2000-06-07June 7, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors was held on June 7, 2000, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241,
County Office Building, Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman (arrived at 9:05 a.m.), Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. (arrived at
9:05 a.m.); Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris; Mr. Charles S. Martin; Mr. Walter F. Perkins; and
Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County Attorney,
Mr. Larry Davis; County Planner, Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg; and Senior Deputy Clerk,
Ms. Laurel A. Bentley.
Agenda Item No. 1. The Chairman, Mr. Martin, called the meeting to order at 9:03 a.m.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Public.
There were none.
Agenda Item No. 5. Presentation of Certificates to Route 250 West Committee Members.
Mr. Martin recognized members of the Route 250 West Corridor Study Citizens Advisory Board,
and presented certificates and coffee mugs to those present: Mr. Charles M. Toms, Jr.;
Ms. Marion G. Rothman; Mr. Carroll Conley; and Ms. Diana H. Strickler. Those not presented include: Mr.
Thomas W. Payne, Jr.; Mr. Thomas J. Goodrich; Mr. Phillip W. Unger; Ms. Nancy Whiting Barnette; Mr.
David W. Carr, Jr.; Mr. John A. Cruickshank; Mr. Samuel A. Anderson; Mr. George W. Carter; and
Mr. Willie Smith. Supervisors Walter F. Perkins and Sally H. Thomas also served on this committee. In
addition, Mr. Martin acknowledged the efforts of Ms. Pat Kennedy, a member of the committee, who
recently died.
Agenda Item No. 6. Western Albemarle High School Student Government Project Recognition.
Ms. Lee Catlin recognized Ms. Lisa Moot, a teacher at Western Albemarle High School. She then
advised the Board that this spring Albemarle County local government was approached to participate in a
pilot project for service learning at Western Albemarle High School. Service learning is an instructional
method that merges traditional academic curriculum and instruction with hands-on experience for students
that, in turn, benefits a community agency or other public group. The service learning projects allow
students to extend their classroom learning into actual service to and involvement in the community.
Beginning in late March, 2000, five teams of WAHS 12th grade government students adopted
projects for local government involving significant research, analysis and problem solving. The teams
worked in the classroom and met in the field with their worksite coordinators to create a final written report
defining the problem/issue studied, providing a historical perspective on the issue, surveying current
practices related to the issue and finally projecting a workable solution regarding the issue. All five teams
produced both a culminating oral presentation which was presented to parents, school officials and local
government staff and a document which will be used by the involved department/agency in moving forward
with the identified issue. The following is a brief summary of the projects:
Improving Outreach to Albemarle's Hispanic Community Relating to the Census Count--
The Registrar's Office and the local office of the Census Bureau would like to enhance communications
with the county's ever-growing Hispanic population. The project group employed on site interviews, field
studies and library research to develop a strategy for reaching out to Spanish speaking individuals, making
them aware of the role and importance of participating in the Census.
Web Site Policies for Albemarle County Government-As the County web site grows both in amount
of information available and in number of users, County officials have recognized the need to establish
formal, written policies governing its development and use. This team studied web sites of other counties
across the country, researched laws and regulations governing web site content, studied privacy and
disclosure issues related to the Internet and created a comprehensive policy guide for the County's web
site.
Water Quality and Pest Management Policies for Albemarle County Lakes--Albemarle County's
recreational lakes are feeling the impact of a huge population of Canadian geese, a species of bird protected
by federal law. The by-products of these geese have altered the water quality of many lakes and streams,
posing a potential health hazard in some extreme cases. This project group researched federal and state laws
and regulations governing treatment of Canadian geese, conducted on-site studies of the bird's local habitats
and their influence on water quality, and proposed a strategy for managing what is both an environmental and
June 7, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
a public policy problem.
Developin.q a Communications Strate.qv for Albemarle County Students--For a number of years,
students and school administrators in Albemarle County have been exploring how students in the
community can play a real and important role in the development and implementation of county-wide
educational policies. This project group studied the possible creation of a County-wide Student Council and
researched student councils and school boards in other school districts around the country to examine the
role that students play on school boards in other communities leading to a proposal to give the County's
student community new channels of communication to local policy makers.
Insurance Policy and Covera.qe Strate.qies for Re.qion Ten-Region Ten provides mental health and
substance abuse services throughout Central Virginia, including Albemarle County. One of Region Ten's
central challenges is to determine for each patient what services the patient's health insurance covers and
then to develop a health care plan for the patient that best matches the financial support available. This
project team conducted an in-depth study of the Mental Health Parity Act and also researched the many
different insurance plans offered by major County businesses. Their final report offered proposals for how
Region Ten administrators can develop a more reliable system for matching the needs of patients with the
clinical and pharmacological services that are covered under their insurance plans.
Ms. Moot said she enjoyed combining education with practical experience. The students examined
real issues faced by local government and presented proposals. She recognized the following students,
who were present, and who participated in the projects: Ms. Ashley Kippers, Mr. Jonathan Beckerd, Mr.
Jonathan Moore, Ms. Sarah Morgan, Mr. Joe Dadinado, and Mr. Matt Epping.
Mr. Dorrier asked if a student will be placed on the County School Board. Ms. Moot said that has
not yet been decided.
Agenda Item No. 7. Consent Agenda.
Ms. Humphris offered the motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve items 7.1 through 7.18,
and to accept the remaining items for information. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman (abstained from Item 7.2), Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris,
Mr. Martin, and Mr. Perkins.
None.
Item No. 7.1. Approval of proffers, ZMA-99-17, Stonegate @ Western Ridge (Sign #85) (deferred from
April 19, 2000).
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved proffers for ZMA-99-17, Stonegate
Western Ridge.
The amended proffers are as follows:
THIS AMENDMENT TO PROFFER is made this 28th day of April, 2000 by all of the owners of the
property in Stonegate at Western Ridge (sometimes known as Phase 2, Western Ridge), Section A
(formerly Albemarle County TM 56E, Block 1, Parcel A), to wit: CRAIG ENTERPRISES, INC., a Virginia
corporation (owner of Lots 1-6, 9-11, 13-15 and 17, Stonegate at Western Ridge, Section A); HIGHLANDS
WEST, L.P., a Virginia limited partnership (owner of Lot 18, Stonegate at Western Ridge, Section A and all
unsubdivided land in Phase 2, Western Ridge); WILLIAM S. CRAPSER and KATHRYN C. CRAPSER
(owners of Lot 12, Stonegate at Western Ridge, Section A); JAMES M. HILL, JR. and MOLY McLEOD HILL
(owners of Lot 8, Stonegate at Western Ridge, Section A); ROBERT A. SYLVESTER (owner of Lot 16,
Stonegate at Western Ridge, Section A); and STELLA B. CREANEY (owner of Lot 7, Stonegate at Western
Ridge, Section A), all of whom may be collectively referred to as the "Owners"
WITNESSETH:
Recitals:
The property designated above of each of the Owners is subject to certain Western Ridge
Phase 2 Proffers (the "Original Proffers") dated May 11, 1998 offered in conjunction with
the rezoning of 14.5 acres (ZMA #98-01) from R-4 to PRD and accepted by the Board of
Supervisors of Albemarle County, VA (the "Board'). A copy of the Original Proffers is
attached hereto as "Exhibit A". (on file in the Clerk's office)
This amendment to the Original Proffers in the form of a Zoning Map Amendment is
proposed by the Owners.
NOW THEREFORE, the Owners do hereby agree and proffer as follows:
1. Proffer No. 10(a) of the Original Proffers is hereby AMENDED to state:
June 7, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
Proffer No. 10 (a): "The setbacks within the area shown as Phase 2 on a plan titled
"Western Ridge" prepared by Muncaster Engineering and last revised 2/13/98 shall be: (a)
Front: 20 feet except that the front yard may be reduced to 10 feet for attached garages
for a maximum lineal distance of 28 feet.
2. In all other respects the original Proffers remain in full force and effect as amended herein.
Item No. 7.2. Approval of conditions, SP-99-74, Townwood Mobile Home Park (Signs #75&76)
(deferred from April 1,2000) (applicant requests deferral until June 14, 2000).
By the above-recorded vote, the Board deferred SP-99-74 until June 14, 2000.
(Note: Mr. Bowerman abstained from voting on this item due to a conflict of interest. He had
previously submitted a conflict of interest disclosure form, on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part
of the record .)
Item No. 7.3. Request to set public hearing for 6/21/00 and authorize Chairman to sign deed for
sale of District Home property in Waynesboro.
The executive summary states that in October 1999, the District Home held an auction to dispose
of the District Home real and personal property. Although the highest bid received for the property was
$425,000 from an adjacent property owner, Ms. Sheri Smith, subsequent to the auction, the District Home
ultimately negotiated a purchase price with Ms. Smith for $600,000. Based upon the County's participation
rate, which has been minimal, plus some operating expenses that have been paid out of the assets over the
past two years, the County does not expect to receive a large settlement from the property sale.
Staff prepared a resolution to be signed, which authorizes that Chairman of the Board to execute
the deed to Ms. Sheri L. Smith on behalf of the County. They also provided a deed of conveyance and a
signature page to be signed by the Chairman.
Staff recommends that the Board set a public hearing for June 21,000 to receive comments on the
sale of the District Home property.
By the above recorded vote, the Board set a public hearing for June 21, 2000 and authorized
the Chairman to sign the following deed for the sale of the District Home property in Waynesboro.
(The following deed was prepared by Joseph B. Yount III, Attorney, at Law, 611 South Wayne
Avenue, Waynesboro, Virginia 22980.)
THIS DEED, Made and entered into this the 25th day of April, 2000, by and between the Counties of
ALBEMARLE, ALLEGHANY, AUGUSTA, BATH, ROCKBRIDGE, Virginia, and the Cities of
CHARLOTTESVILLE, COVINGTON, LEXINGTON, and WAYNESBORO, Virginia, parties of the first part,
hereinafter referred to as Grantors; and SHERI L. SMITH, Trustee of the Sheri Legendre Smith Revocable
Trust Agreement as Amended and Restated on October 31, 1999, party of the second part, hereinafter
referred to as Grantee, whose address is Quiet Entry Farm, Post Office Box 947, Waynesboro, Virginia
22980;
WITNESSETH:
That for and in consideration of the sum often Dollars ($10) cash in hand paid and other good and
valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and pursuant to authority granted by the
governing bodies of the respective counties and cities, the said Counties of ALBEMARLE, ALLEGHANY,
AUGUSTA, BATH, ROCKBRIDGE, Virginia, and the Cities of CHARLOTTESVILLE, COVINGTON,
LEXINGTON, and WAYNESBORO, Virginia, parties of the first part, Grantors, hereby grant, bargain, sell
and convey, with GENERAL WARRANTY and ENGLISH COVENANTS OF TITLE, unto the said SHERI L.
SMITH, Trustee of the Sheri Legendre Smith Revocable Trust Agreement as Amended and Restated on
October 31, 1999, party of the second part, Grantee, the following described real estate:
All those certain lots or parcels of land, together with any and all improvements thereon
and all rights, privileges and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise
appertaining, lying and being in the City of Waynesboro, Virginia, including: (1) Parcel
A of Twenty-four and Twenty-seven Thousandths (24.027) acres by survey; (2) Parcel
B of One Hundred Six and Nine Hundred Seven Thousandths (106.907) acres by
survey, both as shown on a certain "Waiver of Subdivision Plat For District Home Farm,
Waynesboro, Virginia," dated October 5, 1999, by Brenneman Engineering, Stuarts
Draft, Virginia, a copy of which plat is attached hereto and made a part hereof as
Attachment "A"; and (3) Parcel C of Five and Six Hundred Fifty-nine Thousandths
(5.659) acres by survey, as shown on a certain "Plat For District Home - Parcel C,
Waynesboro, Virginia," dated October 5, 1999, by Brenneman Engineering, Stuarts
Draft, Virginia, a copy of which plat is attached hereto and made a part hereof as
Attachment "B".
June 7, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
The said Parcels A and B hereinabove referred to being a part of the real estate conveyed to the
District Board of Albemarle, Alleghany, Augusta, Bath, and Rockbridge Counties, the successors to which
are the Grantors hereinabove first set forth, by deed of Fred Driver and Daisy E. Driver, his wife, dated
March 1, 1927, duly of record in Deed Book 229 at page 187 of the Circuit Court Clerk's Office of the
County of Augusta, Virginia, reference to which deed and the aforesaid plat (Attachment "A") is hereby
made for a more particular description as well as derivation of title; and
The said Parcel C hereinabove referred to being the same real estate conveyed to the District
Board for Albemarle, Alleghany, Augusta, Bath, and Rockbridge Counties, and the City of Charlottesville,
Virginia, the successors to which are the Grantors hereinabove first set forth, by deed of G. H. Branaman,
Trustee, dated May 26, 1945, duly of record in Deed Book 330 at page 436 of the Circuit Court Clerk's
Office of the County of Augusta, Virginia, reference to which deed and the aforesaid plat (Attachment "B") is
hereby made for a more particular description as well as derivation of title.
The parties of the first part include in this conveyance to the party of the second part the cemetery
lot shown on Attachment "A" as containing Three Hundred Seventy-five Thousandths (0.375) acre,
surrounded by the aforesaid Parcel A, shown on said Attachment "A", on the express condition that the said
cemetery parcel shall remain in its natural state, used for natural recreation or grazing purposes, and not
otherwise be disturbed or used for any other purpose or cultivated except as pasture, nor shall any structure
of any kind be constructed thereon.
This deed is made and accepted subject to the easements, conditions, reservations, and
restrictions of record contained in the chain of title to the property herein conveyed which have not expired
by reason of the limitations therein contained or otherwise become ineffective.
Item No. 7.4. Resolution to accept roads in Cory Farm Subdivision into the State Secondary
System of Highways.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution to accept roads in
Cory Farm Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Cory Farm Subdivision described on the attached Additions Form
SR-5(A) dated May 16, 2000, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the
Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests
the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the road(s) in Cory Farm Subdivision, as described on the
attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated May 16, 2000, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant
to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as
described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats;
and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1)
Con/Farm Road from the intersection of Route 250 (Station 0+00)) to the intersection of
Windy Ridge Road (Station 5+71.05), as shown on plat recorded 3/5/97 in the office the
Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1597, pages 210-219, with
easement plats recorded on 3/9/00 in Deed Book 1899, pages 661-666; with a 120-foot
right-of-way width, for a length of 0.108 mile.
2)
Windy Ridtie Road from the intersection of Cory Farm Road (Station 0+00) to the
intersection of Summit View (Station 6+45.87), as shown on plat recorded 3/5/97 in the
office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1597, pages 210-219,
with easement plats recorded on 3/9/00 in Deed Book 1899, pages 661-666; with a 50-foot
right-of-way width, for a length of 0.122 mile.
3)
Summit View from the intersection of Windy Ridge Road (Station 2+87.51) to the cul-de-
sac (Station center of cul-de-sac at 12+62.24), (end of cul-de-sac off-set 25 feet at Station
13+03.34), as shown on plat recorded 3/5/97 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 1597, pages 210-219, with easement plats recorded on
June 7, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
3/9/00 in Deed Book 1899, pages 661-666; with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of
0.192 mile.
4)
Con/Court from the intersection of Summit View (Station 0+00) to the cul-de-sac (Station
center of cul-de-sac at 2+58.01), (Station end of cul-de-sac 2+97.61), as shown on plat
recorded 3/5/97 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of AIbemarle County in Deed Book
1597, pages 210-219, with easement plats recorded on 3/9/00 in Deed Book 1899, pages
661-666; with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.056 mile.
Total Mileage - 0.478 mile.
Item No. 7.5. Resolution to accept roads in Owensfield Subdivision into the State Secondary
System of Highways.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution to accept roads in
Owensfield Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Owensfield Subdivision described on the attached Additions Form
SR-5(A) dated May 16, 2000, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the
Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests
the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the road(s) in Owensfield Subdivision, as described on the
attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated May 16, 2000, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant
to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as
described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats;
and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1)
Owensfield Road from the intersection of Route 676 (Station 10+00)), to the cul-de-sac
(end of cul-de-sac Station 37+53.69) as shown on plat recorded 6/30/94 in the office the
Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1292, pages 405-413, and plat
recorded 1/27/00 in Deed Book 1889, pages 176-185; with a 40-foot right-of-way width, for
a length of 0.52 mile.
