Phase Two of the Meadow
Creek Parkway. Mr. Davis responded that in December the Board’s approval was for the County staff to
hire a consultant to handle the design review, which was done to expedite the process of determining the
right-of-way. VDoT will then acquire the right-of-way and construct the road.
Mr. Pugh asked if the County has already hired a consultant. Mr. Davis answered that the staff is in
the process of finalizing the matter now.
____________
Ms. Thomas reported that she had communicated with Ms. Tucker earlier about some concerns
relating to the exit at Farmington, and she appreciates Ms. Tucker looking into the situation. She stated that
apparently the traffic dividing white poles are a problem for truck deliveries, but she does not have any
details about it. She added that she would think the VDoT staff would be hearing from truck drivers if they
couldn’t get in and out of the road.
Ms. Tucker noted that the main concern there is aesthetics. Ms. Thomas stated that there are two
concerns. She said Ms. Tucker has already agreed to determining if the sign could be placed differently.
However, the white poles were also included in the same letter as a concern that trucks were having
difficulty getting in and out of the road with the new traffic dividing poles there.
Mr. Perkins wondered about the purpose of the white poles at the Farmington entrance. Ms.
Tucker answered that the poles were put there to keep the turning movements of the traffic in their proper
March 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
lanes for both right and left turns. Mr. Perkins noted that traffic turning right can go out without having a
green light, although he does not know if this is a benefit.
Ms. Tucker said the way the poles are placed is beneficial to traffic turning right.
____________
Ms. Thomas apologized for her statement about the bridge being included in the information given
to the Board two weeks ago concerning Meadow Creek Parkway. The bridge was not included.
____________
Ms. Humphris asked for help to respond to an e-mail query, which she read aloud. The e-mail
message indicated an Earlysville resident’s despair because driving was the only way to get into town. The
resident explained that biking, running or walking on Route 743 was not an option, but if a multi-use trail
was established paralleling Route 743, she was not sure if VDoT’s right-of-way would be sufficient. The
resident suggested that perhaps private property owners’ permission could be sought. The resident asked
if this idea is worthy of pursuit, and if so, what would be the first step. Ms. Humphris commented that trying
to secure ten to 20 foot rights-of-way along Route 743 is going to take a long time. She asked how to
respond to someone who has a great idea, but one which is not practical.
Mr. Martin suggested that perhaps Ms. Tucker and Ms. Humphris could discuss this situation at a
later time.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that he received a letter from an Earlysville resident indicating that the
use of eighteen-wheelers on Route 743 has increased because of the UPS facilities on Route 606. He
asked staff to review with the Engineering Department and VDoT to consider whether or not trucks can be
prohibited on that section of Route 743 since Route 29 is available as well as access on Airport Road. This
goes along with the Route 743 issue to which Ms. Humprhis referred.
____________
Next, Mr. Bowerman referred to his earlier statement about “trust.” He told Ms. Tucker that he was
referring to bureaucratic trust and not an individual trust. Ms. Tucker stated that she was defensive because
she had tried to take on the burden of moving the project forward personally for the last month. Mr.
Bowerman emphasized that this was not his intent because his relationship with Ms. Tucker has always
been excellent. Mr. Martin commented that it is more than just Ms. Tucker and it is more than just the
bureaucracy. He added that it is the whole situation.
____________
Mr. Bowerman then inquired if the Transportation Board has given any direction to the state office
about the two exits from Route 29 southbound onto the Route 250 bypass. Ms. Tucker replied that she is
not certain about this matter. She was under the impression that the next step was to have a sketch of the
signs so they could be reviewed with both the City and the County. Mr. Bowerman asked if there is
something in process relating to this matter. Ms. Tucker answered affirmatively.
________________
Agenda Item No. 8. Piedmont Virginia Community College Annual Report, Dr. Friedman.
Mr. Phil Sparks informed the group that he is currently the Chairman of the Board of Piedmont
Virginia Community College (PVCC), and he is one of four of this Board’s representatives on the PVCC
Board. He reminded the Supervisors that the other three members are Chuck Gross, with Comdial; Clark
Jackson, with State Farm Insurance; and Joe Henley, with Henley Orchards. The four of them are the
Board’s eyes and ears for PVCC. He stated that from their standpoint, PVCC is a wonderful part of the
community and adds so much to Albemarle County, just as Albemarle County adds a lot to Piedmont. He
thanked the Board for its financial support in the past as well as its general support, and asked for
continued support in the future. He recalled that a year ago the PVCC Board brought Dr. Frank Friedman
here to serve as PVCC’s President, and over the year, Dr. Friedman has shown his insight and enthusiasm.
He said Dr. Friedman has brought PVCC to its next level, and he will give an update as far as its impact on
Albemarle County.
Dr. Friedman thanked the Board for the opportunity to give a brief update on Piedmont College,
and he told the Supervisors that he hopes every decision they make is as wise as the appointments they
have made to the PVCC Board. The four members to which Mr. Sparks referred are excellent, and it has
been a pleasure for him to work with them. He reminded the Supervisors, though, that Joe Henley’s term
expires this year, so the process will have to begin soon for a replacement, and a letter will be forthcoming
regarding this matter. He thanked the Board for its continued support of PVCC, and he noted that he is not
making any requests today. He pointed out that last year PVCC served just under 7,000 students in credit
courses, and this year this figure will be exceeded, and it will be the largest enrollment PVCC has had in its
28 year history. Of those nearly 7,000 students last year, 2,390 were Albemarle County residents which
represents 34 percent of the enrollment. It is interesting to see how PVCC serves Albemarle County,
because if the question is asked as to where Albemarle County residents go in Virginia for higher education,
51 percent of all Albemarle County residents in higher education in Virginia are at Piedmont. The second
highest number is at the University of Virginia, but this number drops to 20 percent, and then it drops to
seven percent at Virginia Tech, which proves that PVCC is the community’s college. He indicated that last
year 105 graduates of Albemarle High School came directly to Piedmont after their graduation in June,
which is approximately 29 percent of the graduating class. He noted that 54 of Western’s graduating class,
which is 24 percent, came to PVCC, and at Murray seven of their graduates came to PVCC, which is a third
of its graduating class. These percentages have stayed stable over the years with an approximate 25 to 30
March 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
percent range of Albemarle County high school graduates coming directly to Piedmont.
He referred to an analysis done for the first time this year where the 1995 graduating classes from
all of the County’s high schools were studied over a four year period, and the question was asked about the
number of students who come to PVCC some time during the four years. He said if four years are
considered, the number increases to almost 50 percent instead of the 25 to 30 percent range of graduates
coming to PVCC. The four year study shows that 45 percent came from Albemarle, 46 percent from
Western and 45 percent from Murray. This shows that some of the graduates get a job after high school
and then decide to go back to school. He added that others go on to a university, and for some reason
decide it wasn’t right for them, and they come back to PVCC.
He next mentioned a dual enrollment program initiative which he hopes will expand the college’s
relationship with the schools even more. He is very excited about this possibility, and it is a wonderful
program for high school students as well as their parents. He explained that with this program students can
earn college credit while in high school at no charge to the families. Mr. Bowerman asked when this
program was started. Dr. Friedman answered that the School Board approved the program this year, and
PVCC will be able to initiate it next year. He went on to say approximately 300 students are being served
per year from other jurisdictions in the dual enrollment program, and he is excited about expanding the
program to Albemarle County students.
Dr. Friedman then referred to the academic programs which are at the core of PVCC and are
designed for students to transfer and earn a Bachelor’s Degree. He said over 300 students were
transferred to four year colleges and universities in Virginia, and approximately two-thirds of that number go
either to the University of Virginia, James Madison or Mary Baldwin. PVCC has an outstanding relationship
with the University of Virginia, and more transfers are sent to UVa from PVCC than the rest of the Virginia
Community College System combined. He pointed out that there are 23 community colleges in Virginia,
and PVCC is a mid-size college in that group. It is especially nice to report that PVCC students do really
well at UVa. He mentioned that UVa did a study of transfers and found that PVCC’s transfers average a
grade point average of 3.31, while at UVa, which is actually higher than its overall average for all of its
students. This indicates that PVCC’s students are very well prepared to succeed, which is one of the
accountability measures used when the programs are examined.
He next highlighted work force development. He stated that ever since he arrived in the
community, this has been an area people wanted to discuss with him, so a lot of emphasis is put into work
force development at PVCC. This past year more than 2,000 individuals were served in non-credit courses
and most of them are business or working people who are updating skills to advance their careers or assist
their businesses. PVCC has had contracts with over 100 businesses this past year, including County
Government, the Albemarle County Schools, Comdial, Sperry, GE Fanuc and State Farm. PVCC works
with nearly all the major employers to help them with their work force needs. In addition, PVCC is trying to
reshape its curriculum to support the economy of the present and future. He commented that over the past
18 months PVCC has begun a number of new programs such as a Surgical Technology Program to begin
this summer with UVa Hospital and Martha Jefferson Hospital as partners in supporting this program. Each
of the programs he will mention have partners in the employment sector who are helping to design the
program and fund its development. He explained that one of his beliefs is that PVCC cannot work in
isolation as a college, but it must work in partnership with employers, which makes a successful program
for the employers, the community and the individuals to help them get good jobs. He also noted a Financial
Accounting Analysis Program with S & L Securities where one class of approximately 21 has already
graduated. About two-thirds of them immediately took positions with S & L, although others took positions
elsewhere. They are not locked in to working for the supporting employer, and this allows students to have
options, even when an employer is supporting the program. There is a Customer Service Technician
Program with Comdial.
He also mentioned that PVCC has started a Multi-Media and Web Design Program with the Virginia
Piedmont Technology Council, and a group from the Council has been used to help design the program
and provide the expertise needed to make a state of the art model program. It is hoped this program can
be delivered statewide in the future over compressed video technology, because this is a unique
development in that area. He then referred to the new Bio-Technology Program which involves UVa and
the City of Charlottesville. A new training center has been opened on West Main Street to support the
program which will produce bio-technicians to work in both the private sector as well as UVa. He noted that
UVa is waiting for graduates from that program since it has hundreds of openings at the technician level
now. He added that re-engineering of the curriculum will be continued, and there will be much more in
terms of PVCC’s work in information technology, health sciences and the financial and services sector.
That is where it seems the economy of the region is going, so that is where the programs need to be.
He has been in the area for a year and he thanked each of the Supervisors for their support of the
college as well as the support given to him and his family. His family lives in Albemarle County, and his son
goes to the County schools. He and his wife are active in the PTO and all the other things in which families
in the County are active. His family moved here a year ago from Austin, Texas, and Austin always makes
the lists of the top places to live in the country. He added that having lived in Austin as well as here in
Albemarle County, his family is very pleased to be here.
Mr. Dorrier inquired if PVCC works with the School of Continuing Education at the University of
Virginia. There are currently night programs, as well as degree programs, being offered there now. Dr.
Friedman replied, “yes.” He has worked very closely with the Dean of the School of Continuing Education,
and he mentioned a new Bachelor’s program there in which both institutions are very active and anxious to
see succeed. One of PVCC’s faculty members was on the committee that helped design the program at
March 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
the University. PVCC feels it is a very important program, and it is the first opportunity for adult students to
earn their Bachelor’s Degrees at UVa in the evening and as part-time students, which is a major step
forward. He noted, though, that PVCC also provides two similar programs on its campus. He said an adult
part-time degree program is offered through Mary Baldwin College, but it is offered at Piedmont. He also
explained that Old Dominion University offers Bachelor’s and Master’s Degree Programs on PVCC’s
campus using satellite technology to bring in the instruction. PVCC feels that part of its role is to serve as a
facilitator to try to bring as much educational opportunity to the area’s residents as possible. PVCC works
with many providers and hopes the University of Virginia’s program will be a big success.
