2004-07-07
July 7, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on July 7,
2004, at 9:00 a.m., County Office Building on McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Ken C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Dennis S.
Rooker, Ms. Sally H. Thomas and Mr. David C. Wyant.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Clerk, Ella W. Carey, and V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Dorrier.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Peter Kleeman spoke regarding the paving of Blenheim Road (Route 795). He said he
represents a group of citizens who are concerned about environmental and resource protection associated
with the project, plus safety issues concerning the narrow bridge with a seven-ton limit in the middle of the
project on Route 795. He also would like to mention issues concerning public participation in decisions
about the design and construction of this bridge. All three issues are articulated in VDOT’s development
standards, the RRR standards for resurfacing, reconstruction or rehabilitation. He said in a meeting earlier
this year, the VDOT Resident Engineer said the project would be pursued consistent with VDOT
regulations.
Mr. Kleeman said since that time he has contacted the office of the Secretary of Transportation, the
Highway Commissioner, the District Office in Culpeper, and the Resident Engineer. He has been told these
standards will not be pursued. There will be, but has not been yet, any environmental considerations of
cultural, historical or other resources other than those required for issuance of permits for construction by
the Corps of Engineers or DEQ. The safety issues are clearly identified and must be investigated,
specifically stating that inclusion of an existing bridge in the project would have to be looked at for safety
reasons. He thinks public participation consistent with VDOT’s public participation policy is required. He
has now been assured by all levels of VDOT government that they do not consider this to be a VDOT
project at all and, thus, not only won’t they, but they lack the authority to insure that the applicant will
construct the project to those standards.
Mr. Kleeman said the promise made prior to this Board’s approval of the project was that these
standards would be met, so he thinks that was a misrepresentation. It is now his understanding that VDOT
does not intend to insure that these standards are met and, in fact, they will not be met. There has not
been any public participation, and none will be taken from the impacted stakeholders. There is not and will
not be any investigation specifically related to the bridge. There is not and will not be any environmental
review process document. He said there has already been some damage to the historic African American
burial ground which is on the edge of the project site. He urged the Board to address this with the Resident
Engineer and asked what their role is. He said VDOT should honor its promise of meeting VDOT’s
minimum standards, the RRR standards, and determine if the approval this Board made for this project was
based on the information provided. He is preparing a formal letter to the Commissioner of Transportation
and will send a copy to the Board.
__________
Mr. Tom Loach said since the Board’s discussion of economic development later today is not the
subject of a public hearing he would like to make a statement now. He asked that the Board take no action
on this topic until the Board has resolved the upcoming Rural Areas Plan amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan. He thinks it will have a significant impact on how the County should proceed with
economic development. Because there was no representation by any person from the growth area
community on the Rural Areas Focus Group, his statement today is reactive and not proactive. After
reading the Rural Areas Plan just submitted to the Planning Commission, it is clear the plan is not aimed at
rural preservation, but rather at rural development. It is crafted to enhance development of the nearly
55,000 rural development rights existing at present through the use of clustering and better utilization of
rural crossroads development. Preservation of the rural area, while mentioned in the plan, remains largely
in the realm of voluntary efforts. With the veil of rural preservation lifted in favor of rural development,
acceptance of the rural area plan will potentially have significant impact on the role growth area
communities play in economic development. He believes growth area residents should have the option of
continuing their current zoning and development under the Neighborhood Model, or reverting to the zoning
described in the rural area plan. If there is not going to be a plan which protects the rural area through the
reduction of development potential, then there is no reason to have growth areas. As a resident of Crozet,
under the Neighborhood Model, he would favor a more focused approach to its economic development in
order to have a more sustainable community. If Crozet were to agree to move toward the rural
development model as described in the plan, there would be significantly less need for economic
development in the community. If other communities would agree to accept the rural model, then
economic development would shift from growth areas to the crossroads communities described in the plan.
This would give a different view of economic development. For this reason, he asked the Board to put off
any decisions until they consider the rural area plan.
__________
July 7, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Mr. Attila Halmy said he is present today to represent the community of Lanford Hills. They ask the
Board to support the request for traffic calming on Lanford Hills Drive (Item 6.3 on the consent agenda).
He said there is one hundred percent support of the residents for this request; they know the problem is
caused by non-residents cutting through their subdivision.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Introduction of Ronald Matthews, Jail Superintendent.