2)
Owensfield Circle from the intersection of Owensfield Road (Station 10+00)), to the cul-
de-sac (end of cul-de-sac Station 13+65.36) as shown on plat recorded 6/30/94 in the
office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1292, pages 405-413,
3)
and plat recorded 1/27/00 in Deed Book 1889, pages 176-185; with a 40-foot right-of-way
width, for a length of 0.07 mile.
Total Mileage - 0.59 mile.
Item No. 7.6. Southern Urban Area Fire Station Status Report.
The executive summary states that over the past several years the County has been planning for
the establishment of a Fire & Rescue Station near Monticello High School to serve the County's designated
development area south of Charlottesville. When the County purchased land for the high school, additional
property was acquired for the location of public facilities to serve the growing population in this development
area. The Southside Fire & Rescue Station was one of the primary facilities planned for the area due to
current and future service demands (residential and commercial growth) and stated response goals in
Albemarle County's Comprehensive Plan. The location of this station has become even more critical in the
past several months due to the terms of the County/City fire contract recently approved. The establishment
of a station in this location was one of the main assumptions used in agreeing to terms with the City
because of its ability to reduce the City's call load in the County and thereby reduce the cost of the contract.
The Mill Creek Drive section of the Master Development Plan (on file in the Clerk's office) identifies the
general area where this facility was planned and its proximity to Monticello High School.
June 7, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
In recent months, staff has further reviewed the proposed location of this station to ensure that it
achieves the above stated objectives. A site near Walton Middle School was also reviewed to determine
how well it would meet these objectives. After much staff analysis and discussion with the Fire & Rescue
Advisory Board, staff continues to believe the planned site near Monticello High School offers the best
service to County citizens. A station near Monticello High School offers the following benefits:
Five-minute response to 53.1 percent of calls within the Planned Development Area (PDA)
(1998 stats);
Five-minute response to 98.4 percent of calls within the PDA once a connector road is
established between Fifth Street Extended and Avon Street Extended;
Well-positioned for the future due to large amount of expected growth in this area.
Approximately 640 new homes are expected to be constructed by 2004;
Provides back-up coverage to a majority of the County population in both the urban and
rural areas;
Reduces City call load into the County, thereby reducing future city contract costs; and
County currently owns land across from Monticello High;
A station located at Walton Middle school compares to the Monticello location as follows:
Five-minute response to 0% of the PDA;
No major growth expected in the area;
Provides back-up coverage to only a portion of the County; and
Has no impact on the County/City fire contract cost.
Based on the goals set forth in Albemarle County's Comprehensive Plan, and an evaluation of
available response data, staff believes the proposed Southside station should be constructed within the
Planned Development Area (PDA) south of Charlottesville. A letter (on file in the Clerk's office) from the
Fire & Rescue Advisory Board indicates their agreement with this position. A station located at Monticello
High School offers a quick response time to a large number of people located in a high growth area. A
station located at Walton would offer a quick response time to a sparsely populated area where no major
growth is anticipated. Locating the station farther South has a lesser impact on service demand and does
not support the goals stated in the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff recommends approval of the location of the Southside Fire & Rescue Station on site B, as
identified in the Mill Creek Study at property currently owned by the County across from Monticello High
School. (Site B offers the least site development cost and better access than the other sites considered.)
Ms. Thomas said the Daily Pro.qress reported that the Board has said that the Southern Connector
would be built within three years, and the Mill Creek area is the best location. Mr. Bowerman said when he
met with the Scottsville Fire Department, he had said he would like to see the station in place within three
years, but that he knows it is not possible to do it within that timeframe. It was the consensus of the Board
that the Mill Creek area is still the preferred location.
By the above recorded vote, the board approved the location of the Southside Fire & Rescue
Station on site B, as identified in the Mill Creek Study at property currently owned by the County across from
Monticello High School.
Item No. 7.7. March 2000 Financial Report.
The executive summary states that the March 2000 Financial Report (on file in the Clerk's office)
includes reports for the General, School, and Capital Funds.
General Fund revenue projections have been updated for the first-half 2000 property tax bills as
well as current year-to-date collections. It is now projected that General Fund revenues, excluding fund
balance appropriations and transfers in, will exceed budget by $4,746,452. Of this amount, $1,179,164 is
being held for future consideration by the Board of Supervisors, and represents additional tax revenues
resulting from the $0.04 tax rate increase on first-half 2000 tax bills. The remaining $3,567,288 in projected
revenue surplus represents a $761,573 increase over January projections, and reflects better than
anticipated sales tax, BPOL and meals tax revenue collections due to the continued strong economy.
Of the $3.6 Million net revenue surplus, $931,304 has been committed to FY01 budget
expenditures, leaving $2,635,984 in available funds, which may be used as contingency for emergency
needs or one-time expenditures, such as land purchase for future school facilities. (The FY01 adopted
budget also includes $830,465 from existing fund balance revenues for the Acquisition of Conservation
Easements program and other expenditures.)
Major components of the $4.7 million revenue increase are:
Sales Tax
Personal Property Tax, including delinquencies and PPTR
Business License Fees
Real Estate Tax, including delinquencies
$1,148,600
798,900
753,200
1,633,400(including $1,179,164
taxrese~e)
June 7, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
General Fund expenditure projections have not been revised at this time.
Education revenue projections have been revised to reflect an increase in ADM and sales tax
allocation.
Education expenditure projections reflect a four- percent, $241,668 holdback in operating expense
and $82,541 in a compensation lapse adjustment.
Staff recommends acceptance of the March 2000 Financial Report.
By the above recorded vote, the Board approved the March 2000 Financial Report.
Item No. 7.8. Proclamation recognizing July 26, 2000 as the Tenth Anniversary of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following proclamation recognizing July
26, 2000 as the Tenth Anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
TENTH ANNIVERSARY
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
WHEREAS,
much progress has been made since the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
in 1990; and
WHEREAS,
there is yet more work to do before "liberty and justice for all" become the reality for all children
and adults with disabilities; and
WHEREAS,
our community needs to harness the potential of all of its citizens to contribute so that our
economy can continue to grow and our labor force can meet the challenges on the
horizon; and
WHEREAS,
we recognize that disability is a natural part of the human experience and affirm that disability
in no way should limit a person's ability to make choices, pursue meaningful careers,
or participate fully in all aspects of life; and
WHEREAS,
all of us have benefited from the achievements and contributions of people with disabilities;
and
WHEREAS,
the Americans with Disabilities Act was a Declaration of Independence for people with
disabilities; and
WHEREAS,
July 26, 2000 is the Tenth anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act and this
anniversary provides an opportunity for us to renew the pledge made when the ADA
was enacted so that the Twenty First Century will witness the elimination of all
barriers that continue to limit the opportunities available to children and adults with
disabilities in American society;
NOW, THEREFORE, I,
Charles S. Martin, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors, do hereby recognize July 26, 2000 as another Independence
Day in observance of the Tenth Anniversary of the passage of the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) in the County of Albemarle, and call this
observance to the attention of all our citizens.
Item No. 7.9. Westwoods Subdivision "Child at Play" Sign.
The executive summary states that the residents of Westwoods Subdivision requested that
VDOT install a "Child At Play" sign on Pinedale Road (Route 1613). This request requires a
resolution of support from the Board.
On March 3, 1999, the Board endorsed new guidelines for the installation of "Child At Play" signs.
Staff uses these guidelines to review requests:
"Child At Play" siqns shall only be considered on secondaN roads. Pinedale Road (Route
1613) is a secondary road. This subdivision is located off Old Ballard Road.
The request must come from a Homeowner's Association where applicable. Staff has
received a letter requesting the sign from several residents (on file in the Clerk's office).
There is no existing Homeowners' Association.
There must be child activib/attraction nearby for the siqn to be considered. The street that
is proposed for the "Child At Play" sign is on a slight blind curve that ascends and vehicles
June 7, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
may not see small children crossing the street. Staff recognizes that the issue at this
location is a very local problem and is not one of general child access to an activity area.
Although this request does not meet the full intent of this guideline, staff considers this an
appropriate location for a "Child At Play" sign.
The installation of the si.qn shall not conflict with any existing traffic control devices. The
proposed location of the sign will not conflict with any existing traffic control devices. Staff
will work with VDOT to determine the exact location for the sign.
Staff recommends the Board endorse a resolution supporting a "Child At Play" sign in the
Westwoods Subdivision on Pinedale Road (Route 1613).
By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution approving a
Westwoods Subdivision "Child at Play" Sign:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the residents of Westwoods Subdivision are concerned about traffic in their neighborhood and
the potential hazard it creates for the numerous children that play in the subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the residents believe that a "Child At Play" sign would help alleviate some of their concerns;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby supports
the community's requests for VDOT to install the "Child At Play" sign(s) on Pinedale Road (Route
1613).
Item No. 7.10. Debris-Flow Hazard Inventory and Evaluation Report and Map, Albemarle County.
The executive summary states that June of this year marks the five year anniversary of the 1995
storm that caused extensive damage in Madison County and along the North Fork Moormons River in
Albemarle County. Due to the intensity and amount of rainfall, that storm led to debris flows. Debris flows
are fast- moving flows of mud, rock, and water that start on steep hillsides and accelerate rapidly down hill
slopes and channels. They are among the most destructive types of landslides and are responsible for
substantial damage and loss of life worldwide. It is documented that storms which result in extensive debris
flows as well as floods have been occurring in Central Virginia at approximately ten-year intervals during the
present century, including the 1969 tragedy in Nelson County and a similar event in 1985 in parts of Virginia
and West Virginia.
Geologists from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) have been studying debris flow events since
the 1995 storm. Of particular interest to Albemarle County, this work has explored the causes and
conditions that lead to debris flows and methods for hazard evaluation and avoidance. While there are no
practical ways to control debris flows once they have begun, there are steps the County can take to be
more prepared for these types of events. These steps include public education, land use planning, early
warning systems, and evacuation planning.
In the aftermath of the June 1995 storm, the general level of awareness of debris flow hazards was
raised substantially. County staff took the opportunity to add a debris flow section to Chapter 2 of the
Comprehensive Plan (in the section on Mountains), and a Planning Commission work session was devoted
to the subject of debris flow hazards. The following strategy was also adopted into the Plan: Develop
County planning tools and educational materials that address hazard avoidance with regard to areas that
are prone to debris flows. In conjunction with appropriate resource agencies, develop a debris flow hazard
map for AIbemarle County.
Staff also began working with USGS geologists to explore how their work in Madison and Nelson
counties could also be of benefit to Albemarle. This ultimately led to a cost-share arrangement whereby
USGS would develop a debris flow hazard map and accompanying report for the County.
USGS personnel conducted extensive fieldwork in Albemarle County during 1999, produced a draft
report, and recently completed the final report and accompanying map (on file in the Clerk's office).
In addition, County staff and decision-makers participated in a debris flow field trip in October 1999.
The field trip was well attended, and USGS geologists showed field examples of recent and ancient debris
flow sites.
The report and map (large map retained in Clerk's Office) are for information purposes at this time.
General recommendations include the following:
Incorporate the debris flow hazard map into the County's GIS;
Develop an educational brochure to distribute to the public, particularly those applying for
building permits in or near debris flow hazard areas;
Incorporate the zoning and land use recommendations of the report when updating
Chapter 3 of the Comprehensive Plan; and
June 7, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
The Engineering and Fire & Rescue departments, in conjunction with other state and local
agencies, should consider and act on the early warning and evacuation recommendations
of the report.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved staff's recommendations as set out above.
Item No. 7.11. Appropriation: Education, $3,875 (Form #99076).
The executive summary states that:
Virginia Department of Education Grant
The Albemarle County Public Schools has received a grant award from the Virginia Department of
Education in the amount of $940.00. These funds will be used to cover part of the cost of the Advanced
Placement test fees of low-income Albemarle High School students taking the tests.
Donation - Murray Elementan/
Murray Elementary School received anonymous donations in the amount of $885.00. These
donations will be used to purchase instructional materials for the school.
Donation - Monticello Hi.qh School
Monticello High School received a donation in the amount of $1,000.00 from R. Hilton & Carolyn
Patterson. This donation will be used to purchase supplies for the varsity softball team.
Grant - Brownsville Elementan/School
Brownsville Elementary School received a grant award from the Southland Corp. in the amount of
$500.00. This grant will fund a program entitled "Book Pals" for students in grade 1-3. This program will
help motivate students to read more and help improve their reading comprehension skills.
Grant - Cale Elementan/School
James Madison University (JMU) Center for Economic Education has awarded Cale Elementary
School a grant in the amount of $100.00. These funds will help to implement the program "Personal
Finance and Money Management".
Tourin.q Assistance Grants from the Vir.qinia Commission for the Arts
Two Albemarle County Public Schools have been awarded Touring Assistance Grants from the
Virginia Commission for the Arts. Murray Elementary received $150.00 and Jouett Middle School received
$300.00. The Touring Assistance Grant Program has been established to help strengthen the quality of
education in and through the elementary and secondary schools and to encourage innovative projects,
which link the arts with non-arts curricula.
Staff recommends the Board approve the appropriations, totaling $3,875.00, as detailed on
Appropriation #99076.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following resolution of appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 99/00
NUMBER: 99076
FUND: EDUCATION
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: AUTHORIZATION TO EXPEND DONATED FUNDS AND GRANTS.
CODE
1 314461311 580060
1 2215 61101 601300
1 2304 61105 601300
1 3104 60202 601300
1 3104 60214 601300
1 3104 60216 312500
1 3104 60253 312500
EXPENDITURE
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
Test Fees $ 940.00
Ed/Rec Supplies 885.00
Ed/Rec Supplies 1,000.00
Ed/Rec Supplies 500.00
Ed/Rec Supplies 100.00
Prof Serv Inst 150.00
Prof Serv Inst 300.00
TOTAL $3,875.00
CODE
2 3144 24000 240363
2 2000 18100 181109
2 2000 18100 181109
2 3104 18000 181232
2 3104 18100 181242
2 3104 24000 240362
REVENUE
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
Advanced Placement Test $ 940.00
Donations 885.00
Donations 1,000.00
Southland Corp Grant 500.00
JMU Grant 100.00
Murray Tour Grant 150.00
June 7, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
2 3104 24000 240356 Jouett Tour Grant
TOTAL
300.00
$3,875.00
Item No. 7.12. Appropriation: Crozet Crossing Housing Trust Fund, $60,000 (Form #99077).
The executive summary states that in 1994, Albemarle County, the Virginia Department of Housing
and Community Development (DHCD) and the Charlottesville Housing Foundation (CHF) agreed to a
Recapture Plan that would convert a portion of a combined $813,000 investment into non-interest bearing
loans for low and moderate income families to purchase homes in Crozet Crossing and then to recover
upon the resale of the appreciated homes, a portion of the recaptured investment through a County-
administered trust fund to support future affordable housing projects. Upon resale of the property, the
deferred loans are fully due and payable. In addition to repaying the principal of the deferred loan, the
purchasers must pay a portion of any appreciation in the value determined by the difference between the
initial sales price and the resale price of their home. As of May 31st the Crozet Crossing Housing Trust
Fund balance is $63,012.61, the result of $53,188.46 in recaptured sales and $2,973 in defaults plus
interest.
Albemarle County's Department of Finance administers the Crozet Crossing Housing Trust Fund.
An appointed Board of Trustees has the responsibility of identifying and selecting affordable housing
projects that will benefit from the Trust Fund. The Board of Trustees consists of the Chief of Housing (now
represented by the Assistant County Executive), the Director of Finance, one representative from AHIP and
two representatives from CHF.
On April 4th and April 24th, the Crozet Crossing Housing Trust Fund Board of Trustees met to
review two funding applications, one from the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) and one
from the Piedmont Housing Alliance (PHA). PHA's application requested $60,000 from the Crozet
Crossing Housing Trust Fund to be used as part of the 20 percent required match for a $675,000 Rural
Development Grant, which will be used to provide affordable mortgages to 10 low-moderate income
families from the County's Homebuyers clubs. In conjunction with the Crozet Crossings funds, PHA will use
$75,000 in Certified Development Financial Institution (CDFI) funds (local share of the CDFI matching funds
from CHF), $40,000 in HOME funds and $50,000 in Albemarle Housing Initiative Funds. The blend of these
funds will be used to provide low-interest mortgages. Crozet Crossing Funds will be loaned with a five to
7.25 percent interest rate depending on the needs of the families with all principal and interest payments
being returned to the fund. Total cost of the project is $900,000.