Mr. Dorrier mentioned the possibility of PVCC offering some instruction in the high schools in terms
of video technology. Dr. Friedman answered that PVCC has been in a close working relationship with Dr.
Castner and his staff on this idea. If the school system can bring compressed video technology to each of
the high schools, PVCC is ready to bring such instruction. He explained that this instruction would originate
at PVCC, and it is a live interactive audio-video that can be brought to the high schools. This is desirable for
dual enrollment purposes, but PVCC would like to expand the program in the evenings and serve adults
also. He added that PVCC is also working on this program with all of its high school partners such as
Fluvanna, Louisa, etc. It is a great way to extend access, which is a huge part of PVCC’s mission. He
pointed out that it is desirable to bring as many people as possible to higher education, and this technology
offers such an opportunity. He stated that he is very hopeful this technology will exist in all the high schools
soon, and that it can be utilized.
Mr. Martin thanked Dr. Friedman for his report.
Agenda Item No. 9. Presentation on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Transportation Grant, Donna Shaunnessey.
Ms. Donna Shaunnessey thanked the Board for the opportunity to talk about the Transportation
Grant as part of the TANF program. She said funding for the program came to the Albemarle County
Department of Social Services from the State Department of Social Services. She explained that it is a
competitive grant written by JAUNT. However, Albemarle County acted as the conduit for the funding, and
JAUNT acted as the Project Manager. The most important part of the program was that transportation
could completely be eliminated as a barrier to people going to work. This effort has been in place for a
couple of years, and people who are going to work for the first time or have been out of the labor market for
a long time have a lot of things against them. A lot of them have no car and no access to one when they go
out to look for a job, and they may need child care and proper clothes. This program has made sure
transportation was the one thing about which they did not have to worry. No matter where people worked,
how weird their shifts were, nor how many daycare stops they needed, they could still get back and forth,
which was really important. Over 350 people were helped through this program, and about 20 percent of
those were from Albemarle County. She noted, though, that because of the length of the trips involved and
the number of people who needed transportation, it actually amounted to 30 percent of the service
provided. She added that this was true because of the further distances and, in many cases, they were less
likely to have access to a car or CTS bus service. With this program, new participants as drivers could be
hired. She went on to say seven new participants were hired, and two were from Albemarle. She reported
that the vast majority of them worked out extremely well, and so it could be seen firsthand the kinds of
barriers people were up against. One of the people hired had never worked before, and was very unsure of
her abilities despite the fact that she was very good. She commented that a lot of time was spent
reassuring her that she was doing a good job, which is similar to job counseling, and she is now a full-time
employee. One of the reasons the program was so successful is that there was wonderful cooperation
from the case managers in each of the three jurisdictions where the service was provided. She added that
the two case managers in Albemarle County worked very closely with the program representatives in
helping with new clients, which really made a difference, because they could work together if there was a
problem. She remarked that there was instant cooperation, and some of the compliances could be worked
out as well, such as making sure the people understood the rules involved in using JAUNT. She also noted
that there was some insight back and forth into individual problems. The program was operated in
Albemarle, Charlottesville and Fluvanna. It was very successful, and it has been operating for the past two
years on the basis of its success. She pointed out that the program has been expanded with federal
funding so it can be continued this year with the addition of Louisa, Nelson and Greene Counties. Program
representatives have worked closely with all of these counties, and they hope to be running the program in
the future so people can keep on getting back and forth to work.
She mentioned that another innovative idea was not to just use JAUNT vehicles for providing all
services people needed. Some of the services were subcontracted to taxi cabs, which met the program’s
criteria, so if a trip had to be made at 1:00 a.m., a JAUNT person did not have to be kept on staff that long,
and a taxi cab could be used for that purpose. She said CTS was used whenever possible because it is
more cost effective. She explained that as the program is expanded, program representatives will be
working with Greene County transit as well as RIDESHARE. A lot has been done along this line to make
sure there is cooperation between all the transit providers in the area. She then gave the Board an example
of a person the program was able to help. She explained that a lady lived on Route 29 North near the
Bamboo House Restaurant and had two children, one of whom was in school at Hollymead and one was in
daycare. The woman and one of her children were picked up in the afternoon, another stop was made at
Hollymead, both children were taken to daycare, and then she was dropped off at work. Ms. Shaunnessey
stated that they were all picked up again at 11:30 at night, which worked very well. The woman was very
dedicated to her job and eventually got a car, so she was able to work her way off of welfare as well as to
be self-sufficient with transportation.
March 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
Mr. Martin stated that he was extremely impressed as he read through the report. The people
involved with the program have done an incredible job. In his opinion, they were good, and they have only
gotten better. Ms. Thomas and Ms. Humphris concurred. Ms. Shaunnessey said she would pass these
words on to the staff.
Ms. Thomas wondered if funding will be a problem in the future. Ms. Shaunnessey answered that
funding could be a problem. The program was funded this year with a federal grant which was done
competitively across the country, and it amounted to $700,000. This money will probably run out sometime
in November. She explained that she felt the program stood a good chance of being funded at least for a
three year period. However, there have been some changes in Congress at this point, and the funding
could be earmarked. She said program representatives are in the process of writing letters to the
congressional representation to see if the money can be designated to JAUNT on the basis of the
program’s success. She may be back to ask for this Board’s support, also, in order to keep the program
going. Ms. Thomas said she will support the program.
Mr. Perkins pointed out that it seems such programs encourage people to get cars, but he thinks
people should be directed to use more public transportation. Ms. Shaunnessey said a lot of people are
directed toward public transportation when they have never thought of using CTS. These people are
taught how to get their tickets and where to get on and off the bus, etc. She noted that many people are
also riding on JAUNT’s regular service in the County. She said all of them don’t get cars, but there are
some places in the County where it is not possible to have access to public transportation. She then noted
that Kathy Ralston wanted to talk to the Board about other welfare and work programs.
Ms. Kathy Ralston informed the Board that welfare reform is a community program in which the
Social Services department has had a part, and there are four others that are ongoing. She noted that
there are two contracts with PVCC which came about because of the welfare to work funds that came
through the Department of Labor at the federal level. She said her staff is doing some job readiness
training and coaching, and there is actual work experience going on through PVCC. She added that some
welfare to work funds have gone to the Department of Rehabilitative Services, and the Department of
Social Services has a contract with that department. There is also a contract with the Work Source
Enterprises Group, which is working with people who have small disabilities, such as learning disabilities
and mental health issues, but not the ones that would make them eligible for social security. The program
through Work Source Enterprises has been a very successful program. The other one has been less
successful, partly because the welfare to work funding from the federal government has significant strings
attached. She explained that a lot of different criteria has to be met, and it has been hard to get people into
that program. She added that now the people who are left are the hard to serve people. She pointed out
that of the 23 people who were selected for the Work Source Enterprises program this year, ten of them
didn’t show for their appointments. They are being sanctioned now in the TANF Program, but those are the
hardest people with which to work, and the Work Source Enterprises’ staff is finding this out also.
She then mentioned a program that is just beginning with the Charlottesville Department of Social
Services and PVCC. It is similar to an employee assistance program for small businesses, and the focus is
to help small businesses with those TANF clients they have employed who are having barriers to keeping
their employment such as childcare, transportation, domestic violence and substance abuse problems.
She noted that whatever the issues are, there will be Department of Social Services counselors on staff
who the employers can call directly and indicate that certain people are going to lose their jobs if the
employer does not get some help for them. The person can be deployed on an emergency basis, and he
or she can work on a longer term basis with the employers to try to resolve those problems. The idea is to
try to keep turnover at a low level for employers.
Ms. Ralston next referred to funding that the View Regional Steering Committee received, which
has been designated for a variety of things, including a study on retention in the area and what the retention
problems are. There are low retention rates for six months and beyond, and in Albemarle County, they are
in the 60 percent range. She added that it is important to figure out why and what can be done about these
things. Some of them are already known, but this funding will help with a study of retention. She said more
things are being done with employers, so there are a lot of connections going on out in the community with
the employer base.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if working with employers on particular problems with individual employees
is part of the retention situation. Ms. Ralston answered affirmatively. She went on to say that one on one is
really important in this situation, but it is also very labor intensive. She wanted to let Board members know
that there are a lot of efforts going on in the community. She stated that JAUNT was the first service, and
this has been very successful. A lot of the success can be attributed to the case managers, but also to the
people involved with JAUNT.
Agenda Item No. 10. School Board Report.
Ms. Susan Gallion stated that the School Board has been a busy Board since the last meeting with
the Board of Supervisors. The School Board members met three times the first week in February and twice
the second week. On Valentine’s Day they met, they were in Richmond all day last Monday, and they had
another meeting two days ago. She next discussed the Board-to-Board briefs which was included with the
Supervisors’ information. (See Board-to-Board, A Monthly Communications Report of activities from the
Albemarle County School Board to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, Dated March 1, 2000.)
Ms. Gallion then referred to Dr. Friedman’s remarks about teleconferencing, and she said she was
March 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
invited to participate in one of these programs. She explained that she went to the technology trailer close
to Albemarle High School and participated in a video conferencing with Western Albemarle High School
representatives. This could also be done with PVCC. The problem is that the County does not have a
bridge, which would allow communication to multiple points, rather than just two. She noted that the cost of
a bridge is approximately $800,000, but it will be considered in the future as a potential cost savings. There
are many classes under the normal class pupil teacher ratios. She explained that this program would help
some of the gifted students cut down on travel time and allow them the opportunities they don’t currently
have. This fall the school system will communicate point to point which is fairly inexpensive. It is really
exciting, and she invited members of the Board of Supervisors to participate in this activity. She said it can
be set up quickly at no cost.
Mr. Perkins referred to the Board-to-Board briefs where it was indicated that school will end on
June 16th. He then called attention to the graduation dates shown for the high schools of June 7th and 8th,
and he asked if the high schools would be having classes after graduation. Ms. Gallion replied that the
seniors will not have classes after the graduation dates.
Mr. Perkins mentioned that his daughter took Japanese at Western Albemarle High School and
graduated in 1990, and it seems as though nothing new has been done with this type of technology since
that time. He hopes the video programs can get started, and even though it may cost money to get them
going, he thinks it will save money over time. He stated that it is a very worthwhile program. Ms. Gallion
agreed. She said now the school system has its own technology department, and it has started an
aggressive approach to this type of thing. Mr. Dorrier concurred with Mr. Perkins. He pointed out that he
took video courses in 1987 from James Madison University sitting in the Jefferson-Madison Library sixty
miles away. Ms. Gallion said video allows the students opportunities they would not have otherwise.
Ms. Thomas referred to the last bullet in the Communications Report about the School Board’s
meetings being videotaped. The Supervisors have examined this situation practically every year for the last
few years, and they will share this information, if the School Board does not already have it. Ms. Gallion
responded that School Board members have talked to other localities, and there are only seven or eight
other localities out of 134 in the State that actually videotape their meetings. Ms. Thomas noted that there
is always the problem that Adelphia Cable does not go to large portions of the County. However, she has
learned that CFW has the dish system and it should be providing public service, although it hasn’t been.
She hopes CFW will do so soon. Ms. Gallion stated that Mr. Grant, a School Board member, is checking
with CFW, as well as Channel 29 about the matter. Ms. Humphris mentioned that Lee Catlin would
probaby be the best source to contact about videotaping meetings because she is the person who has done
all the research on the Board of Supervisors’ situation. Mr. Martin said there are a lot of problems involved.
Ms. Gallion concurred.
Mr. Martin acknowledged Gary Grant, another School Board member who was present in the
audience.