Mr. Tucker said that Col. Matthews comes from the Tidewater area. He is retired from the military
and has experience in correctional and law enforcement.
Charlottesville Sheriff Cornelia Johnson was also present. She said she was interim Jail
Superintendent for five months. She is happy to turn the job over to Col. Matthews. The Jail Authority
hopes he will move the Jail to the next level; he has the knowledge and capability to do so. They are
hoping to have an open house at the complex so the community can become more a part of the jail.
Col. Matthews said he worked for three years at the Western Tidewater Regional Jail in Suffolk as
deputy superintendent. Prior to that, he worked for eight years at the Hampton Sheriff’s Office. He said one
of the reasons he was hired was because of his experience in corrections. Also, the Jail Board wanted to
see the jail go in a different direction. They want to bring programs into the facility that will prepare the
inmates for when they leave the facility. He has been talking with people at other facilities and with leaders
in other communities to see what is available. He has the backing of the Jail Board which includes Mr.
Bowerman and Mr. Tucker.
Mr. Dorrier welcomed Col. Matthews to this area.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. Motion to approve Items 6.1 (as noted) through 6.9 and to
accept the remaining items on the Consent Agenda as information was offered by Mr. Bowerman,
seconded by Mr. Boyd, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant.
NAYS: None.
_________
Item 6.1. Approval of Minutes: February 4, March 3, April 14 and May 12, 2004.
Mr. Dorrier has read the minutes of February 4, 2004, and found them to be in order as presented.
Mr. Rooker has read the minutes of March 3, 2004 (Pages 20 beginning with Item No. 10 to the
end) and found them to be in order as presented.
Mr. Boyd had read the minutes of April 14, 2004, and found them to be in order as presented.
Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes of May 12, 2004, and found them to be in order as presented.
By the recorded vote set out above, the minutes which had been read were approved.
Those minutes not read will go over to the next meeting for approval.
_________
Item 6.2. Resolution establishing Petty Cash Funds.
It was noted in the staff’s report that Virginia Code § 15.2-1229 provides that the County may
establish, by resolution, petty cash funds not to exceed $5,000 each to be used to transact its daily County
business. A petty cash fund allows for department flexibility when purchasing small items or providing
change to customers when cash is remitted for taxes, fees, copies, publications, etc. These funds are
subject to annual audit. The County’s auditors have determined that a formal resolution must be adopted
by the Board to comply with the Code section.
As recommended by staff, the Board adopted the following Resolution formally establishing
petty cash funds and limits for the departments identified in the Resolution.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Virginia Code §15.2-1229, provides that the governing body of any county may
establish by resolution one or more petty cash funds not exceeding $5,000 each for the payment of
claims arising from commitments made pursuant to law; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia desires to establish
certain petty cash funds for the above stated purpose.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia establishes the following petty cash funds:
Finance Department $ 3,350.00
Social Services 200.00
July 7, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
Planning Department 25.00
Police Department 1,800.00
Sheriff’s Department 100.00
Fire and Rescue 150.00
Commonwealth’s Attorney 100.00
Parks & Recreation 100.00
Total $ 5,825.00
__________
Item 6.3. Lanford Hills Drive Traffic Calming Inducements.
It was noted in the staff’s report that the residents of Lanford Hills Drive (State Route 1251)
contacted the Community Development Department concerning excessive speeding on this road and
requested that the County install traffic calming devices. Lanford Hills Drive is a cul-de-sac with eight
homes located off Proffit Road. It serves Lanford Hills Subdivision which abuts Baker-Butler Elementary
School. Residents have noted that 12 children reside on the road. Staff met with the residents and
requested that VDOT conduct a speed study to determine if there was a speeding problem. The results of
VDOT’s survey indicated a speeding problem on the road. Staff then utilized VDOT’s Traffic Calming
Guide to proceed with the residents’ requests to calm traffic. Staff held a community meeting on May 5,
2004, which included representatives from Community Development, the Board of Supervisors, residents,
and VDOT to discuss the guidelines, implications and residents’ responsibilities. Due to unforeseen
conflicts at the last minute, representatives from Police and Fire/Rescue, could not attend the meeting.
However, they were a part of the discussion of and input on this request from the early stages.