AHIP requested $41,750 to create 15 purchase opportunities for very low-income families (below
50 percent of median) in Albemarle County. AHIP, as developer, would produce the 15 homes using state
Affordable Housing Preservation and Production Program (AHPP) funds in the amount of $400,000. AHIP
also proposed working with one of the local banks to leverage approximately $900,000 in funding to help
buy down the interest rate by three percent below market rate. The Crozet Crossing funds would be
used to help the homeowner pay the cost of "buying-down" the initial mortgage interest rate by issuing
deferred loans. The total cost of the AHIP project is $1,091,150.
The Board of Trustees recommended funding $60,000 to PHA for the homeownership program for
several reasons. One, PHA required the local matching funds to pull down the Rural Development
$675,000 grant, which must be used by June 30th. Conversely, AHIP's request was based on some
uncertainty about the local bank's funding commitment and also, the project depended on a state grant for
which funds had not been applied. Therefore, AHIP's proposal seemed tentative compared to the time
sensitive nature of the funds needed by PHA to access the $675,000 grant. Additionally, under the PHA
proposal the Crozet Crossing Trust Funds would be returned with a five to seven percent interest rate,
whereas the AHIP proposal would return the funds after a 15-year deferral with no interest.
Although the Board of Trustees approved the $60,000 to be used by PHA, the funds will be
allocated to PHA on an as-needed basis, i.e. money will be disbursed only when a homeowner is ready to
purchase and needs the funds. With this stipulation, if PHA is not able to utilize all of the Crozet Crossing
funds by the deadline, the funds will revert back to the Trust Fund.
The Crozet Crossing Housing Trust Fund Board of Trustees has the responsibility and authority to
decide on the appropriateness of the low-income housing projects for these funds; however, the Board
must officially appropriate the funds from the Crozet Crossing Housing Trust Fund.
Staff recommends approval of Appropriation #99077 in the amount of $60,000 from the Crozet
Crossing Housing Trust Fund to the Piedmont Housing Alliance to provide homeownership opportunities to
ten Albemarle County families as part of the required 20 percent matching funds for their $675,000 Rural
Development grant.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following resolution of appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 99/00
NUMBER: 99077
FUND: CROZET CROSSINGS
June 7, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR PIEDMONT HOUSING ALLIANCE HOMEBUYER
PROGRAM.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 8515 81030 563130 PIEDMOND HOUSING ALLIANCE $60,000.00
TOTAL $60,000.00
CODE
2 8515 15000 150101
2 8515 15000 150520
2 8515 18000 189909
2 8515 51000 510100
REVENUE
DESCRIPTION
INTEREST ON DEPOSITS
RECAPTURE APPRECIATION
TRUST RECEIPTS
FUND BALANCE
AMOUNT
$ 2,100.00
33,330.00
2,973.00
21,597.00
TOTAL $60,000.00
Mr. Martin said this is a fantastic opportunity for new homeowners. Ms. Thomas said if private funds
were used, the County should thank contributors, if feasible. Ms. Humphris said the only private money was
"in-kind" for the purchase of the property. Mr. Perkins said the funds came from the Charlottesville
Housing Foundation, which is comprised of private donations.
Item No. 7.13. Appropriation: Comprehensive Services Act (CSA), $1,136,019 (Form #99078).
The executive summary states that the CSA Committee of the Commission on Children and
Families (CCF) requests supplemental funding in the amount of $1,218,739 for the Comprehensive
Services Act Programs for FY 2000. Of these required additional funds, approximately 55 percent, or
$677,123, will come from state funds and 45 percent, or $541,616, must come from local funds for the
County's required local match. Of the required supplemental local match of $541,616, $82,720 (26
percent) is requested from the School Division to pay for special education costs associated with CSA
children and the remaining amount of $458,896 (74 percent) from General Government funds.
The Comprehensive Services Act (CSA), implemented in 1995, is the primary funding source for at
risk children and families that enter the foster care, residential special education or juvenile court systems.
The fund is managed by the Commission on Children and Families (formerly the Community Policy and
Management Team or CPMT), comprised of the directors of Social Services, Community Services Board,
Department of Health, Court Services and Special Education, along with some specifically appointed
community representatives. Children and families served with these funds are mandated by the Code and
include: 1) children placed for purposes of special education, 2) disabled children placed by local social
services or the court in private residential facilities and whose Individual Education Program (IEP) indicates
such schooling is appropriate and needed, 3) foster care children and, 4) children and families served to
prevent foster care placement. Additionally, certain groups of children and families are considered targeted
groups and include: 1) children placed by a juvenile and domestic relations district court and; 2) children
committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice and placed in a private or locally operated public facility or
nonresidential program. These children are not considered mandated, but could easily become mandated
if they are not served.
The CCF has taken several measures over the past few years to curtail spending in this program.
However, the number of children entering specialized placements has continued to increase, although the
number of new children entering foster care has leveled off (44 new cases this year compared to 44 in May
1999). Trends affecting the increasing costs include the following:
The foster care caseload has shown alarming increases over the past several years. This
year, caseloads have increased a further four percent over last fiscal year;
Since 1994, the total number of children in foster care has increased 127 percent, from 60
to 136 in FY00;
44 new children have been taken into care since July 1999;
The average cost of a specialized placement per child is over $40,000 per year. This
includes temporary emergency shelter placements, residential facilities and therapeutic
foster home programs. Temporary care for seriously emotionally disturbed children with a
history of aggressiveness, chronic runaway behavior and/or suicidal behavior can cost as
much as $400 per day;
Increases have also been a result of additional foster care prevention expenditures, which,
based on the County's local survey, have proven to help prevent or delay children from
entering care;
June 7, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Increase in cost for supportive services to enable foster families to keep more difficult
children, prevent placement disruption and/or more costly residential placements;
Increase in the number of children who have no acceptable caretaker to take custody; and
Increase in the number of children coming from homes where parents have addiction
problems and where the children may have been prenatally exposed and/or negativity
impacted by substance abuse prior to removal.
In special education costs, four areas have provided the largest increases in special education
costs over the past two years:
Children who are placed in foster care and have required residential placements outside
the community. These children have numerous issues including the need for special
education services at the residential facility;
Children served in a day treatment setting. These are students with significant
emotional/behavioral issues that can not be addressed in the public school setting. These
students require a therapeutic setting, but are able to be maintained within the community
by providing the additional support services;
Services provided to children with autism. There continues to be significant numbers of
children with autism being served in Albemarle County. One current intervention used to
treat children with autism is applied behavioral analysis (ABA), which requires one-on-one
intensive services; and
Students placed in residential programs because of their disability. These are children who
cannot be served in the public schools, in the County's day school program (Ivy Creek
School) or in a private day treatment program, because of the significance of their
disability. Expenditures in this area can be greatly affected by one or two students. Costs
can range from $100,000 - $200,000 a year.
Staff provided a list of some of the high cost placements made by the Department of Social
Services, the School Division, and the Court Services Unit this year. The behavioral and emotional
problems faced by these children are significant. Low-cost foster homes cannot be utilized as placements
for children with these types of need, especially in the initial phase of their care. However, based on a bill
passed by the General Assembly in 1998 that allows the use of Medicaid for therapeutic foster care, there is
some hope that some of the local costs may be offset by federal Medicaid dollars in FY01.
With this supplemental request, total expenditures for the CSA program will total $4.1 million
dollars, approximately $0.730 million over the FY99 totals of $3.4 million.
Staff recommends approval of Appropriation #99078 in the amount of $1,136,019, $677,123 in
state funds and $458,896 from the General Fund balance. A request will go to the School Board later in
the month to approve the $82,720 transfer from the School Fund to the CSA fund for the Special
Education costs. If approved, the Board will be asked to approve the transfer appropriation at a future
meeting.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following resolution of appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 99/00
NUMBER: 99078
FUND: CSA
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 1551 53120 581101 MAN RES THERAP FC IV-E $297,576.00
1 1551 53120 581102 MAN RES THERAP FC OTHER 367,381.00
1 1551 53120 581201 MAN RES FAMILY FC IV-E 15,892.00
1 1551 53120 581202 MAN RES FAMILY FC-OTHER 46,418.00
1 1551 53120 581203 FAM. FSTR CARE MAINT PAYM 28,455.00
1 1551 53120 581301 MAN RES FC PREVENTION 6,631.00
1 1551 53120 581401 MAN RES SPECIAL ED 202,479.00
1 1551 53120 581501 MAN NON-RES FC PREVENTION 47,364.00
1 1551 53120 581601 MAN NRES SPEC ED PRIV DAY 107,475.00
1 1551 53120 581602 MAN NRES SPEC ED PUBL DAY 16,348.00
TOTAL $1,136,019.00
REVENUE
June 7, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
CODE
2 1551 24000 240109
2 1551 51000 512016
DESCRIPTION
STATE FUNDING
TRANSFER FROM SOC. SER.
AMOUNT
$677,123.00
458,896.00
TOTAL
$1,136,019.00
1 1000 53013 571205
2 1000 51000 510100
TRANSFERS
TRANSFERS TO CSA
FUND BALANCE
AMOUNT
$458,896.00
$458,896.00
Ms. Humphris said the CSA has placed tremendous pressure on the County's foster care caseload.
She congratulated staff on preparing an excellent report that explains the expense involved with foster
care.
Item No. 7.14. Appropriation: General Fund, $1,179,164 (Form #99079).
The executive summary states that the $0.04 rate increase for the year 2000 real estate tax will
generate additional FY 1999/00 revenue in the amount of $2,358,328. Pursuant to the Board's directive,
one-half of this amount is to be reserved pending their decision for future usage or refund.
Staff recommends the Board approve Appropriation #99079, in the amount of $1,179,164, to
establish this tax reserve.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following resolution of appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCALYEAR:99/00
NUMBER:99079
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: RESERVE PORTION OF TAX INCREASE FOR FUTURE
CONSIDERATION.
CODE
11000 93010 939999
EXPENDITURE
DESCRIPTION
TRANSFER TO TAX RESERVE
AMOUNT
$1,179,164.00
TOTAL $1,179,164.00
CODE
2 1000 11000 110100
REVENUE
DESCRIPTION
REAL ESTATE TAX
AMOUNT
$1,179,164.00
TOTAL $1,179,164.00
Item No. 7.15. Appropriation: Metal Detector for Albemarle County General District Court, $5,000
(Form #99080).
The executive summary states that currently, all the County court facilities, except the General
District Court, are equipped with stationary metal detectors that detect weapons or other dangerous items
that could threaten public safety in the courtrooms.
This request would allocate funds from the County's Courthouse Maintenance Fund to the General
Government CIP, for the purchase and installation of a metal detector at the General District Court.
Staff recommends approval of Appropriation #99080, in the amount of $5,000, for the metal
detector.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following resolution of appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 99/00
NUMBER: 99080
FUND: CAPITAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR METAL DETECTOR FOR GENERAL DISTRICT
COURT.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 9010 21020 800100 GENERAL DISTRICT COURT $5,000.00
June 7, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
TOTAL
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION
2 9010 51000 512002 TRS. FROM CT. HSE. MT.
TOTAL
TRANSFERS
1 9150 93010 939999 TRS. TO CAPITAL
2 9150 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE
$5,000.00
AMOUNT
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
AMOUNT
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
Ms. Thomas asked if staff examined this request, since it did not come up during the regular budget
process. Mr. Tucker said staff agreed it is important to have a metal detector for safety purposes.
Item No. 7.16. Appropriation: JAUNT Transportation Initiative Grant, $151,122.55 (Form #99081).
The executive summary states that the Albemarle, Charlottesville, and Fluvanna Departments of
Social Services, together with JAUNT, received a Transportation Initiative Grant from the State in November
1997. This is the second and last renewal of the grant. The grant funds direct transportation costs, as well
as a full-time Project Coordinator position.
The initiative will be funded by a $151,122.55 state grant. There is no local match.
Staff recommends approval of Appropriation #99081 in the amount of $151,122.55.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following resolution of appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 99/00
NUMBER: 99081
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR SOCIAL SERVICES TRANSPORATION INITIATIVE
GRANT.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 1556 53140 343000 JAUNT $135,969.48
1 1556 53140 343001 SALARIES 11,842.45
1 1556 53140 343002 FICA 905.96
1 1556 53140 343004 HEALTH INS. 2,098.70
1 1556 53140 343006 TELEPHONE 305.96
TOTAL $151,122.55
CODE
2 1556 24000 240535
REVENUE
DESCRIPTION
VDSS: TRANSPORTATION GRANT
AMOUNT
$151,122.55
TOTAL $151,122.55
TRANSFERS
AMOUNT
TOTAL $151,122.55
Item No. 7.17. Adopt Resolution of Appropriation for FY 2000-2001 Operating Budget.
The executive summary states that the Board approved the FY 2000-01 Operating Budget on April
12, 2000, in the amount of $161,839,457. The proposed FY 2000-01 Resolution of Appropriation provides
the Board's authority for the County to spend those funds, effective July 1,2000.
Since then, several adjustments have been made to the operating budget adopted in April. These
adjustments represent a net reduction of $90,209, for a revised County budget of $161,749,248.
General Fund
General Fund expenditures increase by $220,389, and reflect the following adjustments:
a $227,500 increase in transfer payment to the General Government CIP Fund, to formally
appropriate the General Fund balance revenue approved for three capital projects
included in the FY 2000/01 adopted CIP. These projects include: $150,000 for the ACE
June 7, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
program, $50,000 for the new Region Ten facilities and $27,500 for CALAS' new capital
facility. (This adjustment simply appropriates the General Fund balance revenue already
approved for these projects and transfers it to the CIP);
$63,153 for a new Sheriff's Deputy/Juvenile Court Bailiff position, and $19,755 for new
equipment in the Sheriff's Office, which were approved by the State Compensation Board
after the budget was adopted in April. In addition, $21,475 is added to the Sheriff's budget
to equip the locally funded deputy formally assigned to law enforcement duty in the Town
of Scottsville with a vehicle. (The Board approved the required local match for the deputy
of $27,938, and the equipment, $7,596, as well as the additional vehicle for the Scottsville
deputy of $21,475, at a meeting on May 17, 2000);
$23,324 for a fifth Bright Stars Four-Year Old Program at Scottsville Elementary School
(approved by the Board at a meeting on May 3, 2000);
$35,000 to fund the additional cost of the Regional Library's new pay plan, which was not
fully-funded in the adopted budget; and
a $169,818 net reduction in other miscellaneous expenditures. These expenditures
include $23,360 in miscellaneous salary adjustments; a $3,940 increase in the County's
contribution to the Juvenile Detention Home (to reflect the Commission's final budget); a
$2,540 total reduction in the Human Resources and Media Center transfers to reflect
reductions in budgeted health and retirement premiums; a $39,230 reduction to remove
the Scottsville Town Sergeant from the Sheriff's payroll, now that the agreement with
Scottsville has ended; and a $155,348 balancing adjustment to the Board's contingency
reserve. Ending Board of Supervisors contingency reserves total $123,630.
General Fund revenues increase by a corresponding amount ($220,389), and include: $248,975 in
budgeted fund balance revenues (to complete the transfer to the CIP and purchase a vehicle for the former
Scottsville deputy); $42,814 from the State for the new Sheriff's deputy/bailiff and equipment; $4,560 from
the City for its share of the bailiff; and a $75,960 reduction in reimbursement revenues from the town of
Scottsville.
The revised General Fund budget is $120,490,559.
SchooiFund
The School Fund budget is $90,035,795, the same as the adopted. The only adjustment in
revenues was a $2,540 decrease in transfer payments from the General Fund for Human Resources and
Media Services (training) due to reduced health and VRS costs. This reduction was offset by a $2,540
increase in prior year recovery.
School Self-Sustaining Funds
The revised School Self-Sustaining Funds budget is $7,896,449, which is a $310,598 reduction
since April. Expenses for Prep declined by $23,270 due to VRS changes and the reduction in health
insurance costs. The Community Education Fund declined by $287,328 due to programmatic changes,
decreased revenue projections, and revised personnel costs.
Debt Service Funds
The School Division Debt Service Fund reflects the $8,850,000 General Fund transfer, as
well as $1,347,853 in budgeted debt service reserve, which will be used in future years to
support planned VPSA bond issues. In addition, the School Division Debt Service Fund
reflects $279,608 in debt service payments for PREP and $295,925 for VRS Early
Retirement in the School Division. With these additional costs, the School Division Debt
Service Fund totals $10,773,386 for FY 2000/01.