(At 11:18 a.m., the Board recessed and then reconvened at 11:30 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 11. Funding Request from Fore Woods Edge for Woods Edge Apartments.
Mr. Tucker briefly reviewed the request for funding from Fore Woods Edge for Woods Edge
Apartments. He reported that in March, 1999 Fore Woods Edge Limited Partnership made an application
to the Virginia Department of Housing Development Administration (VHDA) for an apartment complex for
the elderly, which is located off of Rio Road near Mallside. He said at the time in order to have
consideration and obtain a point distribution for tax credit financing, the applicant was unable to get all of the
site plan review completed in time and did not receive the necessary points in the VHDA scoring process.
He explained that this year, they are attempting this again, and it seems as though everything is moving
smoothly in terms of getting the application and site plan approved. The reason the issue is back on the
Board’s agenda is that the applicant is working with JABA, as part of this Limited Partnership, and
requesting the County to pass a resolution by March 15, 2000 approving a $320,000 grant to JABA in eight
annual installments of $40,000 beginning in FY 02.
He then referred to a letter attached to the Executive Summary from Fred G. Karem, a Managing
Member of Fore Woods Edge Limited Partnership, and Gordon Walker, Chief Executive Officer of JABA,
regarding this proposal. Mr. Tucker said recently he found out from Mr. Davis, County Attorney, of the
possibility that this Board can make a loan in the same amount, although this has not been discussed with
Mr. Karem nor Mr. Walker. He explained that under the State law rather than a grant, the Supervisors
could make a loan, and the money will be used to reduce the rent for 24 to 96 rental units that allows a 50
percent household median income for each of the eight years. The rent is estimated to be in the low $500s
for the one bedroom apartments and $600 for the two bedroom apartments, and this could be subsidized
by $100 to $150 a month. He noted that Woods Edge is also committing to JABA to sell the development
at the end of the 15 year tax credit pursuant to an option or right of first refusal. This proposal will also be
part of the proposed VHDA application and will earn an additional 60 points in the VHDA scoring process.
Mr. Tucker added that there have been similar requests during the last couple of months from
other entities requesting funding from the Board. At that time, it was indicated to all of the others -- Region
Ten, the Paramount and CALAS -- that the request will be brought through the budget process. This
request is coming to the Board now, because some action is needed if these additional points can be
acquired. If the Board is supportive of the request, a resolution is needed from the Supervisors showing
their support by mid-March. The project meets all the County’s affordable housing goals and provides
March 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
more affordable housing for the elderly population particularly in an urban neighborhood setting. He
commented that it also provides JABA with a valuable asset after the 15 year period. However, it is
precedent setting in that the County has never provided funds for a profit making venture in order for an
entity to qualify for additional low income tax credit financing. He said Roxanne White will speak to the
Board about the loan issue since it is a new item, of which the staff was unaware, when the staff report was
prepared.
Ms. White commented that originally Fore Woods Edge had requested a loan from the County, but
at that time County officials were under the impression that the County was not allowed to loan out money
particularly to a for-profit or even a nonprofit entity. She said yesterday Mr. Davis discovered a part in the
Code that is particularly set out for localities which allows the County to either make a loan or grant to a for
profit agency which would be providing low income residential rental units. She explained that the rental
units can either be rehabilitated or they can be new, but they cannot be for residential homeowners. The
only qualification needed is that 20 percent of the rentals will go to low to moderate income people for a
minimum of ten years. The problem with the County issuing a loan is that there has to be an ordinance and
a public hearing. She remarked that the time frame is a problem unless the resolution stipulates that the
County would be willing to commit to a loan, but it would be subject to an ordinance and terms and
conditions that would need to be developed. The staff is planning to come back next week with a
resolution, if the Board members agree to commit to the funding. She said it is questionable, if a loan is
made, whether it will be something that can subsidize the rent. She reiterated that these are terms that the
staff has not had time to work out with the people involved. If the Board feels strongly that a loan is
preferable then the staff will try to work with the applicant on some of the terms and conditions.
Mr. Dorrier asked how many applications does the County receive from private entities for elderly
housing. Mr. Tucker responded that the County does not get very many of these applications, and he
would consider it a rarity. He went on to say since the staff members have given the Board new information
today, they are inquiring if the Supervisors would conceptually be supportive of a loan or a grant. The staff
would then develop a resolution with the applicant and have it on the Consent Agenda next week. He
believes the application will go forward whether the Supervisors support a grant or a loan, but the applicant
will not get as many points. It is a competitive process with other localities, so the appliant is trying to get the
points as high as possible.
Mr. Bowerman inquired as to how a private investment can be turned into the benefit of a public
entity such as JABA. He said some of the benefits of the private money invested in affordable housing by
the County accrues to the private sector, in this case. He wondered if the benefits at the end of the 15 years
are more than the cost. Mr. Tucker responded that the staff has not done such an analysis. He noted,
though, that there will not be any school children to educate in the 96 units. He said if these numbers are
used for an analysis, there will definitely be a savings, and the $320,000 is probably a good investment.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that it also stabilizes that particular community because currently there
are some issues between Mallside and Lakeside. This is a different set of people, and it will create a mix in
the community. Mr. Tucker agreed. These are values that are hard to quantify, but he thinks they can be
quantified. He worked with some rough figures yesterday to get an idea, and it is a savings to the County, if
it is considered from the perspective that school children will not be within these units to educate. Ms. White
pointed out that the grant is set up in such a way that the money does not go to the private for profit entity.
She said it is used for the subsidy. She explained that now the subsidy with the low income tax credit would
be 100 percent at 50 percent household median income, and with the subsidy taking off $100 to $150 for
24 units, the 30 to 50 percent range of income would probably come into play. She said with the grant, the
money actually benefits more of the population than it does the entity.
Ms. Thomas wondered if there will be 3,200 months of reduced rental fees for the elderly. Mr.
Martin stated that the County gave Our Lady of Peace a permanent type of tax break. Mr. Bowerman
responded that Our Lady of Peace received a tax break on real estate taxes, and any other organization
within these types of circumstances can get the same break. The County wrote an ordinance which
allowed the tax break, and it can be duplicated, because of the benefit the County received. Mr. Tucker
commented that similar tax breaks have been given to others.
Mr. Martin asked the applicant to come forward.
Mr. Ed Jones, with the JABA Board, stated that there are eight members on the JABA Board who
live in Albemarle County, and all the members except one who dissented, approved the proposal. This is
the second time the proposal has been brought before that Board, and the Board members are well aware
of the possibilities with this type of program. He added that it is a good chance for people who retire from
the working corps to have a reasonable living accommodation, and the project will be in an area which will
improve with this type of contribution. The Board of Supervisors’ help in the past is appreciated, and he is
pleased to be here.
Mr. Bowerman inquired about JABA’s mission as far as affordable housing is concerned. Mr.
Gordon Walker stated that JABA’s mission is dictated by the six jurisdictions and the Planning District, and it
is to provide more affordable services for the elderly. He remarked that the County will find housing is a
very high priority for this age group. This project is seen as a public/private partnership, and it is a project
JABA could not do on its own. He noted that long term it provides JABA with an excellent opportunity to
have an asset which provides cash flow and an equity base that enables JABA to have the type of revenue
base that will put less pressure on the County for support services for lower income seniors. JABA would
like to become less dependent long term on the government as being the sole source of
March 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
funds for serving the lower income. He stated that one of the ways to do this is by having a public/private
partnership that over time enables JABA to have additional income.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors has repeatedly said that
people who own something have a stake in its upkeep and liability. He said subsidized housing projects
have turned out not to be a very successful venture. He asked if it is conceivable that there could be rental
units and also people could have equity in their housing. Mr. Walker answered that he is not aware of
problems in senior housing such as this, and from JABA’s perspective, a lot of people who will live there are
people who are already being served, or they will be served anyway. He stated that it is a lot less costly for
JABA to provide services such as transportation and health care in one facility in a concentrated area. That
is why senior housing of a rental nature is so popular. It becomes increasingly hard for people as they age
to hang on to their own homes, and this provides a more affordable means for them of being able to
continue living outside of an institutionalized situation. It is an excellent opportunity for JABA to provide
services for people who can’t be provided services throughout the rural areas because of the distances.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if JABA is prepared to become a management agent for such a facility. Mr.
Walker responded that JABA is already managing the services. Mr. Bowerman explained that he is
referring to 15 years from the present. Mr. Walker answered, “yes.” JABA may decide to manage the
facility, or it may decide to use a private management agency. Mr. Bowerman commented that in the
meantime there will be coordination between JABA and the facility when it is owned by Fore Woods Edge
Limited Partnership.
Mr. Karem referred to an earlier comment by Mr. Bowerman about the residents having equity in
their rental units, and he responded that they could not individually gain ownership of the housing. The
opportunity is for the present partnership between JABA and Fore Woods Edge to eventually lead to JABA
being the complete owner of the entity. He explained that in the meantime during those 15 years, JABA
and Fore Woods Edge are general partners in the venture, and they will be working together. The
cooperation of the Albemarle County officials and the staff has been encouraging, and the relationship he
has had with Mr. Walker and his colleagues has made him more excited about this development than any
with which he has been involved during his 15 years in the business. He thinks a very positive housing and
supportive service arrangement can be provided. However, the problem is that it is very competitive. He
added that there has been a change in the regulations, so the application has to be as competitive as
possible, and it will have to be done in a way that is a public benefit. The proposal that went to the grant
after everybody involved was under the impression that a loan was not possible was devised as a way to
serve everybody’s purposes. The owners get absolutely no benefit out of the money, because it is all going
to pay a part of the rent that the residents would otherwise be paying.
Mr. Bowerman commented that it does not go to the private sector. Instead it goes to subsidize
housing for those who meet certain income requirements. Mr. Karem replied that the residents will pay a
portion of the rental fee, and the contribution from the County will make up the difference. He explained
that for these 24 apartments, the residents will pay in the range of $350 to $450 a month, and the grant will
make up the difference. He said as a result, this facility is going to provide new housing with all the
excellent services for the elderly. He remarked that housing can be provided for people who are at a lower
level of income, and rather than a household with one bedroom having to make $16,000 to $17,000 a year
to comfortably afford such an apartment, it could be done for $11,000 to $12,000 a year. He said rather
than having to make $19,000 a year to afford a two bedroom apartment, residents can make $14,000 or
$15,000 a year. In terms of competitiveness, he pointed out that last year in the Richmond pool, the lowest
scoring winner was two points above the highest scoring loser. This year, four other counties are added into
the pool to make it even more competitive. He stated that one of the applications from one of the four
counties that will be competing this year and lost last year was two-tenths of a point below the lowest
scoring winner in the Small MSA Pool. He noted that it is unknown what the applications will be like, but
history shows a pattern where ten points can make a major difference. The people involved are trying to
make this as strong an application as possible from the standpoint of the objective that they think serves
Albemarle County, JABA, the residents and Fore Woods Edge Limited Partnership.
Mr. Dorrier stated that he thinks Albemarle County needs to encourage a public/private partnership
such as this, and he doesn’t see any reason why this Boad cannot support the proposal. He then made a
motion for the Board of Supervisors to approve a resolution to support the funding request from Fore
Woods Edge L.L.L.P for Woods Edge Apartments.
Ms. Humphris said she would second the motion for purpose of discussion, since she doesn’t think
the Board members have finished discussing the proposal.
Mr. Bowerman commented that the purpose of the resolution would be to commit the County to
$40,000 a year for eight years. Mr. Tucker concurred that this is correct. Mr. Martin noted that the
possibility of a loan would still be left open.
Ms. Thomas wondered about the tax situation involved with this proposal. Mr. Tucker answered
that the staff does not yet know the answer to this question. The situation will have to be examined.