At the meeting, residents indicated that speeding is a result of traffic unfamiliar with the area
thinking that Lanford Hills Drive provides access to Forest Lakes and/or Route 29 and a concern regarding
illegal activities associated with some traffic that occurs in the cul-de-sac. Lanford Hills currently has a sign
at the entrance that indicates the street is a dead end. This has not prevented speeding traffic. As such,
100 percent of the residents on Lanford Hills Drive support installation of a speed hump. The specific traffic
calming measure to be used would be determined with the development of traffic calming plans, which the
Board must approve.
According to VDOT’s Traffic Calming Guide, a street is eligible for traffic calming measures if the
following are met:
1. The street is a two-lane road that has been functionally classified as a local residential street or as
a collector street identified as having the characteristics of a local residential street.
2. Lanford Hills Drive is a local residential street.
3. The posted speed limit does not exceed 25 mph.
4. The posted speed limit for Lanford Hills Drive is 25 mph.
5. The average speed is at least five mph over the speed limit.
6. VDOT’s speed study indicates that the average speed is 33 mph, eight mph over the posted speed
limit.
7. A petition requesting traffic calming and signed by at least 75 percent of the total occupied
households within the petition area is obtained.
A petition signed by 100 percent of the total occupied households on Lanford Hills Drive, has been
filed with Community Development.
1. The street provides direct access to abutting residences and serves only to provide mobility within
the neighborhood, with traffic entering or exiting only from the residences.
2. Lanford Hills Drive provides direct access only to abutting homes on the street.
3. The street does not provide primary access to commercial or industrial sites.
4. Lanford Hills Drive does not provide primary access to commercial or industrial sites.
5. There are a minimum of 12 dwellings fronting the street per 1,000 feet of roadway, including both
sides.
6. Lanford Hills Drive does not meet this requirement. VDOT’s Traffic Calming Guidelines allow for
localities to request County specific modifications to its criteria. Staff has requested this
modification from VDOT.
Staff believes this road sufficiently meets the criteria for traffic calming. This request is supported
by the County Police and the County Fire/Rescue Department. VDOT requires a resolution from the Board
with the above support data in order for them to proceed with the traffic calming process.
If the Board adopts a resolution, staff will forward this request to VDOT who will work with a traffic
calming committee consisting of the residents of Lanford Hills Drive, VDOT, a Board of Supervisors
representative, and representatives from Police, Community Development, and Fire/Rescue to develop a
traffic calming plan. Although the residents requested a speed hump, the committee will look at all options
to insure the best traffic calming measure is selected. After a plan is developed, it must be approved by
VDOT and the County. The plan is then implemented and evaluated.
(Discussion: Mr. Rooker said he does not oppose the resolution requested today. However, he
thinks the Board needs to know how these types of improvements will be funded. When the County gets
into planning improvements which are traffic calming in nature, with there being more and more urban
neighborhoods, he thinks there will be more such requests. He thinks the costs for this will be substantial
so staff needs to look at how these measures might be funded, the cost impact to the local VDOT
allocation, and try to prioritize those items with respect to construction, pedestrian sidewalks and other
July 7, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
improvements.
Mr. Boyd said he attended the community meeting where this was discussed, and he understood
this to be a VDOT problem. Mr. Tucker said it is, but the funds for this program will probably come out of
the County’s highway allocation. He said staff will look at it since there will probably be more requests as
the Neighborhood Model is developed.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution requesting
VDOT to consider Lanford Hills Drive for traffic calming and to initiate the traffic calming process.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, speeding has become a problem on Lanford Hills Drive (SR 1251) and creates a
potential hazard for the motorists and residents that live and work along that roadway;
and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has developed and approved the
Residential Traffic Calming Guide; and
WHEREAS, the Traffic Calming Guide was developed to address speeding problems in
residential districts; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has conducted a speed study along
Lanford Hills Drive, which confirmed that a speeding problem exists; and
WHEREAS, the Traffic Calming Guide has been explained to the residents of Lanford Hills Drive
in a community meeting; and
WHEREAS, every resident (100%) of Lanford Hills Drive supports traffic calming measures to
help reduce speeding; and
WHEREAS, Lanford Hills Drive has met all of VDOT’s Traffic Calming Guidelines to qualify for
traffic calming inducements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
requests VDOT to consider Lanford Hills Drive for traffic calming and to initiate the traffic
calming process.
__________
Item 6.4. SP-2003-070. Gregory Gallihugh (defer to August 11, 2004).
By the recorded vote set out above, SP-2003-070 was deferred until August 11, 2004, at the
applicant’s request.
