2004-04-07
April 7, 2004 – Regular Day Meeting
)
(Page 1
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on April 7,
2004, 9:00 a.m., County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Ken C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Dennis S.
Rooker, Ms. Sally H. Thomas and Mr. David C. Wyant.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W.
Davis, Deputy Clerk, Georgina K. Smith, and Director of Planning and Community Development, V.
Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:02 a.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Dorrier.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Neil Williamson with the Free Enterprise Forum said he had sent the Board members a letter
in their packets for today’s meeting. He said the Free Enterprise Forum commissioned an outside legal
opinion concerning the proposed Subdivision Ordinance text amendments which were passed last night
by the Planning Commission by a 6:1 vote with some revisions. In May, he anticipates County staff giving
a presentation that is sensational in nature; it describes many problems with development in Albemarle
County. This visual presentation will show the many problems with the proposed ordinance. He asks
that the Board request information from staff concerning the number of instances where they have seen
the problems and the issues involved, and if any of the issues involve homeowner expectations which are
too high, specifically with the over lot grading program. He does not believe there will be an opportunity
to provide comments between now and that work session so he asks that the Board review the ordinance
along with the letter he has presented.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation.
Mr. Dorrier presented a certificate of appreciation to Mr. Michael Matthews who served on the
Joint Airport Commission and the Airport Board. During his tenure he accomplished several things. First,
was completion of Phase I of the new carrier terminal building access road; second, expansion of the air
carrier terminal building automobile parking area; third, launching an update of the Airport’s twenty-year
comprehensive plan; fourth, construction of T-hangers for smaller general aviation aircraft; fifth,
rehabilitation of pavement for airport parking and airport pavement; sixth, recruitment of Delta connection
jet service to Atlanta and Northwest Airlines service to Detroit; and, seventh, development of a
comprehensive airport leasing policy to guide the Authority in matters relating to leasing property to
airport aviation-related activities. He thanked Mr. Matthews for his service to the area.
Mr. Matthews thanked the Board for the opportunity to serve the community over the last nine
years as a member of the Joint Airport Commission. Also, he thanks the Board and City Council for the
opportunity to serve on the Airport Authority Board for the last three years. It has been one of the most
rewarding and exciting times in his career. He said that in the last three years the industry has seen
significant changes. In the face of turmoil, Charlottesville has continued to be a leader in the field. Last
year, the Airport set a record for passengers. Last February it set a record for jet flights and all of this
without any funding from this Board or City Council.
_______________
Motionseconded
Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. was offered by Ms. Thomas, by Mr.
Bowerman, to approve Item 6.1 (as noted), Items 6.2 through 6.8 and Item 6.10, and to accept the
remaining items for information (Item 6.9 was pulled for discussion later in this meeting). Roll was called,
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item 6.1. Approval of Minutes: November 5 and December 3, 2003; January 14, 2004.
Mr. Rooker had read December 3, 2003, Pages 1 - 24 (ending at Item #20), and found them to be
in order as presented.
Mr. Wyant had read the minutes of January 14, 2004, and found them to be in order as
presented.
By the recorded vote set out above, the minutes which had been read were approved. The
remaining minutes will be placed on the next agenda for approval.
__________
April 7, 2004 – Regular Day Meeting
)
(Page 2
Item 6.2. Proclamation recognizing April 2004 as Fair Housing Month.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following proclamation was approved:
FAIR HOUSING MONTH
WHEREAS
, April 2004, marks the thirty-sixth anniversary of the passage of the Fair Housing
Act of 1968, which sought to eliminate discrimination in housing opportunities
and to affirmatively further housing choices for all Americans; and
WHEREAS
, the ongoing struggle for dignity and housing opportunity for all is not the
exclusive province of the Federal government; and
WHEREAS
, vigorous local efforts to combat discrimination can be as effective, if not more so,
than Federal efforts; and
WHEREAS
, illegal barriers to equal opportunity in housing, no matter how subtle, diminish the
rights of all;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
that in the pursuit of the shared goal and responsibility
of providing equal housing opportunities for all men and women, the Board of
County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby join in the
national celebration by proclaiming
APRIL, 2004
As
FAIR HOUSING MONTH
And encourages all agencies, institutions and individuals, public and private, in
Albemarle County to abide by the letter and the spirit of the Fair Housing law.
(Mr. Dorrier read the proclamation into the record and then presented same to Mr. Ron White,
Chief of Housing.
Mr. White thanked the Board for the proclamation. He said that often discrimination is very subtle
so a lot of education is required on this subject. He recognized Mr. Paul Harper, housing counselor, who
works with people who come to the office with potential complaints. He said the Piedmont Housing
Alliance coordinates a lot of the housing efforts in the County including the educational part. One area of
fair housing that he mentioned last year is predatory lending. That is becoming a larger issue with
increased use of the Internet and TV advertisements through the cable networks. Sometimes what is
presented is “too good to be true.” The public needs to be educated on what it is getting on the lending
side through these advertisements.
Mr. Rooker asked the schedule for completion of the community center at Whitewood Village.
Mr. White said the expected date for opening is July 1. He said all of the work at the Village is ahead of
schedule so they are hoping for all work to be completed by Thanksgiving.)
__________
Item 6.3. Proclamation recognizing April 2004 as Sexual Assault Awareness Month.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following proclamation was approved:
SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS MONTH
WHEREAS
, one in four girls and one in five boys will be sexually abused before the age of
eighteen; and
WHEREAS
, in Virginia one out of every four women and one out of every eight men have
been sexually assaulted in their lifetimes; and
WHEREAS
, the Sexual Assault Resource Agency has provided free, confidential help to over
800 women, children, and men hurting from sexual violence in 2003; and
WHEREAS
, this experience can be devastating for not only the survivor, but also for the
family and friends of the survivor; and
WHEREAS
, it is imperative that our community support the healing and sense of
connectedness for survivors; and
WHEREAS
, the Sexual Assault Resource Agency is a non-profit organization offering safety
and support for survivors with diverse experiences and whose ultimate goal is to
create safe communities free of sexual violence; and
WHEREAS
, the Sexual Assault Resource Agency will join the other 37 Sexual Assault Crisis
Centers in Virginia and over 1000 crisis centers across the U.S. in public
April 7, 2004 – Regular Day Meeting
)
(Page 3
awareness efforts to generate understanding of the issues surrounding sexual
assault; and
WHEREAS
, our community is dedicated to creating a society free of sexual violence;
NOW, THEREFORE, I
, Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Chairman on behalf of the
Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim
April as
SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS MONTH
And encourages community members to participate fully in
the wide range of available events and activities.
(Mr. Dorrier read the proclamation into the record and then presented same to Ms. Jessica
McLain.
Ms. McLain said she had brought some ribbons to be worn during the month of April. Sexual
assault is a prevalent issue, and hopefully by talking about it and educating more people about it,
Albemarle County will be made a safer community in which to live.)
_________
Item 6.4. Proclamation recognizing April 2004 as Child Abuse Prevention Month.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following proclamation was approved:
CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH
WHEREAS
, the month of April is recognized as Child Abuse Prevention Month in the
Commonwealth of Virginia and across the United States; and
WHEREAS
, during Fiscal Year 2002-2003, 370 qualifying reports of suspected child abuse or
neglect involving an estimated 524 children were investigated in the County of
Albemarle; and
WHEREAS
, physical abuse and neglect, sexual abuse, medical neglect, and emotional abuse
and neglect, lead to long-term outcomes for children such as developmental
delay, mental and emotional disorders, antisocial and criminal behavior,
childhood pregnancy, truancy and academic failure, alcohol and drug abuse, and
suicide; and
WHEREAS
, the County of Albemarle faces a continuing need to support innovative programs
to prevent child abuse and to assist family members when child abuse occurs;
and
WHEREAS
, in Albemarle there are dedicated individuals and organizations who work daily to
counter the problem of child abuse and neglect and to provide parents with the
assistance they need; and
WHEREAS
, all children deserve freedom from verbal abuse, sexual abuse, physical abuse
and neglect, and emotional abuse and neglect; and
WHEREAS
, children deserve to have days which include loving hugs, warm homes, tender
care, parents and adults who listen and who promote self-esteem, give quality
time, provide necessary food, shelter, clothing, and medical attention; and
WHEREAS
, it is vital that we join forces to reach out to parents and children to prevent
recurrence of child abuse and neglect; and
WHEREAS
, it is indeed appropriate and fitting to focus attention upon the problem of child
abuse and neglect in the Commonwealth of Virginia and in the County of
Albemarle;
NOW, THEREFORE, I,
Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County
CHILD ABUSE
Supervisors, do hereby proclaim the month of April 2004, as
PREVENTION MONTH
in the County of Albemarle, and do call upon our citizens
to observe the month with appropriate programs, blue ribbons and other
activities.
(Mr. Dorrier read the proclamation into the record and then presented same to Ms. Ruth Stone.
(Ms. Stone said she was representing Piedmont CASA and Ms. Kathy Ralston. She said this is
the time to recognize people in the agencies and the Social Services Department, but also to say that
citizens have a role in keeping children safe. This proclamation is a good way to raise awareness about
April 7, 2004 – Regular Day Meeting
)
(Page 4
child abuse and encourage residents to get involved. She thanked the Board for its support of prevention
efforts in Albemarle County.)
__________
Item 6.5. Proclamation recognizing the 50th Anniversary of the University of Virginia Community
Credit Union.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following proclamation was approved:
TH
50 ANNIVERSARY OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION
WHEREAS
, the University of Virginia Community Credit Union is celebrating its 50th
anniversary at its annual meeting on May 26, 2004; and
WHEREAS
, the Credit Union was founded in 1954 by Daniel D. Colcock, a University of
Virginia Hospital administrator, who brought together a group of University of
Virginia employees to form a credit union for the purpose of improving the
financial lives of its members; and
WHEREAS
, the original bylaws state that, “The object of this corporation shall be to promote
thrift among its members by giving them an opportunity to save money in small
amounts, thus accumulating and investing the savings of the members; to make
loans to its members which promise to be of benefit to the borrower; and
generally conduct a credit union as hereinafter provided;” and
WHEREAS
, today the Credit Union has more than 45,000 members, and membership is open
to all who live, work, or attend school in the City of Charlottesville and the
counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, and Greene. The Credit Union operates seven
branches throughout the Charlottesville-Albemarle community; and
WHEREAS
, the Credit Union offers a wide variety of personalized, high-quality financial
services, including deposit accounts, loan accounts and multiple avenues for
convenient account access. The Credit Union is a non-profit, member-owned
financial institution, the largest of its kind in Central Virginia; and
WHEREAS
, for fifty years, the University of Virginia Community Credit Union has made vital
contributions to the financial well-being of thousands of residents of this
community;
NOW, THEREFORE, I,
Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, in recognition of this important anniversary, do
hereby congratulate the University of Virginia Community Credit Union for 50
years of service, and call upon all citizens to recognize the essential contributions
that the Credit Union makes in enhancing the financial well-being of the residents
of our community.
(Mr. Dorrier read the proclamation into the record. Present to receive the proclamation were Ms.
Catherine Mawyer and Ms. Carmen Fisher.
Ms. Fisher thanked the Board for the resolution. She said it is a milestone event in the history of
the Credit Union. They look forward to the next 50 years of providing affordable, accessible financial
services and to new initiatives which have been put into place to improve financial literary in the
community. They are working with children in middle school and high school through their teachers to
provide information about becoming good and informed consumers, and how to manage their financial life
before they get out into the world and accumulate a lot of bad habits.)
__________
Item 6.6. Request for Dance Hall Permit – EL RAY del TACO.
It was noted in the staff’s report that EL RAY del TACO has applied for a dance hall permit for a
restaurant. The Albemarle County Code requires an applicant to obtain a dance hall permit from the
Board of Supervisors before commencing operation of any dance hall. A dance hall is defined as "any
place open to the general public where dancing is permitted". The County Zoning Ordinance stipulates
that "dancing by patrons shall be considered as entertainment accessory to an eating establishment,
provided the space made available for such dancing shall not be more than one-eighth of that part of the
floor area available for dining." Any dance floor occupying more floor space is permitted only by special
use permit.
Applications for dance hall permits must contain certification from the Fire Marshal and Building
Official that the dance hall is in conformity with applicable provisions of the Fire Prevention Code and the
Virginia Statewide Building Code. Dance halls also are subject to all requirements of the County’s Zoning
Ordinance. Upon proper application and confirmation of these certifications, the Board has no discretion
to deny the permit. The County Code makes no provision for an approval being subject to conditions.
The primary restriction on dance halls is that it is unlawful for any dance hall to allow any person under
the age of eighteen to enter or remain in a dance hall while dancing is being conducted there unless that
April 7, 2004 – Regular Day Meeting
)
(Page 5
person is accompanied by a parent or legal guardian, or by a spouse, brother or sister over the age of
eighteen.
A certification from the Fire/Rescue Department demonstrating the applicant's compliance with
the Fire Prevention Code has been issued, along with a letter from the Department of Building Code and
Zoning Services stipulating that the establishment is in conformance with the Virginia Uniform Statewide
Building Code. Also, a Certificate of Occupancy from the Building Official has been issued. Since the
applicant has received the necessary approvals to operate a dance hall by right as defined above, staff
recommends approving the request for a dance hall permit from EL RAY del TACO.
(Mr. Bowerman said according to the County’s ordinance, any place open to the general public
where dancing is permitted needs a dance hall permit. In addition, the dance hall is subject to all
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. He believes the applicant has met the two provisions required by
the ordinance. Mr. Davis said the two requirements are a Fire Code inspection and a Building Code
inspection. He understands the applicant has not received a final zoning clearance, so they still need
that. Mr. Tucker said he believes they are waiting for approval of this request by the Board before
applying for that clearance.
Ms. Thomas said she will remind the public that the Board has no leeway in approval of this
request. Mr. Davis said that back in 1998 and 1999 the Board spent a great deal of time reviewing this
issue, and there was no conclusion as to how the ordinance could be changed. As the ordinance exists
now, requests could be approved administratively.
Mr. Rooker said if these requests could be approved administratively, he does not know why they
come before the Board. That is misleading to the public. There is an application for a larger area dance
floor which is discretionary with the Board. He thinks requests such as that today should be turned into
an administrative process. Mr. Davis said if that is the desire of the Board, staff can initiate an ordinance
amendment that would leave the process similar to that of today, but have it an administrative process.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board spent a lot of time discussing this issue but could not agree to
another process. Mr. Rooker said he would like to suggest that this be turned into an administrative
process if it is left non-discretionary.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved a dance hall permit for EL RAY
del TACO located at 380 Greenbrier Drive.
__________
Item 6.7. Thomas Jefferson HOME Consortium Annual Plan.
It was noted in the staff’s report that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) annually provides funding under the HOME Investment Partnership Program to units of state and
local government through formula allocations. Only the larger jurisdictions receive funding under the
established formulas. HUD does, however, allow smaller localities to form a consortium in order to
receive an allocation of HOME funds.
Albemarle County has participated as a member of the Thomas Jefferson HOME Consortium (six
jurisdictions of the Planning District) since 1992 sharing in over $10.0 million in HOME funds to support
affordable housing initiatives in the region. HUD requires that an Action Plan be developed annually prior
to receipt of HOME funds. The Plan will include a summary of current year activities and a proposal on
how funds will be used for the coming year, beginning July 1, 2004. A more detailed annual performance
plan will be prepared for HUD after the end of the fiscal year. This report will be presented to the Board
at that time.
Each locality receives an equal annual appropriation, estimated this year at $128,500. In
addition, HUD has established an additional set-aside for the American Dream Downpayment Assistance
Initiative (ADDI) that will bring Albemarle County $20,260 to assist first-time homebuyers. HOME will also
provide $5,996 in administrative funds.
In prior years, the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program has been designated the sub-
recipient for the County allowing them to receive and administer the funds. The majority of funds were
earmarked for rehabilitation of owner-occupied housing. This year, approximately $89,000 was used to
rehab six homes (four complete and two pending). $40,000 was used to cover additional costs at
Whitewood Village Apartments including some relocation costs.
Staff recommends the following allocation of HOME funds for fiscal year beginning July 1, 2004:
$98,760 for owner-occupied rehab designating AHIP as sub-recipient
$ 4,600 in admin funds to AHIP
$29,740 of regular HOME funds for first-time homebuyer assistance
(administered by Office of Housing and/or PHA)
$20,260 of ADDI funds (administered by Office of Housing and/or PHA)
$ 1,396 in admin funds to County
At its meeting on March 10, 2003, the Housing Committee approved this recommendation for
allocating HOME funds.
April 7, 2004 – Regular Day Meeting
)
(Page 6
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the following allocations of HOME
funds for fiscal year beginning July 1, 2004:
$98,760 for owner-occupied rehab designating AHIP as sub-recipient.
$ 4,600 in admin funds to AHIP
$29,740 of regular HOME funds for first-time homebuyer assistance
(administered by the County’s Office of Housing and/or Piedmont
Housing Alliance).
$20,260 of ADDI funds (administered by Office of Housing and/or PHA).
$ 1,396 in admin funds to County.
__________
Item 6.8. Lease Amendment – Charlottesville Waldorf School in Crozet.
It was noted in the staff’s report that the County currently leases the old Crozet Elementary
School building to the Charlottesville Waldorf School (CWS) which is currently in the process of
constructing a new school in Charlottesville and plans to be in the facility by July, 2005. However, due to
uncertainties with construction, CWS has requested an amendment to their current lease to allow the
option of two six-month extensions. They currently have the option to extend the lease only on a month-
to-month basis at double the monthly rent. This request was reviewed with the Board’s Building
Committee which considered other potential uses of the facility and the timing of any potential use that
might effect approval of an extension. Given the time involved in the study and consideration of the
ultimate use of this site, the Committee felt that allowing an extension of the lease as requested was
appropriate. This will also allow the County to continue generating rent on the facility while final plans are
developed on reuse of the site. Staff recommends advertisement of a public hearing on May 5, 2004, for
consideration of an amendment to the lease as proposed.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board ordered consideration of an amendment to
the Charlottesville Waldorf School lease agreement advertised for a public hearing on May 5,
2004.
_________
Item 6.9. FY 2004 Appropriations, $262,161.75 (Forms #2004-068, 2004-070, 2004-071, 2004-
072).
It was noted in the staff’s report that the Code of Virginia §15.2-2507 stipulates that any locality
may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the current fiscal year as
shown in the currently adopted budget. However, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of
the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget or the sum of $500,000, whichever is lesser,
must be accomplished by first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before
amending the budget. The total of these requested additional FY 2004 appropriations is $262,161.75,
which is below the threshold level for a budget amendment on its own. It is anticipated that a budget
amendment will be proposed in May, 2004, and these appropriations would be incorporated into it.
This request involves the approval of four new FY 2004 appropriations as follows: Two
appropriations (#2004-068 and #2004-072) in the amount of $190,661.75, for various School programs
and grants; one appropriation (#2004-070) totaling $71,000.00, recognizing a state grant award to the
Fire Rescue Department and providing funding for suction equipment for the volunteer/rescue
departments; and, one appropriation (#2004-071) totaling $500.00 recognizing a state grant award to the
Police Department. A detailed description of these appropriations follows. Staff recommends approval of
FY 2004 Appropriations #2004-068, #2004-070, #2004-071 and #2004-072.
Appropriation No. 2004-068, $186,270.75
. Reappropriation of $165,524.00 in School carry-over
funds and $14,429.75 in building rental funds. Policy B-E allows schools to carry forward up to
10 percent of their budgets from year to year and Policy KG-R returns 40 percent of the base fees
collected for building rental to each school.
Western Albemarle High School and the Warrior Club received donations in the amount of
$300.00. $200.00 Photoworks Creative Group Inc donated $100.00, Douglas Starns donated
$50.00, Andrew and Terri Guertler donated $50.00, and William Dickey, Jr. donated $100.00.
These donations will be used to purchase weight room equipment for the new Weight/Wellness
Room being constructed at the school. Western Albemarle High School also received a donation
in the amount of $1000.00 from the Trustees of the Frederick S. Upton Foundation. Sarah and
Douglas Dupont made a matching donation of $1000.00. This donation will be used for the
cultural enrichment program at the school.
Greer Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $150.00 from Mark and Amy
Robbins. Mr. & Mrs. Robbins requested that $100.00 be used for the art program and $50.00 be
used for the kindergarten program. Baker Butler Elementary School received a donation in the
amount of $4167.00 from the Baker Butler PTO. This donation will be used to purchase fifteen I-
books (wireless Macintosh computers) for use in the classroom.
Appropriation No. 2004-070, $71,000.00.
The Fire Rescue Department recently applied for a
grant from the Office of Emergency Medical Services to purchase 12 manual/automatic external
defibrillators (AED’s). The Office of Emergency Medical Services has awarded Fire/Rescue
$21,000.00 to make this purchase. The grant funds cover one-half of the cost of twelve fully
April 7, 2004 – Regular Day Meeting
)
(Page 7
automatic AED’s as opposed to the manual/automatic AED’s that were requested. Staff originally
requested funding for AED’s that were manual/automatic that would allow advanced life support
(ALS) providers to use the same defibrillator first applied to the patient by the basic life support
first responders who arrive on the scene earlier. Once the ALS providers arrive on the scene,
they can switch the monitor over to manual, interpret the rhythm, and take corrective action.
Otherwise, the ALS provider would need to switch out the monitor during the emergency call.
This appropriation request recognizes the $21,000.00 in grant revenues and requests an
additional appropriation from the General Fund balance of $39,000.00 to provide for the one-half
matching grant funds plus the additional $18,000.00 to upgrade the AED’s to manual/automatic.
In January 2003, the Office of Emergency Medical Services (OEMS) was scheduled to put into
place new rules and regulations for EMS agencies. Due to the enormous amount of opposition
from volunteer rescue squads, the implementation date was postponed. In the meantime, several
rules and regulations were challenged by many of the EMS special interest groups. The OEMS
revised the rules and regulations and chose to implement them in the latter part of the summer.
One of the new revisions calls for battery operated suction units and various tools on all licensed
EMS vehicles. Fire Rescue has a number of vehicles that respond to EMS calls upon request
and, therefore, would need to purchase the required equipment by the latter part of October. This
appropriation requests $11,000.00 from the General Fund Balance to purchase eleven suction
units to comply with this new requirement.
Appropriation No. 2004-071, $500.00
. The Department of Motor Vehicles has awarded a grant
in the amount of $500.00 to the Albemarle County Police Department to purchase child safety
seats including booster seats. This is in conjunction with child safety seat checkpoints and public
awareness of the need to have children properly restrained in motor vehicles. There is no local
match.