Mr. Jones asked if he is right in thinking that a loan will not allow subsidies to occur, and only a
grant can do that. Mr. Martin answered affirmatively.
Mr. Karem pointed out that work will be done on the proposal during the next week, if the Board of
Supervisors supports it. He recalled that last year everything had been done for preliminary site approval
except some formality, and the time for comment was going to be about ten days after the application was
due. As a result of that, VHDA did not give the proposal the points, since site approval had not formally
March 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
been given as of that time. The application will have to be submitted by March 17,2000 , and there will
again be the issue of formality and whether or not it will qualify. He stated that he would like to work on
these things with the County if it is an option. He also noted that the tax abatement issue has the same
problem. Mr. Davis explained that in order to qualify for a tax exempt status, it would have to be a nonprofit
corporation.
Mr. Martin said there is only one loose end involved with the loan, which will be taken care of, if
possible. He stated that if not, the Supervisors will have the option of approving the grant.
Mr. Davis mentioned that this Board cannot commit next year’s Board, nor any Board after that, to
appropriate $40,000. The resolution the Supervisors will be adopting will simply be an agreement that a
future Board will consider. He is not sure how different this is from a resolution indicating that the
Supervisors will consider loaning the money next year. From the process standpoint, he is unsure if there is
any difference between the two proposals because this Board cannot commit $320,000 over a future time.
Mr. Bowerman asked if any other jurisdictional Board could do so. Mr. Davis replied that no other
county can make such a commitment. Mr. Tucker stated that this is true of the other requests such as the
Paramount’s and CALAS’ requests.
Mr. Karem remarked that if the Supervisors are supportive of the concept of a resolution,
representatives of the proposal would like to work with the County officials to see what language makes the
most sense.
Ms. Humphris referred to the agreement with Our Lady of Peace, where Our Lady of Peace
representatives guaranteed Albemarle County residents a certain number of beds in return for the property
tax relief. She added that there would be a tremendous demand for these units given the County’s need for
affordable housing, so this proposed project is most certainly for the very best of causes. She asked,
though, how County officials can make sure the loan would take care of Albemarle County residents when
Albemarle County taxpayers’ money is put into it. She noted that people will be attracted from other places
because of the availability.
Mr. Bowerman responded that Albemarle County officials cannot be certain of the County’s money
serving only its residents in this situation. Mr. Dorrier noted that there are eight people on that Board from
Albemarle County. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that there can be no discrimination on location of the
applicants. Mr. Martin said Ms. Humphris has noted that the 24 people who will be benefiting from
Albemarle County taxpayers’ money could be from another locality. Ms. Humphris emphasized that it is not
necessarily Albemarle County residents for which the County will be providing the taxpayers’ dollars, and
she has a problem with this. She also wants to make sure that a precedent is set only if it is characterized
in a way that it could not likely be used by any for profit company that wants to do a good thing and wants
help from this Board. She would rather it be a unique situation instead of a precedent. Mr. Bowerman
responded that if a precedent is not set where others can do the same thing, then it doesn’t work. He
referred to the ordinance for Our Lady of Peace, and he said it is fair.
Mr. Davis clarified that the Supervisors agreed to recommend property tax exemption by
designation, and they entered into an agreement with Our Lady of Peace representatives that they would do
certain things on behalf of the County in order to gain this Board’s support. They received tax exempt status
on this basis, and the agreement related to providing certain services to Albemarle citizens. Mr. Bowerman
inquired if preferences were included in this agreement. Ms. Humphris replied, “no.” There was a
requirement involved that a certain number of residents come from Albemarle County. Mr. Bowerman
asked if this was legal. Ms. Humphris replied affirmatively. She said Our Lady of Peace has stuck by the
agreement to the letter. Mr. Bowerman wondered if the residents are from Albemarle County. Ms.
Humphris responded that the number Our Lady of Peace representatives agreed to pay for who were
indigent Albemarle County residents has been adhered to every year. Mr. Bowerman asked if this Board
could legally make such an arrangement. Ms. Humphris answered, “yes.”
Mr. Dorrier said he does not think a quota for Albemarle County should be set. He suggested
trusting the good faith of JABA officials to deal with the situation in a fair and equitable manner. Ms.
Humphris pointed out that JABA will not be the owners who are renting the units. Mr. Perkins stated that he
does not know if the matter of establishing people’s places of residence can be controlled. Mr. Davis said
from a practical standpoint Mr. Perkins is right, because he is not sure what background criteria is used to
determine the residence. Ms. Humphris commented that Our Lady of Peace used Social Services
information, etc. to make the recommendations, and a lot of qualifications are needed when things are
done involving Social Services.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if the Planning District members, which is the City and five counties, make
up JABA’s Board. Mr. Walker replied affirmatively.
Mr. Martin stated that there seems to be a consensus to move forward with this proposal, but there
are some concerns as to whether or not Albemarle County residents will be served as opposed to others.
He noted that there are also some legal issues as to whether or not there could be any type of standards
relating to this matter. The question is whether the Supervisors’ concerns outweigh their support.
Ms. Humphris answered that she is not sure. She noted that the Board of Supervisors’
responsibility is to spend Albemarle County taxpayers’ dollars. She added that this is not a grant from the
federal government. She emphasized that this is Albemarle County taxpayers’ money, and she wondered if
it is being spent in a way that is responsible to the County’s taxpayers in order to get a facility for them.
March 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
Mr. Bowerman replied,”yes.” He said affordable housing is being provided for a certain segment of
the population regardless of where their current residences are. He pointed out that children will not be
involved with this project.
Mr. Martin stated that the Section 8 housing regulation is exactly the same. Ms. Humphris pointed
out, though, that Section 8 funding is not directly Albemarle County taxpayers’ dollars. These are “pass
through” dollars. Mr. Dorrier noted that this will enable Albemarle County to be more competitive in getting
other grant money, because it is providing more low cost housing. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks, on
balance, the proposal makes sense.
Ms. Thomas asked if future Boards of Supervisors cannot be committed, will anything being
discussed help with the point system. Mr. Bowerman commented that everybody with which the County is
competing has the same problem. Mr. Davis said this is not necessarily true. He pointed out that neither
the cities nor a housing authority have the ability to incur long term debt without a referendum. Mr.
Bowerman stated that the County can only do what can legally be done.
Ms. Thomas said she does not want to commit money if it is not going to help. She asked how
County officials can be certain that the value received by the renters as rent subsidy is equal to the dollars
being paid by the County. She said she would like to be sure there is really a $150 subsidy that otherwise
the renter would have to pay. Mr. Martin responded that these people’s rent can be compared to the
people’s rent who are not getting a subsidy. Ms. Thomas asked again how the Supervisors can be sure that
dollar for dollar rent subsidies are being received for the money being paid with general taxpayers’ dollars.
Ms. White stated that if this is approved, some type of agreement or contract will have to be developed
stipulating a way of monitoring the situation. Ms. Thomas noted that if the County makes a loan, there will
not be the subsidy issue. She wondered, though, if a loan will help with the grant application. Ms. White
replied that either one has difficulties from VHDA’s viewpoint of examining the two. She went on to say the
County officials need to have the understanding that the proposal is subject to appropriation for a grant as
well as subject to approval through an ordinance by a loan.
Mr. Tucker stated that the Supervisors’ questions are good. The staff will try to answer them, if the
Board wants to move forward with the proposal. He added that a couple of the issues just came to the
staff, even after the Executive Summary was written. The staff will have to get some answers from VHDA
and talk with the applicant about some of the questions. He told Ms. Thomas that the staff does not have a
definitive answer to Ms. Thomas’ question.
At this time, Mr. Bowerman called for the question.
Ms. Thomas asked if time is adequate to allow a week to get the answers. Mr. Tucker replied that
the application has to be in by March 17th.
Mr. Martin reminded everyone that Mr. Bowerman had made a motion to call for the question. Ms.
Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Martin stated that there is a motion on the floor to move in the direction over the next week
toward putting together a resolution that may involve a loan or grant, as well as to answer certain questions
such as whether or not there is a way to target this funding toward Albemarle County citizens, and whether
there is a way to ensure that the value received is dollar for dollar value. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Tucker referred to Ms. Thomas’ question about the timing. The Board of Supervisors meets
again on March 15, 2000, and the application has to be in by the 17th. If two weeks are needed to get all
the answers, it would still allow enough time, although it will make the schedule tight. However, hopefully,
everything will be ready to go then, except for the resolution.
Agenda Item No. 12. Stormwater Management Policy.
Mr. Tucker summarized the Executive Summary relating to the Stormwater Control Program. He
noted that the program was established in the CIP to fund the purchase, construction and repair of
permanent stormwater and drainage control facilities throughout the County. He said sustained growth in
the development areas has created a complex environment in which control of flooding, drainage and
stream health are becoming increasingly important issues. He added that stormwater systems address
these concerns but require planning for future needs as well as continued maintenance to ensure proper
performance. Historically, the County’s approach to Stormwater Management has been to require
construction of private on-site basins to serve new development, to require maintenance of facilities by
private property owners or homeowner’s associations through Maintenance Agreements and to respond to
citizen drainage concerns on a case by case basis, as well as to provide planning for regional basins. He
March 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
emphasized that this approach is under increasing financial and political stress as the citizens are
requesting the County to provide repairs to drainage channels located on private properties which serve
public roads and repairs to failing underground and surface drainage systems, including stream channels,
which serve regional (multiple property) purposes.
He informed Board members that the challenge is to strategically manage and fund the planning,
construction and maintenance of stormwater facilities in a manner which best serves the citizens. In the
evaluation of the alternatives, the staff reviewed the programs of other progressive counties and found that
Prince William County is the only county in Virginia that has its own stormwater utility. He added that
several cities have also established these types of facilities such as Chesapeake, Hampton, Newport News
and Virginia Beach. He reported that Henrico and Chesterfield counties own and maintain all of the
stormwater facilities in those counties, and their programs are managed by local government and funded by
General Revenue. The difference with Henrico and Chesterfield Counties is that their growth management
is not close to Albemarle’s, and they don’t have a defined area for growth and development. He said
James City County provides assistance to private facility owners and accepts dedication of facilities on a
case by case basis. He added that this program is managed by the local government and funded by
General Revenue. but it is one of the smallest counties in area in the State. Recently adopted federal and
state regulations, the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), Phase II, have been
reviewed for impact on Albemarle County’s program approach and funding. One of the attachments to the
Executive Summary indicates that the County’s program substantially complies with the NPDES
requirements and will not be significantly impacted by these requirements until some time between 2003
and 2008. He stated that customer service and practical alternatives of establishing an independent
Stormwater Utility, the option of expanding the services of the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA)
to include stormwater, as well as the option of continuing to manage the program by the Engineering and
Public Works Department were considered and outlined in the Executive Summary’s attachment (6).
Mr. Tucker said the staff is recommending approval of Items One through Three as shown in the
Executive Summary. These items are: Prioritize CIP funding for completion of regional drainage and area
studies as an integrated element of the land use planning program; require all future subdivision and site
drainage easements to be dedicated to Public Use; and continue to require property owners in areas
designated as non-growth in the Comprehensive Plan to maintain their own facilities. He remarked that the
staff requests direction from the Board on the two options addressed in Item Four, which deal with
stormwater management to areas generally designated for development in the Comprehensive Plan.
These two options are: Designate the Albemarle County Service Authority as the Program Authority; and
designate the County Department of Engineering and Public Works as the Program Authority. He
described these two options. He noted that the staff has discussed these options with Mr. Brent, and he is
present at this meeting, as well as the Chairman of the ACSA Board . He said members of the County
engineering staff are also present, if Board members have questions.