__________
Item 6.5. Agreement between County and VDOT and Agreement between County and Thomas
Jefferson Foundation, Inc., for construction and funding of the Thomas Jefferson Parkway Project.
It was noted in the staff’s report that in March of 1997 the Board of Supervisors authorized the
County to enter into Agreements with VDOT and the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, Inc.
(Foundation) to secure ISTEA Enhancement funding for the Thomas Jefferson Parkway Project. The
Project at that time included Phases I, II and III with the project cost estimated at $4,625,000 of which
$3,000,000 was Enhancement Program funded and the balance funded by the Foundation.
In 1998, the Board approved an additional ISTEA Enhancement Program application for Phase IV
of the Thomas Jefferson Parkway Project. VDOT approved this application for Enhancement funding for a
total project (Phases I, II, III and IV) cost estimated at $6,781,014 of which $3,400,000 would be
Enhancement Program funded and the balance funded by the Foundation.
The current Project (Phases I, II and III) and the proposed Phase IV are proceeding with the
commitment from the Foundation that it will be responsible for administering the Project. VDOT requires an
Agreement with the County to satisfy the Enhancement Program requirements necessary for funding
eligibility. The County requires an Agreement with the Foundation to pass through to the Foundation the
County’s obligations and responsibilities for the Project placed on it by the County’s agreement with VDOT.
The Agreements cover the entire Project (Phases I, II, III and IV) and supersede the prior
Agreements for Phases I, II and III. The County/Foundation Agreement makes the Foundation responsible
for completing the Project with little County oversight or involvement. The Agreement requires the
Foundation to post a bond with the County to assure that the requirements for the Enhancement funding
are met by the Foundation, or if not, to provide the funds necessary for the County to reimburse any amount
required to be repaid to VDOT for failure to meet the Enhancement Program mandates. Based on the
actual work remaining to be completed, the Foundation has posted a $400,000 bond.
Due to miscommunication between the Foundation and VDOT, much of the work for Phase IV has
been funded and completed without the necessary Agreements. However, the Agreements must be
executed to properly close out this project. The County Attorney’s Office has approved the Agreements as
to form and staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to execute the Agreement for
July 7, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
the Development and Administration of the Thomas Jefferson Parkway between the County and VDOT and
the corresponding pass-through Agreement between the Foundation and the County. The pass-through
Agreement will not be executed until the VDOT Agreement has been executed by VDOT.
By the above recorded vote, the Board authorized the County Executive to execute the
Agreement for the Development and Administration of the Thomas Jefferson Parkway between the
County and VDOT and the corresponding pass-through Agreement between the Foundation and the
County. The pass-through Agreement will not be executed until the VDOT Agreement has been
executed by VDOT (see agreements which are on file in the Clerk’s Office).
__________
Item 6.6. Requested FY 2004 Appropriations.
It was noted in the staff’s report that the Code of Virginia §15.2-2507 stipulates that any locality may
amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the current fiscal year as
shown in the currently adopted budget. However, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the
total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget or the sum of $500,000, whichever is lesser, must
be accomplished by first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the
budget. The total of the requested additional FY ‘2004 appropriations is $74,434.39. Since the last FY ’03-
04 budget amendment public hearing held on May 5, 2004, additional appropriations, including the
appropriations presented here, total $152,971.40, which is below the threshold for a budget amendment on
their own. It is anticipated that a budget amendment will be proposed in August, 2004 and these
appropriations would be incorporated into it.
This request involves the approval of three new FY ‘2004 appropriations as follows: Two
appropriations (No. 2004-082 and No. 2004-083) in the amount of $30,534.39, for various school programs
and grants; and one appropriation (No. 2004-084) for additional work involving the Urban Area B Study in
the amount of $43,900.00. Staff recommends approval of these FY ‘2004 Appropriations.
Appropriation No. 2004-082, $5,882.85. At its meeting on May 27, 2004, the School Board
approved the following appropriations:
Murray Elementary School received anonymous donations in the amount of $15,517.80. These
donations will be used toward construction cost of a new athletic track for the school. The School Board
had previously accepted donations in the amount of $10,000.00 for the construction of the athletic track.
This $10,000.00 was originally appropriated in Murray Elementary Schools’ budget account. The decision
has been made to have this project set up as a CIP account. It is requested that the $10,000.00 be
reappropriated into the proper account.