Appropriation No. 2004-072, $4,091.00
. The following appropriations were approved at the
School Board’s March 11, 2004, meeting:
Western Albemarle High School and the Warrior Club received donations in the amount of
$2430.00. Raymond and Donna Conley donated $100.00, Linda and Michael Kenney donated
$30.00, J.W. Townsend, Inc. donated $1500.00, Art Kruithof donated $100.00, William and Amy
Steers donated $50.00, Donald and Maggie Shreve donated $50.00, D.W. and Amy Munn
donated $25.00, Karen Arch with Blue Moon Trading Company donated $50.00, J. Bruce Barnes,
Inc. donated $500.00, and Parkway Pharmacy donated $25.00. These donations will be used to
purchase weight room equipment for the new Weight/Wellness Room being constructed at the
school.
Baker Butler Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $1661.00 from the Baker
Butler PTO. This donation will be used to purchase two outdoor basketball goals for the school.
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), Public Law 107-110, authorized Title II, Part A, as a
Federal grant program that combines the Eisenhower Professional Development, School
Renovation, and Class Size Reduction Grants into a Teacher Quality grant program that focuses
on preparing, training and recruiting high-quality teachers, principals and paraprofessionals. The
Title II, Part A, 2003-2004 funding request included $152,925.00 to pay for limited Literacy
Specialist staff and benefits. The purpose of these funds was to add time to Literacy Specialists
who will teach small groups of students and coach/model for other teachers best practice
strategies in the area of reading/writing literacy. These funds were originally included in the
regular School Fund budget. It is requested that $152,925.00 in expenses and revenues be
transferred from the Title II grant funds to appropriately reflect these activities.
During the previous year, several construction projects were bid. Bids received were less than
expected, thereby providing funds to supplement other projects that are scheduled to be bid in
the Spring of 2004. These projects appear to be under-funded due to an increase in the scope of
work, required regulatory changes and corrective air quality issues. The following is a brief
description of the projects that require additional funding:
Walton Middle School: The original scope of work included interior renovations and the addition
of a strings room. Based on the school’s request, with the endorsement of Building Services, the
scope of the project has changed to be an HVAC Replacement project because of air quality
concerns. Implementing a reduced scope of work for interior renovations to accommodate the
school’s needs in music and guidance will accommodate their needs until the other renovations
can occur in three years. The HVAC replacement was scheduled and approved for 2007; the
order of the year in which the projects occur is being changed. The HVAC Replacement budget
was $95,320.00 more than this year’s budget for interior renovations. Therefore, a transfer of
$95,320.00 to the Walton Renovations account is being requested.
Henley Middle School: The original scope of work included a bus staging area in the front of the
building. After many options were evaluated, it became evident that in order to accommodate 39
buses, the bus staging area would need to be moved to the back of the building. This also
necessitates additional remodeling to create a direct circulation pattern from the addition to the
bus area. It is currently estimated that it will take $287,000.00 to construct the new bus staging
area with the necessary heavy-duty pavement. Therefore, a transfer of $287,000.00 to the
Henley Renovations account is requested.
April 7, 2004 – Regular Day Meeting
)
(Page 8
Hollymead Gym: The original scope of the project included a 7000 square foot gym and an
additional 800 square feet for restrooms and support spaces. As the design evolved with the
school committee, it became evident that additional items needed to be added to the project to
make it a fully functional facility. Those items have been identified as follows: 1) additional 3000
square feet – The connecting corridor from the building to the gym needed to be longer than
anticipated, the PE Office, storage and a small lobby needed to be accommodated, as well as a
room for PE equipment; 2) additional parking – Parking is needed along with parking lot lights; 3)
stormwater retention - The stormwater retention and water quality aspect for the entire
elementary site need to be upgraded. The original budget was $100 per square foot, but the
current cost estimate is $110 per square foot. The following is a summary of additional costs:
Cost escalation (10,800 square feet at $108,000.00 - $10 per square foot); additional scope
(3000 square feet at $330,000.00 - $110 per square foot); parking, stormwater, etc., $90,000.00;
the total transfer request for the Hollymead gym is $528,000.00.
Stony Point HVAC Replacement: Persistent air quality difficulties necessitate that the HVAC
system in the original building and four classrooms in the west wing of the building be replaced.
This project was scheduled in 2010, but needs to move forward six years to insure that an
acceptable level of humidity can be maintained in the area. The budget for this project is
$248,248.00.
The Monticello High School Addition bid was extremely competitive and the project was moved
forward, but the inflation factor that was in place for the project was not removed. It was hoped
that other projects would come in under budget so the MHS auxiliary gym could be moved
forward to next year. Unfortunately, that did not happen. As work progressed on the scope and
cost of the auxiliary gym, wrestling room and weight room, it became evident that sufficient,
existing funding would not be available to move the project forward, and the money would be
better used to adequately fund the four projects listed above.
The second year of enrollment reductions at Cale and Walton has emphasized the need to revisit
the need for a new Southern Elementary School and to evaluate other options to accommodate
enrollment. Therefore, the $40,000.00 budgeted in the CIP for site selection for a southern
elementary is not needed this year and is available to transfer to another project. Additionally, the
Brownsville and Jouett projects are nearing completion and unused contingency funds are
available for transfer. The projects that will receive the transfers are included in the current
approved CIP. The funding level and the project dates have changed to better meet the needs.
__________
(Ms. Thomas said she would like to point out that little amounts pile up. There is $11,000.00
requested as the result of a new requirement by the Office of Emergency Medical Services (purchase
eleven battery-operated suction units and various tools on all licensed EMS vehicles).
Mr. Boyd asked that Consent Item 6.9 be pulled and discussed when the Chairman of the School
Board is present later in the meeting.)
By consensus, this item will be held and discussed during Agenda Item No. 9 later today.
__________
Item 6.10. Resolution to accept roads in Grayrock Subdivision, Phase 3, into the State
Secondary System of Highways.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREASGrayrock Subdivision, Phase 3
, the streets in , described on the attached
April 7, 2004
Additions Form SR-5(A) dated , fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on
plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS
, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised the Board that the street meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street
Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
, that the Albemarle Board of County
Grayrock
Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the roads in
Subdivision, Phase 3,April 7,
as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated
2004,
to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and
the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED
that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-
of-way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as
described on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED
that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the
Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
The road(s) described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
April 7, 2004 – Regular Day Meeting
)
(Page 9
1) Grayrock Drive (State Route 1381) from the existing end of state maintenance to the
intersection of Jarman Lake Road (Route 1380), as shown on plat recorded 01/21/2002 in the
office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2148, page 289, with a
50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.03 mile; and from the end of state maintenance at the
intersection of Jarman Lake Road (Route 1380) to the intersection of Russet Road (Route 1385),
as shown on plat recorded 01/21/2002 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 2148, page 289, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.08 mile.
2) Jarman Lake Road (State Route 1380) from the existing end of state maintenance to
the intersection of Grayrock Drive (Route 1381), as shown on plat recorded 01/21/2002 in the
office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2148, page 289, with a
50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.10 mile.
3) Russet Road (State Route 1385) from the northern intersection of Grayrock Drive
(Route 1381) to the intersection of Braeburn Street, as shown on plat recorded 01/21/2002 in the
office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2148, page 289, with a
50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.06 mile; and from the intersection of Braeburn Street
to the southern intersection of Grayrock Drive (Route 1381), as shown on plat recorded
01/21/2002 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2148,
page 289, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.07 mile.
Total Mileage - 0.34 mile.
__________
Item 6.11. Copy of letter dated March 12, 2004, from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning
Administration, to Michael Fenner, re: Official Determination of Development Rights and Parcels – Tax
Map 42, Parcels 22, 22A and 31B (property of Otto Dolman, Trustee of Otto Dolman Trust) Section
was received for information.
10.3.1,
__________
Item 6.12. Copy of Dominion Virginia Power’s Application, Case No. PUE-2004-0004, to revise
was received as information
its Cogeneration Tariff pursuant to PURPA Section 210, .
_________
received for information.
Item 6.13. 2003 Annual Report of the Board of Zoning Appeals,
__________
Item 6.14. Copy of draft Planning Commission minutes for February 10 and February 17, 2004,
received for information.
_________
received as information.
Item 6.15. VDOT Monthly Report for April, 2004,
______________
Agenda Item No. 7a. Transportation Matters: Transportation Planning Process, Presentation by
Harrison Rue, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission.
Mr. Rue began by handing to the Board members a brochure entitled “Thomas Jefferson
Planning Commission, Regional planning linking transportation, land use, economy and environment.”
He drew the Board’s attention to the importance of transportation planning to the Commission’s work.
Mr. Rue noted that the Board appoints people to several Planning Commission committees, and
they are doing creative work. The TJPDC’s staff is small, so a lot of the technical work is done by the
citizen committees. The County has members on the Community Mobile Committee and the CHART
Committee, and County staff also attends those meetings and serves as technical advisors. The MPO
Technical Committee is made up of City and County staff, staff of the TJPDC and the transit services.
There is a very effective set of committees which actually do the technical work. Mr. Rooker and Ms.
Thomas are members of the MPO Policy Board, and they rely on the Technical Committee to come up a
lot of the answers. Albemarle County is the only county on the MPO that also has a rural program. Mr.
Juan Wade, Albemarle’s Transportation Planner, sits on the Rural Technical Committee along with most
of the planning directors from the four rural counties.
Mr. Rue said the transportation planning process is a fairly complex structure. In reality, it is
significantly messier than the chart handed out today implies (Sheet 1). The main message is that there
are two regional efforts. One is at the MPO level (the MPO was set up nationally by Congress and it
works fairly well). He said that because the state has the Commonwealth Transportation Board, and the
roads are state roads, this MPO has less power than MPOs in other states. He said that at the working
level, all local jurisdictions get along well (regardless of what is seen in the headlines of the newspapers).
Mr. Rue noted a description of local government transportation planning as outlined on Sheet 2 of
the handout, and then discussed how projects are proposed, planned and implemented (Sheet 2 in the
handout). He then invited questions about the process.
Mr. Dorrier said people continually ask him when roads will be built and why there is so much
delay. Mr. Rue said there is not enough money to do the projects. In Virginia, VDoT owns County roads,
so one entity is trying to figure out how to spend money for the entire state. That is a structural problem
April 7, 2004 – Regular Day Meeting
)
(Page 10
in Virginia. Another problem is that because VDoT has to divide up the money across the state, and
because in some ways it is more political than technical, it appears to him that they try to keep everybody
happy and give a little money to every project to every years, and that makes every project take longer.
Historically, that has been the way it was done. When Commissioner Skucet came into office, he said
VDoT would not pretend it had more money than it actually had. Now, that a fiscally sound approach is
being taken, there can be a budget developed.
Mr. Rue said there is not enough money to build what is needed. Also, in Charlottesville/
Albemarle a lot of time has been spent fighting projects that were not locally desired. That drags out
negotiations on the projects everybody wants. That is being cured somewhat through some of the more
collaborative processes being worked on. Last year, there was a test done on Hillsdale Drive
improvements in order to get VDoT, the City and the County working together. All agreed on a solution.
They are trying to do the same thing with the improvements to Route 29. They want to get an agreement
upfront. Comparing how things were done on the Meadow Creek Parkway for more than a couple of
decades, a collaborative design process might actually accelerate some projects even when there is not
enough money available.
Mr. Rooker said people have probably read the comments in the Progress made by Mr. Butch
Davies that the Culpeper District gets $16.0 million per year to be distributed to nine counties and two
cities. This is at a time when the cost of projects is accelerating at seven percent a year. He said that in
Albemarle, the Airport Road project is estimated at $12.5 million. Widening of Route 29 was estimated at
$40.0 million. The Hillsdale project will probably cost $15.0 million. The things he has been talking to the
Board about on Georgetown Road will probably cost $3.5 million. Albemarle got a total allocation this
year of about $3.5 million for secondary roads and that includes both paved and unpaved road projects.
In order to get a project funded, money is accrued over a period of time and when the funds get to a
certain point the project can be advertised, and a date set for construction. When Commissioner Skucet
began work he found that there was money allocated to projects and there was no money. At that point,
the secondary road budget was adjusted and Albemarle lost about 30 percent of its allocation in the first
year of the adjustment. In looking at the roads schedule, there are no projects which have not moved
forward for any reason other than lack of funding. While arguing has been going on in the background
about the Meadow Creek Parkway project, the reality is that it could not move forward any faster due to
lack of funding. In order to accelerate road projects in the community, the Board will have to lobby for
more money for transportation, and find ways to fund some projects with County money, those needed to
help with local transportation problems.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks it helps to make a distinction between primary and secondary roads
when queried by constituents. Since the two classifications of road are funded by different pots of money
and through different processes, the Board can talk about which gravel roads to pave, and that does not
take away any money from the Meadow Creek Parkway.
Mr. Dorrier said Mr. Rue is taking a more active role in this process, and he thinks the TJ
Planning District Commission can be a unifying force in Richmond on road projects.
Mr. Boyd said he understands the challenges of financing, but he has a different question. How
did a project like Airport Road get on the list? Has it been a pending project longer than the Meadow
Creek Parkway?
Mr. Rooker said it moved up on the list after it was awarded Federal money because it serves the
airport.
Mr. Boyd asked if the Board made its decisions based on the amount of money available. Mr.
Cilimberg said there is a starting point in the planning process where each project is identified; it begins
with the Comprehensive Plan. Airport Road has been in the Comprehensive Plan since the 1960s, and
the Meadow Creek Parkway has also been a part of the Comprehensive Plan for a long time. The
County then communicates to the MPO the projects which should be included in the regional plan.
Sometimes projects are identified by the MPO which eventually become a part of the County’s
Comprehensive Plan. They are complementary processes. Some of what the County does in the way of
planning feeds CHART, and sometimes CHART projects become a part of the Comprehensive Plan.
Those projects are the basis for how staff identifies priorities and how to ultimately allocate funds to the
projects. He said that each year a priority list is made, and the projects may not be funded in that order
because occasionally moneys become available from other sources. He said Airport Road is actually
taking a lot longer than it was expected to take. Priorities set by the Board are fed into the MPO each
year and into the TIP to make sure any project eligible for Federal funding is funded in the way the
County has identified its priorities.
Mr. Rooker said when the TIP is received from the State, the State has allocated funds to
projects. Locally there has been little success in changing primary road projects set by the state. In
developing the Six-Year Road Plan, sheets are received from the state for each project and they set up
the funding they have decided to preliminarily allocate to each of those projects. The TIP for primary
roads is about 99 percent set by the state.
Mr. Boyd asked how the Board could go about getting priorities changed. Would it have to begin
the process with CHART and go up to the MPO, etc.? Mr. Rue said if it was a brand new project that is
generally how the process would work. However, as a policy board, the Board of Supervisors can decide
priorities. Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that a western parallel road to Route 29 going through Hollymead
(Ridge Road/Berkmar Extension) was identified in the County’s planning process. It came about while
April 7, 2004 – Regular Day Meeting
)
(Page 11
staff was looking at the number of projects being proposed in that area, and their impact on
transportation. The project was reviewed with the Board and then got into the cycle for CHART.
Ultimately, if that project is part of CHART and the Comprehensive Plan, it will get lined up for the funding
needed for construction.
Mr. Rooker said there are probably 100 projects in CHART, and some of those projects may not
be funded in the next fifty years.
Mr. Boyd asked if the governing body can push projects through. Mr. Rue said actually it would
be Mr. Butch Davies who is a member of the CTB. Ultimately, whether money is in the plan in any given
year rests with the CTB. The locality is fortunate to have a representative who actually goes around in his
district and drives the routes and meets with all concerned. He said the parallel road to the Airport was
one idea where people drew lines on a map during the UNJAM public input session. County staff
inserted it into the technical process during CHART meetings. They had VDoT model the idea of
Berkmar Drive Extended, Ridge Road, and Town Center Road up to Hollymead. That is a relatively new
project. He knows that Mr. Davies thinks it is a project which makes sense. In the modeling, the road
performed better because it took more traffic off of Route 29 than Meadow Creek Parkway Phase 2.
Consequently, money was included to build that entire facility, except for the part being built by the
developer. There is nothing yet in the State’s Six-Year Plan or the TIP because it is a brand new project.
It could be accelerated if the Board and the developers and the CTB think it makes sense. He said
UNJAM is trying to make a case for parallel roads to Route 29. Hillsdale Drive is a part of that idea. The
Rio/Hydraulic piece has already been built. The concept of “primary reliever” is new, and it is the idea of
taking some primary funds and using them for this type of road rather than just building 16 lanes going
straight through an area. Mr. Rue said he sits on the State Long-range Plan Technical Committee. He is
also Chair of the Technical Committee of the National Association of MPOs. They are working on some
of these new concepts with the idea of introducing them to Virginia.
Mr. Rooker said everyone needs to be realistic as to what can be done locally in transportation.
Efforts should be focused on accomplishing projects. The Meadow Creek Parkway is a good example.
Traffic studies show that the road does not perform well unless there is an interchange at McIntire Road.
That interchange is estimated to cost between $25.0 and $45.0 million, depending on the type of
interchange built. They have met with Mr. Davies a number of times to try and get money to fund that
interchange at the time the Meadow Creek Parkway is completed. If the interchange is not built at the
same time as the Parkway, the wait time at McIntire Road would increase substantially over the current
wait time. It is possible to build a road everyone has been waiting on for a long time and the traffic
situation made worse. Despite showing those traffic numbers to Mr. Jim Bryan and Mr. Davies (they
understand the situation with the improvement), the prospects are not good for getting the money. $25.0
million is the total allocation for the entire Culpeper District for two years. Ridge Road is estimated to cost
$30.0 million. The widening of Route 29 will cost $17.0 million after the developers of the Hollymead
Towne Center completes his part of the project. Studies indicate that of the improvements along the
Route 29 corridor in that area, that improves the traffic flow more than anything else. He said there are
not good cost estimates on a lot of the projects at this time. It is expected that $240.0 million will be
received over the 20-year period, but no one knows if there will be $12.0 million each year for
transportation projects. Looking at the projects in the Route 29 corridor, he believes the cost estimates
are low. Even if $240.0 million is received, he does not think even a majority of the projects in the current
plan would be realized.
Ms. Thomas said one way to speed up a few projects is to put County money into those projects.
If the eastern connector is built, or even Berkmar Drive Extended, developers are not going to build the
expensive bridges needed to get across the river.
Mr. Wyant said he read in this memo about the “project rating system.” He said no one knows
how projects get moved around on the Secondary Road Plan. There have been problems in VDoT over
the years with robbing transportation trust funds and using those funds for various projects.
Mr. Dorrier asked if over the 30 years Mr. Wyant worked for VDoT if he had seen any
improvement in getting projects constructed. Mr. Wyant said they tried to streamline the system, so there
has been some improvement. He thinks the list put together by the Board this year has been an
improvement in the local process.
Mr. Boyd asked if the “criteria-based rating system” mentioned by staff is something that is written
down. Mr. Cilimberg said that is the criteria used when evaluating secondary roads. Staff is going to
review that system again this year and will give it to the Board next year as part of the Six-Year Plan
review.
Mr. Rooker said that about seven years ago, VDoT wrote a letter saying they did not do a
cost/benefit analysis of projects. He thinks that has changed and they are starting to do an analysis. To
a large extent, primary road funds have often been allocated on a political basis rather than on a criteria-
based analysis. He thinks the state is trying to move forward a more objective analysis of what they are
buying for the dollar. That has been emphasized at the MPO level many times.
Mr. Rue said that was done during the CHART planning process, particularly comparing traffic
capacity improvements to Route 29 versus the Meadow Creek Parkway and Ridge Road projects.
Mr. Rooker said the UNJAM 20/25 Plan is on the website of the TJPDC. It also carries the
Jefferson Area Bicycle, Pedestrian and Greenways Plan which is probably 60 pages long. There are very
April 7, 2004 – Regular Day Meeting
)
(Page 12
good multi-modal plans for transportation in the area, and it is most often just a lack of dollars to
implement a plan.
Mr. Dorrier thanked Mr. Rue for his presentation.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7b. Transportation Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Theresa Butler, Assistant Resident Engineer, was present. She asked if anyone had
questions about the VDoT Monthly report.
Mr. Boyd said a few weeks ago the Board approved the first rural rustic road project. He asked
when the projects requested by the schools will appear on the list. Ms. Butler asked that Mr. Chuck
Procter, Assistant Resident Engineer, answer the questions. Mr. Procter said it will show on Page 7 next
month under the “gravel road” section. That is the preliminary engineering sheet for the projects which
are ongoing.
Mr. Wyant asked about the design of a bike lane on Jarman’s Gap Road. Mr. Procter said he
saw a letter concerning this yesterday. VDoT is going to rebuild the road and widen the shoulders to
accommodate a bike facility on both sides of the road.
Mr. Wyant asked how much slurry work is being done in the County. Mr. Procter said those
projects will be completed within three weeks. He said that last year there some issues about the slurry
seal. It is normally applied to paved roads that have asphalt, not surface treatment. It prolongs the life of
the asphalt and is more cost-effective than repaving the roads. Primarily, it is done in subdivisions.
Mr. Dorrier asked if it will eliminate potholes. Mr. Procter said it does not; it basically puts a seal
coat on top of the asphalt. The asphalt starts to oxidize and deteriorate, and this provides a seal coat to
extend the life of the asphalt for three or four more years.
Mr. Bowerman said that type of seal is not normally seen on the secondary roads. Mr. Procter
said it will be seen on subdivision streets which are secondary roads.
__________
Mr. Rooker said he had sent Mr. Bryan an e-mail about trying to over-pave Barracks Road to
create more shoulder for bicyclists. He was told that the road might be repaved this year and at that time,
VDoT would look to do that. It is unlikely that the County will ever have the money to actually build a
bicycle lane to state specifications, but if the shoulder were over-paved, that would be good. Mr. Procter
said VDoT is looking at some of the major paved roads on the bicycle routes, and will evaluate them and
put together a “trench widening” schedule. VDoT is reviewing all roads on the 76 Bicycle Route.
__________
Ms. Thomas wondered if the County is getting enough parallel roads along both sides of Route
250 going east on Pantops. Mr. Cilimberg said staff is looking at that question as part of the Pantops
area Comprehensive Plan update which the Planning Commission requested several months ago.