Mr. Bowerman called attention to Option One. The assumption is that water and sewer are
available, and the Service Authority is already in those areas. Mr. Tucker concurred. He said if the Board
chooses Option One, there is still a lot of work to do on the details between the County staff and the Service
Authority staff. He stated that generally he envisions something similar to the County’s existing service
areas which, for the most part, are in the growth areas.
Mr. Martin mentioned that this Board has often discussed having designated areas that are
receiving services and having some type of user fees for those areas. This is very difficult to do for certain
things such as fire or police services. However, it seems to him that this is an area where it could actually
be done. He added that unless Mr. Brent knows of problems with Option One, he would be in favor of it,
because of the user fees involved.
Mr. Bowerman inquired about the assessment of pro rata contributions. Mr. Davis answered that
they would be specific to properties within the designated area. Mr. Tucker asked if a certain drainage
basin was involved would the pro rata contributions be only for the areas in the drainage basin or would they
be for the entire service area. Mr. Bowerman noted that now everybody pays the same thing. Mr. Martin
said he thinks everybody should be included.
Mr. Davis stated that there are different ways to handle the situation. He mentioned that one
approach is that the equivalent residential unit is based on every property within the service district. He
added that there would be a formula used to figure out the share and that would be the amount of the fee.
There are other ways to do it, although this is generally the way it is handled.
Ms. Thomas asked for a definition of “service district.” This is part of the confusion, and she
inquired if it means everything in the area that has public water and sewer, or is it defined in some other
way. Mr. Davis responded that there is no limitation for service districts. They can be determined by growth
area, and the Board has the authority to create boundaries or districts. He mentioned that the Service
Authority has a district in existence because of the water and sewer areas. He said if the Service Authority
takes on the responsibility, there would be some logic to follow its district lines, so there would not be
differences in districts.
Mr. Tucker said the Supervisors can set different boundaries, and they may want to make them
different, if service areas for water only are considered in rural subdivisions of two acres and above. He
said in most cases there will not be a requirement under subdivision regulations to require stormwater
facilities or structures in that type of density. He commented that it might be unfair to charge large lot
owners who may have water only on two plus acre lots to pay something toward a stormwater drainage
March 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
facility.
Mr. Martin asked if Board members have objections to approving Recommendation Number One,
Two or Three. No one objected. Mr. Martin stated that now Board members can decide which direction to
go in terms of Option One versus Option Two.
Mr. Davis mentioned that if, for example, Recommendation Two, is selected, it would require for all
new development that the drainage facilities be dedicated to the County or the Authority maintaining the
easements. He said some of the developments may be outside of the service district, and the drainage
facility would be built as part of the development, but then there will be an ongoing maintenance
responsibility by the County. He pointed out that when a system is created and the Service Authority has
the service districts, it has to be realized that outside of the service districts there will continue to be some
drainage systems that the County will have to accept for County maintenance. He stated that perhaps
there will be other problem areas outside of the service district. The idea is that most of the development
would be within the district because it would be the more urban type development where these features are
in existence, but there may be other projects outside the district which will continue to be under general
County control. The Board members will be able to address how many of these there are, but he is unsure
if there is a complete analysis of these projects. There will be a hybrid system at that point where the
County will be maintaining some drainage facilities and perhaps the Service Authority would have the more
intense ones within the development areas.
Mr. Tucker said the staff recognizes that there may be occasions when this would happen, but the
County would continue to operate on a case by case basis. He stated that Mr. Brent has outlined some of
the facilities for which the County has the responsibility outside of the growth area, but this is more of an
exception than the rule.
Ms. Thomas called attention to the two options shown under Number Four, and she asked for
discussion on how this would fit into the DISC recommendations and the County officials’ desire to
encourage people to live in the more urbanized areas. She said more amenities and facilites should be
provided with this encouragement. She stated, though, people in the rural areas don’t want to pay for
amenities for which they are getting no benefit. However, it is not desirable to be more expensive for people
to live in the urban area, and this could be the case if there is a fee to the Service Authority. She wondered
if staff has guidance on this issue.
Mr. Bowerman commented that people either have to drill a well or buy water from the ACSA. Mr.
Tucker concurred that this is how staff has viewed the matter. Mr. Bowerman remarked, though, that he
can see Ms. Thomas’ point, because it raises the cost of living in the urban area for certain protections such
as flooding. Mr. Martin commented that land values are so much higher in the urban area if comparisons
are done as far as the cost of building in the urban area versus rural areas. Mr. Bowerman stated that he
concurs with Ms. Thomas that the County officials should expedite living in the urban area rather than
throwing obstacles in the way.
Mr. Martin said the goals of DISC are being furthered because consistency is needed, instead of a
case by case basis, in order to provide adequate services in the urban area. Ms. Thomas inquired if
stormwater management will be paid for by every taxpayer in the County, or will it be paid for by a defined
service district. Mr. Martin answered that he feels the costs should be spread across the entire area. Mr.
Bowerman asked if Mr. Martin is indicating that the costs should be spread over the districts where
stormwater management is in effect and not across the entire County. Mr. Martin replied that he thinks the
cost should be spread across the designated growth areas.
Ms. Thomas explained that if Option Two under Number Four is selected, then every taxpayer in
the County will be supporting this project. However, if Option One is chosen, then at least a portion of the
cost will be paid by the people who live in the designated growth areas, no matter how the lines are drawn.
This makes it more expensive to live in the growth areas, because the fee will be paid by people who live in
the urban area, and it will not be paid by people who live in the rural area. She emphasized that this is an
important decision the Supervisors will have to make.
Mr. Martin referred to the difference of a small fee compared to the difference in the land value in
the urban area versus the rural area. He also mentioned the requirements for things such as curb and
gutter, which is a difference of millions of dollars. He stated that he doesn’t think a fee of a couple hundred
dollars a year is significant in terms of living in the urban area.
Ms. Thomas next mentioned that she doesn’t know how to compare, because she does not know
the cost of the proposed fee. Mr. Martin suggested that Mr. Brent come forward to answer questions. Mr.
Randolph Parker, the ACSA Board Chairman, commented that the cost is not known at this time. Mr.
Bowerman inquired about the total budget now for water and sewer users. Mr. Brent replied that the total
budget is $10,000,000. Mr. Tucker noted that there is approximately $400,000 in the CIP for the first year
for this purpose. Mr. Davis explained that the amount of money in the CIP is not reflective of the cost of the
program because the CIP is only anticipating a case by case basis. Mr. Tucker concurred that
maintenance, etc., is not included in the amount of money in the CIP.
Next, Mr. Bowerman asked about the typical amount of a water and sewer bill. Mr. Brent answered
that a typical bill would be $30 to $35 a month. He went on to say there is a big distinction between water
and sewer and stormwater drainage. He stated that water revenues can be used for sewer projects, and
sewer revenues can be used for water projects, but the money can’t be used for stormwater drainage. He
also recognized that there are some people within the current water and sewer jurisdictional areas who are
March 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
not water and sewer customers, so they would be affected by this proposed project, even though they are
not connected to the water and sewer system.
Mr. Bowerman inquired as to the number of ACSA subscribers. Mr. Brent responded that by July,
ACSA should have about 13,000 water customers and approximately 11,000 sewer customers. Mr. Parker
said large developments such as Fashion Square will be hit with this cost as opposed to homeowners. He
also emphasized that the ACSA Board has no position as to whether or not the County officials should
move forward with the proposal. He said it is strictly the Supervisors’ decision, and if they feel as though it
should be the ACSA Board members’ charge, they will take the charge, and do what they can with it.
However, they don’t necessarily want it, and they are not at this meeting to advocate their desire to have it.
He emphasized again that the differential in cost would be considerable between the amount a large
commercial user would pay versus a residential customer.
Mr. Bowerman commented that if the user had a big parking lot there would be good reason for the
extra cost, but if it was a high volume water user without a big parking lot, then it would be a different
situation. Mr. Parker said a standard will be determined such as the Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU)
standard to take into consideration a parking lot where water will be running off as opposed to a lawn where
the water will be going into the ground. He remarked that he understands this would be based upon the
adverse drainage impact so people with parking lots would be paying the larger fees.
Mr. Martin stated that it seems the ACSA officials have not done a lot of study on the situation, since
they have not been told to do it. Mr. Randolph responded that ACSA officials have discussed it because
they saw the situation on the horizon. Mr. Martin remarked that this leaves the Board of Supervisors to
make a recommendation without having much information about Option One versus Option Two.
Mr. Tucker explained that the staff is asking if this is the direction in which the Supervisors would
like to have the staff move forward. If so, the staff will start working with the Service Authority to try to
answer some of the questions.
Mr. Martin suggested that the Board consider approving Items One, Two and Three and then move
cautiously on Options One and Two until more information is available. Mr. Bowerman stated that a lot is
already known about Option Two. Mr. Tucker agreed that this is what the County does now. Mr.
Bowerman stated that he would like to have extra emphasis put on Option One to see how many problems
are associated with it. Mr. Martin pointed out that the ACSA officials are being asked to spend time
considering something for which no fees are collected. Mr. Randolph noted that the water customers
would be charged for this time. Mr. Tucker stated that the County staff will have to be involved in the
examination of this proposal as much as the ACSA officials.
At this time, Mr. Martin commented that he would entertain a motion to approve Items One, Two
and Three as well as to direct the staff and ACSA to move forward to acquire more information on Option
One.
Mr. Perkins wondered if Option Two could be expanded to create service districts.
Mr. Tucker asked Mr. Davis if the Code allows the County to create service districts for stormwater
facilities. Mr. Davis said it is possible.
Ms. Humphris asked if the collection of information will include such things as expansions in
personnel and facility, etc., which will be needed if ACSA takes on this proposal. The Board of Supervisors
will also need to know what will be required if the County takes on the responsibility. She said numbers of
people, dollars and new buildings are necessary. Mr. Martin stated that with Option Two, service districts
will need to be examined.
Mr. Dorrier commented that he attended a statewide tax conference recently. He noted that the
people who attended were told it was the consensus that the service districts were not working as well as
they should and there were some problems with them. Mr. Bowerman asked what type of service districts
were being referred to at this conference. Mr. Dorrier answered that reference was made to the service
districts in Hampton and Fauquier County, but he is not sure if the service districts related to stormwater
run-off situations. Mr. Martin remarked that he thinks County officials should take a good look at adding a
service district with Option Two, since they keep talking about it, but never seem to get around to examining
the possibility.
Mr. Perkins noted that if the service will be paid for by everybody, then perhaps there could be a
provision where people would be given credit depending on their situations. He said if their property drains
into a certain retention basin, and they have done nothing to impact the run-off, then maybe they should be
given a credit. This provision could be expanded to the whole rural area. Mr. Bowerman commented that
someone would have to verify the situation on a regular basis to make sure that the drainage has not
changed.
Mr. Perkins mentioned that if Whitewood Road Park was a private responsibility, it would not stay
that way long. He added that people should not have to pay for something they are helping if they are not
adding to the problem. Mr. Davis stated that the ERU concept would take that into account because it
would be based primarily on the amount of impervious surface. He said Whitewood Road Park would have
little of that.
Mr. Martin stated that it appears the Supervisors want to adopt Items One, Two and Three. Ms.
March 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
Thomas said she is sure she will support adopting Items One, Two and Three, but she wondered how all of
this will impact the Ivy Road situation which was brought to the last Board of Supervisors’ meeting. She
recalled the discussion about the run-off coming from projects which have been built a long time, but the
people responsible are not interested in turning them over to the County. However, other things are being
seriously impacted downstream from them. She asked for assurance that this situation will be taken care
of somewhere in Items One, Two and Three.