Western Albemarle High School and the Warrior Club received donations in the amount of
$275.00. Guaranty Bank donated $250.00 and Paul and Judy Rood donated $25.00. These donations will
be used to purchase weight room equipment for the new Weight/Wellness Room being constructed at the
school.
Title VI, a Federally funded program of the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994, provides
supplemental assistance to students considered at-risk of not meeting established performance goals.
There is a local fund balance in the amount of $30.05 from FY ’02-03 and it may be reappropriated for
FY ’03-04.
Appropriation No. 2004-083, $14,711.54.
Cale Elementary School received donations in the amount of $4,880.00. The Cale PTO donated
$500.00, James River Logging and Excavating, Inc. donated $50.00, Howard Craddock donated $25.00,
James Skeen donated $75.00, Cynthia Lackey donated $100.00, Carlisle Home Inspection Service
donated $50.00, Robert Archer donated $445.00, John and Susan Cunningham donated $445.00, John
and Lori Buckley donated $890.00, Patricia Anderson donated $200.00, Carol and Dabney Williams
donated $1,000.00, Charlottesville Power Equipment, Inc. donated $250.00, Bob’s Wheel Alignment
donated $500.00, Tiger Fuel Company donated $100.00 and General Shale Brick-Somerset donated
$250.00. These donations will be used to offset expenses for lodging and registration for the 2004 Global
Destination Imagination Team to attend the conference in Knoxville, Tennessee.
The Jefferson Region Destination Imagination (DI), which provides a regional DI competition for
County students and surrounding school districts, received additional revenues in the amount of $3,431.54.
Increases in participation resulted in additional revenues in registration fees and T-shirt sales. Albemarle
County will continue as fiscal agent for the region.
The Charlottesville Wal-Mart has awarded Broadus Wood Elementary a Teacher of the Year
Award in honor of Nancy Markos. The $1,000.00 will be used for physical education.
The State Farm Companies Foundation has made Good Neighbor Grant awards of $500.00 to
Monticello High School, $500.00 to Burley Middle School and $500.00 to Stony Point Elementary School.
This money will be used to purchase instructional and educational supplies for the schools.
The BestBuy Children’s Foundation has awarded Baker Butler Elementary a Tech Grant in the
amount of $2,500.00. The funds will be used to purchase equipment that will allow integration of
technology into the curriculum.
The Virginia Resource-Use Education Council has awarded a $1,000.00 Virginia Naturally Back to
July 7, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
Basics grant to Murray Elementary School. The funds will be used to teach children more about the effect
of large industry on water quality in a rural community.
The Virginia Commission for the Arts has awarded Murray Elementary School Touring Assistance
Grants totaling $400.00. The grants will help fund cultural enrichment events.
Appropriation No. 2004-084, $43,900.00. As provided by the original Three-Party Agreement
signed by Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville and the University of Virginia on January 31, 1986,
the three jurisdictions agreed to share costs for a Southern Urban Area B Study, addressing the
Fontaine/Jefferson Park Avenue area and adjacent properties under City, County and University jurisdiction.
On May 30, 2003, the three parties entered into a consulting contract in the amount of $74,965.00 with the
Renaissance Planning Group for this purpose, with the County serving as contract manager. On January
28, 2004, the contract was amended to include additional design work related to Fontaine Avenue,
requested and funded solely by the City in the amount of $19,000.00. On May 27, 2004, a second
amendment to the contract was signed, providing for engineering feasibility and preliminary cost analysis of
potential road connection alternatives between Sunset Avenue Extended and Fontaine Avenue, at the
request of the three parties. The cost of the second contract amendment is $24,900.00, to be shared
equally by the three parties ($8,300.00 each). The consulting contract (with amendments) has been
procured for land use planning and urban design purposes, and it is anticipated that the Area B Study will
be adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan. The study is scheduled to be completed by the end of the
summer.
An appropriation is needed in the amount of $43,900.00 to Code 1000-81010-312344, Southern
Urban Area “B”, line item in the Department of Planning and Community Development budget for the
additional work described in the above-referenced contract amendments. As a part of contract
management, the City will transfer funds in the amount of $19,000.00 to the County for disbursal to the
contractor for the Fontaine Avenue design work. Similarly, the City and University will each transfer their
respective shares of $8,300.00 to the County for disbursal to the contractor for the engineering feasibility
and preliminary cost analysis of potential road connection alternatives.