Mr. Procter said VDoT is evaluating the Lexor property through its rezoning for a parallel road
which will run on the west side. The road on the east side runs up through the hospital property and then
connects to the existing facility (South Pantops Drive) and goes to the bottom of the hill where the
shopping center is located. They have talked with County Planning staff about the possibility of making
another connection across the river.
Mr. Cilimberg said that even before staff started working on the Comprehensive Plan
amendment, it had been working on an interconnected system of roads as development occurred.
Mr. Rooker said the missing link on the north side of Route 250 is a connection to Route 20. Mr.
Cilimberg said staff is working with these new projects so those connections can be made. Mr. Rooker
said there is a lot of development taking place in that area, and no connection has been made. Mr.
Proctor said they have been working with County staff to see where it would be beneficial to make the
connections, and to try and make it something the developer incorporates into his plan.
Ms. Thomas asked if VDoT sets speed limits. Mr. Proctor said they are reviewed by VDoT which
makes recommendations to the CTB and it actually gives the approval. Ms. Thomas said she had
received a letter from a citizen who had received a traffic ticket and was unhappy about the situation. Ms.
Butler asked that the letter be forwarded to VDoT’s local office for review.
Ms. Thomas said that on Route 250 West VDoT actually killed a lot of trees which are now ugly
and need to come down.
Mr. Wyant said he had given staff a letter about another road which he would like to have
considered as a rural rustic road project.
Mr. Wyant thanked VDoT for responding to requests for work on roads which had received
excessive water damage this year. A problem has come up where there is a drainage swale and no one
knows who is responsible for maintaining that easement. Mr. Proctor said if VDoT can “daylight” the pipe
so it is free flowing that is what they will do. In a lot of places they are limited as to what can be done
April 7, 2004 – Regular Day Meeting
)
(Page 13
because they do not have an easement. If VDoT has an easement, they will clean out the pipe until the
water is actually flowing in some sort of a channel.
Mr. Rooker said North Pointe is mentioned that in the monthly report. There are comments about
proffers submitted to County staff, and the site plan which is under review. He said that plan is coming
before this Board in May for a vote. This afternoon the Board will be discussing the proffers. He said the
Board needs to be certain it understands its traffic impacts and exactly what needs to be done to mitigate
those traffic impacts. There is some deal about part of the southbound lane being added by the
University Research Park when it has a certain amount of square footage developed. This Board needs
to know if that needs to be done quicker than anticipated. Mr. Procter said it will be needed quicker. The
mechanism needed to get it done will be the issue. He said the additional lane southbound will be the
sticker. When will it be constructed?
Mr. Rooker said for the Hollymead Town Center, they were required to do it on both sides of the
road because it was clear that it was needed based on the impacts. For North Pointe, the developer is
saying that UREF will take care of that, but on their current schedule it may not be done for some time.
Maybe the developer needs to sit down with UREF and work out a planned contribution so improvements
can be undertaken sooner.
Mr. Wyant said there is the bridge to the north of this area to consider. Mr. Procter said they are
not going as far as that bridge. They are stopping at Lewis & Clarke Road. Actually, that is the start of
Ridge Road which was mentioned earlier today. Ridge Road will cross Airport Road and tie into what
they plan to build southbound.
Ms. Butler said in reference to Mr. Wyant’s comment earlier about scheduled work this summer,
starting on Page 10, all of the projects are listed by area. Under the category of “patching”, many of the
roads shown are scheduled for slurry work and plant mix.
Mr. Bowerman said he would like to note for the new members that a lot of the questions about
things going on in their district can be handled directly with VDoT by the Board member.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Use of Jefferson School for Library, Discussion of request by Library Board.
Mr. John Halliday, Library Director, was present with three of the Library Trustees, Mr. Tony
Townsend, Mr. Tim Tolson and Mr. Bob Mellow. In reference to library needs in the County, Albemarle
has an excellent plan for library facilities development. It is reflected in the County’s Capital Improvement
Program. He understood the Board wanted to hear today about library needs in downtown
Charlottesville, and to get some information on the Jefferson School project. In the CIP, there is a little
over $3.4 million for renovation of the Central Library on Market Street. That cost was based on a plan
developed in 2000 by Train & Spencer Architects, and the design collaborative from Virginia Beach.
Mr. Halliday handed to the Board members a photocopy of the first floor plan for a renovated
Jefferson Madison Regional Library so they will understand what the public wants in the way of space in
contemporary public libraries. He said it is not a huge change from the existing library, but adds some
new space. He then explained the drawing.
Mr. Boyd asked if the $3.4 million in the CIP would be sufficient if the Library used the school
building. Mr. Halliday said the Library Board has not yet obtained financial estimates for renovation of the
Jefferson School. They are keeping an open mind about the project. Potentially, there could be the kind
of space available that the Library needs. The site could also provide some parking. There are some
benefits to using the school, but the cost to renovate Jefferson would be a lot higher than the cost of
renovating the Market Street facility. They have asked the City to do a feasibility study to find out if it is
possible to move a library into that building and provide the kind of space needed. Also, from an
engineering standpoint, is the building strong enough to hold the kind of weight loads that libraries
present? How much would it cost? The Library Board is waiting to get information on the project.
Ms. Thomas asked if anyone is committed to putting up the money needed to do the research for
this project. Mr. Halliday said it is his understanding that the City is planning to do so.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is a square foot differential between the Jefferson School and the
existing facility. Mr. Halliday said the Library needs 50,000 square feet and the Jefferson School has
more square footage than that. There is enough room at the school to provide space for a library, but a
feasibility study would show what is possible.
Ms. Thomas said she wants to know if the Library Board is “itching” to get out of the Market Street
Building. Mr. Halliday said he would let the County’s appointees to the Library Board respond.
A member of the Library Board said they are open-minded about the Jefferson School proposal,
but need more information. He said a school does not seem like the right layout for a library facility, but
things can be reconfigured.
Mr. Rooker said that sometimes it costs more to reconfigure an existing building than to build a
new facility. This gentleman said that is why they need to see what it would cost to make Jefferson
School an appropriate library space before they can compare it to renovating the Market Street space.
April 7, 2004 – Regular Day Meeting
)
(Page 14
Ms. Thomas said she thinks they are doing the right thing to get more information.
Mr. Tucker said staff thought the Library Board and the City had more definite information on this
issue. The County has no information at this point.
Mr. Dorrier said when the feasibility study is completed the Library Board can come before the
Board and present that information.
______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Board-to-Board Presentation, School Board Chairman. Presentation by
Diantha McKeel, Chair.
Ms. McKeel said the School Board would like to take this opportunity to thank the Board for
recognizing the unmet needs within Albemarle County and taking the 76¢ tax rate to public hearing this
evening.
Ms. McKeel said the Human Resources Department has begun recruitment efforts to fill several
administrative vacancies for the 2004-05 school year. National, regional and local sources were used for
advertising, including professional journals, newspapers, and educational websites. The decisions made
at the last joint Boards meeting on March 17 regarding compensation allowed recruitment of these
positions to be more competitive.
Ms. McKeel said the School Board is currently seeking applicants for the Long-Range Planning
Committee to represent the Rivanna, Scottsville and White Hall district and the at-large member. The
application deadline is April 21, 2004.
Mr. Dorrier asked if Long-Range Planning concerns the building of new schools. Ms. McKeel
said “yes.” She said they will be advertising for new representatives on the Health Advisory Committee.
Mr. Wyant asked for a list of the present members of these two committees.
Ms. McKeel said the School Board, on March 25, approved the 2004-05 School Division
Calendar. Again this year, the Albemarle County School Division has worked with Charlottesville City
Schools to develop a joint calendar. This calendar has the first day of school on Monday, August 23,
2004, with a scheduled ending date of June 6, 2005. Spring Break is scheduled for the week of April 4 to
April 8, 2005. The calendar has 10 scheduled inclement weather make-up days. Spring Break will
contain no snow make-up days. However, Memorial Day is scheduled as a make-up day.
Ms. McKeel said the Golden Apple Award Ceremony will be held on May 5 at the Rotunda. The
Golden Apple Award is a way of selecting and honoring outstanding teachers from the public schools in
Albemarle County and Charlottesville City, including CATEC, and eligible private schools (members of
VAIS). The awards are sponsored by Richard Nunley, Chairman, Better Living Building Supply & Better
Living Furniture. She invited the Board members to attend.
Ms. McKeel said the Albemarle School Board will be meeting with the Charlottesville City School
Board on May 27 with an agenda to include a presentation from the National School Boards Association,
a presentation from the African-American Teaching Fellows Program, and a progress report on the joint
education foundation.
Mr. Boyd said the Board has been requested to make a number of appropriations today (Item No.
6.9 on the Consent Agenda). He noticed that in the Annual Audit Report, the undesignated fund balance
for the School Board is about $4.7 million. He asked if these requests are appropriations of those dollars.
Ms. McKeel suggested that the Board ask Mr. Jackson Zimmerman these questions.
Mr. Boyd said there are also funds requested for some capital projects. He was surprised that
there were some overestimates. Ms. McKeel said that in general what Mr. Al Reaser had done was to
hold aside some projects hoping he would have enough money for the Monticello gym project. He did not
end up with enough money to do that so he went ahead and targeted other things such as air-
conditioning units which needed replacing.
Mr. Boyd asked if the School Board has ever considered its reappropriation process, particularly
when there are challenging budgets. What will the School Board do with money that was left over from
previous years? There have been sizeable amounts left over for the last five years. Ms. McKeel said
those sizeable amounts have been rolled over in the budget almost as a savings. In this year, they used
some of those moneys in the budget. She asked that Mr. Boyd put his questions into an E-mail and send
it to Dr. Castner, Mr. Zimmerman and herself and the questions will be addressed. She said there are
two issues; CIP expenditures and the regular operating budget. It is hard to answer questions when
numbers are just thrown out.
Mr. Rooker asked if the School Board has come up with a contingency plan if the state does not
adopt a budget. Ms. McKeel said they have talked about it, but are deferring to Mr. Tucker because the
School Board’s money comes through the County. She said they do not have a written contingency plan,
but are looking at options.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board should wait until the Legislature is out of session. Mr. Rooker said
some school districts have held back on sending out contracts. He asked if this has impacted the
April 7, 2004 – Regular Day Meeting
)
(Page 15
contract process. Mr. Tucker said there is always a provision in all contracts that the contract is subject to
an appropriation being made.
Mr. Boyd asked for a comparison of the three proposals before the Legislature at this time. Ms.
McKeel said she thinks it would be appropriate for the VSBA to do that; she will see if Frank Behrens
group would be interested into doing something like that for Albemarle. Ms. Thomas said VML has put
some of this on their web page.
Mr. Dorrier thanked Ms. McKeel for her presentation.
Note
(: At 10:45 a.m., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 11:10 a.m.)
_______________
Consent Agenda Item 6.9. FY 2004 Appropriations, $262,161.75. (Return to discussion of.)
move
Mr. Boyd said he would to approve Appropriations No. 2004-068, No. 2004-070 and No.
2004-071. The Board should hold the other appropriations until the Board receives answers to its
questions.
Ms. Thomas said the reappropriation request follows the School Board’s policy, and this Board
cannot change that policy. There are also donations involved.
Mr. Boyd said he is really concerned about what he thinks is a lack of accounting for the School’s
carry-over funds.
Ms. Thomas said the Board can ask the School Board to change their policy, but she does not
agree that the Supervisors should not take action.
Mr. Boyd said he did not know of any policy that would be impacted by the Supervisors not
approving an appropriation. It is not his intent to change the School Board’s policy or challenge their
policy. He is simply asking for a better accounting before the Supervisors approve a reapplication of
funds.
Mr. Rooker suggested that these appropriations be approved now. If the Board has a general
question about appropriation policy and how it is handled in the budget, then the Board should get an
answer to that question. In his mind, these funds were previously allocated to the School Board for their
use.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Supervisors intend to micro-manage the School’s Board budget. He
thinks Mr. Boyd has a point and there needs to be work on the variable between the Audit Committee’s
report and the School Board’s functioning budget. But, second guessing every appropriation may be
beyond what this Board wants to do.
Ms. Thomas said for Appropriation 2004-072, the process laid out for capital improvement
expenditures was followed. Her question was to make sure everyone “is on the same page” when talking
about going forward with a southern elementary school. Is that project in the CIP?
Mr. Tucker said it is. It has been delayed for the last couple of years because of an enrollment
question. All of the specific capital projects are in the CIP. Some of the requests are for appropriation of
donations, and the appropriation of smaller amounts which are savings from other projects. Until the
Board feels more comfortable with some of these requests, the School Board appropriations could be
discussed with the School Board Chairman each month if the Board wants to get involved in those
requests.
Mr. Rooker said Appropriation No. 2004-072 is for $4,091.00. The other requests are not
increased amounts being appropriated in the CIP. Mr. Tucker said the Schools are moving savings to
projects that have overages.
Mr. Boyd said he did not understand how the net amount was only $4,091.00. Although it is
noted that they expect some savings from the Monticello addition, it does not say how much that savings
will be.
Mr. Wyant said he also had a lot of questions.
Mr. Tucker said that is why he is suggesting that there be some school staff people present each
month with the Chairman to explain their requests.
Mr. Dorrier asked that minutes of the School Board’s meeting also be included with the Board’s
materials.
Mr. Melvin Breeden, OMB Manager, said there is a $1.0 million reduction in the Monticello High
School project. Over one-half of the amount realized came about by the bid being less than the cost
projected. Also, portions of the project were eliminated or delayed pending what may happen on that
property in the future. Some parking lot paving was eliminated because there may be construction in
those areas in the future.
April 7, 2004 – Regular Day Meeting
)
(Page 16
Mr. Boyd said he is very concerned that building projects are going forward. 491 new students
were projected for the last five years, and the County only got 64 students. Monticello has been built for
1500 seats, with a plan to add another 800 seats. He said the numbers are not showing that need.
Ms. Thomas said the amount of money shown on that appropriation form is just from the
donations.
Mr. Rooker said the Board is not approving a CIP. He asked if that was included for information
only. Mr. Breeden said the first two items on the appropriation form are new, but the other items are
transfers.
Mr. Rooker asked if the Board would be approving the transfers. Mr. Breeden said if this
appropriation form is approved, the Board would be approving the transfers.
Mr. Rooker said the question seems to be whether the Board wants to get into the individual
items. If the projects have been approved through the CIP process, he has no problem with this request.
Mr. Breeden said they have not been back through the CIP Technical Committee at this time. Basically,
they were reviewed by the School Board and the School Board requested that it be done.
Mr. Dorrier asked if these items should be pulled and discussed later.
Mr. Rooker suggested that the first three items be approved, and the fourth held since there are
some unanswered questions. His question concerns the scope of the Hollymead gym. It added
$330,000 to the cost of that project and he asked if it went through committee and the normal approval
process.
Mr. Tucker said the Board could approve just the appropriation of donations listed on that form,
and get further information on the transfer of funds between those accounts.
Mr. Rooker said he seems to be getting mixed answers. If Appropriation No. 2004-072 is
approved, is the Board approving all the CIP transfers listed? If that is the case, he thinks the Board
wants to approve it without those transfers and get some answers as to whether the requests went
through the CIP approval process, etc.
Mr. Davis said he does not know whether or not these appropriations are necessary for some
contract the Schools are ready to sign in order to start staging the work.
Mr. Bowerman suggested the appropriations be added to next week’s agenda.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Breeden may be able to talk with Mr. Reaser and the Board can discuss it
again later this afternoon.
Motion
was then reoffered by Mr. Boyd to adopt the resolutions of appropriation approving all of
the appropriations, with the exception of the transfer items from the CIP, as requested. The motion was
seconded
by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
Note:
( Resolutions of appropriation for Appropriation No. 2004-068, No. 2004-070 and No. 2004-
071 are set out below. Appropriation No. 2004-072 was approved by the Board before the end of this
meeting, so will be set out in full at that point in the meeting.)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2004-068
DATE: 04/07/04
EXPLANATION: EDUCATION PROGRAMS AND DONATIONS
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 2201 61101 601300 BROADUS WOOD J1 10,962.80
1 2202 61101 601300 BROWNSVILLE J1 2,992.60
1 2203 61101 601300 CROZET J1 185.00
1 2204 61101 601300 GREER J1 299.00
1 2205 61101 601300 HOLLYMEAD J1 4,161.00
1 2206 61101 601300 MWL J1 12,893.60
1 2207 61101 601300 RED HILL J1 2,019.00
1 2209 61101 601300 S'VILLE J1 5,743.00
1 2210 61101 601300 STONE ROBIN J1 12,996.00
1 2211 61101 601300 STONY POINT J1 4,906.20
1 2212 61101 601300 WOODBROOK J1 3,571.00
1 2213 61101 601300 YANCEY J1 890.80
1 2214 61101 601300 CALE J1 4,037.20
1 2215 61101 601300 VL MURRAY J1 8,639.00
1 2217 61101 601300 BAKER-BUTLER J1 14,257.00
1 2251 61101 601300 BURLEY J1 1,126.80
1 2252 61101 601300 HENLEY J1 17,316.00
1 2253 61101 601300 JOUETT J1 1,072.80
1 2254 61101 601300 WALTON J1 14,487.40
1 2255 61101 601300 SUTHERLAND J1 29,291.45
1 2301 61101 601300 AHS J1 1,500.70
1 2302 61101 601300 WAHS J1 1,219.60
April 7, 2004 – Regular Day Meeting
)
(Page 17
1 2303 61101 601300 MURRAY J1 6,623.00
1 2304 61101 601300 MONTICELLO J1 18,762.80
1 9000 60302 800656 WAHS-WEIGHT J1 300.00
1 2302 61411 580000 MISC. EXPENSE J1 2,000.00
1 2204 61101 601300 ED/REC SUPP J1 150.00
1 2217 61101 800700 DATA PROCESS J1 4,167.00
2 2000 51000 510100 APPROP-FB J2 179,953.75
2 9000 18100 181123 WAHS-WEIGHT J2 300.00
2 2000 18100 181109 DONATION J2 6,317.00
2000 0501 J 186,270.75
0701 J 186,270.75
9000 0501 J 300.00
0701 J 300.00
TOTAL 373,141.50 186,570.75 186,570.75
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2004-070
DATE: 04/07/04
EXPLANATION: FIRE/RESCUE GRANT & FUNDING FOR SUCTION UNITS - VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENTS
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1560 32015 800100 MACH/EQUIPMENT J1 60,000.00
2 1560 24000 240415 EMS FUNDS J2 21,000.00
2 1560 51000 512004 TRANSFER FROM GF J2 39,000.00
1 1000 32015 930200 TRANSFER TO GRANTS J1 39,000.00
2 1000 51000 510100 APPROPRIATION - FB J2 39,000.00
1560 0501 EST REVENUE J 60,000.00
0701 APPROPRIATION J 60,000.00
1000 0501 EST REVENUE J 39,000.00
0701 APPROPRIATION J 39,000.00
1 1000 32020 800100 VOL FIRE MACH& EQUIP J1 11,000.00
2 1000 51000 510100 APPROPRIATION - FB J2 11,000.00
1000 0501 EST REVENUE J 11,000.00
0701 APPROPRIATION J 11,000.00
TOTAL 220,000.00 110,000.00 110,000.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2004-071
DATE: 04/07/04
EXPLANATION: DMV – Mini Grant: Child Safety Seats
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1530 31013 580000 MISC. EXPENSES J1 500.00
2 1530 24000 240010 REVENUE-STATE J2 500.00
1530 0701 APPROPRIATION J 500.00
0501 ESTIMATED REVENUE 500.00
TOTAL 1,000.00 500.00 500.00
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Life Long Learning Report, Presentation by Roxanne White.
Ms. White said she was present to officially request approval of the four proposed goals for the
education strategic direction which is to provide high quality educational opportunities for citizens of all
ages. She said the “Lifelong Learning” work group was composed of representatives from Albemarle
County schools and local government, UVA, Piedmont Virginia Community College, Bright Stars,
Jefferson-Madison Regional Library, the Workforce Investment Board, Boys’ and Girls’ Club of
Charlottesville/ Albemarle, Jefferson Institute of Life-Long Learning, Monticello Area Community Action
Agency, Charlottesville Area School Business Alliance, Virginia Cooperative Extension Services, and the
Chamber of Commerce. This group had been meeting since September, 2003 to develop goals for the
County’s Education for All Ages Strategic Direction. The group work was facilitated by Ms. Lori Strumpf,
who also facilitated the Board’s Retreat last September.
Ms. White said this group has completed its work and is presenting it to the Board for approval
and inclusion in the County Strategic Plan’s FY 03 – FY 05 Plan of Action. (Note: The complete outline
of the work is included as Attachment A to the executive summary and is on file in the Clerk’s Office).
She said that due to the rapidly changing social and economic environments, there is a need to create an
informed citizenry, and a competitive labor force to meet the challenges of the next century. These goals
became much broader than what is thought of as normal K-12 education. They looked at the
responsibility of the County, looked to the future and to helping people of all ages be a successful part of
the community and a successful part of the workforce. They recognized that lifelong learning needs to be
a way of life for everyone if we are to be successful.
Ms. White said that based on that premise, the Lifelong Learning Mission was developed stating:
“Provide lifelong learning opportunities that result in gaining the skills and abilities required to succeed in
school, work, and beyond and to inspire every individual that learning is lifelong.” Based on this overall
philosophy, the group then developed four strategic goals, which are:
Goal One: Create accessible opportunities for everyone in the community to learn, ensuring all
educational services meet the needs of the changing demographics within the community.
Goal Two: Meet the teaching and learning needs of all citizens along an appropriate continuum
of ages and stages of development.
April 7, 2004 – Regular Day Meeting
)
(Page 18
Goal Three: Ensure the education system meets the workforce preparation needs of current and
future employees and employers.
Goal Four: Position the County as a recognized leader in educational excellence.
Ms. White said the next step is to have implementation teams including representatives from the
initial Lifelong Learning work group. She said that part of the challenges comes about because there is
great diversity in the group. It is different than the other goals in that they will try to bring together a large
number of people and organizations in the community, and some of them are not under the County’s
control. It will be a collaborative effort to work on these goals together.
Mr. Rooker said there are a lot of educational opportunities available in the community, and
perhaps the County could be most effective by providing transportation so people can take advantage of
those opportunities.
Mr. Dorrier said that is a good point. He noted that JABA was not noted as one of the
participants. Ms. White said although JABA was asked to participate they actually suggested that the
Jefferson Lifelong Institute be used to represent the senior population.