The General Government Debt Service Fund totals $2,240,000 and includes: $1,290,000
for the County's new debt service/capital reserve fund; $550,000 for debt service on the
proposed 800MHz Communication System; and $400,000 for General Government's
separate debt service reserve (of which $200,000 represents FY 00/01 contribution, and
$200,000 is FY 99/00 contribution carried forward to FY 00/01 .) The $1.29 million
debt/service capital reserve was created from $0.02 of the $0.04 approved rate increase
for FY 2000/01, and will be used toward future capital or debt service expenses. The
separate General Government debt service reserve was created in FY 99/00 to offset
future debt service obligations on proposed bonded General Government capital projects.
Other Funds
The "Other Funds" section of this resolution of appropriation includes the Comprehensive Services
Act Fund, totaling $3,922,220; the Bright Stars Program Fund, totaling $487,435; the Family Support Fund,
totaling $822,212; the Tourism Fund, totaling $840,000; Towe Memorial Park Fund, totaling $202,277; the
Emergency Operations Center Fund, totaling $2,430,218; the E-911 Service Charge Fund, totaling
$879,923; the Visitor Center Fund, totaling $68,000; and the Courthouse Maintenance Fund, totaling
$41,000.
The FY 2000/01 Resolution of Appropriation appropriates funding in the major categories of
June 7, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
expenditure.
Staff recommends approval of a Resolution of Appropriation that allocates a total of $161,749,248
to the General Government and School Division operating budgets, $1,827,461 in additional funds for debt
service, and a total of $9,693,285 among the various other County funds for the Fiscal Year 2000-01.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following resolution of appropriation:
ANNUAL RESOLUTION OF APPROPRIATION
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2001
A RESOLUTION making appropriations of sums of money for all necessary expenditures of the
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2001; to prescribe the
Provisions with respect to the items of appropriation and their payment; and to repeal all previous
appropriation ordinances or resolutions that are inconsistent with this resolution to
the extent of such inconsistency.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA:
SECTION I - GENERAL GOVERNMENT
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the GENERAL
FUND to be apportioned as follows for the purposes herein specified for the
Fiscal year ending June 30, 2001:
Paragraph One: TAX REFUNDS, ABATEMENTS, & OTHER REFUNDS:
1 Refunds and Abatements
$34,300
$34,300
Paragraph Two: GENERAL MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT
1 Board of Supervisors
2 County Attorney
3 County Executive
4 Finance
5 Human Resources
6 Information Services
7 Voter Registration/Elections
$331,467
$457,658
$686,109
$2,696,821
$477,626
$1,638,572
$223,787
$6,512,040
$6,512,040
Paragraph Three: JUDICIAL
1 Circuit Court
2 Clerk of the Circuit Court
3 Commonwealth's Attorney
4 General District Court
5 Juvenile Court
6 Magistrate
7 Sheriff
$76,510
$659,925
$546,220
$12,830
$121,567
$18,995
$1,293,260
$2,729,307
$2,729,307
Paragraph Four: PUBLIC SAFETY
1 Emergency Communications Center (E-911)
2 Fire Department (City)
3 Fire Department (JCFRA
4 Fire/Rescue Administration
5 Fire/Rescue Credit
6 Forest Fire Extinction Service
7 Inspections
8 Juvenile Detention Home
9 Offender Aid and Restoration (OAR)
10 Police Department
11 Regional Jail Authority
12 SPCA Contract
13 Volunteer Rescue Squads (JCFRA)
$1,066,031
$654,427
$732,960
$1,371,808
$75,000
$13,758
$726,564
$148,940
$52,400
$7,452,661
$1,363,000
$40,495
$192,096
$13,890,140
$13,890,140
June 7, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
Paragraph Five: ENGINEERING & PUBLIC WORKS
1 Engineering & Public Works
2 Water Resources Management
$2,600,492
$118,769
$2,719,261
$2,719,261
Paragraph Six: HUMAN SERVICES
1 Aids Support Group
2 Bright Stars Program
3 Charlottesville - Albemarle Legal Aid Society (CALAS)
4 Charlottesville Free Clinic
5 Children, Youth and Family Services (CYFS)
6 Commission on Children & Families (CCF)
7 FOCUS - Teensight
8 Health Department
9 Jefferson Area Board on Aging (JABA)
10 JABA - Adult Health Care Facility
11 JAUNT
12 Madison House
13 Music Resource Center
14 Piedmont CASA
15 Piedmont Virginia Community College (PVCC)
16 Region Ten Community Services
17 Sexual Assault Resource Agency (SARA)
18 Shelter for Help in Emergency (SHE)
19 Social Services
20 Tax Relief for Elderly/Disabled
21 United Way Scholarship Program
Paragraph Seven: PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURE
1 Darden Towe Memorial Park
2 Jefferson-Madison Regional Library
3 Literacy Volunteers
4 Parks and Recreation
5 Piedmont Council of the Arts
6 Transfer: Tourism
7 Virginia Discovery Museum
8 WVPT Public Television
$3,260
$268,030
$20,095
$5,570
$50,440
$145,933
$21,850
$775,890
$154,380
$14,400
$341,236
$7,415
$5,000
$2,000
$10,250
$358,435
$24,000
$68,570
$7,042,920
$210,000
$74,275
$9,603,949
$119,362
$2,001,300
$16,150
$1,310,857
$10,020
$840,000
$2,500
$7,210
$4,307,399
$9,603,949
$4,307,399
Paragraph Eight: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
1 Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP)
2 Housing Office
3 Monticello Area Community Action Agency (MACAA)
4 Piedmont Housing Alliance (PHA)
5 Planning and Community Development
6 Planning District Commission (TJPDC)
7 Route 29 Bus Service (CTS)
8 Soil and Water Conservation
9 VPI Extension Service
10 Zoning
$379,560
$430,915
$142,220
$91,050
$1,268,197
$90,258
$155,565
$49,682
$164,586
$606,340
$3,378,373
$3,378,373
Paragraph Nine: CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND
1 Compensation Plan/Compensation Adjustment Reserve
$411,004
$411,004
Paragraph Ten: CAPITAL OUTLAYS
1 Transfer to General Government Capital Improvement Program
2 Transfer to Stormwater Fund
$2,701,523
$422,977
$3,124,500
$3,124,500
Paragraph Eleven: REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENT $6,093,101
June 7, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
1 Revenue Sharing Agreement
$6,093,101
Paragraph Twelve: OTHER USES OF FUNDS
1 Transfer to General Government Debt Service - Ongoing
2 Transfer to General Government Debt Service - Debt/Capital
Reserve
3 Transfer to School Division Debt Service
4 Transfer to School Fund
5 Board Contingency Reserve
$750,000
$1,290,000
$8,850,000
$56,673,555
$123,630
$67,687,185
$67,687,185
SUMMARY
Total GENERAL FUND appropriations for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 2001:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources
Revenue from Local Sources - General Fund Balance/Transfers
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from the Federal Government
Total GENERAL FUND resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2001:
$108,491,073
$1,298,820
$7,314,872
$3,285,794
$120,490,559
$120,490,559
$120,490,559
SECTION Ih REGULAR SCHOOL FUND
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for SCHOOL
purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2001:
Paragraph One: REGULAR SCHOOL FUND
$90,035,795
1 Administration, Attendance & Health
2 Debt Service Fund
3 Facilities Construction/Modification
4 Facilities Operation/Maintenance
5 Instruction
6 Pupil Transportation Services
7 Other Uses of Funds
$5,031,758
$295,925
$91,780
$8,652,247
$68,964,636
$5,783,993
$1,215,456
$90,035,795
SUMMARY
Total REGULAR SCHOOL FUND appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2001:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund Transfer - Ongoing)
Revenue from Other Local Sources
Revenue from School Fund Balance, Carry-Over, Transfers
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from the Federal Government
$56,673,555
$651,695
$664,000
$30,608,077
$1,438,468
$90,035,795
Total REGULAR SCHOOL FUND resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2001:
$90,035,795
$90,035,795
SECTION IIh OTHER SCHOOL FUNDS
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for the purposes
herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2001:
June 7, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
Paragraph One: FOOD SERVICES
1 Maintenance/Operation of School Cafeterias
$3,032,230
$3,032,230
SUMMARY
Total FOOD SERVICES appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2001:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from the Federal Government
Total FOOD SERVICES resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2001:
$2,200,900
$51,000
$780,330
$3,032,230
$3,032,230
$3,032,230
Paragraph Two: PRE-SCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION FUND
1 Special Ed Pre-School Program
$72,457
$72,457
SUMMARY
Total PRE-SCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION FUND appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2001:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Federal Government $72,457
Total PRE-SCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCTION FUND resources available for fiscal
year ending June 30, 2001:
$72,457
$72,457
Paragraph Three: MclNTIRE TRUST FUND
1 Payment to County Schools
SUMMARY
Total MclNTIRE TRUST FUND appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2001:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Investments Per Trust
Total MclNTIRE TRUST FUND resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2001:
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
Paragraph Four: PREP PROGRAM
1 C. B. I. P. Severe
2 E. D. Program
SUMMARY
Total PREP PROGRAM appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2001:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Tuition and Fees
Total PREP PROGRAM resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2001:
$668,773
$582,921
$1,251,694
$1,251,694
$1,251,694
$1,251,694
$1,251,694
June 7, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
Paragraph Five: FEDERAL PROGRAMS
1 Adult Education
2 Carl Perkins
3 Chapter I
4 Chapter II
5 Drug Free Schools
6 Migrant Education
7 Title II
$72,500
$126,137
$606,042
$49,627
$42,195
$271,140
$38,615
$1,206,256
SUMMARY
Total FEDERAL PROGRAMS appropriations for fiscal year
Ending June 30, 2001:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School Fund)
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from the Federal Government
$4,873
$109,822
$1,091,561
$1,206,256
Total FEDERAL PROGRAMS resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2001:
$1,206,256
$1,206,256
$1,206,256
Paragraph Six: COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND
1 Community Education
SUMMARY
Total COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND appropriations for fiscal year
Ending June 30, 2001:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources - Tuition
Revenue from Local Sources - Miscellaneous Revenue
$1,412,672
$1,409,685
$2,987
$1,412,672
Total COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND resources available for fiscal
ending June 30, 2001:
$1,412,672
$1,412,672
$1,412,672
Paragraph Seven: SUMMER SCHOOL
1 Summer School
SUMMARY
Total SUMMER SCHOOL appropriations for fiscal year
Ending June 30, 2001:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School Fund)
Revenue from Local Sources - Tuition
Miscellaneous Revenues
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Total SUMMER SCHOOL resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2001:
$435,000
$161,243
$166,257
$7,500
$100,000
$435,000
$435,000
$435,000
$435,000
Paragraph Eight: SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT
1 School Bus Replacement
SUMMARY
Total SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT appropriations for fiscal year
$433,997
$433,997
June 7, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
Ending June 30, 2001:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Sale of Vehicles)
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School Fund)
$20,000
$413,997
$433,997
Total SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2001:
$433,997
$433,997
Paragraph Nine: SUMMER FEEDING PROGRAM FUND
1 Food Service
SUMMARY
Total SUMMER FEEDING PROGRAM FUND appropriations for fiscal year
Ending June 30, 2001:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Interest on Deposits
Revenue from Local Sources (Sales)
Revenue from the Federal Government
$43,150
$3,250
$2,700
$37,200
$43,150
Total SUMMER FEEDING PROGRAM FUND resources available for fiscal
ending June 30, 2001:
$43,150
$43,150
$43,150
Paragraph Ten: RETURN II GRANT FUND
1 Return II State Grant
SUMMARY
Total RETURN II GRANT FUND appropriations for fiscal year
Ending June 30, 2001:
To be provided as follows:
Miscellaneous Revenues
Local Revenue (Transfer from the School Fund)
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Total RETURN II GRANT FUND resources available for fiscal
ending June 30, 2001:
$61,212
$11,520
$6,093
$43,599
$61,212
$61,212
$61,212
$61,212
Paragraph Eleven: ALCOA FOUNDATION EDUCATOR-IN-RESIDENCE FUND
1 ALCOA Foundation Educator-in-Residence $60,000
SUMMARY
Total ALCOA FOUNDATION EDUCATOR-IN-RESIDENCE FUND appropriations for
Fiscal year ending June 30, 2001:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources $60,000
Total ALCOA FOUNDATION EDUCATOR-IN-RESIDENCE FUND resources
available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2001:
$60,000
$60,000
$60,000
Paragraph Twelve: INTERNAL SERVICE - VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FUND
1 Vehicle Maintenance
SUMMARY
$200,000
$200,000
June 7, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
Total INTERNAL SERVICE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FUND appropriations for
Fiscal year ending June 30, 2001:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources $200,000
Total INTERNAL SERVICE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FUND resources
available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2001:
Paragraph Thirteen: GENERAL ADULT EDUCATION FUND
1 General Adult Education $7,987
SUMMARY
Total GENERAL ADULT EDUCATION FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2001:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Commonwealth $7,987
Total GENERAL ADULT EDUCATION FUND resources available
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2001:
Paragraph Fourteen: DRIVERS SAFETY FUND
1 Drivers Safety Fund
SUMMARY
Total DRIVERS SAFETY FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2001:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Tuition
Revenue from the Commonwealth
$170,000
$153,992
$16,008
$170,000
Total DRIVERS SAFETY FUND resources available for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2001:
Paragraph Fifteen: OPEN DOORS FUND
1 Open Doors Fund
SUMMARY
Total OPEN DOORS FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2001:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Tuition
Revenue from Local Sources (Advertisements)
$86,000
$43,000
$43,000
$86,000
Total OPEN DOORS FUND resources available for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2001:
$200,000
$200,000
$7,987
$7,987
$7,987
$170,000
$170,000
$170,000
$86,000
$86,000
$86,000
SECTION IV: DEBT SERVICE
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for the function of
DEBT SERVICE to be apportioned as follows from the GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE
FUND and the SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE FUND for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2001:
Paragraph One: SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE FUND $10,773,386
June 7, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
1 Debt Service Payments - School Division
2 Debt Service Reserve - School Division
3 Debt Service Payments - PREP
4 Debt Service Fees
5 VRS Early Retirement
$8,425,999
$1,768,604
$279,608
$3,250
$295,925
$10,773,386
SUMMARY
Total SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE appropriations for fiscal year
Ending June 30, 2001:
$10,773,386
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund)
Revenue from Local Sources (Fund Balance)
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School Fund)
Revenue from Local Sources (PREP Fees)
$8,850,000
$1,347,853
$295,925
$279,608
$10,773,386
Total SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE resources available for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2001: $10,773,386
Paragraph Two: GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE FUND
1 Debt Service Payment - 800MHz Radio System
2 Debt Service/Capital Projects Reserve
3 Debt Service Reserve - General Government Projects
$550,000
$1,290,000
$400,000
$2,240,000
$2,240,000
SUMMARY
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE appropriations for fiscal year
Ending June 30, 2001:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from Gen. Fund -
Ongoing)
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from Gen. Fund -
Debt/Capital Reserve)
Revenue from Local Sources (Fund Balance)
$750,000
$1,290,000
$200,000
$2,240,000
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE resources available for
fiscal year ending June 30, 2001:
$2,240,000
$2,240,000
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS MENTIONED IN
SECTIONS I - IV OF THIS RESOLUTION
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2001
RECAPITU LATIO N:
Appropriations:
Section I General Fund
Section II School Fund
Section III Other School Funds
Section IV Debt Service Funds
$120,490,559
$90,035,795
$8,482,655
$13,013,386
$232,022,395
Less Inter-Fund Transfers
General Fund to School Fund
General Fund to School Debt Service Fund
General Fund to General Government Debt Service Fund
School Fund to Debt Service Fund
School Fund to Self-Sustaining Funds
($56,673,555)
($8,850,000)
($2,040,000)
($295,925)
($586,206)
($68,445,686)
$232,022,395
($68,445,686)
June 7, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
Less Use of Other Funds for Debt Service
PREP Debt Service
School Debt Service Reserve
General Government Debt Service Reserve
($279,608)
($1,347,853)
($200,000)
($1,827,461)
($1,827,461)
GRAND TOTAL
$161,749,248
SECTION V: OTHER FUNDS
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for OTHER
Purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2001.