(Discussion: Mr. Boyd said he understands the Area B Study is a longstanding project. He asked
what is being studied that requires an additional appropriation. Mr. Tucker said this study is being reviewed
by PACC and County/City/University staff now. Area B is the southern urban area and they are looking at
plans in that area, particularly as to how growth will affect Fifth Street, Old Lynchburg Road and Fontaine
Avenue.
Mr. Boyd asked how this work dovetails with recent conversations concerning new retail
development in that area. Mr. Tucker said this study looks at all factors concerned, particularly
transportation.
Mr. Rooker said this is one of only a few studies being conducted by the three bodies. The idea is
to see that as the area develops, it does it in a way that is agreeable to all jurisdictions.
Ms. Thomas said at one time she did community relations for the University. She said the
University, City and County have an agreement which includes certain areas designated as Area “B” areas.
In those areas the three are not to take each other by surprise and are supposed to coordinate their
planning in that area. She said that at the time it was signed, it was unique in the nation for a university and
its surrounding communities to have that kind of agreement. Occasionally, it costs real money.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolutions of
Appropriation:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NUMBER: 2004-082
DATE: 07/07/04
EXPLANATION: EDUCATION DONATIONS AND PROGRAMS
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 2215 61411 580000 MISCELLANEOUS EXP J 1 (10,000.00)
1 9000 60302 800656 WEIGHT/WELLNESS J 1 275.00
1 9000 60216 800909 MURRAY ELEM TRACK J 1 25,517.80
1 3102 61311 601300 INSTRUCT/SUPPLIES J 1 30.05
2 2000 18100 181109 DONATIONS J 2 (10,000.00)
2 9000 18100 181123 WEIGHT/WELLNESS J 2 275.00
2 9000 18100 800909 MURRAY ELEM TRACK J 2 25,517.80
2 3102 51000 510100 APPROP - FUND BALANCE J 2 30.00
2000 0701 APPROPRIATION 10,000.00
0501 EST. REVENUE 10,000.00
9000 0501 EST. REVENUE 25,792.80
0701 APPROPRIATION 25,792.80
July 7, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
3000 0501 EST. REVENUE 30.05
0701 APPROPRIATION 30.05
TOTAL 31,645.70 35,822.85 35,822.85
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NUMBER: 2004-083
DATE: 07/07/04
EXPLANATION: EDUCATION DONATIONS AND PROGRAMS
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 2214 61101 601300 INST/SUPPLIES J 1 4,880.00
1 3129 61104 580000 MISCELLANEOUS EXP J 1 2,050.00
1 3129 61104 601300 INST/SUPPLIES J 1 1,381.54
1 3104 60201 601300 INST/SUPPLIES J 1 1,000.00
1 3104 60211 601300 INST/SUPPLIES J 1 500.00
1 3104 60251 601300 INST/SUPPLIES J 1 500.00
1 3104 60304 601300 INST/SUPPLIES J 1 500.00
1 3104 60217 800100 MACH/EQUIPMENT J 1 2,500.00
1 3104 60216 601300 INST/SUPPLIES J 1 1,000.00
1 3104 60216 312500 PROF SVC INST J 1 400.00
2 3129 16000 161260 JEFFERSON DI - REG FEES J 2 2,050.00
2 3129 18000 189918 JEFFERSON DI - SALES J 2 1,381.54
2 3104 18000 189900 WAL-MART AWARD J 2 1,000.00
2 2000 18100 181109 DONATIONS J 2 1,880.00
2 3104 18000 181261 GOOD NEIGHBOR GRANT J 2 500.00
2 3104 18000 181268 GOOD NEIGHBOR GRANT J 2 500.00
2 3104 18000 181124 TE@CH GRANT J 2 2,500.00
2 3104 24000 240207 VA BACK TO BASICS GR J 2 1,000.00
2 3104 24000 240266 VA TOURING GRANT J 2 400.00
3129 0501 EST REVENUE 3,431.54
0701 APPROPRIATION 3,431.54
2000 0501 EST REVENUE 4,880.00
0701 APPROPRIATION 4,880.00
3104 0501 EST REVENUE 6,400.00
0701 APPROPRIATION 6,400.00
TOTAL 25,923.08 14,711.54 14,711.54
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NUMBER: 2004-084
EXPLANATION: FUNDING FOR AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONAL WORK
INVOLVING SOUTHERN URBAN AREA B STUDY
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 81010 312344 SO URBAN AREA B J 1 43,900.00
2 1000 19000 190240 UVA SHARE J 2 8,300.00
2 1000 19000 190245 CITY SHARE J 2 27,300.00
2 1000 51000 510100 APPROPRIATION - F/B J 2 8,300.00
1000 0501 EST. REVENUE 43,900.00
0701 APPROPRIATION 43,900.00
TOTAL 87,800.00 43,900.00 43,900.00
__________
Item 6.7. Personnel Policy (P-02) Revisions.