Ms. White said the group had discussed the question of the County’s role for quite a time. She
said the County might be a catalyst, a convener, a facilitator, as a way of bringing this together to look at
it as a total system. She said they did look into the question of accessibility, transportation, and the hours
when these opportunities would be available.
Ms. Thomas said this is community education so is a new area for the Board to consider. If the
Board offered transportation for citizens living in Woodbrook, would they need to provide the same
services for those people living in Esmont? She is not sure the County wants to go in that direction.
There is a distinction between K-12 education and other educational opportunities. She believes the
County has an equal obligation to every person living in the rural area. But, service offerings in the rural
area have not been the County’s policy.
Mr. Rooker said there are some distance learning opportunities and maybe they could be made
available at school sites which are scattered throughout the County. Maybe these opportunities could be
made available at libraries.
Ms. White said it may be that the County is not the provider of the services, but helps facilitate
those services. For instance, the Literary Volunteers are not as active in some of the rural areas. The
County might be able to make arrangements so they are making their services available to rural folks as
well as urban folks. Educational opportunities might also be provided at work sites.
Mr. Dorrier suggested that the Virginia Festival of the Book and the Virginia Film Festival people
be included for educational opportunities.
Mr. Rooker said several years ago someone sponsored business roundtables. He attended
several of those and was very impressed with the information from local employers. At that time he was a
member of the School Board, and they learned that they were headed in the wrong direction with some of
their education programs. Ms. White said that was done by the Workforce Investment Board and they
were very involved with this process.
Mr. Rooker said there are groups in the community which can offer educational programs. He
thinks it might be better if the County focused on the access side as a way to make a contribution rather
than getting into how to sponsor programs.
Ms. Thomas said the Board has been asked to approve the work completed by the Lifelong
motion
Learning group. She then offered to approve the four goals presented to the Board (set out
above) and that they be incorporated into the County Strategic Plan’s FY 03 – FY 05 Plan of Action. The
seconded
motion was by Mr. Boyd. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Stormwater Master Plan, Work Session.
Mr. David Hirschman, Watershed Manager, gave a PowerPointe presentation of the final
Stormwater Action Lists Summary Report for Stormwater Management Master Plan as prepared by
CH2MHill and the Timmons Group, dated January, 2004. He said this item is for information only; no
decisions are to be made today.
Mr. Hirschman said that he will talk about existing programs, those programs which have been
mandated by Federal and State regulations, and those referred to as “expected programs”, things the
County has provided for the citizens but not in a flushed-out or formal way. In the way of existing
programs there are things which the County does under the Water Protection Ordinance; erosion control
during the construction process, post-construction watershed management, and, an inspection program
during and after construction.
April 7, 2004 – Regular Day Meeting
)
(Page 19
Mr. Hirschman said that in 2003 they reviewed 530 single-family permits for erosion control, 270
active construction sites, 290 erosion control plans, and 122 stormwater management plans. The office
also received 150 complaints from citizens.
Mr. Rooker asked if when someone builds a watershed pond the maintenance of that pond
belongs to the property owner or the County. Mr. Hirschman said staff actually has a role in the
maintenance of 11 facilities owned by the County. In addition to those facilities which are maintained by
the County’s Public Works staff, there are 200 private facilities where the maintenance is the
responsibility of the private owners, but the County is responsible for oversight of that maintenance.
According to the ordinance, the County is to provide an annual inspection for those 200 private facilities
but that has been very hard to do with current resources.
Mr. Wyant asked if the Parks & Recreation Department helps to maintain any of these facilities.
Mr. Hirschman said “no”, Parks manages only its own facilities now, with part of that being accomplished
through a contract with a landscape firm. Everything else is the responsibility of the Public Works staff.
Mr. Bowerman said he did not think the County owned the equipment necessary for this work.
Mr. Hirschman said that is true.
Mr. Tucker said the Board has discussed the creation of a Public Works Department in terms of
the operation and work force necessary to do that type of work, and concern was expressed with the
idea. He said that today Mr. Hirschman will be discussing mandated issues.
Mr. Davis said that most of the 200 private facilities, particularly those done in the last 20 years,
at the time they were constructed, the landowner(s) executed an agreement which was put to record.
That agreement puts the obligation on the landowner to maintain those facilities at the standard dictated
by the County. When they are inspected some 20 years later, and it is determined that work is
necessary, the requirement falls on the homeowners and not the developer.
Mr. Bowerman said he does not believe this works. Mr. Hirschman said it works sometimes, but
not without problems. The number is growing because in the year 2000 the Board made the decision that
all new drainage easements would be dedicated to public use. Every new subdivision plat showing
drainage easements increases the number which requires oversight of private maintenance.
Mr. Wyant said he has received a number of calls about easements.
Mr. Hirschman said another existing program is carried out through the Soil & Water
Conservation District, and that has to do with riparian and streamside easement programs through the
Stormwater Program.
Mr. Rooker asked if in larger projects it is possible to have maintenance bonding. Mr. Davis said
it is probably possible. Typically bonds only require that the permanent facilities be constructed according
to plan, and once they are constructed the bonds are released. The difficulty with having maintenance
bonds is that they are in perpetuity. They are a significant cost to people, and usually such bonds are not
necessary for 20 years.
Mr. Rooker asked if there could be something in the homeowners’ documents approved by the
County for a capital reserve for what could be predictable maintenance requirements. Mr. Davis said that
is a complicated issue. The County has set forth certain responsibilities for homeowners associations,
but has never gotten into telling them how to financially plan for these requirements. Some do it well, and
some do not do it at all. He does not know if the County could tell them how to assess their dues in order
to meet that obligation.
Mr. Rooker said the County might provide to the homeowners some projections on the kinds of
expenses they need to be accruing funds for. The problem is that without a reserve or a bond, many
years later there is a predictable major maintenance requirement for a stormwater facility and they want to
come to the County and ask for help.
Mr. Bowerman said that is especially true of the older facilities which do not necessarily have the
right zoning.
Mr. Dorrier said Mr. Hirschman is going to present some of this, and he asked that he resume his
presentation.
Mr. Hirschman said the maintenance aspect is a critical part of this program. The mandated
programs give the County a framework to implement the things the Board is talking about such as more
interaction with the homeowners associations. He said the main mandated program is the VPDES which
is a permit mandated by the Federal Clean Water Act which was passed to the State level, and the State
passed it to the localities. This program treats stormwater which flows through storm pipes and
discharges into creeks just like it were water from a factory. The County’s obligation is to implement six
program areas for stormwater management (public education, illicit discharge, pollution prevention at
County facilities).
Ms. Thomas said she has recently heard what happens when the Hospital washes its floors and
some of the water is taken straight into storm drains. She asked if the County has any oversight ability to
what happens on University property. Mr. Hirschman said the County does not have that ability, but the
April 7, 2004 – Regular Day Meeting
)
(Page 20
University is subject to the same regulations; they are under the same permit the County and the City are
working under. Their Environmental Health & Safety Department has been working on the same issues.
The County has to coordinate across its three divisions: Parks, Public Works and the Schools and do
pollution prevention plans.
Mr. Hirschman said a lot of things are tied to urbanization in the development areas, the increase
in population and the expectations of the citizens. In the citizen survey a few years ago, water quality
was a high ranking element in the response. As to expected programs, staff knows that maintenance will
increase both for the County system, and the private system where the County will have to make sure the
private owners do the right thing to keep the system operational. He then showed a picture of a stream
from Meadow Creek up to Rio Road which eroded away property, and which had to be repaired by the
County.
Mr. Hirschman said that after the Board discussed this item in 2000, staff did a Stormwater
Master Plan. They walked every stream in the Development Areas and collected data identifying high
value streams, regional facilities, and watershed improvement projects. They then tied the master plan
into the needed compliance programming for VPDES. Data was collected on all infrastructure along the
streams, particularly anything impacting the streams, assessed the ecological and habitat conditions and
also other values of the stream corridor such as the potential for greenway development. All of this data
was entered into a GIS. At this time, there is a fairly sophisticated catalogue of development area
streams, which hopefully will be available to the public over the County’s website.
Mr. Hirschman said he has found over the past few years that development area plans all show
streams with decisions being made on an ad hoc basis. This will take a comprehensive look at streams
and their relative importance in the development areas so decisions can be based on the master plan.
Another important element is: every time a stormwater practice is put on property, whether private or
public, it creates a long-term maintenance obligation for somebody. So what is the opportunity to put in
strategically-located facilities to provide better protection for the watershed, and provide an amenity for
the neighborhood? Overall, it could be cost-effective and better for the environment. So, they tried to
identify some strategic facilities; some would have to be built from scratch, and others would be modified,
such as Lake Hollymead which is taking a hit from all the construction at the Hollymead Towne Center.
Staff has proposed getting the property rights to the lake, dredging it, and making some improvements so
it can function to help the watershed.
Ms. Thomas said that was not a part of any of the proffer. Only about 60 percent of the sediment
from the Hollymead Town Center will be collected, so 40 percent of their sediment will end up in the lake.
Mr. Hirschman said the biggest nuisance for the community has been discoloration of the water.
Mr. Boyd said he has received many calls about the color of the water. He attended the meetings
held by the County, the developers, Hollymead and Forest Lakes associations. That was several months
ago and he was under the impression that the types of particles flowing into these lakes was not the kind
that would cause sediment build-up, that the sediment would eventually pass and not settle in the lake.
He asked if that has changed. Mr. Hirschman said “no”. The on-site erosion control practices are
effective at catching the heavy particles which take up a lot of space, but not 40 percent of volume.
Mr. Wyant said he has done a lot of work on this subject and what they are talking about is
aesthetics, the color of the water which is created by very small stuff. It should be caught at a high rate.
Mr. Boyd said some people think the homeowners’ associations will have to put up money to do
the dredging and he does not know how to answer them. Mr. Hirschman said they will have
sedimentation from the construction. If there were not on-site erosion control practices it would be
devastating. There will be some loss of capacity. He said the reason the Hollymead Lake was put on the
list is because it is downstream from all the construction taking place in the drainage area which includes
the Airport, Hollymead Towne Center, the widening of Airport Road, etc.
Mr. Hirschman said this is just the first discussion the Board will have about stormwater. He
wants the Board to be aware that it is important to be deliberate when making decisions concerning
stormwater management for the whole County. He said that whether the County is responding to
complaints, building regional facilities, reviewing plans, providing inspections, or providing education,
deliberate decisions will need to be made about the level of service the County can provide, and the level
of service is directly connected to funding. He said that on May 5, the consultants, CH2MHill, will make a
presentation of their analysis of the program, funding options and recommendations for stormwater
program funding.
Mr. Hirschman said that whatever the County does, it needs to keep in mind that the runoff goes
into the Chesapeake Bay. In the morning newspaper there was mention of a new requirement that may
be passed to counties, that is to keep a pollution accounting list. He said that ends his presentation
concerning the stormwater master plan. He then offered to answer questions.
Mr. Tucker asked that Mr. Hirschman list the next steps to be taken. Mr. Hirschman said that on
May 5, CH2MHill will be present to talk specifically about funding options; pro-rated shares, stormwater
utilities, general funds and fees. He said stormwater can be considered as a service, so if one thinks
about it in that way it makes sense to provide stormwater services in development areas. He said
CH2MHill will need guidance from the Board, particularly on the issues of the stormwater utility if the
Board thinks it is feasible and attractive enough for the County to get involved.
April 7, 2004 – Regular Day Meeting
)
(Page 21
Mr. Dorrier asked if there had been sufficient input from the building community on this subject.
He thinks the County is continually requiring more of the development community, and he wants to be
sure they have a voice. Mr. Hirschman said at this time, staff has not expected there to be any funding
from other than the County. At the next meeting, the Board will be presented with several options
concerning funding for this program.
Mr. Dorrier said the County has been using proffers from all types of developments. If the
proffers are being used properly, the County is expecting more from the developers in this area for
stormwater management.
Mr. Rooker said it must be kept in mind that if a developer is building as a matter of right, the
County does not get a proffer of any kind.
Mr. Wyant said things needs to be identified correctly because pictures can be misleading.
Erosion control is a completely different issue. Stormwater management is only to manage stormwater so
just a certain amount can be released so as not to flood properties downstream. He said the law was
adopted many years ago in order to recharge the groundwater. In this plan, the Board is dealing with
simply stormwater management and not erosion control. He asked if there are a separate set of rules
regarding erosion control. Mr. Hirschman said this plan will address both issues. The VPDES permit
requires that the County address both erosion control and post-construction stormwater, so at this point
they are tied together.
Mr. Wyant said erosion control is the responsibility of the developer or builder. After that is taken
care of, water has to be discharged. Looking at it from a level of service is the quantity of water at the
release so there is no flooding and so the release does not affect water quality. What level of service
should the County provide to these facilities? He also hopes the consultants will look at the easements
needed to get in and out of those facilities. Mr. Davis said that will be addressed in the future, but
significant water quality requirements are placed on the locality now, post-construction.
Mr. Wyant said coming from his background in research, he knows that some of the facilities do
not perform well. He said that the number of inspections for each facility varies a little bit. He is
concerned that some of them will be maintenance liability problems for the County.
Mr. Boyd asked if the County coordinates these efforts with the surrounding communities so that
neither locality causes the other a problem. Mr. Bowerman said Meadow Creek is one thing to which
both the County and the City contribute.
Mr. Hirschman said that there is the Rivanna Regional Stormwater Education Partnership which
is the City, the University, the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority and VDoT. All of those agencies are
subject to the VPDES permit. In terms of maintenance funding, that has not been discussed yet, but is an
important thing to look at. On the education side they have begun to show that all of these agencies can
work together.
Mr. Rooker said if the Meadow Creek Parkway gets built in the way it was designed in the City
sections, a large lake is a part of that and it will be a regional stormwater facility that will handle some of
the area in the pictures Mr. Hirschman showed earlier.
Ms. Thomas said that on the map given to the Board, there is an area off of Ivy Road near the
Kluge Children’s Rehabilitation Center that is a major area of stormwater concern. The area straddles the
Jack Jouett and Samuel Miller District lines. She asked about things like this that are not on the map.
Mr. Hirschman said there are no active streams there. There are all types of pipes in the area which are
the source of the problem. As development has taken place upstream at U-Heights, the pipes are not
now adequate to carry the water from that area.
Ms. Thomas asked if the inadequate pipes are a major problem or is this a unique situation. Mr.
Hirschman said it is not unique. They came in because of old infrastructure and development patterns.
There was a storm sewer replacement for Minor Ridge a few years ago. The County deals with the
problems but does not have a good way to fund a resolution to those types of problems which are
extremely expensive. He said the County was stymied in that situation because VDoT, the University,
private owners and the County were involved. The County was about to increase the capacity of the pipe
system upstream, but without the University agreeing to increase the capacity of the pipe system, water
would still back up.
Ms. Thomas said she believes this should be added to the plan somehow just as a reminder that
there is a problem which is virtually invisible.
Mr. Wyant said sheet flow is a big problem. When talking about funneling all of this water into a
drop inlet, he wonders if this group has looked into the future to see if there is some way to not have as
much curb and gutter. Mr. Hirschman said that is part of the “hidden agenda”. He said there are things in
the Neighborhood Model and experiences the County has had over time with open section drainage,
especially in steep terrain, that have led them in a certain direction. At this time there is a lot of
discussion about low impact development which involves not concentrating water. He thinks there will
have to be design ingenuity and willingness on the County’s part and creativity on the private sector’s part
to get at what Mr. Wyant is talking about.
April 7, 2004 – Regular Day Meeting
)
(Page 22
Mr. Dorrier thanked Mr. Hirschman for his report.
_______________
motion
Agenda Item No. 12. Closed Session. At 12:16 p.m., was made by Mr. Boyd that the
Board adjourn into closed session pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia under
Subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards, committees and commissions, and under Subsection
(3) to consider the disposition of County-owned property currently held for future public safety facility use.
seconded
The motion was by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Certify Closed Session. At 1:58 p.m., the Board reconvened into open
session.
Motion
was immediately made by Mr. Boyd that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the
best of each Board member’s knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open
meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing
the closed session were heard, discussed or considered in the closed session.
seconded
The motion was by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Appointments.
motion
Mr. Boyd then offered to make the following appointments:
Appoint Mr. Joseph Cochran as a member of the ACE Committee to replace Ms. Marcia Joseph
who had resigned. This term will expire on August 1, 2005.
Appoint Mr. Paul Wright as a member of the Architectural Review Board to replace Ms. Marcia
Joseph who had resigned. This term will expire on November 14,2006.
Reappoint Ms. Ann Mallek and Mr. Milton Moore to the CHART Advisory Committee, with said
terms to expire on April 3, 2007.
Appoint Mr. Michael Merriman to the Mountain Overlay District Committee to replace Mr. William
Beiswanger.
Appoint Mr. Eric Bryerton to the 250 West Task Force with said term to expire on April 7, 2007.
Second
to the motion was given by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Not Docketed: Mr. Tucker said he had sent by E-mail to the Board members, a resolution
dissolving the District Home Board. He had explained what that was based upon, and he requested that
the Board adopt the resolution.
Motionseconded
was made by Ms. Thomas to adopt the following resolution. The motion was
by Mr. Wyant. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS
, the District Home Board for the Counties of Albemarle, Alleghany, Augusta,
Bath and Rockbridge, Virginia, and the Cities of Charlottesville, Covington, Lexington and
Waynesboro, Virginia, has completed its assigned duties and terminated the operations
previously assigned to it and believes it is the desire of its participating local government that the
said Board be formally dissolved, subject to ratification by the respective aforesaid governing
bodies; and
April 7, 2004 – Regular Day Meeting
)
(Page 23
WHEREAS
, in consideration of the foregoing, the District Home Board, by the adoption of
this resolution, hereby formally dissolves itself, to be effective upon the ratification of this action
by the respective governing bodies of the foregoing counties and cities;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
hereby ratifies the dissolution of the District Home Board for the Counties of Albemarle,
Alleghany, Augusta, Bath and Rockbridge, Virginia, and the Cities of Charlottesville, Covington,
Lexington and Waynesboro, Virginia; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED
that the Board of Supervisors hereby directs the Clerk to
forward a copy of this resolution to the fiscal agent for the District Home Board.
______________
Agenda Item No. 15. ZMA-2003-013. Glenwood Station (Sign # 48). Request to rezone 9.31 ac
from R-15, w/special permit approval for office to PRD w/a special permit for office. TM 61, P 129F. Loc
on Rt 631 (E Rio Rd) approx 1 mile from intersec of E Rio Rd & Rt 29N, between Fashion Square Mall &
Squire Hill Apartments. (The Comp Plan designates this property as Office Service & Neighborhood
Service in Neighborhood 2.) Rio Dist. (Notice of public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on
March 22 and March 29, 2004.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. SP-2003-092. Glenwood Station (Sign #48). Request to allow office in
accord w/Sec 19.3.2.9 of the Zoning Ord. TM 61, Pl 129F, contains 9.31 acs & is currently Znd R-15
w/special permit approval for office, but is under consideration for rezoning to PRD. Loc on Rt 631 (E Rio
Rd), approx 1 mile from intersec of E Rio Rd & Rt 29N, between Fashion Square Mall & Squire Hill
Apartments. Rio Dist. (Notice of public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on March 22 and
March 29, 2004.)
Note
(: Mr. Bowerman abstained saying he receives more than $10,000 in compensation
annually from Parkside I, LLC and he has an ongoing business relationship with George W. Ray, Jr., a
principal in Parkside I, LLC, including an ownership interest in DEMREP, LLC, in which Mr. Ray also has
an ownership interest. He immediately left the room.)
Mr. Tucker said that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 23, voted 7:0 to
recommend approval of both petitions to the Board. There was only one condition recommended. He
noted that a map of the property was posted on the wall. It shows the property as being in a Planned
Residential District where the structures are on the perimeter of the Fashion Square Mall. The office
building setback requirements were established under the previous special use permit. The property is
also adjacent to Aldersgate United Methodist Church on Rio Road.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. George Ray said the sole change which necessitates them to request this rezoning is that the
PRD allows more flexibility in setting lot lines. Everything else is the same as what was approved
previously by the Commission and the Board.
Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public
hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion
was immediately offered by Mr. Rooker to approve ZMA-2003-013, subject to the
seconded
condition recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was by Ms. Thomas. Roll
was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Bowerman.
(Note: The condition of approval is set out in full below.)
1. The site shall be developed in general accord with the Application Plan entitled, Glenwood
Station/Place, dated December 22, 2003, with minor changes allowed to accommodate the
required parking when approved by the Zoning Administration.
___________
Motionseconded
was then offered by Mr. Rooker, by Ms. Thomas, to approve SP-2003-092
subject to the four conditions recommended by the Commission. Roll was called, and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Bowerman.
Note
(: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
April 7, 2004 – Regular Day Meeting
)
(Page 24
1. The site shall be developed in general accord with the Application Plan entitled, Glenwood
Station/Place, dated December 22, 2003, with minor changes allowed to accommodate the
required parking when approved by the Zoning Administrator;
2. Final elevations of the office buildings shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning
prior to final site plan approval to ensure consistency with the elevations provided herein, dated
August 25, 2003;
3. The Applicant shall construct, in its entirety, a second commercial entrance to their property from
the Mall Access Road in general accord with the concept plan entitled, Conceptual Development
Plan Glenwood Station/Place, dated July 11, 2003. Should the County Engineer decide in the
future that, for reasons associated with new development on the Fashion Square Mall property,
the entrance should be restricted, said entrance shall be converted, by the Applicant, present
owner or owner's association into an emergency means of ingress/egress-only by way of
installation of gates, bollards or other device. The connection shall be constructed prior to
issuance of the 50th building permit. Sidewalks shall be provided along the entire Mall Access
Road frontage; and
4. The office buildings shall have a thirty (30) foot front setback and a ten (10) foot parking setback
from Rio Road, as well as a fifty (50) foot structure, twenty (20) foot parking and twenty (20) foot
undisturbed buffer adjoining the Squire Hill development to the south.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Crozet Master Plan Discussion and Update on Review Process.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Renaissance Planning Group, technical consultants for the Crozet Master
Plan, presented its final report to the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission on July 9, 2003. At
that time, the Board of Supervisors directed the Planning Commission to review the proposed plan and
bring back its recommendation for amending the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Master Plan. In
August, the Planning Commission commenced a series of five informational work sessions, during which
it reviewed the content of the entire document. In November, December (2003) and January (2004) the
Commission continued its work by holding a series of five facilitated work sessions in which it identified
and agreed upon specific revisions and modifications to the original document.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission spent the majority of its time during its eight-month study
period reviewing and editing the narrative, land use maps, design guidelines, and non-capital
implementation priorities contained in the July 9, 2003, Master Plan final report. The proposed
amendment was an outgrowth of the consultant’s recommended Master Plan for Crozet. The Planning
Commission took major sections of the consultant’s report, made some changes to “customize” it for
Crozet, then put it in “comprehensive plan language” for adoption into the Comprehensive Plan. Although
their review was extensive, the Commission largely left specific discussion of funding needs related to
implementation called for by the plan to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Cilimberg said a public hearing was held March 23, 2004, to receive public comment on the
Planning Commission’s revisions to the original document. After taking public comment, the Commission
voted unanimously to recommend to the Board that the revised language be adopted as part of the
Comprehensive Plan, with a request that priority be given to funding for the needed infrastructure. If
adopted, the amendment would replace the existing section on Crozet in the Land Use portion of the
Comprehensive Plan. As with the rest of the Comprehensive Plan, the amendment would provide a
guide for future land use development and public decision-making on service provision and infrastructure
investment in Crozet. It is not zoning and does not mandate specific actions, but it does provide the basis
for desired initiatives and decisions affecting the Crozet Community.