Paragraph One: COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT FUND
1 Comprehensive Services Act Expenditures
SUMMARY
Total COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT appropriations for fiscal year
Ending June 30, 2001:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund)
Revenue from Local Sources (School Fund)
Revenue from the Commonwealth
$3,922,220
$3,922,220
$3,922,220
$1,315,000
$450,000
$2,157,220
$3,922,220
Total COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT resources available for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2001: $3,922,220
Paragraph Two: BRIGHT STARS 4 YEAR OLD PROGRAM FUND
$487,435
1 Bright Stars Program
$487,435
SUMMARY
Total BRIGHT STARS 4 YEAR OLD PROGRAM FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2001: $487,435
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund)
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School Fund)
Other Local Revenue (Fund Balance)
Other Local Revenue (Miscellaneous)
Revenue from the Commonwealth
$268,030
$26,250
$30,000
$5,000
$158,155
$487,435
Total BRIGHT STARS 4 YEAR OLD PROGRAM FUND resources available for fiscal
year ending June 30, 2001: $487,435
Paragraph Three: FAMILY SUPPORT FUND
1 Family Support Program
SUMMARY
Total FAMILY SUPPORT FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2001:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Fund Balance)
Revenue from the Federal Government
$822,212
$22,500
$799,712
$822,212
$822,212
$822,212
June 7, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
Total FAMILIY SUPPORT FUND resources available
For fiscal year ending June 30, 2001:
$822,212
Paragraph Three: TOURISM FUND
1 Ashlawn Highland Summer Festival
2 Municipal Band
3 Paramount Theater Restoration Project
4 Rivanna Greenway Access & Path Project
5 Tourism Development
6 Tourism Projects
7 Transfer to General Government CIP Fund - Acquisition of
Conservation Easements
8 Virginia Discovery Museum
9 Virginia Festival of the Book
10 Virginia Film Festival
11 Visitor's Bureau
12 Visitor's Bureau Maintenance
SUMMARY
Total TOURISM FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2001:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund)
$8,000
$15,000
$33,000
$25,000
$164,104
$67,398
$350,000
$7,560
$10,000
$10,000
$139,938
$10,000
$840,000
$840,000
$840,000
$840,000
Total TOURISM FUND resources available for fiscal year
Ending June 30, 2001:
$840,000
Paragraph Four: TOWE MEMORIAL PARK FUND
1 Darden Towe Memorial Park
SUMMARY
Total TOWE MEMORIAL PARK FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2001:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund)
Miscellaneous Local Revenue
City of Charlottesville
$202,277
$119,362
$18,100
$64,815
$202,277
Total TOWE MEMORIAL PARK FUND resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2001:
$202,277
$202,277
$202,277
Paragraph Five: EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER FUND
$2,430,218
1 Emergency Communications Center Operations
$2,430,218
SUMMARY
TOTAL EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2001: $2,430,218
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund)
City of Charlottesville
University of Virginia
Miscellaneous Local Revenue
Federal Revenue
Fund Balance
$1,066,031
$1,055,476
$210,963
$2,000
$8,200
$87,548
$2,430,218
Total EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER FUND resources available
June 7, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2001:
Paragraph Six: E-911 SERVICE CHARGE FUND
1 E-911 Fund Expenditures
$879,923
SUMMARY
TOTAL E-911 SERVICE CHARGE FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2001:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue From Local Sources - E-911 Fees
Revenue From Local Sources - Interest Income
$860,223
$19,700
$879,923
Total E-911 SERVICE CHARGE FUND resources available
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2001:
$2,430,218
$879,923
$879,923
$879,923
Paragraph Seven: VISITOR CENTER FUND
1 Debt Service
SUMMARY
TOTAL VISITOR CENTER FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2001:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources
Total VISITOR CENTER FUND resources available
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2001:
$68,000
$68,000
$68,000
$68,000
$68,000
Paragraph Eight: COURTHOUSE MAINTENANCE FUND
$41,000
1 Transfer to General Government CIP Fund
$41,000
SUMMARY
TOTAL COURTHOUSE MAINTENANCE FUND appropriations for
Fiscal year ending June 30, 2001:
$41,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources
$41,000
Total COURTHOUSE MAINTENANCE FUND resources available
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2001:
$41,000
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Finance is hereby authorized to transfer monies
from one fund to another, from time to time as monies become available, sums equal to, but not in excess
of, the appropriations made to these funds for the period covered by this resolution of appropriation. The
Director of Finance (Melvin A. Breeden) and Clerk to the Board of Supervisors (Ella W. Carey) are hereby
designated as authorized signators for all bank accounts.
SECTION VI
All of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained items in Sections I through V are
appropriated upon the provisos, terms, conditions, and provisions herein before set forth in connection with said
terms and those set forth in this section.
Paragraph One
Subject to the qualifications in this resolution contained, all appropriations are declared to be
maximum, conditional and proportionate appropriations-the purpose being to make the appropriations payable
in full in the amount named herein if necessary and then only in the event the aggregate revenues collected
and available during the fiscal year for which the appropriations are made are sufficient to pay all of the
June 7, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
appropriations in full.
Otherwise, the said appropriations shall be deemed to be payable in such proportion as the
total sum of all realized revenue of the respective funds is to the total amount of revenue
estimated to be available in the said fiscal year by the Board of Supervisors.
Paragraph Two
All revenue received by any agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors or by the School
Board or by the Social Services Board not included in its estimate of revenue for the financing of the fund
budget as submitted to the Board of Supervisors may not be expended by the said agency under the control
of the Board of Supervisors or by the School Board or by the Social Services Board without the consent of the
Board of Supervisors being first obtained, nor may any of these agencies or boards make expenditures which
will exceed a specific item of an appropriation.
Paragraph Three
All balances of appropriations at the close of business on the thirtieth (30th) day of June, 2001, are
hereby declared to be lapsed into the County treasury and shall be used for the payment of the appropriations
which may be made in the resolution of appropriation for the next fiscal year, beginning July 1, 2001. Any
balance available shall be used in financing the proposed expenditures of the respective funds for the next fiscal
year.
Paragraph Four
No obligations for goods, materials, supplies, equipment or contractual services for any purpose may
be incurred by any department, bureau, agency, or individual under the direct control of the Board of
Supervisors except by requisition to the purchasing agent; provided, however, no requisition for items exempted
by the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual shall be required; and provided further that no requisition for
contractual services involving the issuance of a contract on a competitive bid basis shall be required, but such
contract shall be approved by the head of the contracting department, bureau, agency, or individual, the County
Attorney and the Purchasing Agent or Director of Finance. The Purchasing Agent shall be responsible for
securing such competitive bids on the basis of specification furnished by the contracting department, bureau,
agency or individual.
In the event of the failure for any reason of approval herein required for such contracts, said contract
shall be awarded through appropriate action of the Board of Supervisors.
Any obli.qations incurred contrary to the purchasin.q procedures prescribed in the Albemarle
County Purchasin.q Manual shall not be considered obli.qations of the County, and the Director
of Finance shall not issue any warrants in payment of such obli.qations.
Paragraph Five
Allowances out of any of the appropriations made in this resolution by any or all County departments,
bureaus, or agencies under the control of the Board of Supervisors to any of their officers and employees for
expense on account of the use of such officers and employees of their personal automobiles in the discharge
of their official duties shall be paid at the same rate as that established by the State of Virginia for its employees
and shall be subject to change from time to time to maintain like rates.
Paragraph Six
All travel expense accounts shall be submitted on forms and according to regulations prescribed or
approved by the Director of Finance.
Paragraph Seven
All previous appropriation ordinances or resolutions to the extent that they are inconsistent with the pro-
visions of this resolution shall be and the same are hereby repealed.
Paragraph Eight
This resolution shall become effective on July first, of the year two thousand.
Item No. 7.18. Adopt Resolution of Appropriation for FY 2000-2001 Capital Improvements Budget
and Resolution of Official Intent for use of VPSA Bond Proceeds.
The executive summary states that the FY 2000-01 Capital Improvements Budget was approved by
the Board on April 12, 2000 in the amount of $7,024,563:$3,341,946 to the General Government Capital
June 7, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
Improvements Fund, $58,000 to the Tourism Fund for capital projects, $422,977 to the Stormwater Capital
Improvements Fund; and $3,201,640 to the School Division Capital Improvement Fund.
There have been no changes to the FY 2000/01 capital improvements budget since it was adopted
on April 12. School projects reflect the FY 2000/01 school CIP budget approved by the School Board on
May 22, 2000, and are balanced against approved revenues.
The proposed resolution totals $6,966,563, and reflects the following appropriations: $3,341,946 to
the General Government Capital Improvements Fund, $422,977 to the Stormwater Capital Improvements
Fund, and $3,201,640 to the School Division Capital Improvement Fund. The Tourism and Debt Service
funds will be appropriated as part of the FY 2000/01 Operating Budget Resolution of Appropriation.
An additional project to purchase an 800MHz Communication System that would be used by City,
County, and University public safety agencies remains under review by a consultant. It is anticipated that
this project will be incorporated into the CIP once the consultant's review is completed, potentially in early
FY 2000/01. Since the total cost of the project exceeds $500,000, the State code will require that a public
hearing be held prior to amending the CIP budget.
Staff recommends approval of the Resolution of Appropriation for the FY 2000-01 Capital
Improvements Program, and the Resolution of Official Intent to use VPSA bond proceeds for school capital
projects.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
ANNUAL APPROPRIATION RESOLUTION
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2001
A RESOLUTION making appropriations of sums of money for all necessary expenditures of the
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM for the fiscal year
Ending June 30, 2001; to prescribe the provisos, terms, conditions and provisions with respect
To the items of appropriation and their payment; and to repeal all resolutions wholly in conflict
with this resolution and all resolutions inconsistent with this resolution to the extent of such
Inconsistency.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of the COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
SECTION I - GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the GENERAL
GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND to be apportioned as follows
for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2001:
Paragraph One: ADMINISTRATION AND COURTS
1 County Computer Upgrade $170,000
2 County Facilities Maintenace/Replacement Projects $400,000
3 Court Facilities Renovation/Expansion $150,000
4 Court Square Maintenance/Replacement Projects $50,000
5 J&D Court Maintenance/Replacement Projects $15,000
$785,000
$785,000
Paragraph Two: FIRE, RESCUE AND SAFETY
1 Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) System
2 Fire/Rescue Building and Equipment Fund
$104,923
$360,000
$464,923
$464,923
Paragraph Three: HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION
1 Airport Road Sidewalk
2 Revenue Sharing Road Projects
$127,000
$400,000
$527,000
$527,000
Paragraph Four: HUMAN DEVELOPMENT $77,500
June 7, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
1 CALAS Facility
2 Region Ten Facilities
$27,500
$50,000
$77,500
Paragraph Five: LIBRARIES
1
2
3
Library Computer Upgrade
Library Maintenance/Replacement Projects
New Library Construction
$47,500
$15,000
$20,000
$82,500
$82,500
Paragraph Six: PARKS AND RECREATION
1 Crozet Park Athletic Field Development
2 Parks & Rec. Maintenance/Replacement Projects
3 PVCC Facility Renovation
4 Scottsville Community Center Improvements
5 Southern Albemarle Organization Park Development
6 Walnut Creek Park Improvements
$148,000
$39,000
$18,618
$67,880
$25,000
$26,525
$325,023
$325,023
Paragraph Seven: ACQUISITION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTS
1 Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE)
Program
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
Paragraph Eight: UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
1 Keene Landfill Closure
$80,000
$80,000
SUMMARY
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2001:
To be provided as follows:
General Government CIP Fund Balance
City Reimbursements
Courthouse Maintenance Funds
E-911 Fund Balance
Interest Income
Tourism Funds
Transfer from General Fund
$80 000
$14 500
$41 000
$104 923
$50 000
$350 000
$2,701,523
$3,341,946
$3,341,946
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2001: $3,341,946
SECTION Ih SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the SCHOOL
DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND for the purposes herein specified to be apportioned
as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2001:
Paragraph One: EDUCATION (SCHOOL DIVISION)
1 Administrative Technology
2 Burley Addition/Renovations
$50,000
$300,000
$3,201,640
June 7, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
3
4
5
6
Instructional Technology
New Northern Elementary School
New Southern Elementary School
School Maintenance/Replacement Projects
$250,000
$1,500,000
$20,000
$1,081,640
$3,201,640
SUMMARY
Total SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2001:
$3,201,640
To be provided as follows:
School CIP Fund Balance
Interest Earned
State Construction Funds
VPSA Bonds
$100,000
$100,000
$400,000
$2,601,640
$3,201,640
Total SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
FUND resources available for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2001:
$3,201,640
SECTION Ih STORMWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the
STORMWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND for the purposes herein specified to be
apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2001:
Paragraph One: STORMWATER PROJECTS
1 Stormwater Control Program
SUMMARY
Total STORMWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2001:
To be provided as follows:
Transfer from General Fund - Ongoing
$422,977
$422,977
$422,977
$422,977
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS
Section I
Section II
Section II
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS MENTIONED IN
SECTIONS I - III IN THIS RESOLUTION
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2001
RECAPITU LATIO N:
$6,966,563
General Government Improvements Fund
School Division Capital Improvements Fund
Stormwater Capital Improvements Fund
$3,341,946
$3,201,640
$422,977
$6,966,563
GRAND TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS $6,966,563
June 7, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Finance is hereby authorized to transfer monies
from one fund to another, from time to time as monies become available, sums equal to, but not in excess
of, the appropriations made to these funds for the period covered by this appropriation resolution.
SECTION III
All of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained items in Sections I, II and III are appropriated
upon the provisos, terms, conditions, and provisions herein before set forth in connection with said terms and
those set forth in this section. The Director of Finance (Melvin A. Breeden) and Clerk to the Board of
Supervisors (Ella W. Carey) are hereby designated as authorized signators for all bank accounts.
Paragraph One
Subject to the qualifications in this resolution contained, all appropriations are declared to be
maximum, conditional and proportionate appropriations-the purpose being to make the appropriations payable
in full in the amount named herein if necessary and then only in the event the aggregate revenues collected
and available during the fiscal year for which the appropriations are made are sufficient to pay all of the
appropriations in full.
Otherwise, the said appropriations shall be deemed to be payable in such proportion as the
total sum of all realized revenue of the respective funds is to the total amount of revenue
estimated to be available in the said fiscal year by the Board of Supervisors.
Paragraph Two
All revenue received by any agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors included in its
estimate of revenue for the financing of the fund budget as submitted to the Board of Supervisors may not be
expended by the said agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors without the consent of the Board
of Supervisors being first obtained, nor may any of these agencies or boards make expenditures which will
exceed a specific item of an appropriation.
Paragraph Three
No obligations for goods, materials, supplies, equipment or contractual services for any purpose may
be incurred by any department, bureau, agency, or individual under the direct control of the Board of
Supervisors except by requisition to the purchasing agent; provided, however, no requisition for items exempted
by the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual shall be required; and provided further that no requisition for
contractual services involving the issuance of a contract on a competitive bid basis shall be required, but such
contract shall be approved by the head of the contracting department, bureau, agency, or individual, the County
Attorney and the Purchasing Agent or Director of Finance. The Purchasing Agent shall be responsible for
securing such competitive bids on the basis of specification furnished by the contracting department, bureau,
agency or individual.
In the event of the failure for any reason of approval herein required for such contracts, said contract
shall be awarded through appropriate action of the Board of Supervisors.
Any obli.qations incurred contrary to the purchasin.q procedures prescribed in the Albemarle
County Purchasin.q Manual shall not be considered obli.qations of the County, and the Director
of Finance shall not issue any warrants in payment of such obli.qations.
Paragraph Four
Allowances out of any of the appropriations made in this resolution by any or all County departments,
bureaus, or agencies under the control of the Board of Supervisors to any of their officers and employees for
expense on account of the use of such officers and employees of their personal automobiles in the discharge
of their official duties shall be paid at the same rate as that established by the State of Virginia for its employees
and shall be subject to change from time to time to maintain like rates.
Paragraph Five
All travel expense accounts shall be submitted on forms and according to regulations prescribed or
approved by the Director of Finance.
Paragraph Six
All resolutions and parts of resolutions inconsistent with the provisions of this resolution shall be and
the same are hereby repealed.
June 7, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
Paragraph Seven
This resolution shall become effective on July first, two thousand.