It was noted in the staff’s report that the Human Resources Department, assisted by the County
Attorney's Office, has been reviewing the County's Personnel Policy Manual in order to update existing
policies in a number of areas. At this point, staff is proposing revisions to the following specific policy:
Employee Status (P-02). The proposed changes are to make medical/dental insurance coverage available
sooner to new employees and to clarify language pertaining to the Board’s medical/dental insurance
contribution on behalf of County employees who are married to other County employees.
In order to attract candidates, be consistent with most other organizations and be viewed as a
quality place of employment, the County wishes to offer insurance coverage to employees earlier than the
current policy allows. Specifically, the proposed language provides that new employees are eligible for
medical/dental insurance coverage the first of the month following the month in which they are hired. Such
employees would not be required to pay the employee premium for that month. New employees may elect
for insurance coverage to begin earlier, but not prior to the date of hire. In such cases, the employee will be
responsible for the full cost of the premium (Board and employee portions), prorated based on a 30-day
month.
In Section C, Paragraph 4, the second sentence is being deleted, as it was inadvertently added to
the previous amendment approved by the Board on June 2, 2004. This language was intended to confirm
that, at present, County employees who are married to other employees and who elect the same
medical/dental plan are not required to pay the employee contribution. However, since it is possible that
such future medical costs may increase and the Board’s contribution may not always be sufficient to offset
the employee contribution in the situation involving County employees who are married to other County
July 7, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
employees, this language is being deleted.
Staff recommends adoption of a resolution approving the proposed changes to Personnel Policy P-
02.
(Discussion: Mr. Boyd asked if there is a cost associated with these changes. Mr. Tucker said the
costs are so minimal staff did not include them with today’s packet, but he can provide a list of those costs.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution approving
of the changes to Personnel Policy P-02.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy Manual has been adopted by the
Board of Supervisors; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Personnel Policy Manual changes make medical/dental
insurance coverage available sooner to new employees and clarifies the Board’s health/dental
insurance contributions to two married County employees; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors desires to adopt these Personnel Policy revisions;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, hereby amends the following section of the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy
Manual:
By Amending:
Section P-02 Definition of Employee Status
Section P-02 DEFINITION OF EMPLOYEE STATUS
The Board will maintain standard definitions of employment and will classify employees in
accordance with these definitions. To aid in continuity and ease of reading, masculine pronoun will
be used throughout our policies to denote both male and female employees.
A. Classified Employees – A classified employee is defined as any County employee. All
County employees are employees at-will and may be dismissed from employment at any
time, for any reason, or for no reason. Regular full-time or part-time employees who have
completed all probationary periods, and are eligible to grieve, may grieve such actions
according to the grievance procedures set forth in Section P-03 of this Policy Manual.
B. Definitions of Employment
1. Regular: Employment in an approved budgeted full-time or part-time position that
is meant to be part of the regular County work force. The term “permanent” shall
have the same meaning as “regular” as these terms are used throughout this
Policy Manual.
a. Full-Time: Employment in an established position for not less than 40
hours per normal workweek (Saturday at 12:01 a.m. to Friday at
midnight)* and 52 weeks per fiscal year.
b. Part-Time: Employment in an established position requiring less than 40
hours per normal workweek.
c. Probationary: The first six (6) months (12 months for certain positions) of
employment with the County are considered a probationary period. This
time is used by both the employee and the County to determine whether
the position and the employee are suited for each other. An employee’s
progress will be evaluated throughout the probationary period, as required
by Section P-23 of this Policy Manual.
2. Salaried Board Members: Members of the Board of Supervisors and Planning
Commission are paid an annual salary as established by county ordinance and
state law.
3. Temporary: Employment that meets one or more of the following criteria:
a. Employment in a position established for a specific period of time.
b. Employment for the duration of a specific project or group of assignments.
c. Employment as a temporary in the absence of the incumbent in a position
classified as full-time or part-time, as defined in Section B.1 above. This
shall not include regular employees who are serving in another position on
a temporary basis (see P-60).