Mr. Tucker said this is a situation that will probably have to be dealt with by the Board of
Supervisors either way. The intent of Item Three is not to indicate that the Ivy Road situation will be
excluded. He commented that this is a project on which the staff has been working with property owners,
but there is no clear direction for staff members to follow.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that property owners have been told the County will do no more for them.
Mr. Tucker said the Supervisors could still make a decision to go in another direction because it is a policy
from which they can defer. He explained that if the staff is directed by the Supervisors to move forward and
provide some additional drainage improvements to the area to which Ms. Thomas referred, then the staff
will develop a proposal. The staff is trying to treat everyone the same, and perhaps a project could be
brought before this Board as part of the CIP for the Supervisors to approve. He does not think the staff is
ready to make this recommendation on that particular situation, yet.
Mr. Martin noted that Mr. Tucker has answered Ms. Thomas’ question by indicating the Board will
have to deal with this situation outside of the first three items. It appears there is a consensus by the Board
to approve Items One, Two and Three and to gather more information on Option One, as well as to
examine Option Two to consider service districts.
Mr. Perkins asked if Mr. Brent had indicated that certain water project revenues could be used to
finance sewer projects and sewer revenues can be used to finance water projects. However, they can’t be
used to finance stormwater projects, so stormwater projects will have to be paid for separately. Mr. Brent
answered affirmatively.
Mr. Bowerman noted that Option Two could be very costly. Mr. Martin stated that Option Two is
only being examined at this point. Mr. Bowerman clarified his statement to indicate that he was referring to
Item Two which would require all future subdivision and site drainage easements to be dedicated to Public
Use. He said now property owners are paying for these types of things in their homeowners’ agreements.
Mr. Martin asked if Mr. Bowerman would like to remove this item and vote only on Items Two and
Three. He said such answers are not now known, and decisions have to be made. Mr. Bowerman stated
that he would like to leave Item Two out of the approval because he would like to know the cost
implications. He also wants information on how many subdivision and site drainage easements there are,
how much homeowners are paying for them and how much responsibility the County would be assuming.
Ms. Humphris remarked that her assumption was that since staff members are recommending
approval of Item Two, they have determined that these facilities are not being properly maintained in private
ownership and for good reasons they need to be dedicated to public use to ensure they will be maintained
even at cost. She wondered why Item Two would even be included, if this is not the case. Mr. Tucker said
Item Two can be deleted for now, and the staff can give the Board members information on the basis and
reasons for including this item. Mr. Martin commented that staff members are recommending approval of
Item Two. He noted, though, that they indicate things they don’t like about Item Two, but they have not
included reasons in favor of it. He agreed that perhaps Item Two should be pulled until further information
can come back to this Board. Mr. Bowerman stated that Item Two could be very expensive, but it might
also be very necessary. Ms. Humphris pointed out that federal regulations have to be met.
Mr. Tucker indicated that the staff is currently examining future federal regulations. Mr. Bowerman
stated that the requirements could be shared privately and by the public. Mr. Tucker concurred.
Mr. Davis commented that federal regulations are focused on requiring counties to maintain public
facilities and the requirements are more strict. He said if they are private facilities, the same regulations
probably don’t apply. The staff has had difficulty with this issue because experience from other localities
indicate that in the long term private maintenance of drainage facilities doesn’t work. They don’t get
maintained and water quality is compromised. He added that this is being seen now in Albemarle County
as the older urban areas in the County start to deteriorate. He remarked that this recommendation was
based on the premise that in the long run, even though it may be costly for the County to assume the role of
maintaining and owning these facilities, it may be the right solution.
Mr. Martin suggested that Item Two be pulled until further information can be brought back to the
Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Dorrier said he noticed that Roy Brewer is in the audience, and he is dealing with a similar
problem at Willow Lake. He is not suggesting that Mr. Brewer speak now, but he would like for him to be
recognized by staff. Mr. Dorrier commented that he talked with Mr. Brewer earlier about his stormwater
run-off problem. Mr. Brewer responded that the problem had to do with stormwater run-off at Willow Lake
which is in the rural area. Mr. Tucker suggested that Mr. Brewer contact someone from the County’s
engineering staff. Mr. Brewer said he has already been to the Engineering Department and a staff member
talked to the developer about this problem.
At this time, Mr. Bowerman made a motion pertaining to the Stormwater Control Program to
March 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
approve Items One and Three; hold Item Two until more information is received; examine Option One for
more detail; and examine Option Two as it relates to service districts. Ms. Humphris seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Martin said this appears to be an issue on which the Board will have to move slowly and receive
a lot more information. Mr. Bowerman stated that the issue involves complicated, costly things. Mr. Martin
referred to Ms. Thomas’ comment about the Ivy Road situation. There will be other similar things, because
he has the same type of situation at a place in his district. Mr. Tucker said the staff did not want to start
developing this proposal unless the Board of Supervisors gave some direction that it was appropriate for the
staff to consider. He emphasized that it will take a lot of time. Mr. Bowerman commented that Mr. Tucker
brought the issue to the Board for policy direction. Mr. Tucker indicated that the staff will begin spending a
lot of time and effort to follow the Board’s direction.
Mr. Martin remarked that there are two more items on the agenda the Supervisors were supposed
to consider before going into executive session. He noted that it is already 12:40 p.m., and a representative
from the school system is supposed to meet with the Board at 1:00 p.m. as part of the executive session.
He suggested that the Supervisors go into executive session now and when they return, they can deal with
the other two items left from the morning agenda. He also mentioned that he is not sure what is included
for executive session, but he would like to include court action on IDA bonds.
Mr. Davis indicated that this could be done.
_________________
Agenda Item No. 15. Closed Session: Legal and Personnel.
Mr. Bowerman moved that the Board go into closed session 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 under subsection (7) to consult
with legal counsel and staff regarding pending litigation relating to the Ivy Landfill, pending litigation relating
to the validation of IDA financing, and regarding specific legal matters relating to an interjurisdictional
agreement. Ms. Humphris seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 16. Certify Closed Session.
At 3:18 p.m., Mr. Bowerman made a motion to 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.
certify the closed session. Ms. Humphris seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Continuation of Work Session Long Range Capital Needs.
Mr. Tucker announced that Mr. Foley will review the Community Development section on Long
Range Capital Needs, and then Ms. White will make a few comments relating to the Financial Advisory
Committee.
Mr. Foley stated that this is the third and last session of reviewing the ten year unfunded capital
needs already discussed by functional areas with this Board. He added that this final area is regarding
Community Development, and it is broken down into three sections -- Neighborhood and Community
Improvements; Transportation Infrastructure; and Acquisition of Conservation Easements. He said
$140,000,000 of unfunded capital needs in the ten year period has been identified by staff. Of this amount,
about $80,000,000 is in this area, so this is the largest portion in terms of functional areas of unfunded
capital needs during the ten year period. He said for this reason, it is the one area the staff feels more
direction is needed from the Board on policy directions and priorities in terms of funding, etc. He noted that
the Planning staff is available today to answer questions. He then showed slides and discussed them by
noting the plans and sources of identifying needs, the policies involved, the actual identified needs, the
operating budget impact and issues for consideration.
Next, Mr. Foley discussed the Transportation Infrastructure section.
March 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
Mr. Bowerman noted that providing well-planned, safe and convenient roadways is shown under
the “Policies” portion of the Transportation Infrastructure section, and he wondered what County officials
can do about that. Mr. Foley answered that VDoT is responsible for roads, but the County officials may
have a desire to be more involved in this process through some means, not just in terms of design and
planning, but also in terms of construction. He noted that the Meadow Creek Parkway project has been
included in the CIP for a number of years. The real question and policy issue will be whether or not the
County will want to commit some local funds to speed up some of these projects. Mr. Bowerman
commented that Mr. Foley is talking about things other than design standards. Mr. Foley recalled a lot of
discussion about the Route 240/250 connector road near Crozet. He said having such a road in place
would facilitate the Land Use policies instead of waiting 20 years for VDoT to build it.
Mr. Foley continued with his report by referring to identified needs under the Transportation
Infrastructure section. He mentioned that this is one of the places where staff will look for direction from the
Board in the initial stages as to whether these things should be in the CIP or whether VDoT funds will have
to be solely relied upon to get these projects done.
Ms. Thomas asked if transit items would appear in this section or would they only be in the
operational budget. She mentioned, for example, the bus route to Pantops. Mr. Foley replied that this bus
route is in the operating budget, but it is related to the broad policy, and it is one of the issues for
consideration further in the presentation. He said perhaps the County is not going to put a lot of capital
funding into new roadways, etc., but a lot of operational funds will go into supporting some of the
alternatives. He emphasized that this is an issue where the staff will need direction from the Board of
Supervisors in the future when a decision is made as to the best way to approach the needs that have been
identified.
Mr. Foley finished his presentation. He told Board members that the key in examining this report is
to start thinking about where these items fit on the whole priority list, as well as some different ways to
approach them.
Mr. Dorrier stated that he believes in using the present tax revenues to fund essential services. He
said it looks as though most of these are future oriented, and he asked if they are essential services that
would necessitate a tax increase at this time. He commented that he is a new member of the Board of
Supervisors, and he needs some of these points clarified. Mr. Foley answered that the real question is to
make a distinction as far as how “essential” is defined, since these items have been viewed as
enhancements rather than essentials. However, the priority of them is up to the Supervisors, and whether
or not they feel as though they want to raise some additional funds to address some of these
enhancements versus just doing the essential things.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Board members are voting for essential or mandated services when they
vote on the $144,000,000 operating budget. Mr. Foley stated that he does not want to confuse the
operating budget with the $140,000,000 of unfunded capital needs. The items to which he referred in his
report are unfunded capital needs for ten years, and they are not in the CIP nor the operating budget.
Mr. Dorrier next asked the amount of the operating budget. Mr. Tucker replied that the operating
budget coming to this Board currently is in the amount of $158,000,000. The current operating budget is
approximately $144,000,000. Mr. Dorrier stated for verification that the operating budget is separate from
the CIP budget. Mr. Tucker responded affirmatively.
Mr. Foley stated that the County is minimally funding enhancements currently, and although a lot of
priority has been received on some of the programs, they are not quite yet in the CIP budget nor the
operating budget. He said a majority of them are enhancements through community development.
Mr. Tucker commented that Mr. Dorrier has raised a good question about essential and mandated
services. Mr. Tucker explained that the Board members need to decide by priority which enhancements
they think are essential and should be funded. The Supervisors will have to determine the need for these
services, as well as the funding source. He noted that if some of them are funded through a bond issue, it
would mean long term financing, which may require a tax rate increase. However, the public would know
this in the beginning, and if they are voting for the bond issue, they would basically be voting themselves an
increase in the tax rate.
Ms. Thomas stated that she sees the County turning into an area with an urban section and a rural
section, or there will be sprawl everywhere. She went on to say if there is going to be an urban section that
is attractive and where most of the population growth is absorbed, the County is going to have to put a lot of
money into a lot of projects, and it will have to behave as an urban area in a way that it has never done
before. She stated that she does not know yet the recommendations of the DISC Committee, but she
assumes the recommendations will only add to this list. She added that this long range thinking is not ten
years out, and County officials are going to have to get started on some of these things soon, particularly
land purchases, or the land will be gone. She said it increases the budget considerably, which is not very
comfortable. However, the alternative is that people will be asking 20 years from now why the Supervisors
let all of this happen. Mr. Foley stated that the question relates to how County officials will go about making
all of these decisions and prioritizing them.
Mr. Perkins inquired as to the amount currently coming out of each year’s budget and going into the
CIP. Mr. Tucker clarified Mr. Perkins’ question by asking about the amount of money which is currently
being taken from the General Fund that is going to the CIP for capital projects. Ms. White replied that this
March 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
amount of funding is $2,500,000.