RESOLUTION OF OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE EXPENDITURES FOR VARIOUS PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS WITH PROCEEDS OF BONDS
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "County"), intends to undertake various
improvements to its public school system as described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the County intends to pay costs of the Project prior to the issuance of the Bonds, as hereinafter
defined, and to receive reimbursement for such expenditures from proceeds of the sale of the Bonds;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY:
(1)
The County intends to finance the Project through the issuance of bonds in an amount not to
exceed $2,601,640 (the "Bonds").
(2)
The County intends to receive reimbursement from proceeds of the sale of the Bonds for costs
of the Project paid by the County prior to the issuance of the Bonds.
(3)
The County intends that the adoption of this resolution be considered as "official intent" within
the meaning of Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2 promulgated under the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
EXHIBIT A
PUBLIC SCHOOLIMPROVEMENTPROGRAM
BONDEDSCHOOLPROJECTS
FY20001/01
Description
Amount
1 Burley Addition/Renovations $300,000
2 Northern Area Elementary $1,500,000
3 Southern Area Elementary $20,000
4 Maintenance/Replacement $781,640
$2,601,640
Item No. 7.19. Jefferson Area Disability Services Board Needs Assessment for 2000 (on file in the
Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record), was received for information.
Item No. 7.20. Comparative Report of Local Government Revenues and Expenditures for Fiscal
Year Ended June 30, 1999, as prepared by the Commonwealth of Virginia, Auditor of Public Accounts, was
received for information.
Item No. 7.21. Copy of Albemarle County Service Authority's Operating Budget for FY beginning
July 1,2000. (Removed from the agenda)
Agenda Item No. 8. Approval of Minutes: January 5, February 9, March 1, March 13 (A), March 20
(A), April 5, April 10 (A), April 12 and April 19, 2000.
Ms. Humphris approved the minutes of January 5, 2000, pages 14-end, with two minute book
corrections. On page 21, the word "not" was inserted so that a sentence now reads, "She does not want it
to move any other project..." On page 35, the word "Relations" was added so a sentence reads, "Tearing
down the current Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court building..."
Mr. Bowerman approved the minutes of April 5, 2000, with one minute book correction. On page
46, the minutes had stated, "Mr. Martin invited the members of the audience to come to the front of the
Auditorium so that they might hear the speakers better." Mr. Bowerman changed them to read, "First
Mr. Bowerman, and then Mr. Martin..."
Mr. Martin approved the minutes of March 13, 2000, as written.
Ms. Humphris moved to approve the minutes of January 5, 2000 and April 5, 2000 as amended,
and March 13, 2000, as written. Ms. Thomas seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion
passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
June 7, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
Agenda Item No. 9. Transportation Matters.
Mr. Perkins asked Ms. Angela Tucker, Chief Engineer of the Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT), to look into citizens' complains regarding dust and potholes along Route 660.
Mr. Dorrier said he was concerned about the drop-off on the shoulders of Route 20 South.
Ms. Tucker said VDOT is continuing to address the problem.
Ms. Thomas said she will discuss with Ms. Tucker the ongoing problem of truckers using
backroads.
Mr. Martin requested that separate public meetings be held to discuss parallel roads on Route 29
North. Ms. Tucker said public meetings would be held on July 19, 2000 and August 23, 2000.
Mr. Martin said he would call Ms. Tucker to discuss a right-of-way issue on behalf of one of his
constituents.
Mr. Dorrier said members of the Stony Creek Drive/Mill Creek Homeowners Association are
concerned about the surface of the road, which deteriorates when the weather is hot. Ms. Tucker said
VDOT plans to use slurry seal the next time the road is sealed.
Agenda Item No. 10. Presentation: "Vacation in Your Backyard".
Ms. Lee Catlin, Community Relations Manager for the County, and Mr. Maurice Jones,
Communications Director for the City of Charlottesville, stated that Albemarle County, Charlottesville, and
the Charlottesville/Albemarle Convention and Visitors Bureau have combined resources to create "Vacation
in Your Backyard", a summertime promotional program to heighten visibility and awareness of local
amenities.
Ms. Mary Pat Kloenne, from the Visitors Center, presented T-shirts and brochures to Board
members.
Ms. Humphris said she liked the brochure. Ms. Cloney said the Chamber of Commerce and other
organizations are distributing them. Ms. Catlin said she would be happy to place them in other locations, as
well.
Agenda Item No. 11. Discussion: Albemarle Housing Improvement Program's (AHIP) proposal to
purchase and renovate Whitewood Village Apartments.
Ms. Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive, and Ms. Theresa Tapscott, Director of AHIP,
reported that in 1987, the County entered into an agreement with the owners of Whitewood Village
Apartments to place 96 apartments into the County's Moderate Rehabilitation Program, which provides
guaranteed market rents to the owners, plus an adjustment for the debt incurred as a result of the owner's
rehabilitation. The federal subsidy extends for a period of 15 years and will expire in 2002. A report
prepared by AHIP staff (on file in the Clerk's office) is a result of a Community Organizing Grant secured by
the County in 1998 to determine the future of Whitewood Village after the rehab units expire in 2002.
In the report, AHIP puts forth a proposal to purchase the property from the current landlord in order
to keep the 96 apartment units affordable to low-income families. Through a proposed combination of
funding, AHIP would purchase and renovate the building, increasing the number of one-bedroom and
three-bedroom units. AHIP also proposes to provide support services, such as career and job placement
services, tutoring, child care and literacy, Homebuyer and Big-Sister/Big-Brother programs to the 95
families living at Whitewood.
The mix of funding may include a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Low-Income
Housing Tax Credits, Virginia Housing Partnership Fund Affordable Housing Preservation and Production
Program (AHPP), SHARE funds and tax exempt bond financing. To determine whether the project is
financially feasible, AHIP will also need to secure additional grants/loans for the predevelopment costs,
which may include a CDBG planning grant, AHPP loans, and HUD grant funds.
The timing for AHIP's proposed purchase and renovation is critical, since three of the most
important funding sources accept applications only once a year in the Spring. In order to be ready to apply
for these funds, AHIP must begin now on the feasibility analysis. The owners have agreed to a sales
contract through June, but by the end of June will require a $50,000 purchase option, which would be
June 7, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
deducted from the sales price at final closing. Attachments to the proposal show a best case and a worst
case scenario for the resources and expenditures for this project. In the worst case scenario, the County is
asked to support the project with $300,000.
Ms. White said the proposal is brought to the Board for their review prior to AHIP initiating any action
on the Whitewood Village Apartments. Although the 96 units are already targeted to the low-income
population, AHIP proposes keeping the same apartments available to low-income families in the urban
area after the subsidies expire. If the apartments are sold to a private buyer, they may or may not be
available to low-income residents depending upon the owner's willingness to accept Housing Choice
vouchers (formerly called Section 8 vouchers), which is, of course, voluntary. The County's desire to keep
Whitewood Village as low-income apartments will be critical to AHIP's success in obtaining any pre-
development funds or any type of federal, state or private funding for this project. Not only will AHIP need
the full backing and support of the County to obtain funding, but AHIP, as the County's "housing arm" for
affordable housing projects and administratively supported by the County, needs the County's approval to
move forward. AHIP needs to know if it is the County's direction to move forward with its proposal to
maintain and support the 96 affordable rental units at Whitewood Village. AHIP must also have the
County's approval in order to move forward with a "just-in-time" Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) for $15,000 for the predevelopment feasibility analysis.
If the County approves AHIP's proposal to ultimately purchase and renovate Whitewood Village
Apartments in order to maintain 96 affordable rental units in the urban area, AHIP will move forward with
the CDBG grants for the pre-development feasibility work. Should the County not be in favor of their
proposal, AHIP will not proceed with the feasibility analysis and the current owners will be notified to
proceed with their plans to place Whitewood Village on the open market.
Ms. Thomas asked what the chances are of the County getting the funds. Ms. Tapscott said the
key is support from the community. Ms. White said non-profit organizations have the edge on getting funds.
Ms. Thomas then asked about tax credits. Ms. Tapscott said investors who need them use them.
Ms. Thomas asked if the new building would replace some of the apartments. Ms. Tapscott said
there is an extra lot that will be examined during the feasibility study. Ms. White added that a request for
funds for a formal study would be presented to the Board soon.
Mr. Bowerman said his concern is that the community is trying to move from a collective low-
income density concept, but has determined that condominiums are not feasible. AHIP is trying to get
residents to buy into the concept that this will be a place in which they can take pride. Ms. Tapscott said
AHIP hopes to provide residents an eventual opportunity to move on to more traditional housing.
Mr. Martin said there is a need for this sort of housing in the area. Although she agreed,
Ms. Humphris said it is important to look at the "worst-case" scenario, which is that the County will be
assuming a financial obligation.
Mr. Dorrier moved to approve AHIP's proposal to purchase and renovate Whitewood Village
Apartments as recommended by staff. Ms. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called and the
motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Perkins.
None.
Agenda Item No. 12. Public hearing to consider whether to recommend to the Commonwealth
Transportation Board the restriction of through truck traffic on Earlysville Rd (Rt 743) between Dickinson Rd
(Rt 606) & Rio Rd (Rt 631). The alternate route being proposed for through truck traffic would be Dickinson
Rd (Rt 606), Airport Rd (Rt 649), Seminole Trail (Rt 29) & Rio Rd (Rt 631). This restriction would apply to
trucks, trailers & semi-trailers. Pickup trucks & panel trucks would not be restricted. (Advertised in the Daily
Pro.qress on May 22 and 29, 2000.)
Mr. Cilimberg stated that on May 3, 2000, the Board authorized staff to begin the necessary steps
to officially request that VDOT restrict through-trucks on Route 743 between Route 631 and Route 606.
The first step in that process is for the Board to hold a public hearing.
Staff will have a recommendation for the Board's consideration after the public hearing and
discussion by the Board. Staff mailed notification to ten major trucking companies in the County about the
proposed through-truck restriction and have not received any comments to-date.
Mr. Martin opened the public hearing.
With no one rising to speak, Mr. Martin closed the public hearing.
Mr. Perkins asked Ms. Tucker what type of vehicles would be allowed, because one resident is
concerned about farmers who need to move their equipment through the Advance Mills area. Ms. Tucker
said the restriction would not include pickups or panel trucks, but she would have to investigate specific
restrictions and get back to the Board. Mr. Cilimberg said one alternative would be to start the restriction at
Woodlands Road. Mr. Bowerman said his primary concern is that Woodlands Road not be used as an
access road to the Route 29 bypass. He said this is an enforcement issue, and that he is less concerned
June 7, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
about exceptions to the rule, such as for farmers. Ms. Thomas said residents and farmers would be
affected, nonetheless. Mr. Martin suggested that the paralleling of Route 29 would alleviate industrial truck
traffic. Mr. Bowerman said people trying to get to 1-64 or Route 250 use Route 743 as an option. Mr.
Perkins suggested restricting truck traffic on a different stretch of Route 606, but that was not part of the
advertisement, and staff did not analyze that alternative.
It was the consensus of the Board to take no action at this time. Staff was directed to prepare a
report on Route 606 and to bring it back to the Board.
Agenda Item No. 13. Public hearing on an ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 2,
Administration, Article 1, In General, of the Code of Albemarle, in §2-202, Compensation of Board of
Supervisors. This amendment will increase the regular salary of each Board member by 4.0 percent, to
establish compensation at $10,777 per year. (Advertised in the Daily Pro.qress on May 22 and 29, 2000.)
Mr. Martin opened the public hearing.
With no one rising to speak, Mr. Martin closed the public hearing.
Ms. Humphris moved to adopt an ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 2, Administration,
Article 1, In General, of the Code of AIbemarle, in §2-202, Compensation of Board of Supervisors. This
amendment will increase the regular salary of each Board member by 4.0 percent, to establish
compensation at $10,777 per year. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion
passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Perkins.
None.
The ordinance is as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 00-2(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION, ARTICLE II, BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 2,
Administration, Article II, Board of Supervisors, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby
amended and reordained by amending Section 2-202, Compensation of Board of Supervisors, as follows:
CHAPTER 2. ADMINISTRATION
ARTICLE II. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Sec. 2-202 Compensation of board of supervisors.
The salary of the board of supervisors shall be ten thousand seven hundred seventy-seven dollars and
no cents ($10,777.00) for each board member. In addition to the regular salary, the vice-chairman shall receive
a stipend of thirty-five dollars ($35.00) for each and every meeting chaired and the chairman shall receive an
annual stipend of one thousand eight hundred dollars ($1,800.00).
(6-13-84; 5-8-85; 5-14-86; 7-1-87; 7-6-88; 6-7-89; Ord. of 6-13-90; Ord. of 8-1-90; Ord. of
8-7-91;Ord. of 7-1-92; Ord. No. 95-2(1), 6-14-95; Ord. No. 98-2(1), 6-17-98; Code 1988,
§ 2-2.1; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 99-2(1), 5-5-99; Ord. 00-2(1), 6-7-00)
This ordinance shall be effective on and after July 1, 2000.
(Note: The Board took a break at 10:20 a.m. and reconvened at 10:30 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 14. School Board Presentation.
Dr. Charles Ward, School Board Chairman, distributed and summarized a handout (on file in the
Clerk's office) which listed highlights of school activities, and which included Board Briefs, the School
Division's newsletter, as well as a memorandum addressing applications for the School Health Advisory
Board.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Burley School will be improved, or replaced completely. Dr. Ward said he
does not know at this time.
Mr. Martin said there is still an ongoing problem due to parents being charged in advance for use of
the After-School Program. The Division should not create a situation where families are required to pay for
childcare when they do not need to use it. In addition, he said he was disappointed that the After-School
Program was closed on Memorial Day, when schools remained open, yet the After-School Program
June 7, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
remained open when schools were closed for spring break. Dr. Ward said this is a balancing act. The
Division is watching the program's cash flow to ensure that it is self-sustaining. It is also necessary to
ensure adequate numbers of staff are onhand, regardless of how many students arrive on any given day.
Mr. Dorrier requested that the School Board present its Budget Review Committee's
recommendations to the Board when complete.
Agenda Item No. 15. Public hearing to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle
County Service Authority (ACSA) to provide water service to one structure only on TM60A, Sec9, P20, for
Patricia Flowers. Znd RA. Jack Jouett Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 22 and 29, 2000.)
Mr. Benish said that the applicant, Ms. Patricia Flowers, is requesting water service to a two-acre
parcel zoned RA, Rural Areas and located in an area designated as RA in the County Land Use Plan
(Location Map, Attachment A, on file in the Clerk's office). This property is currently is in the ACSA
jurisdictional area, with a designation for "water only to existing structures." There was an existing home on
the property that was uninhabited in the early- to mid-1980's. The property owner was experiencing
problems with trespassing on the property and vandalism to the home and, as a result, removed the home
from the property (Applicant's Request, Attachment B, on file in the Clerk's office). At the time the applicant
was unaware of the jurisdictional area designation limiting service to that existing structure. Service was
never provided to the original structure. The applicant now wishes to locate a new home on the property,
but cannot receive water service based upon the current jurisdictional area designation (Jurisdictional Area
Map and ACSA Letter, Attachments C & D, on file in the Clerk's office).
Both County and Service Authority staff are unaware of this situation occurring in the past, so there
is no history of prior Board action on this type of request.
The subject property is located in the designated RA, and not within a Development Area. The
Land Use Plan provides the following concerning water service to the RA:
In general, utilization of central water and/or sewer systems or extension of the public
water or sewer into the Rural Area is strongly discouraged except in cases where public
health or safety is endangered.
The recommendation is to only allow changes to the Jurisdictional Areas outside of the
designated Development Area boundaries in cases where property is: (1) adjacent to
existing lines; and, (2) public health of safety is endangered.
Mr. Benish said that, in this particular situation, the property is already in the jurisdictional area, but
for "service only to existing structures". That structure no longer exists so this jurisdictional area designation
no longer permits service to the property. It appears that this designation was placed on this property when
the Board established the jurisdictional area process in the early 1980's. It is staff's understanding that the
"service only to existing structures" designation was intended to recognize certain properties that were
located outside the Development Area boundaries, but located adjacent to existing service lines and that
were already developed in a more urban manner. The designation permitted the existing level of
development to have service, but would preclude any additional, or more intensive, development of that
property from receiving public service. However, there is no documentation on file specifically noting the
reason why this property has this designation. Huntwood Townhomes are located on the west side of this
property and are served by public water and sewer.
There is no documentation of a health or safety problem with the on-site water source. The
applicant has indicated that the taste of the water was always of poor quality.