Mr. Cilimberg said the purpose of this work session is to decide on a process for the Board’s
review of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment. He said a three-step process has been
identified. First, to give the Board an understanding of the role of the Crozet Master Plan within the
context of the Comprehensive Plan, Strategic Plan and other growth management policies adopted by the
County. Staff proposes that the first work session cover that topic with a staff presentation and question
and answer session following. Second, provide an understanding of how the plan is organized and what
it says. Important points are the organizing principles contained within the Master Plan from a “big
picture” standpoint, how the places of Hamlet, Neighborhood and Downtown hierarchy work together, and
the recommendations for road and pedestrian connections, community facilities, neighborhood-scale
commercial development, downtown revitalization and increased employment opportunities. The third
step is to discuss the critical elements of the plan and implementation measures set forth in the plan,
specifically capital items and policy changes necessary to implement the plan. Key elements include the
Land Use map, transportation and infrastructure, parks and greenways, and the costs, funding and timing
of infrastructure. After the first two topics noted above have been covered, one or more facilitated work
sessions are recommended for this discussion.
Mr. Cilimberg said as recommended by the Planning Commission, the Comprehensive Plan
amendment would provide the guide for initiatives and decision-making regarding Crozet. It is envisioned
that this ultimately would be accomplished through land use decisions, zoning text amendments, CIP
programming, and general budget commitments. Like the rest of the Comprehensive Plan, these
initiatives and decisions will ultimately be determined by available resources and the deliberations of
future planning commissions and boards. The Commission has recommended that priority be given to
the infrastructure to support the Plan.
April 7, 2004 – Regular Day Meeting
)
(Page 25
Mr. Cilimberg said that based on the Commission’s work, staff suggests that the Board take these
steps: 1) Decide if it wishes to take additional public comment beyond that it will receive in its required
public hearing. If so, decide how, when and where this additional public input should be received; and 2)
Affirm or modify the proposed process of review indicated in the section above and set the first work
session date.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there is a list to go along with the recommendation to consider the costs,
funding and timing of infrastructure. Mr. Cilimberg said there is a section in the Plan setting that out.
Staff did not intend to discuss that item today, but it will be an important part of future work sessions.
Mr. Wyant said he would like to hear what is included in the report and how the report was put
together. Mr. Cilimberg said that is what staff is proposing be done at the first work session. The other
subject for that meeting will be to give context and explain why the County is developing a master plan for
Crozet and how it will fit in with the overall plan for the County.
Mr. Boyd asked if it would help to have the work sessions in the Crozet area. Would the
meetings be more accessible to the community?
Mr. Wyant asked when the Board would hear something definite about the Jarmans Gap project.
He said at the Planning Commission meeting the other night people expressed fears about things which
are not even going on. It is an education process. He wonders if the Board should have its work session
in Crozet.
Mr. Rooker said he does not think what Mr. Wyant is talking about is a Board work session, but
something like a VDOT public information meeting. There have been public information meetings in
Crozet all through this process, so the question now is whether or not it would be helpful to have another
meeting in Crozet before the Board takes any action on the plan. He wonders if there is any money left in
the budget to hold another public information meeting.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks it would be important to find out how much has been spent to date
because the County has invested a lot into this issue.
Ms. Thomas said she believes that having a public meeting is a good idea. She does think there
needs to be an educational meeting of some sort.
Mr. Wyant said Crozet is being used as a guinea pig in this planning process. He thinks that if
some of the fears he is hearing are allayed, it will help during the next master planning process.
Mr. Rooker said at the Planning Commission meeting a lot of people commented on the
infrastructure commitment, and some people felt that Crozet should not be a growth area. If there is to be
another public information meeting, it would be helpful to have certain information displayed on a chart,
such as: public infrastructure expenditures which have been made to date in the Crozet area, and public
infrastructure improvements presently in the CIP. The ones in the CIP now exceed $30.0 million if
Jarmans Gap Road is included. There are things that are only going to get done by developers because
they are identified in the master plan. Western Avenue will be built by the developer in that area, and
only because the mass planning process identifies that as an important transportation corridor on his
property, and through proffers he has agreed to do it. It would be helpful for people to know and
understand that the infrastructure expenses incurred are not being incurred in the rural area, but in Crozet
because Crozet is designated as a growth area. Then, the master planning process helps to identify
future improvements which may be built with private money.
Mr. Wyant said there is public money, there is private money, and there are private/public
partnerships. Who is leading these things?
Mr. Dorrier said millions of taxpayer dollars have already been sunk into the pipes that carry the
water and sewer.
Mr. Tucker said Crozet was initially designated as a growth area 30 years ago. Based on that,
schools were located in that area. The Crozet sewer interceptor was a major undertaking and then the
roads and library, things that would benefit the community have been going on for 30 years. Now, there
is a lot of development taking place there. The basic infrastructure was placed there many years ago.
Mr. Dorrier said if somebody gets on a train going 60 miles an hour, does anybody say “stop”,
let’s get off?
Ms. Thomas said that along those lines, she wonders if the Board really needs three separate
meetings. On the second page of the staff summary, three meetings are mentioned. Now, the Board is
talking about having an informational meeting in Crozet (she favors this idea). Mr. Cilimberg said staff
actually proposes having one meeting where two items can be discussed. He said the third
recommendation relates to what the Board wants to take to public hearing. If the Board is satisfied with
what the Commission has done, that could be a short meeting. If there are things which need to be
modified or changed, those things will need to be identified for staff to work on.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks it would be good to have the public information meeting after the first
meeting and before the public hearing. If there is a lot of public input on any particular item, staff would
have time to deal with that issue.
April 7, 2004 – Regular Day Meeting
)
(Page 26
Mr. Boyd said he would like to have the first meeting in the Crozet area.
Mr. Rooker said he would suggest that the Board not do that. He thinks that is the purpose of the
public information meeting. If there is a meeting in Crozet, he believes the citizens would expect to have
time to make comments when actually they would be hearing staff make a presentation solely to the
Board, and the Board asking a few questions.
Mr. Wyant said there were a lot of folks that did not speak before the Commission. Folks are
more likely to walk around and speak to others at an informal meeting.
Mr. Boyd said there are some items in the CIP, but there are a lot that are not in the CIP. He
would hope that at the informational meeting, there could be a list presented of those items for which
there is no available funding.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff felt the public should know why all of the money was spent in Crozet.
How does this relate to the County at-large? People get so focused on one area that they lose sight of
the fact that it for the greater good of the County as a whole.
Ms. Thomas recalled that it all started in Crozet because of annexation. The County had to have
a high school that could not be annexed. A lot of things happened to keep out of the city. Whether it
makes sense or not, that is the area that was chosen by the Board.
Mr. Rooker said there are satellite growth areas in the County; Hollymead is one of those. There
is also Glenmore and Piney Mountain, and the town of Scottsville.
Mr. Dorrier asked the process to be undertaken from this point forward. Mr. Tucker said the
Board will hold a work session at the May day meeting, then schedule the public forum, and hold a
second work session on the critical elements at the June day meeting. The Board will then be ready to
set a public hearing date.
_______________
Note
(: The Board was ahead of schedule, so skipped to Agenda Item No. 19. From the Board:
Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Thomas said she and the School Board member from the Samuel Miller District got a good
briefing from Mr. Bruce Woodzell yesterday on how the assessment of properties works. She has been
getting e-mail messages from people who have been comparing prices on the Internet and who have a
feeling that the County is not doing a good job in the way of assessments. She has responded that the
State actually grades the County on how well it does, but she did not know exactly how that process
worked. If the other Board members are getting those types of questions, she would recommend a
similar session for the other Board members.
Mr. Boyd asked if there is anyway to tell, based on square footage or size of lot, how tax bills can
be compared in Albemarle against those in Fluvanna County.
Ms. Thomas said assessments are based on sales price. The State will be able to say if
Fluvanna County does a good job of getting their assessments to correspond to their sales prices.
Fluvanna assesses every four years, Nelson County is assessing every six years, so they are five years
behind. There is a big jump in the year of their new assessments.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks this is important because of the affordable housing issue. Two-bedroom
townhouses can be built in Albemarle that will sell for $170,000, but people will still go to Fluvanna to buy
a single-family dwelling if that is what they want.
Mr. Rooker said there is no way to change the market. It is a historical fact in the United States
that people move further and further away from the urban area in order to get cheaper housing. As to
comparing values for houses, values are neighborhood dependent.
Mr. Boyd said that speaks directly to the thought that affordable housing can go into mixed
neighborhoods. He wonders if that is an achievable goal. He does not think a lot of money should be
spent on something that will never happen because of market forces.
Ms. Thomas said she does not think an answer to that question will be found with the County
Assessor.
Mr. Dorrier said that is a tough question, and it is important because the County is spending a lot
of time and effort dealing with affordable housing. There is a committee also studying the question. The
Board is also spending time and effort with the Rural Area Committee, and he does not know if the two
committees are talking to each other or if there is any common goal or plan to bring about what is wanted.
Mr. Rooker said there is a development of 700 homes proposed in Scottsville and the houses will
be in the affordable range based on what the developer has said. If the development goes forward,
people might be able to buy a house for $160,000+ but they would be commuting a significant distance to
work. Hopefully there are people who will choose a $160,000 townhouse because of the transportation
issues and the value of living in the urban area that may outweigh spending $160,000 for a three-
April 7, 2004 – Regular Day Meeting
)
(Page 27
bedroom, two-bath ranch house in Scottsville. The County can only try to provide a reasonable mix of
opportunities in the community for people who experience different ways of living.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier suggested that the Board return to discussion of the last item on the
agenda this afternoon.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Work Session: North Pointe.
Mr. Davis said the purpose of this work session is to look at an issue which is very important to
how the North Pointe rezoning goes forward. How and in what manner does the County wish to use
community development authorities (CDAs)? He handed to the Board a list of the proffers received in the
three Hollymead rezonings and in the Albemarle Place rezoning. He said the concept was that
improvements necessary for Route 29 would be identified in a future transportation study pursued by the
County and others. That study will identify improvements which need funding in the future. Those
improvements might require some partnerships with VDoT, developers or others, to satisfy funding needs.
He said each of the developers in those developments agreed to proffers which said that at the request of
the County they would petition for a CDA to be used for Route 29 improvements identified in the future.
Mr. Davis said the developer of the North Pointe development does not like that concept for many
reasons. In order to get more focused attention on this issue due to the complex legal and financial
issues, he sought the advice of experts. The idea was to help staff determine whether the approach set
forth in the Hollymead and Albemarle Place proffers were a legally and viable approach, alternatives
available, and to also look at the North Pointe approach. That approach proposes to have a CDA to fund
the infrastructure of the development, the Route 29 improvements which have been identified as
necessary for that development, and perhaps other improvements which could offset future County
needs.
Mr. Davis said he retained on the County’s behalf two experts from the law firm of Hunton and
Williams, Mr. John D. O’Neill, Jr. and Mr. Christopher G. Kulp, who are present today. They will give an
overview of community development authorities to help bring everybody up to speed on the legal
parameters involved. Their task was to look at what had been proffered and determine if that was
something the County can, or should, pursue. Also, to address the North Pointe proposal.
Mr. O’Neill said a memorandum prepared by their office was forwarded to the Board for this
meeting. It is in outline form so it is easier to read, it is a complex subject. The State statute is not well
written and has been the subject of a lot of conversation and disagreement. It has been the subject of a
contentious law suit filed in Henrico County.
Mr. O’Neill said there have been a number of CDAs undertaken in the Commonwealth over the
last four or five years. He is not certain how the Board wishes to proceed on this issue. Mr. Davis
advised that his office has had some conversations with the Board about CDAs and has given a general
overview of the statute. He asked how the Board would like to proceed.
Mr. Dorrier said Mr. O’Neill can assume that the Board has some knowledge of the subject, but
does not know a lot of the details.
Mr. O’Neill said CDAs are an increasingly utilized tool by local governments to address specific
developer desires. To this point, they have been developer driven authorities and entities. However, they
do have an important and meaningful governmental component, but they are predominantly mechanisms
which have been used to meet developer goals in the overall construct of development goals for the
jurisdiction. There is one development authority that he and Mr. Kulp are familiar with, that is the Broad
Street Community Development Authority for downtown Richmond. It has a close applicability to what
they understand Albemarle’s objectives are along the Route 29 corridor. That transaction and that CDA
is not a CDA which is relying predominantly on special assessments to be its principal funding source. A
mix of funding sources is being used. In that case it was a mix of projects which were both for the
developer’s benefit and for development of the area. That CDA has some applicability in terms of the
analytical approach to this question. There are some similarities in terms of the objectives of the two
parties.
Mr. O’Neill said they have seen 10 or 12 community development authorities, and the Broad
Street project is the only exception. All of the others are on discreet pieces of property owned by a single
or a small number of developers/landowners. These developers pursed a development strategy within
that piece of property and tried to fund and finance the kinds of infrastructure which are typically thought
of as public infrastructure, such as: roads, stormwater management, sidewalks and curbs and gutters,
etc. That has been a good model because it allows for the private developer to have access to the public
capital markets for tax exempt financing. In other circumstances, as development occurred, the
developer would have had to incur that cost on the private capital side at non tax-exempt rates. That is a
significant benefit, not just to the developer, but to the subsequent landowners who will be within these
developments because their purchase costs should be lower because the developer’s cost of capital has
been lower. He said that most of the CDAs have been done under that model.
Mr. O’Neill said the other model in the statute is a special tax. There may be a CDA which has
relied on that exclusively in Virginia, but he is not aware of one. That is why he thinks Broad Street is
analogous because it has a mix of sources of revenue. It has a special assessment piece, but it is small
when compared to other CDAs. It replies on revenues from parking facilities and revenues which come
April 7, 2004 – Regular Day Meeting
)
(Page 28
from taxes on particular kinds of property within the district. It functions more closely along the lines of
what this Board may be thinking about in terms of a special tax versus the special assessment. That is
important to remember as he goes through the analysis. Certain types of infrastructure and other
improvements can be undertaken in an assessment model. Other types of improvements and
infrastructure which cannot be undertaken in the assessment model can be undertaken in the special tax
model. It relates to whether the improvements will be within the discreet area of the CDA where
assessments must be levied and applied to property and improvements within that district. Tax revenues
derived from the district, on the other hand, can be used for infrastructure which sets outside of the district
as long as a nexus can be established between the district and the improvements to be financed.
Mr. Rooker mentioned the proffers that were done for Albemarle Place and the Hollymead Towne
Center. He said the Board wanted to be sure it could utilize those proffers to put in place CDAs that
would raise money over a period of time for improvements primarily in the Route 29 corridor. He thinks
the memo from Mr. O’Neill indicates the answer to that question is “yes.” He said these proffers clearly
anticipate the expenditure of funds in the Route 29 corridor or thereabouts, not within the development
itself. He said there was an issue about the size of the district. As he reads the memo, as long as the
improvements to be financed exceed $3.0 million, then there is some flexibility as to the size of the
district. He did not see any reference to a minimum limit on the size if the $3.0 million requirement is met.
Mr. O’Neill said that once the $3.0 million limit is met, the limit is at the discretion of the Board.
Mr. Rooker said it appears the format that was contemplated when the proffers were taken, will
work.
Mr. Bowerman said CDAs are discontinuous in terms of their proximity.
Mr. Rooker said there would be separate CDAs. There is no particular reason not to go forward
and set those the CDAs for Albemarle Place and Hollymead Towne Center because they can start to
collect the enhanced tax rate anticipated in those areas as soon as the CDA is in place. He understands
the money can be accumulated to be spent on the ultimate improvements, and the money does not have
to be spent in the year in which it is collected.
Mr. O’Neill said there is no requirement to do so. There could be a special fund formed into
which deposits would be made. There has to be a plan and an expectation that the monies will be
applied to a use that is authorized both under the statute and for a particular CDA.
Mr. Boyd said he was under the impression that the Board would be talking about establishing
bonds and using tax money to repay those bonds.
Mr. O’Neill said that point is an important issue in terms of how CDAs can be used. A CDA has a
mechanism by which it can create revenue. A CDA also has the power to issue bonds, but it is not
required to do the bond issuance simply because it has the revenues. The CDA can choose to do some
projects on a pay-as-you-go basis and other projects on a financed basis. There are a lot of variables
and reasons why one is chosen versus the other. He said there are difficulties with tax assessments and
CDAs, particularly in the construct of three CDAs along this corridor utilizing money to make
improvements which benefit the broader community. It is the statutory requirement that there be tracts of
land of some number of acres. In this case, because the dollar amount of the improvements can be met,
there is a lot of flexibility as to the amount of acreage. However, North Pointe is a single tract of land, and
there is a requirement that the property within that tract be contiguous. That is a legal requirement and it
presents some practical hurdles as to how land is assembled, is contiguous, while at the same time
excluding some property from the imposition of the taxes/assessments within the particular district.
Mr. Rooker asked if that is more of a problem for the assessment method. Mr. O’Neill said it is
the same issue. He said the Short Pump development in Henrico County was the subject of litigation in
the Supreme Court and it is a good example. That is a 147-acre tract and it is a single tract with some
physical boundaries on a couple of its side. But, within that CDA area are some spots of land which are
not subject to any of the CDAs activities so not subject to the assessments. He said the Board has the
ability in creating a community development authority to create the “swiss cheese” district to meet
objectives of the County. That may be to exclude residential property from the imposition of the tax.
There are no legal hurdles to doing that, but there are some very definitive practical hurdles to doing so
because the land area/property must be described, and the interests which are subject to the assessment
and which are within the CDA must be described. He said that can be done. It is done in other instances
such as buildings being condominiumized, and places where parking decks are captured but not the
building on which they sit. From a real property perspective, that is all possible, but it adds to the level of
complexity.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the Board was thinking that the CDA would not apply to residential, but
to all commercial in the development. Mr. O’Neill said that is correct based on the proffers taken on
Albemarle Place and Hollymead Towne Center. No matter which is used, neither a special assessment
nor a special tax would apply to the residential property. His firm would develop real estate descriptions
of the district excluding that type of property. They would find ways to have the swiss cheese but still
have the connection points between the parcels within the district. For North Pointe, they understand the
developer actually thinks the residential piece is an important element of the revenue generation needed
to pay for improvements under a CDA. Within a district they cannot discriminate between one class of
property and another. They can discriminate physically by the way lines are drawn and property is
April 7, 2004 – Regular Day Meeting
)
(Page 29
described. They can exclude public property, but as to private property, they cannot make distinctions as
to class.
Mr. Wyant asked if the residential property has to be included. Mr. O’Neill said “no.” He and Mr.
Kulp have been thinking about this, and think that two CDAs could be created.
Mr. Wyant said he is confused by the statement in the report that says “within each CDA district
there are improvements and services to do.” Then further on it states “revenue from the assessments
may be applied only to the improvements within or abutting the CDA district.” He said he was not on the
Board when Albemarle Place and Hollymead Towne Center were approved. In those cases,
improvements are being made on Route 29 that are not within the CDA. The report states that it “has to
be within”. He asked which it is.
Mr. O’Neill said they make distinctions between special taxes and the way revenue from special
taxes and special assessments can be used. For special assessments, there has to be a direct,
approximate, abutting concept because it is based on a Constitutional issue of benefits and burdens.
Legally, that has to be demonstrated through the abutting process. The CDA statute is very clear about
that, but is equally as clear about the use of the special tax revenue. The requirement that the
improvements lie within or abutting the property to be assessed does not apply to special taxes.
Mr. Rooker said the approach to Albemarle Place and Hollymead Towne Center is special taxes.
That gives the County the flexibility for the CDA to fund improvements that serve the development. Mr.
O’Neill said that under the special tax language (Page A-2) the language uses the word “serves.” As long
as it can be demonstrated factually that property would serve the district (the language reads: “request
annually that the locality levy and collect a special tax on taxable real property with the development
authority’s jurisdiction to finance the services and facilities provided by the authority.”). He said that is the
tax. On the assessment it is (finance the services and facilities it provides to abutting property within the
district.”). He said that for the assessments it is an easy factual matter. With the tax, the factual analysis
must demonstrate that the facility to be paid for with the special tax district actually serves that district.
Mr. Rooker said the improvements on Route 29 where the properties are within some reasonable
distance of Route 29 and of the facility itself will fall within “services”. Mr. O’Neill said that is correct,
particularly with transportation facilities.
Mr. Rooker said if it was decided that a grade-separated interchange were necessary at Airport
Road, that would clearly serve both Hollymead Towne Center and North Pointe even though it would not
abut either.
Mr. Boyd said as to the issue of pay-as-you-go as opposed to bond issues, he wonders if it was
intended that this be pay-as-you-go. Mr. Rooker said the intent was that the option to do both be
available. He said either of the three of the developments will take a significant period of time for build-
out. If Albemarle Place is built-out and they have $300.0 million of assessed value on that property, he
thinks they would have a predictable revenue stream of a high enough level that it might make sense to
take a few bonds against it. There is no reason a CDA cannot be put into place and money be accrued
for smaller improvements until such time as it becomes feasible to go to the expense of issuing bonds.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks a burden would be put on the stores or retail developments for all of the
improvements on Route 29 in perpetuity. Mr. O’Neill said a CDA is not an entity which is intended or
permitted to operate in perpetuity for items not identified. However, the Board or its successors could
decide to extend the CDA or expand its powers (which the Board would have the opportunity to do with
the landowners participating at the time). He said the CDA process is initiated by the landowners; at least
51 percent of the landowners have to join to create the CDA and identify its purposes. The Board can act
to create a CDA which is not inconsistent with their request. The landowners can come back in the future
and ask for another CDA, and the same process would have to be followed to create a new CDA.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the CDA is composed of people appointed by the developer and the Board.