Mr. Dorrier commented that he has been to a couple of budget meetings in the southern part of the
County, and he thinks the citizens there would support paying more for essential services. He is unsure,
though, whether or not they would support paying more taxes for the CIP budget. He noted that they seem
to be in support of the ACE program. Mr. Foley stated that the amount being transferred from the General
Fund to the CIP budget is only to keep up with maintenance related items, and that is why there is such a
strain on funding new projects.
Mr. Bowerman asked if an equity issue is involved because of the urban and rural areas. He said
two different patterns of development and two different types of service will have to be considered. He
noted that the people who won’t be receiving the services will somehow have to be recognized, and they
will get to choose whether or not to accept them. He said that will be the question from the people who
have lived here all of their lives. He added that there are rural parts in all the districts that don’t touch the
urban area. He asked if this is part of the decision making process that goes into the prioritization.
Mr. Foley mentioned that Ms. Thomas’ earlier question relating to stormwater is really the central
issue. The question is how to pay for these services and should they be put in the urban area with fees
being charged, which makes it more expensive. He emphasized that this is a critical policy question.
Mr. Bowerman stated that there are some critical issues in the beginning the Board will have to
handle that will set the direction in which the County will go.
Mr. Perkins said all of the recommendations from the DISC Committee that he has seen will not
reduce the cost of building in the urban areas, but will instead increase the costs. He also mentioned that
he has distributed an article entitled, “Conservation Easements, Effective Tools for Open Space
Conservation.” He asked everyone to read the article, and he noted the concluding paragraph which
discusses the cost of acquiring properties. He does not think it is applicable to Albemarle County, though,
because the article mentions the land value being at $933 an acre.
Next, Ms. White summarized the long range needs, the long term strategy, and the next steps
involved. She noted that 45 percent of the 2 - 2.6 percent transfer from the General Fund to the CIP budget
is aimed toward technology and ongoing maintenance. She emphasized that 55 percent of the transfer
goes to new projects which means that, at the most, $1,500,000 is available for new projects, and this does
not go very far each year. She noted that the operating budget has the difficulty of trying to absorb any
increases in the transfers to the CIP or Debt Service. The projects unfunded by current revenues is
$41,800,000, and the staff will go over this information in more detail at the CIP work sessions during the
budget meetings. She stated that after talking to the financial advisers and examining everything they will
be asked to do, the staff will not be ready in April to bring back this information as far as considering a
financial plan and a prioritization of projects. She added that it is felt it would be more helpful to bring the
financial advisers to meet with this Board at the April 5, 2000 meeting and to have them discuss what they
are going to do with the County’s plan and scope of services. She does not think a final financial plan will
be ready to bring back to the Supervisors before July or August, and after talking to the advisers, the staff
felt it would be premature to do this in the beginning. The staff members need assistance from the advisers
first and then they will bring the information back to this Board.
Ms. Thomas wondered if the type of decisions have been made up to this point that the advisers will
need. She asked if the staff members feel comfortable as far as telling the advisers where County officials
stand on certain issues. Ms. White responded that the staff can tell the advisers the scope of these items,
and they will be able to indicate what the County’s financial capacity is to accomplish these things. She said
then staff members will have to do some prioritization and present to the Board what they think these
priority items might be.
Mr. Tucker stated that part of the advisers’ responsibilities is defining which projects need to go to
referendum. The Board members will play an important role in deciding if these priorities meet their
understanding of the prospective needs of the County. Ms. White commented that the difficulty now in
eliminating or deferring projects is that there is not an overview available of the County’s financial capacity.
She added that this has to be known before County officials can begin to strategize and cut out or defer
projects.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there is a time line on the items in the CIP budget. Ms. White answered that
there is one CIP budget that has a five year time frame. The idea is to have a ten year plan on an annual
basis, and as the five year plan moves forward, projects are pulled off of the ten year plan and put into the
five year plan.
Mr. Dorrier mentioned that the Meadow Creek Parkway and the Western Bypass have been
deferred because they were unfunded for a number of years when it was thought they would be funded.
Mr. Martin suggested that Mr. Dorrier might have been referring to the Southern Parkway, since the
Western Bypass is not the County’s project. Mr. Dorrier said he knew the Western Bypass was not the
County’s project, but he was using it as an example. He asked if Ms. White is indicating that once a project
reaches the funding level, it will be funded. Ms. White replied that a project will be funded if it is decided
that it can realistically be funded. She went on to say that the financial advisers will be able to help with this
type of thing.
Mr. Bowerman commented that the advisers will consider a 72 cents tax rate and a ten year time
frame, and they will make some assumptions about revenues, etc. He next mentioned different scenarios
March 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
such as a six cents tax increase over a ten year period of time, as well as a bond issue that would cost a
certain amount to service over a 20 year time period. There could be different alternatives as projects are
prioritized, and the time for some projects could be speeded up, such as the purchase of development
rights. He emphasized that he is interested in considering these different types of scenarios.
There were no more questions for Ms. White.
Not Docketed: Mr. Tucker inquired if the Board was interested in discussing the SOCA issue with
Mr. Mullaney today, and he noted that the SOCA representatives have not returned. However, if the
Supervisors want to discuss the matter, Mr. Mullaney can be present. Mr. Martin said he thought it would be
helpful to get a quick summary of the SOCA request from Mr. Mullaney.
________________
Agenda Item No. 14. FY 2000/2001 Budget Transmittal by County Executive.
Mr. Tucker stated that the Supervisors have already gotten the budget transmittal, but he will briefly
summarize the budget at this time. The budget totals $158,500,000, which is a $12,000,000 increase or an
8.2 percent increase over the current year. He said it is proposed and balanced within the existing federal
state and local revenues, and an additional $273,000 has been provided to the school system to fund one
time expenditures such as school buses. There is a contingency reserve in the Board of Supervisors’
budget of almost $93,000 which can be used for discretionary purposes during the budget process. He
added that City revenue sharing has increased almost $240,000 for a total of $6,009,000 and Debt Service
for school construction is funded at $8,850,000. He commented that the CSA program has increased this
year by $250,000, for a total match of $1,500,000.
He then distributed a summary which had excerpts from his budget message as well as special
sections of the budget to help the Supervisors focus on issues if they want to consider specific items. He
said community agencies will receive an average funding of three percent. He remarked that one major
budget driver mentioned previously is the jail expansion, and debt service cost of the jail increased this year
by $1,000,000. He noted that ECC opening will increase by approximately $134,000. This is the third and
final year of the compression pay for employees, which this Board directed, and funding has been provided
for a classified employee pool of four percent and a 4.25 percent for school teachers. A two percent salary
base to be used to adjust certain positions in the school system and local government that are out of
market has been provided. He added that Debt Service reserve has been set aside for bond issue projects
in the future of approximately $200,000, and there is a budgeted debt service of $550,000. There is still a
fairly significant gap between what the School Board has recommended and what is funded in this budget.
However, he thinks attention needs to be given to what the state provides, and some additional state
funding is anticipated for the schools. He said, in addition, there could be the possibility that VRS rates may
be lowered which will save some revenue for the County in both the school system and the local
government. He commented that, as always during the budget work sessions, some revenues are
identified which can be used for any other operational cost the Supervisors deem appropriate. He noted
that the Board has a lot of budget material to review between now and its public hearing on April 5. He
would be happy to answer questions.
Mr. Dorrier asked the difference in the School Board’s proposal and the amount budgeted. Mr.
Tucker responded that the difference is approximately $2,300,000.
_______________
Not Docketed. Mr. Pat Mullaney stated that on January 24, 2000, he received a letter from the
SOCA organization requesting permission to upgrade two fields at Towe Park into championship quality
Bermuda Grass fields. SOCA was going to donate the upgrades, and the value was estimated at
$125,000. He said SOCA was also offering to pay the additional cost of maintaining these Bermuda Grass
fields over and above the current provision for maintenance there. In return, SOCA wanted exclusive use
and control of the fields all year with all scheduling of the fields done by SOCA. He said SOCA
representatives were told that this was not something that could be recommended to the Darden Towe
Park Committee. There were several meetings with SOCA representatives after that, and a document has
been developed, but there are still a couple of issues that need to be clarified before it can be
recommended to the Committee. He stated that one change was that SOCA would upgrade the fields, but
instead of exclusive use, it would be given two years priority use. He explained that priority use means that
SOCA would submit its schedule for the fields for the year, and its use would be accommodated on those
fields. He said any other time the fields are available, the situation would be under the County’s control,
and the time would be granted with the understanding that consultation would be done with SOCA to see if
they had any problems with it.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if the SOCA organization would still maintain the fields if additional use was
involved. Mr. Mullaney answered that during the two year period, SOCA would still provide the additional
maintenance over and above what is currently put into the fields even if other people were allowed to use
them. Although, he doesn’t think the other use would be much, because SOCA can almost book the fields
all year with the activities it has planned. He went on to say after those two years, the fields will revert back
to their current system of use. He explained that now they have soccer use during the spring and fall, and
lacrosse is there during the summer. At that time the County will take on the responsibility for maintaining
the fields as championship quality fields. He commented that a usage policy would be worked out together
for the fields that would assure SOCA that its investment would be protected and assure that the County is
doing what is needed to keep the fields as championship quality fields. When this was suggested by SOCA
officials, the County staff thought it sounded good and that it would be a good idea to have a usage policy
March 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
for all the fields in the County because grass cannot be grown in December and January. He added that
some good things have come out of this discussion which will help in other areas. However, there are a
couple of things to be decided before it is recommended to the Committee. First, a plan needs to be
worked out for lacrosse, and it would be desirable to have lacrosse representatives to buy into this situation.
He doesn’t want to make this agreement and have lacrosse representatives say they were left out of the
negotiations and that they want to donate $125,000 and take over the other two fields. He also wants to
know the amount of the additional operating costs and see how significant they are because the County will
be agreeing to take on the costs two years from now.
Mr. Bowerman asked if lacrosse uses a different size field. Mr. Mullaney said lacrosse and soccer
can use the same field. Mr. Bowerman inquired as to why Mr. Mullaney was involving lacrosse. Mr.
Mullaney answered that lacrosse players currently use fields one and two, and they are the only other
group that currently schedules those particular fields. He wants to make sure before the project begins that
the fields are going to be completed at SOCA’s cost. The staff is in the process of getting together a
meeting of the Darden Towe Committee. It is his intent that the Committee needs to approve the
agreement and then it would be brought back to the Board of Supervisors and City Council for approval.
Mr. Martin noted that after two years, the County will have the benefit of two championship quality
fields. The SOCA representatives hope that during those two years they will have the benefit of
championship quality fields, and they will be able to increase their donations in order to have this quality of
field somewhere else such as Polo Grounds Road. Mr. Mullaney concurred. The SOCA representatives
feel that by showing people what a high quality field is, they will be able to increase their donations. He
stated that if this turns out to be a fact, it helps everybody. He said even if it doesn’t do what is anticipated, it
will benefit the lacrosse representatives. Mr. Tucker referred to Mr. Martin’s remark about Polo Grounds
Road. The SOCA organization owns a field at this location.
Mr. Mullaney explained that SOCA representatives feel that by showing a quality field, it will help
their fund raising effort. Their research indicates that being able to show such a field is the one thing
missing. He stated that one of the concerns in the original proposal was that the fields would be for the
exclusive use of soccer, and it also appeared to be aimed toward the elite players in the organization and
only the traveling teams would play on the fields. County staff members had a problem with this, but they
have been assured that it is to SOCA’s benefit to have every level of soccer player and as many people
touching the fields as possible. He added that summer camps, etc., are involved, although a lot of the use
will be at a higher level.