Mr. Benish said staff's recommendation is that, since the property is zoned RA and is two acres in
size, it cannot be further subdivided. It is not located in a designated Development Area, so a future
rezoning to a more intensive density is unlikely. Staff opinion is that in this particular case, approval of a
jurisdictional area designation for water service to one structure only would be consistent with the original
jurisdictional area designation (providing water service to one residential unit on-site). It would not
encourage more intensive development of this property or serve a use that is now inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan policies for the RA. Staff would recommend amending the jurisdictional area
boundary to provide water service only, to one dwelling unit on Tax Map 60A, Section, Parcel 20.
The applicant, Ms. Flowers, chose not to speak.
Mr. Martin opened the public hearing.
With no one rising to speak, Mr. Martin closed the public hearing.
Ms. Humphris said staff did a lot of research on this property, and determined that the applicant did
not realize that if she destroyed the original house, she might not have water rights on a new building. This
request is an exception to the rule, because the applicant is simply replacing one residence for another. Mr.
June 7, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
Bowerman said these are unique circumstances, and the request should be approved.
Ms. Humphris moved to amend the jurisdictional area boundary of the Albemarle County Service
Authority to provide water service only to one dwelling unit on Tax Map 60A, Section 9, Parcel 20. Mr.
Bowerman seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Perkins.
None.
Agenda Item No. 16. Public hearing on an ordinance to amend Chapter 15, Taxation, of the
Albemarle County Code by amending Article XII, Prepared Food and Beverage Tax, to conform the local
tax to the requirements of Virginia Code section 58.1 - 3833, as amended, effective July 1,2000.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 22 and 29, 2000.)
Mr. Tucker said that the 2000 Virginia General Assembly amended the enabling authority for a
county food and beverage tax in regard to alcoholic beverages and food and beverages sold at grocery
store delicatessens and convenience stores. This amendment requires the County to amend its
Prepared Food and Beverage Tax effective July 1,2000, in order to comply with the State Code.
The County's Prepared Food and Beverage Tax currently applies to prepared sandwiches and
single meal platters sold in grocery store delicatessens and convenience stores, and includes a tax on any
beverage sold in conjunction with such items. The amendment to Virginia Code Section 58.1-3833,
effective July 1,2000, no longer allows the County to tax single meal platters at such sites and prohibits the
tax on alcoholic beverages sold in factory sealed containers and purchased for off-premises consumption.
In addition, Section 58.1-3833 provides that no tax can be levied on "food" as defined in the Food Stamp
Act of 1977 except for sandwiches, salad bar items sold from a salad bar, prepackaged single-serving
salads consisting primarily of an assortment of vegetables, and nonfactory-sealed beverages.
The proposed ordinance would amend the County's Prepared Food and Beverage Tax to conform
to Virginia Code Section 58.1-3833, as amended.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the proposed ordinance to be effective July 1,2000.
Mr. Davis said the amendment does not eliminate the difference between cities and counties, and
puts additional restrictions on cities and towns. There is a lot of confusion about this, and the Virginia
Association of Counties (VACO) and the Virginia Municipal League (VML) are looking into it. These
changes restrict what can be taxed in convenience stores, but the County can now tax any hot food that is
ready for human consumption. Mr. Martin said it is so complicated that vendors probably simply ignore the
taxes.
Mr. Martin opened the public hearing.
With no one rising to speak, Mr. Martin closed the public hearing.
Ms. Humphris moved to adopt the following ordinance to amend Chapter 15, Article XII, Prepared
Food and Beverage Tax. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Perkins.
None.
ORDINANCE NO. 00-15(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN ARTICLE XII, PREPARED FOOD AND BEVERAGE TAX, OF
CHAPTER 15, TAXATION, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Article XII,
Prepared Food and Beverage Tax, of Chapter 15, Taxation, of the Code of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained by amending Section 15-1200, Definitions, and Section
15-1202, Exemptions, as follows:
CHAPTER15. TAXATION
ARTICLE XII. FOOD AND BEVERAGE TAX
Sec. 15-1200 Definitions.
The following words and phrases, when used in this article, shall have, for the purposes of this article,
the following respective meanings except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:
(1) Beverage: The term "beverage" means any alcoholic beverages as defined in Virginia Code § 4.1-
100 and nonalcoholic beverages, any of which are served as part of a meal, excluding alcoholic beverages sold
June 7, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
in factory sealed containers and purchased for off-premises consumption.
(2) Caterer: The term "caterer" means a person who furnishes food on the premises of another for
compensation.
(3) Director of Finance: The term "director of finance" means the director of finance of the county and
any of his duly authorized deputies, assistants, employees or agents.
(4) Food: The term "food" means any and all edible refreshments or nourishment, liquid or otherwise,
including beverages as herein defined, purchased in or from a restaurant or from a caterer, except snack
foods.
(5) Meal: The term "meal" means any food as herein defined, other than a beverage, sold for
consumption on the premises or elsewhere, whether designated as breakfast, lunch, snack, dinner, supper or
by some other name, and without regard to the manner, time or place of service.
(6) Person: The term "person" means any individual, corporation, company, association, firm,
partnership or any group of individuals acting as a unit.
(7) Purchaser: The term "purchaser" means any person who purchases food in or from a restaurant
or from a caterer.
(8) Restaurant: The term "restaurant" means:
(a) Any place where food is prepared for service to the public whether on or off the
premises, including a delicatessen counter at a grocery store or convenience store selling prepared foods ready
for human consumption; or
(b) Any place where food is served to the public.
Examples of a restaurant include, but are not limited to, a dining room, grill, coffee shop, cafeteria, cafe,
snack bar, lunch counter, lunchroom, short-order place, tavern, delicatessen, confectionery, bakery, eating
house, eatery, drugstore, catering service, lunch wagon or truck, pushcart or other mobile facility that sells
food, and a dining facility in a public or private school or college.
(9) Seller The term "seller" means any person who sells food in or from a restaurant or as a caterer.
(10) Snack food: The term "snack food" means chewing gum, candy, popcorn, peanuts and other nuts,
and unopened prepackaged cookies, donuts, crackers, potato chips and other items of essentially the same
nature and consumed for essentially the same purpose.
(§ 8-75, 12-10-97; Code 1988, § 8-75; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 00-15(1), 6-7-00)
Sec. 15-1202 Exemptions.
The following purchases of food shall not be subject to the tax under this article:
A. Any food or food product purchased for home consumption as defined in the federal Food
Stamp Act of 1977, 7 U.S.C. § 2012, or amended, except for sandwiches, salad bar items sold from a salad
bar, prepackaged single-serving salads consisting primarily of an assortment of vegetables, and non-factory
sealed beverages. This exemption does not include hot food or hot food products ready for immediate
consumption.
B. Food and beverages sold through vending machines.
C. Food for use or consumption by the Commonwealth, any political subdivision of the
Commonwealth or the United States.
D. Food sold by nonprofit cafeterias in public schools, nursing homes and hospitals.
E. Food sold by churches, fraternal, school and social organizations and volunteer fire
departments and rescue squads which hold occasional dinners and bazaars of one-day or two-day duration,
at which food prepared in the homes of members or in the kitchen of the organization is offered for sale to the
public.
F. Food furnished by churches which serve meals for their members as a regular part of their
religious observance.
G. Food furnished by boardinghouses that do not accommodate transients.
H. Food sold by cafeterias operated by industrial plants for employees only.
I. Food furnished by a hospital, medical clinic, convalescent home, nursing home, home for the
aged, infirm or handicapped or other extended care facility to patients or residents thereof.
June 7, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
J. Food furnished by a nonprofit charitable organization to elderly, infirm, handicapped or needy
persons in their homes or at central locations.
K. Food sold by a nonprofit educational, charitable or benevolent organization on an occasional
basis as a fund-raising activity or food sold by a church or religious body on an occasional basis.
L. Food furnished by restaurants to employees as part of their compensation when no charge
is made to the employee.
M. Any other sale of food which is exempt from taxation under the Virginia Retail Sales and Use
Tax Act, or administrative rules and regulation issued pursuant thereto.
(§ 8-77, 12-10-97; Code 1988, § 8-77; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 00-15(1), 6-7-00)
This ordinance shall be effective on and after July 1,2000.
(Note: At this time, the Board moved to Agenda Item No 18.)
Agenda Item No. 18. Presentation: Rivanna Watershed Center, Organizational Information and
Request for Consideration of Locating at Darden Towe Park.
Ms. Leslie Middleton, President and founding member of the Rivanna Watershed Center (RWC),
introduced Mr. John Witt, Mr. David Hirschman, and Mr. Mike Mathews. She then said that the RWC is a
non-profit organization. The mission of the RWC is to create a center on the Rivanna River where people
of all ages will learn about the river, experience its treasures, and work cooperatively to protect it. The
RWC will feature educational and interactive exhibits; allow direct access to the River via County, City, and
Rivanna Trails Foundation trail systems; and will be a place where citizens, students, school groups, and
visitors can gather and interact on river and watershed issues.
A Board of Directors guides the RWC. Since the summer of 1999, the Board has incorporated,
met with business and conservation groups, developed a Strategic Plan, and initiated the site selection
process. Ample funding has been secured for the organization to conclude a feasibility study and for
general organizational support. A full capital campaign will be launched when a specific site becomes
available. The RWC will raise the capital to both fund construction of the center and to develop and
implement the center's exhibits and programming. At this point, several sites are under consideration.
Over the course of the RWC's short history, interest has converged on Darden Towe Park as an
excellent candidate for the center's location. The park is on the river, has numerous trails and trail linkages,
is frequented by both City and County residents and visitors, and has a master plan that is consistent with
the RWC concept. Members of the RWC Board gave a presentation to the Darden Towe Committee at
their April 7, 2000 meeting.
The Towe Committee expressed support for continuing to explore the potential of the RWC
locating at the park and will be reviewing the proposal with the consultant selected for the Phase III
development of the Park. In the meantime, the Committee recommended that the RWC present the
concept to the Board of Supervisor and City Council so the Towe Committee and RWC could get a reaction
from other Board and Council members on the proposal.
RWC Board members have created a series of concept sketches that show possible locations for
the watershed center at Darden Towe Park. At present, the park is primarily used for sports activities,
although there has been general policy support for using some of the park's land for more river-related
activities. The County's greenway in and adjacent to the park, the Rivanna River Festival, and a kiosk with
information on the river, organized by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, are several
efforts that support this trend. The RWC would create a permanent presence at the park to focus on and
highlight existing access to the river. Through careful planning, this could be accomplished without
interfering with existing and future sports programs.
At this point in time, the RWC Board would like to get a general policy direction from the Board of
Supervisors and City Council on whether to continue formal dialogue with the Darden Towe Committee and
County and City staff about Towe Park as the preferred location for the RWC. If and when all decision-
making bodies concur with this direction, then a capital campaign and joint planning will be initiated.
Logistics -- such as parking, hours of operation, and maintenance - will be addressed at a subsequent
stage.
Mr. Tucker said that staff's recommends that the Board endorse continued formal dialogue
between the RWC Board, the Darden Towe Committee, and staff, with the understanding that a
recommendation will be forthcoming from the Towe Committee after review of the proposal with the Phase
III consultant.
Ms. Thomas asked about the appearance of the building. Ms. Middleton said it will be between
5,000 and 12,000 square feet, and will provide a meeting space, exhibit space, lab space, and library
space.
June 7, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
Mr. Dorrier asked if this would be a museum or a learning center. Ms. Middleton said it will serve as
both an education and welcome center.
Ms. Thomas suggested the group contact the "Lewis and Clark planners", because they have
considered this location as well. Ms. Middleton said those discussions are underway.
Mr. Perkins asked what would be the best alternative site. Ms. Middleton said either site B or C,
because of their proximity to the river.
Mr. Dorrier asked about the cost of the project. Ms. Middleton said that figure will be based on the
selected location and the construction schedule.
Mr. Bowerman said the Darden Towe Memorial Park Committee hopes to have historic
archaeological information available at some point too. He suggested combining Lewis and Clark, burial
mound, and river issues.
Mr. Bowerman moved that the Board endorse continued formal dialogue between the RWC Board,
the Darden Towe Committee, and staff, with the understanding that a recommendation will be forthcoming
from the Towe Committee after review of the proposal with the Phase III consultant.
Ms. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Perkins.
None.
(Note: At this time, the Board returned to Agenda Item No. 17.)
Agenda Item No. 17. Public hearing on a proposal to consider amending the Community Facilities
Plan section of the Land Use Plan, page 136, General Principles for Community Facilities, of the
Comprehensive Plan, to allow for the possible location of certain larger scale public facilities in the
designated Rural Areas. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 22 and 29, 2000.)
Mr. Cilimberg said that the Board adopted a resolution of intent to consider an amendment to
the Comprehensive Plan to allow for the possible location of larger scale public facilities in the Rural
Area in situations where it may not be feasible or practical to locate public facilities in a Development
Area.
The Planning Commission held work sessions on May 2, 2000 and May 16, 2000 to discuss this
issue. Staff reports for these respective meetings are provided as Attachments A and B (on file in the
Clerk's office). At the May 16th meeting, the Commission decided to go to public hearing on a proposed
amendment to the existing language in one General Principle for Community Facilities which already
addressed exceptions for locating public facilities in the Rural Area. The Commission felt that the existing
language, with some modification, was sufficient to provide the necessary flexibility to allow the location of
public facilities in the Rural Area when necessary. The specific amendment proposed is to Principle "1" of
the General Principles for Community Facilities (p. 136 of Attachment A). The proposed revision to this
Principle is provided below, with the new wording in bold type and deleted wording in strike-through form.
The location of new public facilities should be within County Development Areas so as to support
County land use policy. Development Areas such as Communities and Villages will serve as
service center locations for the Rural Area. A public facility may be allowed in the Rural Area
only in cases where it is not reasonably possible to locate such facilities a new public facility in the
Development Area due to physical constraints, eF the nature of the facility, 3rid/or services to be
provided, will public facilities be allowed in the Rural Area. In the case of such allowance for a
school, public water and sewer may be provided as necessary.
The Commission's recommendation shown above is considerably broader than the language
included in the resolution of intent (page 8). Planning staff attempted to reflect the Board's intent in their
recommendation (page 6) through the drafting of conditions that would limit the location/siting of public
facilities to areas adjacent to development areas. The Commission will hold a public hearing on this
amendment on June 6, 2000. Staff will provide the Board a summary of public comment and Planning
Commission action.
Mr. Cilimberg then said that the Planning Commission received public comment the previous
night, and voted in favor of the amendment by a vote of 4-2. The two votes were against any language
change in the Comprehensive Plan. He added that representatives from the Piedmont Environmental
Center and local residents spoke in opposition to the change.
Ms. Thomas asked if the language presented is sufficient to accomplish what the Board has
determined is needed. Mr. Cilimberg said the word "reasonable" might be tricky. When an issue goes
through the site plan process staff has to advise the Commission whether they think it is reasonable, and
then the Commission must determine whether it is reasonable. Mr. Davis said the amendment would
permit the Board to look at all requests on a case-by-case basis to determine whether they are reasonable.
June 7, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
Mr. Dorrier said there is no mention of costs. Mr. Cilimberg said one Commissioner said costs
should not be a determining factor. The public's interest is best served if decisions are made on land use
issues, not cost issues. Mr. Martin said costs would be determined when it was decided what is reasonable.
Mr. Martin opened the public hearing.
Ms. Katie Hobbs, a resident of the County and member if the Development Area Initiatives Steering
Committee (DISC), said DISC determined it is not reasonable that a school be that large, and that should
be taken into consideration when looking at the Comprehensive Plan. She suggested that more research
be done on school size.
Mr. Jeff Werner, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council, said the amendment mainly
concerns an elementary school, and he provided a handout to that effect (on file in the Clerk's office).
With no one else rising to speak, Mr. Martin closed the public hearing.
Mr. Bowerman asked about other comments made at last night's Commission meeting.
Mr. Cilimberg said residents of the Route 600 area stated that they did not want public facilities brought into
rural areas, because of traffic and other issues that might encourage development into those areas.
Mr. Dorrier said the County already has schools in rural areas, and that they are successful in those
locations.
Ms. Thomas said this is an item that has been discussed at length in closed session· Schools in
her district have attracted development, resulting in large lots and sprawl. Putting schools in areas that
have at least two-acre lots will increase sprawl, not "neighborhood schools". If the Board expands growth
boundaries later, it will be very hard to provide compact development. She said this is a difficult decision,
and that she would vote against the amendment since the Board should not unanimously vote for it.