Mr. O’Neill said the statute allows the petitioners to request that a majority of the members be by their
recommendation. He said CDAs are created under the general authority set out in the Water and Waste
Authorities Act. Under that Act it is possible that the members of the authority are the members of the
governing body. It has been the experience of his firm that membership on a CDA is a matter of
negotiation between the governing body and the petitioning landowners.
Mr. Wyant asked if the tax rate goes down with the assessment for the CDA. Mr. O’Neill said that
for the CDAs done using assessments, it has been a fixed number. The assessment is established at the
beginning and is payable in installments. At the conclusion of that period of time, he expects the CDAs
will be discharged from their responsibilities. The CDA itself has no power to levy taxes. It is a vehicle by
which the tax is created and levied, but the Board of Supervisors, as the governing body, determines the
amount and levies the tax on an annual basis.
Mr. Wyant said Mr. Davis had mentioned that the CDA does not cover maintenance. Mr. O’Neill
said as part of the costs to be covered by the revenue generated by either the tax or the assessment,
maintenance costs are a cost which are permitted to be paid.
Mr. Bowerman asked who would want to be involved with a decision to be made every year by
the local governing body. Mr. O’Neill said that every year the CDA requests that a tax be levied. Mr.
Davis said that is no different than what the Board does now with any debt the County incurs based on
April 7, 2004 – Regular Day Meeting
)
(Page 30
setting a tax rate to pay that debt. The only difference is that the Board would be setting a tax rate on
specific properties rather than a general tax rate.
Ms. Thomas asked what would happen if the majority of a CDA decided it no longer wanted to
maintain sidewalks in its community because there are other communities where the County maintains
the sidewalks. Mr. O’Neill said a contract would be created in the beginning and the CDA would be in
breach of contract. Contractually the CDA would agree to make these requests.
Mr. Rooker said the Board has discussed a twenty-five cent tax increment with the developers of
Albemarle Place and Hollymead Towne Center, and that was the basis for the proffers given. They
understood that a CDA would be formed and their commercial properties would be subject to a twenty-
five cent incremental tax. Those funds would be used to fund improvements that qualified under the
statute.
Ms. Thomas said she knows of cases where homeowners associations over the years have
changed their minds about what they want to take care of. It creates some dissention among the property
owners, but the Board of Supervisors does not become involved. She is just picturing where that same
thing could happen over a ten-year period with a CDA, and the Board would be in the middle. Mr. O’Neill
said that might be a reason for the Board to use the special tax scheme exclusively on a pay-as-you-go
basis. To the extent that might happen, there would not be a continuing obligation on which third parties
are relying that would create an issue for the Board. He said the CDA is an independent political
subdivision. While it is created by the Board of Supervisors under the statutory scheme, the General
Assembly has determined that it is its own political subdivision. It is not an agency of the County. While
the Board has some ability to influence what happens with the CDA with respect of the appointment of
members, the CDA acts independently in some respects. To the extent that the CDA has debt, it is the
debt holder’s problem. As a practical matter, debt holders might conclude that because it is the Route 29
CDA, it is Albemarle County’s obligation to step forward and fix related problems. That is a practical issue
to be dealt with.
Mr. Rooker said that applies if bonds are issued. Mr. O’Neill said that is correct. Mr. Rooker said
people who buy these bonds are highly sophisticated investors, generally banks, insurance companies,
etc. and not individual investors.
Ms. Thomas said she does not know how that will help the Board with what will become its
political problem.
Mr. Wyant quoted from the memo “neither the County nor the developer can compel the CDA to
act in any specific manner to carry out the purposes of the CDA district.” Mr. O’Neill said that is correct.
In any matter deemed to be legislative that is true. The CDA is an independent, political subdivision, so
the board of supervisors is not in a position to mandate that the CDA do anything. If there is a contract
with a contractual right to compel, that right can be used to compel and the CDA would be in breach of
contract, and there are consequences to that.
Mr. Rooker asked if typically there is a contract between the locality and the CDA setting out how
long it might be in existence, also identifying improvements and how the funds of the CDA would be used.
Mr. O’Neill said the contract would not be on those issues, but on operational issues. The issue of how
long a CDA would operate would be established when the CDA was first created.
Mr. Dorrier asked what happens if after two or three years the developer runs into financial
trouble and cannot do everything he had planned to do. Mr. O’Neill said the developer will be acting
independently. It has been his experience that the developers also enter into contracts with the CDA. He
said the CDA will be undertaking specific kinds of activities, such as building roads, stormwater systems,
and light systems. The CDA will most likely contract with the developer to have that infrastructure built.
Mr. Rooker said that is not much different than today where a developer may say he is building
sidewalks in his development and then he takes bankruptcy.
Mr. Dorrier said in that case there is a bond to take care of that situation. Mr. O’Neill said
performance bonds also deal with the normal risks associated with construction projects. Those issues
are the same as in any other governmental process. In the CDA, there are different issues attached to
special taxes and special assessments as to what can be done with the money. There are questions as
to whether that revenue can be used to leverage the revenue stream into a borrowing and not use the
revenue to pay capital costs, but to pay debt service. Those two types of revenue sources, assessments
and taxes, will raise different issues in the credit market. Assessments are more secure collateral than
special taxes. With special assessments, the assessment is imposed on the first day. Under the
statutory scheme, it can be paid in installments over a period of time, but the amount of the assessment
comes into being on the first day. If $10.0 million in assessment bonds were put on the property,
beginning on day one that property is burdened by $10.0 million. It may be that over a ten-year period it
will be paid $1.0 million each year. Over the course of that $10.0 million, there would be principal
reductions, but at the beginning, all of that is secure. The County would know precisely who is
responsible for repayment and there is no risk in determining value or determining whether there is an
adequate lien.
Mr. O’Neill said special taxes are different because the special tax is not based on full faith and
credit as is the case with normal bonds. The tax must be determined and levied annually. It is
completely dependent on what happens in the real estate market within that small district, and not broadly
April 7, 2004 – Regular Day Meeting
)
(Page 31
across the County. The tax lien applies only to the amount of the taxes then due. In the $10.0 million
example, if there were $10.0 million worth of bonds issued which were to be paid over ten years at $1.0
million each year, the developer has to get enough tax revenue for the $1.0 million payment.
Mr. Boyd said there are currently two developments which gave proffers built on the special tax
philosophy. He believes North Pointe will be requesting a special assessment. Part of the reason for the
assessment value is to go into the bond market and get money to do the infrastructure at the beginning of
the project.
Mr. O’Neill said he is describing the issues which will be in play when the credit market analyzes
the transaction assuming bonds would be issued. He said his firm has done a couple of deals with the
County where the County issued bonds through its Industrial Development Authority. That was done on
the basis of the County’s AAA credit as a county which borrows subject to the appropriation basis. There
is no full faith and credit supporting those obligations. The market has looked at Albemarle County and
said they are good for it.
Mr. Dorrier asked how well the projects which Hunton & Williams have set up are working. Mr.
O’Neill said that so far they are doing very well. He said Broad Street is just now under way. The bonds
were issued in 2003 and may still be in the capitalized interest period, so they do not know how well they
are doing. However, the analytics on Broad Street are that over time there is enough appreciation in the
various revenue sources. That was a $65.0 million transaction, and there is still $30.0 million in bonds to
come. Once the initial construction phase is completed and the facilities open, the Broad Street CDA will
be back on the market. He said the projects which have been done and are successful are based on the
assessment model.
Mr. Boyd asked if most of them are issuing bonds. Mr. O’Neill said they are all issuing bonds. In
all of the instances, except for Broad Street, it is very specific to that land mass and to the internal
improvements within that land mass.
Mr. Rooker said that is significantly different from the reason the County got the proffers from
Albemarle Place and Hollymead Towne Center. They are not financing their internal infrastructure with
CDA bonds. They have agreed to contribute an incremental tax for off-site improvements. There is a
different analysis in this case than what Mr. O’Neill has alluded to. Mr. Rooker said he questions whether
it could be said in a contract, as an example, that the developer’s obligation is to contribute $10.0 million
for defined improvements along the Route 29 corridor, and have that money paid as it is generated. If the
CDA got to a point where it could issue bonds, it could do that to make that payment. If not, it would be
pay-as-you-go. The difference is that the assessment route ties the developer to improvements that are
abutting. In the case of Albemarle Place and Hollymead Towne Center, they have agreed to pay for their
own internal improvements. They have agreed, in addition, to join a CDA, the money for which will go
entirely for off-site improvements. They agreed to do all the improvements the roads surrounding their
development with their own funds. In the case of Albemarle Place, that is Hydraulic Road and also Route
29. In the case of Hollymead Towne Center, they have a number of improvements and among them are
adding lanes to Route 29 on both sides of Route 29. They agreed to do that without respect to the CDA.
It is understood by them that the CDA money will be used for something else. What is being proposed for
North Pointe is a more traditional type of CDA. But in that case the Board needs to understand the public
benefit to be derived as opposed to the private benefit. He has no problem with the developer lowering
his cost of internal infrastructure, but he thinks the Board needs to be sure they are treating these three
developments fairly with respect to each other.
Mr. Boyd said that is a dollars and cents issue. It has nothing to do with the CDA.
Mr. Rooker said during the meetings this Board has held about North Pointe, it has not been
made clear what is expected to be done by the developer with his own funds in a comparable manner to
Albemarle Place and Hollymead Towne Center. But, over and above that, what would the public derive
from the CDA?
Mr. Boyd said that is why he has been concerned about the open-ended aspect of the CDAs the
County currently has with the other developers. He does not see how North Pointe can be compared with
those if there is the right to set up a $100.0 million project on Route 29. They have committed to $3.0
million of special taxes in that CDA area, and maybe $50.0 million worth because it is open-ended.
Mr. Rooker said they have agreed to an incremental tax being placed on the property for public
improvements for an indefinite period of time. That will have to be defined when the charter for the CDA
is issued. It will have to be more specific as to the length of time it will be in effect, if it will be based on
monetary contributions.
Mr. Boyd said a mathematical extrapolation could be run. Mr. Rooker said that analysis was
done. It was said that Albemarle Place might have a value of more than $300.0 million at build-out, and
they agreed to an incremental tax on the property. That has some degree of fairness because it is based
on valuation. Hollymead Towne Center is a more valuable piece of real estate than Albemarle Place and
their contribution will be in proportion to the value of their property. He said in diverging from that model
the Board needs to make sure there is an “apples to apples” comparison when it looks at North Pointe.
Mr. Davis said the other issue that came up in his discussion with Mr. O’Neill and Mr. Kulp was
whether there are other vehicles which are less complicated which could accomplish the same purpose.
They have looked at special service districts which are special tax districts. They can give some advice
April 7, 2004 – Regular Day Meeting
)
(Page 32
on how special service districts can accomplish the same purposes as those proposed at Albemarle
Place and Hollymead Towne Center.
Ms. Thomas said since the County has a proffer for a CDA, what is the value of looking at service
districts. Mr. Davis said the County does not need the consent of the landowner to impose a service
district. Since any CDA has to be property owner initiated, Albemarle Place and Hollymead Towne
Center have committed to initiating the process to give the County the ability to create a CDA.
Mr. Dorrier said a proffer only occurs with a rezoning. Mr. Davis said that is correct. Mr. Dorrier
said a service district can be created after the rezoning. Mr. Davis said any property in the County, at any
time, can be put into a service district.
Mr. Rooker said the memo seems to say that service district use of proceeds might be more
limited. He asked if that is the case. Mr. O’Neill said it is more limited, but not in any meaningful way.
Generally, they can cover the same kind of services relative to the scope of services they believe the
Board is talking about.
Mr. Rooker read from the memo: “Service districts may be created to provide additional, more
complete or more timely services of government than are desired in the locality as a whole.” He asked if
that implies that the services have to be almost entirely internal to the district, since on Route 29 some of
the improvements are a mile away. Would those improvements qualify for service district money? Mr.
O’Neill said they probably would not qualify. A service district is more geographically limiting. As Mr.
Davis pointed out, the lines to identify the boundaries of a service district are completely at the Board’s
discretion. Being a mile away on the road only means the service district would be extended down the
road to pick up a certain improvement. He said the boundary challenges that the CDA does in respect to
special taxes, making distinctions between one type of property and another, and carving out property to
create the swiss cheese effect, increases the practical burden of being able to draw those lines.
However, it is a practical burden and not a legal burden.
Mr. Rooker said in drawing those lines and trying to keep some nexus with the improvements he
sees a practical problem taking properties into the district if owners of certain properties did not agree to a
proffer. Mr. O’Neill said the concept of contiguity in the service district must be adhered to. However,
there is no limit to the number of service districts which can be created. He said the kinds of
improvements that can be undertaken through a service district are more analogous to the limitations
imposed on a CDA financing those improvements with a special assessment. Analytically, they should be
thought about in the same way. There is more flexibility with special taxes since the statute does not
require that the improvement be within the district. On the other hand, there is flexibility in drawing a
service district. In the area in question there is a VDoT-owned road and it can be described, legally. The
VDoT-owned road can be used to create some of the continuity needed to tie the parcels together into a
service district. It is more complicated in the CDA because of the nature of how a CDA is created. Fifty-
one percent of landowners in acreage or assessed value are needed to agree to the CDA. If there are
five miles of road, even if they are only 200 feet wide, there would be more land mass in the road than in
the aggregate of the district. There are some practical problems in trying to create contiguity in one big
CDA. With the service district, there is not the issue of creating a tract of landowners to meet some
minimum threshold. He thinks the developments can be tied together to create a single service district
and also address issues such as what to do with intervening landowners who might not want to
participate in the a special tax levied in a service district.
Mr. Boyd asked if Mr. O’Neill could make a spreadsheet or matrix listing all of the issues and then
allocate them to a CDA or special service district. Mr. O’Neill said they can do that.
Mr. Dorrier said the CDAs for Albemarle Place and Hollymead Towne Center deal with
construction of roads and Route 29 North. He asked if CDAs can be set up to deal with schools and
parks. Mr. O’Neill said CDAs are not set up to do that specific task, but that is an improvement or facility
or service that CDAs are expressly empowered to provide.
Mr. Rooker asked about carving out residential uses in a service district. Mr. O’Neill said it is the
same swiss cheese issue. He said identification of a CDA district or a special service district is done by
drafting property descriptions based on metes and bounds, or acreage, or tax parcels, or whatever is the
easiest way to accommodate that description. In this particular case, it would be a metes and bounds
type of description would be used because of the need to draft around particular kinds of uses.
Mr. Dorrier asked if a CDA can be terminated if it has done what it was intended to do. Mr.
O’Neill said “yes.” The CDAs charter would establish that it would cease once its purposes were
satisfied. There are very specific provisions in the Water and Waste Authorities Act covering CDAs
dealing with termination and cessation of authorities created under that Act. Mr. Kulp said a CDA has an
initial life under those provisions of 50 years unless extended by the board of supervisors.
Mr. Dorrier asked the cost of setting up a CDA. Mr. O’Neill said to draft a charter is not
expensive. The complexity of all the things being talked about today and the resulting activities such as
crafting a district in size, looking at the parcels, looking at the metes and bounds, and making sure it all
ties together, takes time. These are not inexpensive vehicles to undertake when there are the kinds of
issues being talked about today. Beyond that, the legal costs involved in these transactions vary greatly.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the members of the board of supervisors should be members of the CDA.
Mr. O’Neill said he generally thinks that is not a good idea. He said there are some counties which they
April 7, 2004 – Regular Day Meeting
)
(Page 33
represent which have a water and wastewater authority, and the board of those authorities is comprised
of members of the board of supervisors. Those are mostly in very rural areas, but it is not a model that he
would recommend.
Ms. Thomas said she thought Hunton & Williams was hired to be sure the CDAs for which the
County has proffers will do what was intended, i.e., make sure that the CDA discussed for North Pointe
would do the same sort of things in addition perhaps to what the person proposing that CDA has in mind,
that is, to take care of road and stormwater infrastructure. Can it be concluded that all three things
discussed (a CDA based on assessments, a CDA based on a taxing system, and a service district) could
do the things the Board has been looking for the CDAs to do? Mr. O’Neill said CDAs utilizing special
taxes as a revenue generation and service districts can each do the things the Board identified in terms of
improvements in the Route 29 corridor. If the only revenue being generated from a CDA is special
assessments, then the CDA cannot achieve the objectives which have been identified because a CDA
utilizing assessments can only finance improvements within the district and those improvements that abut
the property.
Mr. Rooker said Albemarle Place and Hollymead Towne Center are doing the improvements that
abut their property at their expense without regard to the CDA. They proffered to do those improvements,
and it has nothing to do with a CDA. In addition, they proffered to participate in a CDA which they
understood would be used for off-site improvements.
Mr. Davis said there are two issues the Board needs to address. Does the Board want to direct
staff to go forward with Hunton & Williams’ assistance and establish the Albemarle Place and the
Hollymead Towne Center CDAs? The value of those CDAs depends on how they are established and
the value of the property. Those two factors directly relate to how much income will be produced by the
proffers. The County has the legal authority under those proffers to go forward and establish them as
soon as the Board wants to do so. From a practical standpoint, there are timelines which must be
followed. It will probably take quite a while to do this, and the CDAs will probably be aligned with a
calendar year. At some point in time, staff needs a decision from the Board to go forward. The Board
may want to discuss first if it wants to consider a service district because the Board does not want to do
both.
Mr. Boyd said that is why he would like to see a matrix before the Board makes that decision.
This is the first time he has been exposed to this topic. There have been a lot of issues presented, and it
would be easier to visualize if he could see a matrix.
Mr. Davis said there are only two methods that can be considered in trying to achieve the
objectives the Board wants to achieve. Basically, assessments have been ruled out as a way to do what
the Board wants to achieve through the proffers because that method can only be used for abutting or
internal improvements. The abutting and internal improvements on Hollymead Towne Center are
proffered. Those improvements have nothing to do with a CDA. The developers understood the CDA
would be used for improvements that may not be abutting and definitely will not be internal. Mr. Davis
said they did not proffer that they would participate in an assessment CDA, they proffered that they would
participate in an ad valorem CDA. He hopes this session will help get the Board focused on that
significant decision.
Mr. Davis said the second decision has to do with North Pointe. The proffers to date have been
constructed on the concept that the developer would do a traditional CDA to pay for, on an assessment
basis, infrastructure costs within the CDA. Those costs would include the cost of Route 29 improvements
that are contiguous, all the internal development costs (in Albemarle County these are traditionally paid
by the developer), as well as a library site and affordable housing. All this would be tied to a community
development authority in the traditional sense. He said Mr. Rotgin has not proffered the ad valorem
approach that Hollymead and Albemarle Place proffered. In order for staff to go forward and make
significant progress on the proffers, it needs directions from the Board as to whether or not it is still
looking for a comparable proffer like Albemarle Place and Hollymead, or whether the Board is amenable
to what the developer is proposing, which is a more traditional CDA without that comparable piece. A
third alternative, not proposed by the developer, is the possibility of an overlapping CDA which would do
what the developer wants to do, and then another CDA on top of part of it that would apply to the
commercial piece that would do what Albemarle Place and Hollymead Towne Center are doing. He does
not know if that is practical from the developer’s standpoint, and the ultimate cost is to the landowners.
Staff needs direction because a lot of the proffers from the developer depend on his CDA being approved
by this Board. If the CDA is not approved, the indication is that a lot of the proffered public improvements
will drop out.
Mr. Bowerman said he does not understand the assessment and the ad valorem tax rate of
twenty-five cents. Mr. O’Neill said assessments and taxes are essentially the same in terms of burdening
property and being payable by the landowner. Assessments are imposed on property based on the
benefits to be derived from whatever the assessment is producing. The assessment itself represents the
burden. Taxes, on the other hand, are a more objective illustration of revenue generation based on very
specific types of items like assessed value. It produces the real estate taxes which are fixed, but not
particularly related to any service or facility. Assessments, on the other hand, are directly tied to a facility
or a service.
Mr. Bowerman asked if it could be a facility such as a parking garage. Mr. O’Neill said roads are
a better illustration because a taxpayer in the County pays taxes and roads are a component of what are
financed and paid for with the taxes paid. There is no specific tax paid that is attributable directly to some
April 7, 2004 – Regular Day Meeting
)
(Page 34
road. Assessments, on the other hand, provide revenue that is specifically attributable to a particular
stretch of property. He said a service district is more along the line of an ad valorem tax. It is more
closely aligned to the specific benefits because the statute requires that the tax generated in a service
district be applied to that list of improvements to be undertaken in the service district. The twenty-five
cents that is paid is not directly related to the road that sits in front of the taxpayer, whereas, an
assessment of twenty-five cents relates directly to the road that sits in front of that taxpayer.
Ms. Thomas asked if it has to be proved that the twenty-five cent assessment is what is needed
to pay for that road over a certain number of years. Mr. O’Neill said there is a report which analyzes the
benefits and burdens. There are a number of accepted criteria under which those assessment
methodologies can be used to determine the relative benefit and burden as to a particular property being
assessed.
Mr. Rooker said that is not an issue with the tax. Mr. Davis said an assessment of $10,000 for
every residential parcel in North Pointe could be determined and that could be paid as part of the closing
costs, upfront, or it could be paid in installments collected by the County over a number of years.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board has heard from its attorneys but has not heard from Mr. Rotgin. The
Board needs to know if there is enough meeting of the minds to go forth.
Mr. Chuck Rotgin said he is with Great Eastern Management Company. He thanked the Board
and staff for initiating this effort. He has said before that he believes community development authorities
are a key to the County being able to put in force concurrency in development, i.e., seeing to it that the
public infrastructure necessary to accommodate growth may be in place in a timely fashion. The good
thing about North Pointe and the Hollymead Towne Center and Albemarle Place is that there are big
commercial components that can pay to fund significant amounts of bonds if the infrastructure is put into
place at an early time.