Mr. Martin stated that at this point, it appears there will be a meeting with the Darden Towe Park
Committee, and then this matter will come back to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Mullaney remarked that a benefit could come of this meeting if the Board of Supervisors will
give the Darden Towe Park Board the authority to consent or not consent to the agreement. He said SOCA
representatives are looking for some assurance that the County officials have the intent to go through with
this, so they can start a fund raising effort to make sure they can get the money to make the project
happen. They already have some of the money, and it may be that if they can’t raise enough money, then
they will indicate that they cannot do it.
Mr. Perkins inquired if soccer is played on artificial turf, and if it is, are the findings the same for that
as it is for football. He does not have any idea what an artificial turf field would cost, but there would some
advantages. Mr. Mullaney answered that an artificial turf field is more expensive, but he is sure there are
studies indicating that Bermuda Grass is a better surface. However, discussions have indicated that the
main wear area could be a combination of synthetic turf. He noted that there is some synthetic turf that can
be put down and grass actually grows up through it. He explained that when the grass wears out, the
players are playing on synthetic turf. He said wear areas on fields in front of the goals where it is very rough
have also been discussed, and indications are that it can be managed as a smooth dirt area, and the rest of
the field could have grass. There are currently some soccer fields that are a combination of turf and dirt
fields. He added that they are managed as dirt fields, and there is no grass on them at all. This is
supposed to be preferable to a dusty field. He said all of this is being considered.
Ms. Humphris wondered about the legality and the precedent of having such an agreement. Mr.
Davis responded that the same thing is going on now, although he does not believe there are any
agreements in place. He mentioned that McIntire and Lane have both put hundreds of thousands of dollars
of investment into the Lane and McIntire fields without an agreement. The little leagues in the Lane League
basically use those fields and control the use of them without much interference, but there is no legal
assurance of that. The money that has been put into the fields has been donated, so there is no difference
with this situation other than the fact that the SOCA organization is seeking a legal commitment which the
County has not given in the past. Mr. Tucker said baseball is the only sport that can be played on the fields
to which Mr. Davis referred. Mr. Davis disagreed. He stated that football, etc., could be played on the
outfields. He said other things can be played on them, but they are not designed for it.
Mr. Mullaney remarked that the staff is trying to adhere to the recommendations of the Athletic
Field Study, and the desirable thing is to try to get ownership of the fields by the people who are using them.
He said people involved with a soccer league or a little league team have to know certain fields will be
available each year if they are going to have a league. He stated that a lot of things are already known
when scheduling is done. He said it is always known, for instance, that the Greenwood field is going to be
Peachtree’s Junior League field. He added that it is also a known fact that soccer is the big sport for spring
and fall, and the soccer teams will get the majority of the multi-purpose fields in the spring and fall. The
problems will begin if another soccer organization starts in this area, which is possible. He explained that if
March 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
this happens, it will have to be handled the same way as Little League baseball, which is to get all the
different teams together, divide up the fields and make everybody as happy as possible.
Mr. Davis referred back to Ms. Humphris’ question about a precedent. There is no precedent for
entering into an agreement guaranteeing someone a field because they make a donation.
Mr. Martin asked if the Supervisors would like for him and Mr. Bowerman to make a decision about
this matter, or would they like for it to be brought back to the whole Board. Mr. Dorrier said he would
support Mr. Martin’s and Mr. Bowerman’s recommendation. Ms. Thomas stated that she will support the
matter unless she hears something of a negative nature.
Agenda Item No. 17. Appointments.
Mr. Dorrier offered motion to reappoint Mr. Hollis Lumpkin as the Scottsville District representative
to the Albemarle County Service Authority with said term to run from April 17, 2000 through April 16, 2004.
Mr. Perkins offered a motion to reappoint Mr. David Moyer as the White Hall District representative
to the Albemarle County Service Authority with said term to run from April 17, 2000 through April 16, 2004.
Ms. Humphris offered motion to appoint Ms. Karen V. Lilleleht to the Housing Committee with said
term effective January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2002.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motions.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 18. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board.
Ms. Humphris referred to an e-mail from Mr. Tucker on February 17, 2000 about the accelerated
amount of money pertaining to the Western Bypass project. She asked Mr. Tucker for an update on this
situation. Mr. Tucker stated that he does not know the status of this matter, although the staff has been
following both the Senate and House Bills. He has written letters directly to the legislators as well as to
members of the appropriate Committee.
____________
Ms. Humphris next asked if there was an update on the E-911 bill. r. Tucker responded that it has
been accepted with a $3.00 cap.
____________
Ms. Humphris then mentioned VDoT’s willing withdrawal relating to the cell tower legislation. She
did not understand this, and wondered if VDOT had something in mind to help them get around the
Supreme Court’s decision. Mr. Davis stated that Ms. Thomas has a copy of the letter that VDoT officials
wrote indicating they basically wanted to work with localities on this issue. His impression is that it was going
to be a close vote in Committee, and at this point, VDoT is saving the battle for a future day. He
commented that VDoT representatives will probably bring the matter back next year if they are having
difficulty implementing their program.
____________
Ms. Humphris noted that the very first draft of the Route 29 Bypass Water Quality Study Report will
take place tomorrow afternoon at 2:45 p.m. in the Planning District Commission’s Office on the mall. This
is extremely important to Albemarle County officials, because the consultant was hired to assist with the
negative effects from construction of the Bypass on the County’s water supply.
____________
Mr. Dorrier announced that there have been a lot of rumors in the Scottsville District about what is
going to happen to John Kluge’s land. He wondered if there is any way the Supervisors could have any
input or if they would have any desire to know what will happen to it. Mr. Martin inquired if Mr. Dorrier is
asking if County officials have any knowledge about the situation. Mr. Dorrier responded that the rumor is
that the land could go to the University of Virginia.
Mr. Tucker said he has heard the same rumor, although he does not know how factual it is. Ms.
Thomas remarked that some of the neighbors in that area are trying to get conservation easements on their
property, but she does not know if that effort will be too late. She has heard that the University is not very
interested in the property without an endowment.
Mr. Dorrier wondered if Albemarle County could use some of the Kluge property. Mr. Martin asked
if Mr. Dorrier is referring to some of the land perhaps being used for a park or a school. Ms. Thomas noted
that the County does not have any influence with Mr. Kluge. Mr. Dorrier asked if the situation with the Kluge
property is going to take place without County officials being involved. Mr. Martin answered affirmatively.
He suggested that Mr. Dorrier call Forrest Marshall if he is interested in knowing more about the property.
March 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
He said Mr. Marshall probably doesn’t have any influence with Mr. Kluge, either, but he usually knows what
is happening in that area. Mr. Perkins noted that the farm equipment is being auctioned on March 25, 2000.
____________
Next, Mr. Dorrier stated that he has been getting calls from farmers who want to make sure the
County’s Burn Policy will be on a future agenda of the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Tucker stated that staff is
meeting with representatives of the Farm Bureau to try to work out the issues they have, and eventually a
recommendation will be brought back to this Board to consider. This seems to be an easier way to handle
the matter rather than having a lot of upset people coming to a meeting. He added that the staff is going to
be pro-active and deal with the situation ahead of time.
____________
Ms. Thomas reported that she has spent a lot of days in Richmond recently. She added that there
is a cluster bill requiring counties to have the cluster option in all zones of the Zoning Ordinance. She
distributed to the Senate Local Government Committee members Albemarle County’s Rural Preservation
District option to point out that this bill is not needed in order to cluster, and that it is already being done.
The reason the Homebuilders Associations were delighted with this proposal is because it will remove all
possibility for special use permits. She added that the bill had a loophone so that Albemarle County could
probably still continue to use its special use permits, but it was the principle of the matter, since it was
reducing how local government can handle something that it already has perfect ability to handle. She
commented that a lot of people spoke, and the bill was defeated by a seven to eight vote.
She next noted a billboard bill in which people were very interested, and although it didn’t seem as
though it applied to Albemarle County, it essentially told local government that they can’t amortize signs
along any roads anywhere in their communities.
Ms. Thomas said, in general, the County’s Legislative Liaison is working very well and the lobbyist
for the High Growth Coalition is getting into a lot more offices than that group has ever gotten into before.
She remarked that although the Coalition cannot point to many victories, it can point to a lot of caucuses
that have happened because of their concerns, as well as a lot of people paying more attention to the
issues. The Coalition is feeling moderately upbeat that at least the issue is being brought up a lot more.
____________
Mr. Martin mentioned a bill which is trying to reduce the age to ten and eleven of children who are
post dispositionally sentenced to detention homes. This could be very expensive because more and more
frequently parents who have not raised their children have ten year olds who they prefer for someone else
to discipline. He stated that it is amazing how many parents there are who want to put the responsibility off
on the state. He thinks this is an important bill.
____________
Mr. Martin next called attention to a letter from the Municipal Band requesting to be included in this
year’s budget for some capital needs. He would pass it on to Mr. Tucker, who had not seen it.
____________
Mr. Martin then commented that he has a constituent who lives in a local County neighborhood,
and she has been concerned about the number of cars that do not have County decals. These cars have
license plates that are out of the locality, but they have lived in the community for long periods of time. He
stated that she is a single mother, and she feels strongly that if she has to pay her taxes then others should
have to do so, too. He does not know what to do with this complaint. Mr. Tucker responded that these
types of complaints happen every year about this time. The County usually gives a grace period after the
decals are out.
Mr. Martin stated that this lady is not just talking about switching decals from last year to this year.
Instead, she is talking about it historically in terms of people not having proper County decals. Mr. Tucker
commented that it has to be a moving violation before the police can do anything about it. However, the
County has actually sent some of its licensing staff out to the parking lots, and this has been helpful. He will
try to spearhead this effort again to provide this type of enforcement. He does not think the police are doing
much about current decals at the present time, although they probably will within the next week or so.
Mr. Martin mentioned that he knows of a City police officer who lives in the County, and it was
discovered that he did not have a County decal. Mr. Davis pointed out that the only people with whom the
County has decal enforcement issues are the transit people who don’t change their addresses on their
drivers’ licenses, and then it becomes a lot more difficult to enforce. He added that now if the police see a
car they suspect does not have a proper decal, they can determine where the person’s car is registered,
and if it is traced to the County, they will ticket it. The only way the person can get the ticket resolved is to
buy a decal. He emphasized that there is an enforcement issue only in those instances where the police
can’t determine where the vehicle is generally housed. He explained that if there is independent knowledge
that a person is living in the County for more than 30 days, then this matter will be pursued, but it is more
difficult to prove in these instances.
Mr. Tucker suggested that if Mr. Martin’s constituent could get license numbers, or if she knows of
people living in her neighborhood who do not have proper decals, she should let the County staff know.
Mr. Perkins asked about the requirements for County decals. He wondered about college
students’ responsibilities for County decals, and if any vehicle parked in the County had to have them. Mr.
Davis answered that anyone who has a vehicle stored, housed or garaged in the County for more than 30
days should change their driver’s license and get a County decal. Ms. Thomas said she thought this
March 1, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
requirement had changed, because of the situation in Northern Virginia. She explained that there were a lot
of young people in Northern Virginia who were going off to college, but the officials wanted to keep those
taxes. Mr. Davis stated that there are some exemptions involved, and one relates to students. He would e-
mail the requirements to the Supervisors. However, the 30 days regulation applies to just about everybody
else.
Mr. Martin said every once in awhile, law enforcement does a great job on Route 29 trying to catch
speeders. He wondered if the police could do the same thing about decals and really look at vehicles. He
added that not only is the County decal involved, but it also affects the property taxes, etc., that are being
paid. Mr. Tucker concurred that it really affects everything.
Agenda Item No. 19. Adjourn. At 4:30 p.m., there being no further business to come before the
Board, the meeting was immediately adjourned.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date 9-20-00
Initials LAB