Mr. Bowerman said other sites were carefully examined to try to resolve the issue.
Mr. Martin said the amendment is not at all site-specific. The Board has to aurchase property for
various reasons, and this policy must be in place to provide flexibility for future use.
Ms. Humphris said she would not, in theory, support putting these facilities ~n rural areas, but after
looking at the practicality of things, the Board is in the difficult position of placing facilities in areas that
require large spaces, which might not be available in growth areas. She will therefore vote in favor of the
amendment.
Ms. Humphris then asked Mr. Cilimberg about a statement on page six of the staff report, which
states that the Commission recommends "the following principles be established in the Plan". She asked if
the Board needs to take action at some point to ensure the principles get established. Mr. Cilimberg said
these are guidelines recommended by staff, not by the Commission. Mr. Davis said the Commission's
rationale was that the conditions were not necessary, based on their approach to the matter. The Board
could ask staff to evaluate the principles after some experience with different sites, to determine whether
these conditions are necessary, perhaps as part of the review of the rural areas.
Mr. Tucker said condition number three is the only one that is specific, and it was intended to meet the
Board's desire. Mr. Martin said for the next two years the Board is going to be stable, and members are in
agreement on most of these issues. He suggested the Board look at incorporating the conditions in the
future.
Mr. Perkins said he encourages architects to make the footprint of a building fit the land, not the
other way around. The County should consider bus routes, etc., so they need flexibility. Mr. Tucker said
there cannot be a lot of development activity around rural schools; current development happened prior to
1980, and many previous areas are no longer growth areas.
Mr. Dorrier moved that the Board amend the Community Facilities Plan section of the Land Use
Plan, page 136, General Principles for Community Facilities, of the Comprehensive Plan as follows:
The following General Principles are based on the overall facility objectives outlined in the
community Facilities Plan. They provide the overall concept and vision for the provision of community
facilities.
The location of new public facilities should be within County Development Areas so as to
support County Land use Policy. Development Areas such as Communities and Villages
will serve as service center locations for the Rural Area. Only in cases where it is not
possible to locate a new public facility in the Development Area due to physical constraints,
or the nature of the facility, and/or services provided, will public facilities be allowed in the
Rural Area.
Community facilities should be equitably provided for all County residents based on cost-
effectiveness. Levels of service will vary based on the area of the County. Those residents
June 7, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
in the outlying Rural Area should not anticipate a level of service equal to that in the
Development Areas.
Priority should be given to facilities which address emergency needs, health and safety
concerns, and provide the greatest benefit to the population served.
Priority shall be given to the maintenance and expansion of existing facilities to meet
service needs.
All sites should be able to accommodate existing and future service needs. All buildings,
structures and other facilities should be designed to permit expansion as necessary.
Related or complementary services/facilities should be located within one complex and
centralized whenever possible.
Funding of community facilities should be scheduled through the Capital Improvement
Program (CIP), based on the Community Facilities Plan.
8. All community facilities shall be in conformity with site development regulations.
Obsolete facilities and sites should be analyzed for potential re-use for other
services/facilities prior to their disposal.
Ms. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Perkins.
Ms. Thomas.
Agenda Item No. 19. Discussion: Tax Relief for Elderly and Disabled Maximum Eligibility Limits.
(This item was removed from the agenda.)
Agenda Item No. 20. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board.
Ms. Humphris said she received a letter from a citizen who is concerned about underage drinking
at the Foxfield races. Ms. Humphris said the Foxfield Board of Directors continues to work with all
resources to address the issue, and she plans to discuss the matter with Chief John Miller and
Sheriff Ed Robb. Mr. Tucker said the Board used to receive an annual report from Foxfield, which
addressed Iogistic and manpower issues. He suggested the Board should request that the report be
reinstated.
Mr. Bowerman said he talked to Sheriff Robb, and was told the Sheriff worked closely with the
Police Department to keep drunken persons from leaving the site, leaving officers on-site to address
problems as they occurred. Ms. Humphris said there is a lack of understanding on the public's part as to
what the County can control on private property.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the County should encourage the use of public transportation. Ms. Humphris
said there is already a great deal of public transportation being used. She added that the Foxfield Board of
Directors wants to keep the races a first-class activity, but likes the revenue generated by students.
Ms. Thomas said the community thinks the County should do something to reduce or eliminate the
tipping fee charged to residents taking storm debris to the landfill. She suggested putting an amnesty day
on the agenda. Mr. Tucker said staff struggled with this issue. It is difficult to decide how widespread
amnesty should be given. Staff waived burning fees, but the debris will not be burned until next year, which
will make it hard to monitor. Mr. Perkins said he wondered if debris removal companies would pass the
savings on to their customers, if fees were waived.
Mr. Dorrier said farmers are concerned about the burn policy. Mr. Tucker said staff and the Farm
Bureau are working on a recommendation, and Mr. Davis is preparing a resolution. The resolution will state
that if someone goes through the training for controlled burns, the fee will be waived, but if they do not go
through the training, the fee will not be waived. The distinction would be hard to make between a farmer
and other people doing the burning.
Mr. Dorrier advised the Board that the Scottsville Bateau Festival is scheduled for June 21,2000.
Mr. Martin said he received a notice about a bill that would let government charge a fee for using e-
mail. Mr. Davis said he did not believe the information contained in the notice was legitimate.
June 7, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
Mr. Martin asked if Mr. Perkins received a letter from Mr. Thomas Von Hemert regarding the White
Hall Post Office. Mr. Perkins had not seen the letter. Mr. Tucker will have Planning staff present an update
on the matter.
Agenda Item No. 21. Closed Session: Legal and Personnel Matters.
At 12:00 noon, motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, that the Board go into Closed Session
pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under subsection (1) to consider appointments to
boards and commissions and for an administrative evaluation; and under subsection (3) to consider the
acquisition of property for school sites, landfill buffer, and office space. Mr. Bowerman seconded the
motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Perkins.
None.
Agenda Item No. 22. Certify Closed Session.
At 2:45 p.m., motion was immediately offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, that
the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member's knowledge only public
business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of
Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the closed session were heard, discussed or
considered in the closed session. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Perkins.
None.
Agenda Item No. 23. Appointments.
Ms. Humphris moved that:
Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris; Mr. Charles M. Rotgin, Jr.; Mr. William P. Jackameit,
Mr. Dennis S. Rooker, and Mr. Michael K. Seminik be reappointed to the Fiscal Impact
Committee, with said terms to run from July 9, 2000 through July 8, 2002, and that
· Mr. Jerry E. Jones be reappointed to the Jordan Development Corporation, with said term to
run from August 14, 2000 until August 13, 2001.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Perkins.
None.
Agenda Item No. 24. Room 241. Joint Meeting with Albemarle County Planning Commission
Mr. William W. Finley, Chair, called the Planning Commission to order. Other Commission
members present: Mr. Rodney S. Thomas, Ms. Tracey C. Hopper, Mr. Dennis S. Rooker, and
Mr. William B. Craddock.
Members absent: Mr. William D. Rieley, Mr. C. Jared Loewenstein, and
Mr. Samuel A. Anderson.
Item 24A. Work Session and Public Comment: Development Area Initiatives Committee
Recommended Neighborhood Model.
Mr. Cilimberg said that at the May 3, 2000 meeting of the Board, a joint work session was set for
this date with the Planning Commission to review the Neighborhood Model. Included in the discussion of
the Board was the need to open the item for public comment and review information from staff regarding
the impact of the Neighborhood Model on County policy.
As part of its preparation for the work session, the Board and Planning Commission should review
the Neighborhood Model and the Recommendations for Policy and Regulatory Changes. Staff asks the
Board and Commission to pay close attention to Section 2 of the Neighborhood Model, which emphasizes
the characteristics proposed for new development, and Section 5, which illustrates different design
approaches for achieving those characteristics. Staff also calls attention to pages 1 - 4 of the Policy and
Regulatory Changes booklet (Volume 2) which outline recommended policies for achieving the
Neighborhood Model.
June 7, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
The Board has asked for input from different departments of the County regarding the implications
of the Neighborhood Model. The Development Area Initiatives Steering Committee (DISC) solicited
comment on the Model during the Fall of 1999. DISC discussed staff concerns and used this information
as part of its decision on what to recommend to the Board. A full record of comments and discussions
have been provided for the Board's information. Of the items provided, the October 6, 2000 minutes reflect
DISC's thinking most clearly in analyzing and including staff comment in the Neighborhood Model.
At this meeting, Planning staff will help lead the discussion of the Neighborhood Model, which will
include clarification of how the Model relates to the Comprehensive Plan, how the Model relates to Master
Planning of the Development Areas, and how a change in the "form" of development will affect County
policy. After the work session and public comment, it is anticipated that the Board will refer the
Neighborhood Model to the Planning Commission for a full review over the summer and recommendation
back to the Board by September.
Ms. Elaine EchoIs, Senior Planner, gave a PowerPoint presentation explaining the Neighborhood
Model.
Mr. Dorrier asked if DISC considered infrastructure maintenance requirements, and who would pay
for them. Ms. EchoIs said developers pay most of that now. The County may need to assume
responsibility for more of these costs, but must first work on a Master Plan. The Capital Improvements Plan
now pays for that type of expense; DISC does not plan to change that. However, there are things that can
be done to change the type of development going on without impacting the infrastructure.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Neighborhood Model is a guideline; infrastructure will be developed in the Master
Plan, which will take some time to complete. The first Master Plan is expected to get underway early next
year. Staff can then can get into a more precise master plan work with neighborhoods, including examining
the infrastructure. This plan does not address a specific project.
Ms. Thomas said the Board is building up to adopting the Neighborhood Model. She asked what
action staff would like the Board to take. For example, utility costs may need to be subsidized by the
County. She wanted to know if this is the time to decide on such items. Ms. EchoIs said this is an
opportunity to ask questions about the proposal so the Commission can look at specifics. The vision simply
talks about what the end product should be.
Ms. Humphris said the proposal includes questions staff has; the Board will need to deal with
specifics concerning parks, etc. She wanted to know when those decisions will be made, since they will
affect how the neighborhood model looks and is implemented. Ms. EchoIs said the Board should look at
the model before looking at implementation. For example, the model supports separating parks from
schools. If the Board disagrees, the Board should let staff know.
Mr. Martin asked about a timeline. Mr. Cilimberg said staff had prepared a schedule in the May 1
memorandum that outlines what staff hopes to accomplish over the next year. What the Board needs to do
now is to consider adopting the 12 principles, or go over them with the Commission. This will require
looking at the Neighborhood Model document and an implementation document. Mr. Martin said when he
met with the committee to set up a schedule, they decided today's meeting would be an introduction.
However, he said if anyone had any serious reservations, they should speak up at any point. He believed
the plan should go to the Commission and the public to work on specific issues.
Mr. Dorrier said Building Codes and Zoning Services has areas established for residential and
commercial zoning. The Neighborhood Model calls for mixed use, so he wanted to know what happens to
zoning. Mr. Cilimberg said the Board could adjust the zoning or create new districts that allow mixed use,
which is now allowed in planned zoning districts. He noted that the plan includes ways to change zoning
districts.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission has begun looking at land off Route 29 North, just south of
Airport Road. The Commission will hold a public hearing to discuss several hundred acres in that location
to change the zoning to Town Center, in order to permit mixed use. That will set the stage for a closer look
at how to rezone that area; it may require changing zoning districts or creating new ones. The
Comprehensive Plan amendment will be a test study on how the Commission's recommendations will be
achieved. This requires a leap of faith, since staff and the Commission are moving forward with DISC
concepts without having adopted a Neighborhood Model. The Model should be adopted this year so it can
be used as a basis for all planning work.
Mr. Dorrier said the town of Reston was supposed to be a "model" for its time, but it does not
represent what DISC recommends.
Mr. Perkins said staff and others pointed out problems the Neighborhood Model will not address
(such as road standards, trees, size of schools, walkable neighborhoods, and utilities). He is concerned
about fire protection on streets. This began as an infill situation. Mr. Cilimberg said DISC seriously
considered comments provided by departments and agencies over several meetings. As a committee they
made decisions on how to proceed, knowing their recommendations would have to be dealt with within the
Neighborhood Model. Change will be needed to be implemented everywhere. DISC thinks this model is
the best way to move into urban development.
Ms. Humphris asked when specific issues will be examined. There is nothing to dispute about the
June 7, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
12 principles. She added that she was impressed with staff's comments, and said the issues should be
addressed before taking any action.
Mr. Bowerman said he recently met with some people about a parcel off Rio Road that could
contain townhouses, apartments, condos, etc., depending on the plan. If the Board adopts the
Neighborhood Model in principal, then the Board will be able to apply the Neighborhood Model. That will
come about as part of the process as the Board examines proposals.
Mr. Eric Strucko, a County resident, said there are six steps required for the Board. Remaining
steps include: the Commission will make their recommendation to the Board, the Board will adopt the
model in late October, staff will then look at regulatory changes and begin the master planning process.
This was scheduled to take over one year to complete. He added that the Neighborhood Model was
supposed to make it easier to plan a community. DISC adjusted the model in some respects based on
comments from the public. This may change the way fire departments will fight fires. Additionally, police
departments like cul-de-sacs, since they restrict criminals' movements.
Mr. Martin opened the public hearing.
Mr. Tom Loach, a Crozet resident, said the Board must make decisions on the elements of the
Neighborhood Plan. The document includes information on the concurrency of infrastructure.
Neighborhoods need to do the planning, and then the County needs to implement the plan. It would be a
mistake to move forward if the County may not support the plan as it relates to the neighborhood model.
There should be a thorough discussion before moving forward with adoption of the plan.
Ms. Kathy Galvin, Co-chair of DISC, said it was her understanding that staff was going to look at
how they could modify regulations to accommodate the Neighborhood Model. Mr. Dorrier asked if there
are neighborhood models in place. Ms. Galvin said the City of Charlottesville is an example of a pedestrian
community.
With no one else rising to speak, Mr. Martin closed the public hearing.
Mr. Martin said there were extremely knowledgeable and talented people in the room today, many
of whom served on DISC. The fact that most did not speak at this public hearing leads him to believe that
DISC wants the Board to send the plan on to the Commission and begin public hearings. The Board needs
to adopt the principles of the Neighborhood Model, which does not demand that anyone do anything. What
it does tell developers is that they should consider the principles, including getting the community's input.
Ms. Thomas said DISC was asked to look at land use issues and the Comprehensive Plan. She
serves on the Metropolitan Planning Organization, and looks at transportation issues, so she hopes they
look at this as a transportation document too. Paving is not the answer to traffic problems. The Western
Bypass was predicated on the idea of reducing the number of trips by one-tenth. Pedestrian-friendly
neighborhoods will result in a cumulative impact on traffic in the community.
(Note: Mr. Bowerman left the room at 3:53 p.m., and returned at 3:55 p.m.)
Ms. Humphris said the April 21,2000 memorandum outlined recommended steps for
implementation. The second recommendation says decisions need to be made as to staff involvement.
She wanted to know what the implications are. Mr. Cilimberg said staff needs to be sure they understand
how the Board wants them to provide assistance with the review. He suggested that the staff work with the
Commission to examine each principle and provide practical ways to meet the principle. The Commission
can then decide if they agree with the principles the model calls for. Staff can address what it will take in
order to achieve the principles, and the Board and Commission will have to decide if they wish to move
forward with the recommendations. For example, staff has been working with VDOT for some time. The
County cannot control VDOT, but it can remind them how VDOT standards impact what staff and the
Commission want to do.
Ms. Humphris said fiscal implications must be addressed too, as well as who assumes those costs.
For example, there will be costs associated with extending water into neighborhoods.
Ms. Thomas moved to adopt the principles of the Neighborhood Model. Ms. Humphris seconded
the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Perkins.
None.
Mr. Finley said the first step is reviewing the Master Plan, which will take one year to examine.
Mr. Rooker said it is helpful to see what direction the Board wants to go in. The Commission can
now examine the Neighborhood Model over the next three months.
Mr. Martin said this is only a guideline; not every development will need to look like this.
Mr. Rooker said Board members are welcome to provide any specific recommendations to the
Commission.
June 7, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
Agenda Item No. 25. Adjourn.
With no further business to come before the Board, Mr. Martin adjourned the meeting of the Board
at 4:06 p.m. Mr. Finley adjourned the meeting of the Planning Commission.
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date
Initials