Mr. Rotgin said that in a minute he will introduce Mr. Kennan Rice, President of Unicap, a
Baltimore municipal finance firm. He has been involved with most of the successful CDAs in the
Commonwealth of Virginia. All of those, with the exception of the hybrid Broad Street project mentioned
by Mr. O’Neill, have used the assessment method. One of his goals is to try to make sure there is an
understanding of the difference between the tax assessment method of forming CDAs, and the special
tax districts that Hollymead Towne Center and Albemarle Place have proposed. He thinks the Board will
find that the special assessment way is better than the special tax way by a great magnitude. He agrees
that the special tax districts will work. He does not think they will do the job the County meant for them to
do. He thinks the special assessments will do better, but at the same there can be both.
Mr. Rotgin said they first brought this matter to the attention of the County about two years ago.
They came in with the special tax concept. When they got to looking at it and working with bond counsel,
they realized that there were significant restrictions on the special tax way of forming community
development authorities. Those difficulties are included in the Hunton & Williams memo. Number one,
special tax district bonds are more difficult to issue than special assessment bonds. Number two,
because of the difference in security, the bonds will require a higher debt coverage ratio under the special
tax assessment method. This means that fewer bonds can be issued. Number three, they will cost more
because they will be more difficult to market and the interest rate will probably be higher.
Mr. Rotgin said the original idea of going forth with a special assessment type of CDA was turned
around when they calculated how much revenue could conceivably be introduced by the incremental
twenty-five cents per hundred tax rate. They had originally projected about 580,000 square feet of
commercial space. Based on what they expected the assessments to be (assessments are based on
rents), North Pointe would produce between $135,000 and $140,000 each year in incremental revenue.
That is very low. That would only finance $1.5 to $2.0 million in bonds. They did not think that was what
they wanted to do. What they want to do at North Pointe is to put into place all of the necessary
infrastructure upfront. That does not mean to just build a turn-lane or a continuous third lane on Route 29
for 1000 feet on either side of the stop light. That is what Hollymead Towne Center proposed. They want
to go to Airport Road and they want a three-lane highway all the way to Lewis & Clark. They want to fix
Proffit Road. They want to have a library in North Pointe. They want to have a school site. They wanted
to have affordable housing even before affordable housing became an issue for the County. They
proffered that over two years ago.
Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. Rotgin if he is amendable to some sort of CDA if the details can be worked
out.
Mr. Rotgin said he is. He said CDAs are important. Ms. Thomas asked earlier if the three forms
being discussed would work, and Hunton & Williams said “yes”. It is an effort to determine now the
appropriate way to set up CDAs. He said the ad hoc committee on North Pointe asked staff on a couple
of occasions to provide a comparison of the proffers for Albemarle Place and the Hollymead Towne
Center as opposed to what North Pointe was proposing. He said County staff said they would get that
information together. He has maintained all along that their proffers are richer than those of the other
two, and would be much better for the County and the community, but he had nothing to back up that
statement.
Mr. Rotgin said that finally, a week or so ago, he sent to the County an excel spreadsheet. They
listed Albemarle Place, and Hollymead Towne Center, and North Pointe. They sent that to staff and
asked them to look at it and make comments. He said they need it back soon. He thinks the Board
April 7, 2004 – Regular Day Meeting
)
(Page 35
needs to see that so they can see what Mr. Rotgin has said is correct. He said it is in a template and
format which he thinks can be used to compare not only Hollymead, Albemarle Place and North Pointe,
but any other comparisons the Board might want to make in the future.
Mr. Rice said he would comment briefly and make himself available to answer questions. He will
not say one financial mechanism is better than another. All of the different financial tools have
advantages and disadvantages. The best tool depends on what the Board is trying to accomplish. He
said the CDA special assessment mechanism has a couple of advantages. Often these tools are used in
projects where there is a need for public improvements, and one of the catch words is “concurrency”,
getting the public improvements built early. Public agencies often find themselves behind the curve
getting in public improvements. A special assessment mechanism is much more efficient financing
improvements early. Typically, for the same revenue stream it can finance more public improvements.
Mr. Rice said he would like to clarify one thing. A number of the CDAs in Virginia have used the
special assessment to finance improvements outside of the CDA. As an example, he will mention a
project in Prince William County he is working on now, Harbour Station. That CDA has been created
primarily to finance three improvements. One is a Virginia Light Rail Train Station, the second is an
interchange on Route 1, and the third is a major road connecting the train station to the interchange. The
interchange is some distance outside of the property being developed. The legal analysis done said this
is a road system and all of the owners of the property in the CDA abut the road system, so
notwithstanding that a portion of the road system is outside of the CDA, the system itself abuts the
owners’ property and it can be financed.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is a legal opinion on that CDA. Mr. Rice said they have had a legal
review and analysis. The opinion is not given until the bonds are closed.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there is a nexus between the two even though they do not touch each other.
Mr. Rice said it is all an integrated system. There are a couple of things which are important in order to
make that conclusion. First, it is all one integrated system. They are not agreeing to disparate
improvements. Second, there is a reasonable test in that these improvements benefit the property being
assessed. Because it is all part of one system, and it is serving the property that is being assessed, a
benefit finding can be made. In looking at the improvements which can be financed, it must be
determined whether they are part of a system that abuts the property that is in the CDA. Is there some
reasonable relationship between the property being assessed and the system being defined? If the
improvements are not part of an integrated system, and there is not that benefit rationale, then Mr. Dorrier
is right, they could not be improved with a special assessment.
Mr. Rice said that in a CDA it would be possible to use both a special assessment and a special
tax. There is a legal analysis of a question about assessing all of the property in the CDA because the
improvement did not actually abut all of the owners’ property. There was a question as to whether they
could assess all of the owners. They had to look at whether they could use a special tax in conjunction
with a special assessment to finance that improvement which did not abut all of the owners’ property. A
determination was made that it could be done.
Mr. Rooker asked if at this time there are multiple owners of the property. Mr. Rotgin said there
are multiple owners, but they have all signed the proffers.
Mr. Rooker said he does not think the issue has to do with whether all the property owners have
signed the proffers. Mr. Rice said the reason they did not have to use a special tax on the project he
mentioned is that on a temporary basis they created one owner so they had only one ownership thus
solving the problem that way. In the case of the CDA he mentioned early, there were multiple property
owners, but they were all related so it was very simple to just create one ownership. He does not know
that that would be practical in every case. They did look at using a special tax with a special assessment
because there were multiple owners. If they had not found another solution, they probably would have
proceeded to the special tax mechanism.
Mr. Rotgin said he would like to say with respect to North Pointe that there is cross ownership on
all the parcels. That is not an issue, but is a legitimate detail that would have to be worked on.
Mr. Bowerman said he does not understand where this conversation is leading.
Mr. Rotgin said what is on the table are two types of CDAs. There is the special tax district which
has been approved for Albemarle Place and Hollymead Towne Center. It provides the County the ability
to receive incremental income up to twenty-five cents per hundred of approved or assessed value of the
property. He does not want to use the special tax district, but the special assessment district. That would
allow them to issue more in the way of bonds to finance internal as well as external improvements that
Albemarle Place and Hollymead Towne Center decided to pay for themselves. He said they intend to
take the interest savings from the tax exempt bonds and capitalize those savings, then issue several
million dollars more in bonds to pay for infrastructure over and above what is required. While the County
has some idea of what the revenue stream from Albemarle Place and Hollymead Towne Center might
produce, he will suggest that it will only produce that revenue stream until the project gets to full build-out.
They want to capitalize that upfront by using the tax assessment method of forming a CDA, put the
interest savings on the bonds, and issue more bonds to do more infrastructure upfront. They think it will
be a win-win situation. They think that having a library in a mixed-use project is good. They think that
having 10.5 miles of paths is good. They think having major sewer lines which serve not only what they
are doing, but everything that relates to the Camelot Treatment Plant is good. They think improving
April 7, 2004 – Regular Day Meeting
)
(Page 36
Proffit Road, which is in the County’s Six-Year Plan, but for which VDoT has no money, is good. They
would like to have the opportunity to work with staff to see if they can quantify how much they are
proposing which is different from what the other projects have proposed. He thinks the special
assessment way of forming the CDAs is better for the County. He has said before that he thinks the
County should go back to the Albemarle Place people and to the Hollymead people and ask if they would
be willing to put in more infrastructure if they could use the special tax assessment.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks staff needs some directions from the Board. He asked Mr. Davis if that
was correct.
Mr. Davis said staff reviewed the proffers on the premise that the Board wanted consistency in
approach, i.e., the Board wants a similar proffer to that of Albemarle Place and Hollymead. That is not
what Mr. Rotgin has on the table so the developer needs some directions as to whether or not the Board
is inclined to consider a CDA based on the assessment method to pay for internal as well as abutting
improvements within the development.
Mr. Dorrier said there was an ad hoc committee dealing with the developer. He asked if the ad
hoc committee wants to take the proposal back and work on it and bring something back for the Board to
consider, or does it want to issue an opinion today?
Mr. Rooker said the ad hoc committee has actually permanently adjourned. It was not dealing
with this issue. He thinks the first thing needed to look at this question is the cost comparison, the
financial analysis. He thinks that needs to be agreed upon between staff and the developer. With
respect to concurrency, there is no concurrency issue on Albemarle Place and Hollymead Towne Center
with respect to internal and adjoining improvements. They have to build them in order to get a building
permit, period. What is being talked about is what gets done over and above the adjoining improvements
and the internal improvements. It comes down to dollars and cents. There has to be an agreement on a
financial comparison when looking at this question two different ways. Both Albemarle Place and
Hollymead Towne Center have proffered a $3000 per residential unit cash contribution. The proffers he
saw recently for North Pointe did not have that stipulation. Those proffers talk about a school site instead
of that contribution. He does not want to talk about a school site instead of twenty-five cents of
incremental tax revenue in addition to that. Three thousand dollars per residential unit at North Pointe is
worth about $2.7 million depending on how many units are built. At Albemarle Place it ended up being
about $2.4 million. He thinks all of these things need to be looked at together. He wants to make certain
the Board is getting a balanced view from a dollars and cents standpoint of what the opportunities are for
County. From his perspective, if the developer benefits from one way versus the other, he has no
problem with the developer benefiting as long as the County also benefits. He thinks the two
mechanisms need to be compared from a financial standpoint in order to make that threshold
determination. After analyzing the information, he thinks the Board would be in a position to tell Mr. Davis
which of the two ways it would like to use.
Mr. Boyd agreed with Mr. Rooker. He asked if staff had reviewed the comparison Mr. Rotgin had
done of the developments, and if so, is it a fair assessment of the proffers? When can the Board have
the benefit of that review?
Mr. Cilimberg said Mr. Mark Graham has been doing the detailed work on that matter and he is
not present today. Mr. Davis said he met with Mr. Graham right after he received Mr. Rotgin’s exhibit.
Mr. Graham is doing that analysis now, and there is some disagreement on the assumptions as to what is
comparable to the contributions the other developers made. It will not be a simple thing to get agreement
on.
Mr. Rotgin said he thinks it is simple, but the information is incomplete. In the cover memo he
said they had prepared the information so it contained their numbers.
Mr. Davis said it is more of an art than a science comparing the numbers. There are not a lot of
“apples to apples” facts. It will be difficult to come up with a precise financial analysis. Staff does not
know what Mr. Rotgin’s savings are, and that is a component when using tax exempt bonds. If a
component of the analysis is whether he has put enough of the savings above and beyond his normal
costs into the proffers, staff does not know that. Staff will not know that without knowing his development
costs and savings.
Mr. Boyd said he believes that what staff is trying to do is difficult. But in talking about $2.0
million in cash proffers for one, is North Pointe offering $2.0 million in cash or something different? Mr.
Davis said that is a good point. North Pointe is not offering $2.0 million in cash. They are offering a
school site for which they put a different value than the value put on the site by the County.
Mr. Rotgin said he thinks North Pointe will have a value of at least $100.0 million at build-out
which will yield $250,000 in tax revenues under the incremental method. Under a CDA, it is easy to figure
out how much revenue there will be. There can be different assumptions made as to value. He said
bond marketers have to make the same analysis in order to market bonds. The incremental tax revenue
for Albemarle Place at a value of $300.0 million would be $750,000. He does not want the Board to get
bogged down in the cost of improvements that abut and adjoin this development that VDoT says are
necessary to handle the incremental traffic. To his mind that is what might be generated from an
incremental tax versus the things that might be offered over and above those things. The internal costs in
the way of sidewalks, stormwater, etc. are the developer’s expenses and they are not comparative. He
said the school site is different, but even under the best analysis, the school site is less than $2.7 million
April 7, 2004 – Regular Day Meeting
)
(Page 37
which would be the revenue from $3000 per residential unit. The Board has not gotten a definitive
answer from the Albemarle County School Division as to whether or not, as designed, that school site
works. That is another answer the Board needs soon.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks the developer needs to put forth a proffer that the Board “can sink its
teeth into.” The Board has an incomplete proffer. It needs to go back to the committee to work it over.
Mr. Rotgin said they want to meet with County staff. They can distill the numbers, but he does
not want to let go unchallenged the idea that 500,000 square feet in North Pointe would be worth $100.0
million. That is not a fact.
Mr. Rooker said the Board can have the assessors look at that number.
Mr. Bowerman said he still does not know where this discussion goes next.
Mr. Rooker said he understands the Board has decided it needs to get a financial analysis,
agreed to by staff, in order to determine the financial benefits and detriments to the County of one way
versus another. If there are areas of differences, staff should point out the differences. Based upon that,
the Board would be able to make an intelligent decision about a reasonable way to go about this.
Ms. Thomas said since she was not a member of the committee, she does not know what
proffers are being offered that are off-site. She wants to be sure the analysis includes the transportation
impacts for things which are off-site. These should be compared to Albemarle Place and Hollymead
Towne Center.
Mr. Wyant said he thinks staff and Mr. Rotgin should get together as soon as possible and work
on the spreadsheet.
Mr. Rotgin said they agree with what everybody has said about getting a comparison. However,
he would like to point out that there is not just one way “to skin this cat.” There are three ways. The
special tax district, special assessment district, and service districts. All of them work. The goal is to
decide how to get the private sector to work with the public sector to get the public infrastructure in place
upfront as opposed to later.
Ms. Thomas said she thought the assessment system did not work for the off-site improvements
she was asking about, so she is looking forward to getting an answer to that question. Mr. Rotgin said
Mr. Rice had just said they do work.
Ms. Thomas asked if road systems can be defined in a unique way that has not been tested in
Virginia up until this time. Mr. Rice said it has not been tested. He gave an example of a project which is
in place, but could have given an example of the very first CDA created where there was a similar
analogy. He said it may work.
Mr. Dorrier asked how much time is needed for this analysis.
Mr. Davis said there is a work session tentatively scheduled for the day meeting in May, with a
public hearing scheduled for May 12. If the Board is not going to decide the CDA issue until the fifth of
May, it will be difficult to have proffers finalized and in place for the May 12 public hearing. How much
progress is made in the next month largely depends on whether there is clear direction on how this issue
will be approached.
Mr. Boyd asked how soon the Board can get the CDA comparison. Mr. O’Neill said it can be
ready next week.
Mr. Rooker said that comparison will say nothing about the financial analysis. The Board needs
to know if its counsel agrees with the statement that Route 29 can be defined as a system of roads that
abut the system in order to use the assessment approach for off-site improvements. If there is not a clear
indication that is the case, he thinks it would be difficult to consider the assessment method. Maybe Mr.
Rotgin could still do the assessment method for an internal CDA and he could find some other quid pro
quo to provide a replacement for the twenty-five cents.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this is going back to the ad hoc committee. Mr. Davis said he would never
recommend that an ad hoc committee of the Board be involved in negotiating or discussing proffers. It is
a voluntary proffer system so that is probably not a prudent way to go. Staff will be meeting on an as-
needed basis to try and work this out, as has been done in other major rezonings in the past. Staff will try
to meet whatever timetable the Board sets.
Mr. Dorrier asked if May 5 allows a reasonable amount of time to complete this work. Mr. Davis
said it does not if the Board has not given guidance on how they want the CDA to be created.
Mr. Rooker said he does not think the Board can provide that guidance until the analysis is
completed. After the Board gets that information, he thinks a work session will be needed to work
through the information. There are also other proffers involved.
April 7, 2004 – Regular Day Meeting
)
(Page 38
Mr. Cilimberg said staff has reviewed and returned to the applicant comments on other proffers
not related to the CDA and not related to the design. That goes to the Architectural Review Board next
week.
Mr. Rooker asked if there were a lot of comments about the other proffers. Mr. Davis said staff is
currently redrafting those proffers into an acceptable format.
Mr. Rotgin said there really were only two issues with the proffered and they involved affordable
housing and the CDA. He said staff did a good job on the proffers.
Ms. Thomas asked about the traffic impacts. Mr. Rotgin said he thought that issue had already
been resolved. Mr. Davis said there are a number of proffers in Mr. Rotgin’s latest draft. There were
proffers related to the impact of development. Then there were Route 29 improvements which were
proffered only if there was a CDA formed under his assessment method that would pay for the internal
improvements. He said the County’s position is that all of the improvements are necessitated by the
development. He thinks that is Mark Graham’s latest interpretation. He is still getting finalized documents
from VDoT to try to establish VDoT’s concurrence with that which is a big point of contention.
Mr. Rotgin said it is timing. To say that all of the proffers made for Route 29 are requirements is
not correct because Hollymead is building a road of 1000 feet on either side of the stop light and that is it.
He said there are timing issues which are legitimate as to when the spine road and the internal road
parallel to Route 29 are completed and when the entrances are put in. They are all legitimate concerns,
but they go away if there is the tax assessment CDA. He noted that Hunton & Williams has said there are
three alternatives for financing the public infrastructure issues, the special tax under the CDA, the special
assessment under the CDA, and the service district. He does not think the County should preclude any
of those.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board will consider all of these issues.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the Board needs to ferret out what needs to be built regardless of the
special district. In the case of Albemarle Place and Hollymead Towne Center, they are building those
things; they have nothing to do with the CDA. If Mr. Rotgin wants to funnel those things into a CDA, that
is fine if it works, and the Board understands the County is getting some quid pro quo that is comparable
within the proffers. The only way to understand that is to have a good financial analysis done.
Mr. Davis said he thinks Mr. Graham intends to have that analysis completed shortly. It certainly
can be done before the Board’s work session on May 5.
Mr. Dorrier said this item will be placed on the agenda for May 5. He thanked Mr. O’Neill and Mr.
Rice for their presentation in this matter.
Mr. Rotgin said it was mentioned that Mr. Al Reaser had questioned whether the school site is
appropriate. Since Mr. Reaser is present, he wondered if he could answer that question.
Mr. Dorrier said that question can be answered at a later time.
Mr. Rooker said the Board had spoken to VDoT earlier in this meeting about possible
improvements on Route 29 North in the southbound lane. Part of those improvements are presently
proffered by the UVA Real Estate Foundation for the research park and how close it is to being realized
based on square footage of development, and whether it will be in place in a reasonable period of time
with respect to North Pointe, and the demands that it may put on Route 29. Hollymead Towne Center is
being required to widen the road on both sides of Route 29. For North Pointe, there is no talk about
making improvements on the opposite side of Route 29 because UREF made a proffer to do so.
Mr. Rotgin said they did make a proffer to do that. Mr. Rooker said he is bringing this up because
it may be helpful for Mr. Rotgin to meet with UREF at some point. Mr. Rotgin said they met and “skinned
that chicken.”
Mr. Tucker said staff will try to have the information ready for May 5, but he is concerned that
there may not be enough information to go ahead with the hearing on May 12.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the hearing should be put off until some time in June.
After a short discussion, it was the consensus of the Board to wait and make a decision about
advertising a public hearing at next week’s meeting.
_______________
Not Docketed
: Mr. Tucker said there were questions this morning about a transfer of funds to
the CIP for the schools, particularly regarding the gyms at Walton, Henley and Hollymead schools. He
requested that Mr. Al Reaser be present this afternoon to answer the questions of the Board.
Note
(: Mr. Bowerman left the meeting at 4:54 p.m.)
Mr. Tucker said he had explained that there is no procedure in place to have some items come
back to the CIP Committee when there is a change in scope of a project or a major change in costs.
April 7, 2004 – Regular Day Meeting
)
(Page 39
Mr. Dorrier asked if Mr. Reaser had the chance to look at what the Board is questioning. Mr.
Reaser said he needs to understand the question a little better. All of these projects were in the CIP and
all were approved. Historically, when there is a change in scope, staff comes to both Boards but not back
to the committee.
Mr. Tucker asked if the Hollymead gym project was brought back to the two Boards. Mr. Reaser
said the CIP was being developed while the project was in a design phase, so it was not in the process.
Mr. Boyd said it is not spelled out in the paperwork, but he wonders if $1.0 million was saved on
the Monticello project. He asked if part of that savings was simply shifted to Hollymead without going
back through the process. Mr. Reaser said that is correct. He does not remember bringing that much of
a shift back in mid-year, but it is how the scope came out. It was an opportunity to build the project on
time. The project would be delayed one year in order to go back through the process.
Mr. Boyd asked if it was a change in what the schools wanted to do at Hollymead or was it an
oversight on the part of the architects. What caused the additional $528,000 in costs? Mr. Reaser said
more site work was required than anticipated, additional parking, an additional 3000 square feet. He
made that mistake. He used a standard elementary gym and by building the gym as an addition, it must
have restrooms, etc. That was his mistake.
Mr. Boyd asked if the Henley issue came about because it was decided to put the bus traffic in
the back instead of the front of the building. Mr. Reaser said it had been anticipated that the parking
would be in the front, but as they worked on the plans, they found that it would not work safely. They
wanted to separate all the bus traffic from the car traffic. The bus loading area is $273,000. It was
anticipated that it would go on the front at a cost of $300,000. By shifting it to the back, it is an additional
cost because there is twice the amount of site work necessary.
Mr. Boyd asked if traditionally this type of change in the budget goes back to the CIP Technical
Review Committee. Mr. Reaser said “no.”
Mr. Wyant said typically they are required to upgrade the stormwater facilities. He asked if that
was also an oversight. Mr. Tucker said the County had a new water quality ordinance go into place
during this planning, and stormwater quality was a new mandate which was not in the original plans.
Mr. Boyd said $1.0 million was saved at Monticello, but it really was not saved because it will be
spent on other projects. Mr. Reaser said two projects are being moved forward so that money will not be
requested in next year’s CIP. The Stony Point project will be done now instead of five or more years into
the future. The $100,000 for Walton will be done now rather than three years from now.
Mr. Boyd said he knows there are other CIP projects on the county-side that might have used that
money this year as opposed to moving up a school project. He wonders if the CIP Technical Review
Committee would have approved moving up a school project instead of some other project. That whole
thought process was missed by just arbitrarily allowing the schools to move those projects forward.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the Board should set up some kind of process so that when a certain
amount of money is involved there will be some review by the Technical Review Committee.
Mr. Breeden said he would like to mention that most of the school projects are planned to be
funded with VPSA borrowings. If the County does not do the projects, the money will not be borrowed, so
money will not be freed up to go back to other non-school projects.
Mr. Rooker said the Board did not have the benefit of the CIP Committee which sets the priorities
for capital spending looking at these projects to see whether or not these particular projects are the ones
that should get the $1.0 million. He does not know the answer to that question, but thinks the Board
should go ahead with the appropriation, and then as a matter of policy establish some threshold where
when this occurs, the Board will get something more than “this is where we are putting the money.”
Mr. Dorrier said the question came up, so the item should not have been on the Consent Agenda.
It needed to be discussed. He asked what threshold should be set. Mr. Tucker said he would prefer that
staff think about the limit. It may be that staff would pick a percentage of the project costs rather than a
dollar amount.
Mr. Boyd said the Board had decided earlier today to take these reappropriations off of the
consent agenda. Mr. Tucker said that because there are questions on the schools reappropriations,
perhaps they will be put on the regular agenda for discussion during the board-to-board presentation by
the School Board’s chairman.
Ms. Thomas congratulated Mr. Reaser on the savings of $1.0 million.
move
Mr. Rooker said he would to approve the appropriation requested under Item 6.9 on the
seconded
consent agenda, by approving the remainder of Appropriation No. 2004-072. The motion was
by Mr. Boyd. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
April 7, 2004 – Regular Day Meeting
)
(Page 40
APPROPRIATION NO. 2004-072
DATE: 04/07/04
EXPLANATION: EDUCATION DONATIONS/CONTRIBUTIONS/CAPITAL PROGRAMS
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 2217 61101 800100 EQUIPMENT J1 1,661.00
1 9000 60302 800656 WEIGHT/WELNS EQ J1 2,430.00
1 2100 61545 112100 SALARIES-TEACHERS J1 (120,400.00)
1 2100 61545 210000 FICA J1 (8,912.21)
1 2100 61545 221000 VRS J1 (11,924.18)
1 2100 61545 231000 HEALTH INS J1 (11,392.29)
1 2100 61545 232000 DENTAL INS J1 (296.32)
1 3203 61311 112100 SALARIES-TEACHERS J1 120,400.00
1 3203 61311 210000 FICA J1 8,912.21
1 3203 61311 221000 VRS J1 11,924.18
1 3203 61311 231000 HEALTH INS J1 11,392.29
1 3203 61311 232000 DENTAL INS J1 296.32
1 9000 60202 800901 BROWNSVILLE ELEM J1 (10,000.00)
1 9000 60253 800901 JOUETT MIDDLE SCH J1 (60,000.00)
1 9000 60304 800605 MONTICELLO HI SCH J1 (1,048,568.00)
1 9000 60218 312350 SOUTHERN ELEM J1 (40,000.00)
1 9000 60254 800901 WALTON HVAC J1 95,320.00
1 9000 62420 800949 STONY POINT HVAC J1 248,248.00
1 9000 60205 800901 HOLLYMEAD CHANGES J1 528,000.00
1 9000 60252 800901 HENLEY BUS AREA J1 287,000.00
2 2000 18100 181109 DONATION J2 1,661.00
2 9000 18100 181123 WEIGHT/WELNS EQ J2 2,430.00
2 3203 33000 330105 TITLE II, PART A J2 152,925.00
2 2000 33000 330109 ADDT’L TEACHERS J2 (152,925.00)
2000 0501 EST. REVENUE J (151,264.00)
0701 APPROPRIATION J (151,264.00)
3000 0501 EST. REVENUE J 152,925.00
0701 APPROPRIATION J 152,925.00
9000 0501 J 2,430.00
0701 EST. REVENUE J 2,430.00
TOTAL 8,182.00 4,091.00 4,091.00
__________
Mr. Reaser said he gave the short answer about the site at North Pointe. He has some
information in the Planning Department and with the developer concerning what he thinks will work. If he
gets positive answers from both of those, it is anticipated bringing it before the School Board on April 15.
Mr. Boyd said he had updated the request to over 12 acres, and asked if Mr. Reaser was still
questioning the usable part of the property. Mr. Reaser said it is 12.85 acres, but they are looking at how
to restrict the big drop-off and get it next to the road, along with other things they feel will work.
Ms. Thomas said if it turns into a very expensive site, although workable, she thinks that is what
the Board should be told. Mr. Reaser said at this time it will be rough graded so there will not be any
additional expense to the schools. A big concession is that all stormwater management will be off-site.
That is what allowed them to work with him.
_______________
Not Listed on the Agenda. Ms. Thomas said she is the liaison to the Mountain Overlay District
Committee. They met yesterday. All the members are very concerned that they worked for nine months
and came up with a 3:3 tie, so have wasted all that time. They are still thinking their way through how
they can avoid that. One suggestion is that she be replaced with someone who is unlikely to be favorable
disposed to it. The Board of Supervisors has an open invitation to attend their next meeting. If more than
two members attend, she will leave the room. She thinks the Committee is being open-eyed about the
task that is before them and they want to be successful. They were asked to come up with a consensus
for an overlay district that would be adoptable and effective. All of those words were chosen with a lot of
care so they are taking that charge seriously.
Mr. Tucker said he would send the Board members a schedule of the Committee’s meeting
dates.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. Recess. At 5:05 p.m., the Board recessed and reconvened in the Lane
Auditorium at 6:00 p.m.
The meeting was immediately called back to order by the Chairman, Mr. Dorrier, followed by the
Pledge of Allegiance and a Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. PUBLIC HEARING to receive comments on the Proposed FY 2004/2005
Operating and Capital Budgets. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on
March 28, 2004.)
__________
Agenda Item No. 22. PUBLIC HEARING on Proposed FY 2004 Tax Rates. (Notice of this public
hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on March 28, 2004.)
Mr. Tucker said he would highlight the revenue and expenditure changes in the proposed budget
that have occurred since the previous public hearing in early March, and the changes that have occurred
April 7, 2004 – Regular Day Meeting
)
(Page 41
after the Board held three work sessions. With regard to the revenue changes, the major changes are in
the general property taxes. The proposed budget maintains the tax rate which puts two-cents from the
real estate tax rate back into the budget. That is a little over $2.0 million. The other substantive change
is in Federal revenues which increased a little over $0.1 million due to the COPS Program additional
funding for law enforcement. Additional funds have been included in the budget from the Fund Balance
for the ACE Program as well as some one-time capital expenditures.
Mr. Tucker said public safety shows a $550,000 increase due to additional staffing for police and
fire/rescue personnel. For Local Government there is a $1.7 million increase from the earlier budget. In
other areas, the largest expenditure is a transfer of $1.2 million to the Schools. The next major increase
is in the transfer to capital projects, primarily to the ACE program at $650,000. The total change in the
General Fund from the earlier budget hearing is $3.348 million.
Mr. Tucker said he will mention some Initiatives as they relate to Strategic planning efforts. One
of the major directions is high quality educational opportunities, and the major one is the transfer of $1.12
million to the Schools. As to the Natural, Scenic and Historic Resources initiative, after the transfer
mentioned earlier to the ACE Program, that program will have a total of 1.0 million. Some of the major
initiatives in Community Development are a Neighborhood Planner and a Zoning Ordinance Planner.
Under Housing Initiatives there is an additional $200,000 for the Piedmont Housing Loan Fund. The
Quality of Life strategic initiative shows $648,000 basically for additional police and fire/rescue personnel.
Under the Human Services initiative, the Tax Relief for the Elderly Program is a major program
enhancement, as well as Child Protective Services and Mental Health. The Parks, Recreational, Cultural
initiative has a major initiative for Library system improvements, and there is also a new Inmate Work
Force program where inmates will be used for work around the County. Under Efficient and Effective
Services, there is a public safety system analyst and an assistant registrar for the Registrar’s Office. He
said the largest amount of the budget goes to the School Division and the School Self-Sustaining Funds
which account for over 55 percent of expenditures or $123.0+ million. General Government gets the next
largest amount, 23 percent of the total budget, or $56.0 million. The CIP gets 12 percent of the budget, or
$28.0 million.
Mr. Tucker then mentioned revenues. The largest portion of revenues is in local revenues at 60
percent of the total, or $143.0 million. Next are State revenues at about 26 percent of the total, or $62.0
million. He said this proposed budget maintains the current tax rates or seventy-six cents per one
hundred dollars of assessed value for real estate, and $4.28 per one hundred dollars of assessed value
for personal property. The Board will consider setting those tax rates on Wednesday, April 14 for the
2005 tax year. He said that will end his presentation.
Mr. Dorrier read to the public the Board’s rules for conducting a public hearing. He then opened
the public hearings on both the operating budget and the proposed tax rates.
Mr. David Hannah said he was present for the Piedmont Environmental Council. He thanked the
Board for restoration of funding to the ACE Program. PEC thinks it is a very wise move and a sound
investment of public dollars. In the long run it will pay dividends for the County. ACE helps the County
meet many of the objectives in the Comprehensive Plan. They think ACE helps to protect prime farmland
soils and helps protect family farms in the County. It also helps to eliminate some potential development
in the rural areas in addition to protecting water quality and the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir, and saving
some nice views along Virginia scenic highways and entrance corridors. PEC thinks this can be done at
a very reasonable cost.
Mr. Robert Hogue said that the tax rate in Augusta County in February was 56 cents. In
Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson counties, the rate was 67 cents. He said the Federal, State and local
governments are all in debt and that debt will be passed on to our children. He said there was a huge
increase in the property assessment the last time, so it is past time to start making cuts in services and
benefits. He asked why CATEC has to advertise on TV. He thinks this is part of the job of the school
guidance counselors. He said that when taxes rise, housing becomes less affordable. He said jobs are a
hot topic in this election year, and Albemarle County cannot compete with other nations because their
costs are lower. He said history will show that nations which have over taxed and over spent have ruined
their economies and few recovered. Residents of Albemarle have to stop asking the government to do
everything. As elected officials, it is the responsibility of the Board of Supervisors to make all County
departments more efficient. Other communities in Virginia are cutting back on services and positions.
Why should Albemarle be different? He said he lives alone and has no children. Although he has no
children in school he receives little in services for his tax dollars. Please don’t ask him for anymore tax
dollars.
Mr. James Barber said he is speaking on behalf of the 31 members of the Albemarle County
Professional Firefighters Local 4007. He thanked the Board for the recent opportunity the Association
had to spend time with members during the fire training school. He thanked the Board members for their
time and candor during the budgeting process. They understand that the choices and decisions the
Board must make are sometimes not easy, and sometimes are not pleasant. These decisions do carry
long time consequences. They support the request of the Fire/Rescue Department for five additional
Firefighter/EMTs that would serve citizens in the Earlysville, Seminole, Scottsville and Stony Point
communities. Staffing initiatives were brought forth to assure minimum staffing while providing 12 hours
of Advanced Life Support coverage to these communities. They understand that only two positions are
being recommended. Because of this, staff is faced with reducing the hours of coverage in Stony Point
and Scottsville. He said having less than adequate staffing on emergency apparatus is detrimental to the
safety of personnel. The reduction in service to the public caused by this decision is in opposition to the
April 7, 2004 – Regular Day Meeting
)
(Page 42
strategic goals which have been adopted by the Board. Reducing the hours in a community such as
Stony Point is not “planning for and providing for infrastructure necessary to support desired levels of
service.” He said the communities of Scottsville and Stony Point have become accustomed to the levels
of service implemented previously by the Board. The need for these three additional positions exists
today and they strongly urge the Board to consider this request.
Dr. Richard W. Lindsay said he is a retired physician. He is a member of the JABA Board and a
concerned citizen. He thanked the Board for its past support of JABA and said he will speak about
continuing that support in the form of additional funds for home care. He said he knows of 13 Albemarle
County residents who are in need of home care services who would like to “age in place” by remaining in
their homes. He said most of these people do not qualify for the current programs which are available in
the community. JABA’s home care services enable indigent citizens to remain independent in their
homes with a greatly improved quality of life. Their request for $28,273 in the FY’05 budget is about one-
third of the amount needed for these 13 individuals. It would give a start so they could have from five to
10 hours of care a week enabling them to have a bath, a clean home, laundry assistance and grocery
shopping. Every day without these services puts these individuals more and more at risk of
institutionalization and a dramatic increase in the cost of their care. He realizes the Board is facing many
difficult decisions to requests from many organizations. However, in a wealthy county like Albemarle, the
needs of people like those described often never surface. He raises this issue now, and will say that the
demand will only increase in the future. He thanked the Board for this opportunity to speak and for its
support of JABA, and its work on behalf of all Albemarle County citizens.
Ms. Carol Hogg said she is president of the League of Women Voters. She said she had come to
speak about the ACE Program, but has learned that funding for the program has been increased to what
they had hoped it would be, so she will just say “thank you very much.”
Mr. Doug Smythers said he is a chief of the Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department, and chair
of the Albemarle County Fire/Rescue Advisory Board. He said the Advisory Board wants to thank the
Board for its funding of the budgets for the Fire/Rescue department. They understand that the Board
could not fund the full request this year, but the funding provided will help all companies “make ends
meet” during the upcoming year. However, there is an important list of initiatives that were not funded
and which are important to be able to maintain the quality of service to the citizens. He thanked the
Board for its support.
Mr. Jack Marshall, president of Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population, spoke next.
He noted that this area has been cited as being a “best place to live in the United States.” He asked what
must be done to maintain or improve the conditions that led to this exceptional honor. He quoted from an
article that said the best cities use public resources to control growth, and the best cities are careful about
their growth patterns. He said that in the proposed budget there is one item which reflects an appropriate
use of public resources to deal with growth, and there is another where ASAP believes the Supervisors
have been less than judicious in coping with population growth. The ACE Program is one of the few
mechanisms used in Albemarle to conserve the rural areas and control population growth. ACE is a good
investment. ASAP is delighted that the current version of the budget fully funds ACE at $1.0 million.
They applaud the Board for this farsightedness. In supporting ACE, the Board is not just looking at the
next 50 weeks in the fiscal year, but is looking at the next 50 years. Another area of the budget reflects a
less farsighted view. The Crozet growth area is already beginning to expand, and is projected to grow
from the current population of 3000 to twice that number. It is simply unacceptable to allow this growth
without funding the necessary infrastructure. Adequate public facilities must be in place before, not after,
the population expands. A backlash has started in Crozet about its designation as a growth area. ASPA
believes the County has an obligation to either fully fund infrastructure costs appropriate to the pace of
growth agreed to in the Master Plan, or to significantly slow the proposed growth so it does not outstrip
the public facilities to maintain the quality of life in Crozet. He said growth costs; it does not pay for itself.
Crozet is a microcosm of what might happen in the whole County. If Albemarle County continues at the
rate of population growth seen for the last three decades, every year new sources of revenue would be
needed to fund the increasing demands. Unless growth can be significantly slowed, taxes will increase,
the environment will decline and the quality of life will suffer. He is afraid that the County’s hold on the
claim as the “best place to live in the USA” is precarious.
Mr. Ted Armentrout, chief of the Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company, spoke next. He said they
have staffing issues which are of great concern. Over a year ago, the chiefs of Earlysville, Seminole Trail
and Stony Point met with Mr. Dan Eggleston to discuss staffing issues. They defined what was felt to be
a viable program. They requested the same thing for each of the three stations which had been staffed
since early in 1998. The Stony Point plan was not recommended for funding. He said that since January
of 1998 all three stations have been manned from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. That was done because during the
work week there are few volunteers available in the community to answer calls. Nights and weekends
are handled without problems. He said Stony Point is still a bedroom community, and there is still a
shortage of volunteers during the daytime. Medical calls are now about three to one for fire calls. They
feel the County has an obligation to sustain existing programs before starting new programs which draw
resources from others. To do so would set a precedent which could cause problems in the future. As
new stations are added and new programs are recommended, there is not enough money in the budget.
They feel that they should be allowed the same staffing levels as Earlysville and Seminole Trail. If that is
not going to be granted they think it should remain as it is and not have coverage reduced. There is still a
need to cover time early in the morning and late in the afternoon, especially for medical calls.
Mr. Lanny Moore, president of the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company and past chairman of
the Albemarle County Fire/Rescue Advisory Board, spoke. He said they appreciate everything the
April 7, 2004 – Regular Day Meeting
)
(Page 43
County has done for the fire companies this year. He said the East Rivanna Company would like to
express its gratitude to their response for assistance on their loan. Had the wording of the contract been
as it is now, they would have signed the contract with the County and the debt would have been covered
in the current budget. He thanked the Board for its continued support.
Ms. Tammy Johnson said she was present for the Scottsville Volunteer Rescue Squad to talk
about the additional people they requested. In 2004, they requested eight, but received about 2.7 funding
for that number. That program has been exceptional for the agency with the daytime coverage problems
being eased, but they still many nights and weekends when there is no coverage in the building. Their
call load is not increasing; the request is simply to maintain the level they have been able to provide to
southern Albemarle and surrounding counties. She said their recruitment efforts are ongoing, but they
are not getting many people to volunteer. They ask that the Board reconsider their request, and they will
be open to compromise. They are willing to compromise again this year for another 2.7 persons.
Mr. Kevin Quick said he is an Albemarle County resident in the Scottsville area. In this budget
process, he noted that there are needs and he understands the Board is doing the best it can. However,
he would like for the Board to consider some of the demands. He moved to Albemarle because of some
of the services he thought the County could provide. He is concerned about some of those services. He
knows there is assistance needed for the Scottville squads. He is asking that the Board consider their
request. It is important this year and will be in the future.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Ms. Thomas suggested that the County Executive explain what staff feels can be expected from
the State.
Mr. Tucker said staff believes a budget will be provided by the State. If a budget is not adopted, it
will put localities in a precarious situation. Staff has been looking at a cash flow analysis after June 30 if
no State funding came forward and has also looked at Attorney General’s opinions. What has been
found is that, at best, if the County used all of the local funds available, the County would run out of
revenue by January or February of 2005. It could be even earlier if only School and General Fund
revenues were used. Under either scenario, the County would be faced with borrowing funds to complete
the fiscal year. Staff would also have to consider what reductions in expenditures would be necessary
throughout the County in the next fiscal year. In January, 2005 the Board would have the ability to
consider a new tax rate because that begins a new tax year. It would have to be a significant tax rate
increase if the County were forced to do that. Once the State had resolved the budget crisis, the Board
would be able to change the rate back to a normal level. Services provided by the County for which there
would be no State funding would include the Jail and Juvenile Detention. All localities would be in a
similar position. These are the kinds of issues staff is wrestling with in the event the State does not
resolve the problem they are faced with right now.
Mr. Dorrier said he would like to echo the concerns of the Scottville Volunteer Fire Department
and Rescue Squad. Members are concerned about the funding for the eight positions they requested. If
possible, he would like for the Board to provide at least part of the funds requested.
Mr. Rooker said the current budget provides about $440,000 more for fire/rescue services. He
said the Board asked Mr. Foley and Mr. Eggleston to meet with the various fire chiefs and to prioritize
their requests. If additional money were added to the fire/rescue budget, he is not sure how that money
would be used in terms of priority. Funding of fire/rescue is very complicated because there are a
number of departments making separate requests. He asked that they establish somewhat of a unified
priority list.
Mr. Dorrier said it was a No. 1 priority among the fire department requests. He said the County
funded the first professionals in EMT personnel at that station. He does not think the Board should leave
them out on a limb by funding only 2.7 people when they requested funds for eight people.
Mr. Boyd said he has questions about the overall approval process of the budget which the Board
is scheduled to approve next week. He said that 26 percent of this budget is uncertain because no one
knows if the County will receive those State funds. He knows the Board cannot delay approval of the
budget too long but does question what the Board can do with line items in that budget. If, after the
budget is approved, the County should receive more in State funds than expected, what ability does the
Board have to adjust line items and approve requests, such as that from the Scottsville Fire/Rescue
Department?
Mr. Tucker said the Board can amend the budget. Also, if there is no State budget on July 1, the
Board could consider making appropriations quarterly. It could make that decision at that time.
Mr. Boyd asked if the Board would have to go through the public hearing process again. Mr.
Davis said no public hearing would be required unless the adjustment was an addition of more than
$500,000. The budget can be adjusted downward without a public hearing; the budget is just a planning
document. The appropriation process is the key process. The Board does not have to appropriate what
has been budgeted, that is a separate decision.
Ms. Thomas said in the existing budget which assumes the County will get the same funding from
the State that was anticipated when this budget process began, there is $100,000 which has not used.
Although that sounds like a lot of money, in years past, the County has been hit with almost that large of a
April 7, 2004 – Regular Day Meeting
)
(Page 44
bill in the middle of the year; CSA being an example. To go into a budget with much less than that makes
her uneasy. She thinks this is about as tight a budget as most Board members feel comfortable with.
Mr. Rooker said the VACo Bulletin received the other day analyzed the impact of a one-year
budget, which is one of the proposals being discussed. If that budget should provide no money for raises
for teachers, state-shared local employees, college professors, or extra money to supplement social
services for the mentally disabled as demanded by the Supreme Court, and if numerous State programs
are pushed on local governments to fund (or at least bigger percentages of those programs), the Board
needs to be prudent and build in some kind of adequate reserve to deal with the uncertainties of that
State funding.
Mr. Tucker said uncertainty is the key word. Depending on which budget is ultimately adopted,
school systems seems to do fairly well in both budgets, but local government does not, particularly with
599 funds in the House budget.
Mr. Dorrier said he would like to meet with the volunteer firemen in Scottsville and bring back a
compromise proposal.
Mr. Rooker said he wants to know that this goes through the process for setting priorities. He has
heard that there is not complete agreement among the fire chiefs as to what those priorities are. He is
sympathetic to all of the requests, but wants to be sure that if the County should allocate additional
money, it looks at the priorities which have been established through that process.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks that is appropriate.
Mr. Dorrier said that is as open issue. He thanked all who had attended the public hearing.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 23. From the Board: Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
There were no matters to discuss at this time.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 24. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 10/13/2004
Initials: EWC