July 7, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
*NOTE: Schedules other than those noted may be established by Department Heads
provided that the alternate schedules are in writing and provided to the employees and to
the Department of Human Resources.
C. Extent of Participation in and Eligibility for Benefits
1. Full-Time Regular: Eligible to participate in all benefit
programs.
2. Part-Time Regular: Must be at least half-time (4.0 hours per day) to be eligible to
participate in prorated medical benefits, leave benefits, and applicable retirement
and life insurance programs. County employees hired prior to the implementation
of this policy (i.e. October, 1985) and who received benefits, will not lose such
benefits.
3. Temporary: Ineligible to participate in benefit programs.
4. Salaried Board Member: Eligible to participate in all medical and dental insurance
programs.
In order for a new employee to be paid by the end of the month in which they are hired,
paperwork must be received in the Department of Human Resources by the 15th of the
month. If the 15th falls on a weekend, paperwork must be received the workday prior to
the 15th.
New employees are eligible for medical/dental insurance coverage the first of the month
following the month in which they are hired. Employees are not required to pay the
employee premium for that month. Employees may elect for insurance coverage to begin
earlier, but not prior to the date of hire. In such cases, the employee will be responsible for
the full cost of the premium (Board and employee portions), prorated based on a 30-day
month. Non-benefits-eligible employees who subsequently become eligible and
employees who previously declined coverage and subsequently elect coverage will be
treated the same as new employees regarding coverage start date and premium
payments. Medical/dental premiums are paid in advance of the month of coverage.
Except as provided under COBRA or other applicable law, medical/dental insurance
coverage may continue through the end of the month following the month of termination
provided all employee premiums are paid. Otherwise, coverage will cease at the end of
the month of termination.
Employees who are married to another County employee will be eligible for two Board
contributions toward medical/dental insurance. It is the responsibility of the employee to
notify the Department of Human Resources of this situation and, upon notification, the
change in contribution will be made with the next payroll. In no event will the County be
responsible for retroactive payments to employees who fail to provide this notification.
D. Continuous Service is defined as: Uninterrupted employment while a regular employee
with the County of Albemarle. Continuous service is broken by termination of or
resignation from employment, voluntary or involuntary.
E. Throughout the policies, the word “Day” shall be defined as: the number of hours an
employee is identified on the Employee Personnel System as working. It is not necessarily
the number of hours the employee actually works per day. It is calculated by taking the
number of hours the employee works per year, and dividing it by 260 (the number of days
per year in the system).
Full Time Classified (other than those noted 2080 hrs/year a day = 8 hours
below)
Police Patrol 2071 hrs/year a day = 8.1 hours
Fire & Rescue Day Personnel 2600 hrs/year a day = 10 hours
Fire & Rescue 24-hr Personnel 2912 hrs/year a day = 11.2
hours
Part Time Classified Prorated based on Prorated
hrs worked
Amended: August 7, 1996; June 2, 2004, July 7, 2004
__________
Item 6.8. Dance Hall Permit Request for Kokopelli’s Café.
It was noted that a letter was received requesting a dance hall permit for a restaurant. The
Albemarle County Code requires an applicant to obtain a dance hall permit from the Board of Supervisors
before commencing operation of any dance hall. A dance hall is defined as "any place open to the general
public where dancing is permitted". The County Zoning Ordinance stipulates that "dancing by patrons shall
be considered as entertainment accessory to an eating establishment, provided the space made available
for such dancing shall not be more than one-eighth of that part of the floor area available for dining.” Any
dance floor occupying more floor space is permitted only by special use permit.
July 7, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
Applications for dance hall permits must contain certification from the Fire Marshal and Building
Official that the dance hall is in conformity with applicable provisions of the Fire Prevention Code and the
Virginia Statewide Building Code. Dance halls also are subject to all requirements of the County Zoning
Ordinance. Upon proper application and confirmation of these certifications, the Board has no discretion to
deny the permit. The County Code makes no provision for an approval being subject to conditions. The
primary restriction on dance halls is that it is unlawful for any dance hall to allow any person under the age
of eighteen to enter or remain in a dance hall while dancing is being conducted there unless that person is
accompanied by a parent or legal guardian, or by a spouse, brother or sister over the age of eighteen.
Certification has been received from the Fire Marshal demonstrating the applicant's compliance
with the Fire Prevention Code. Documents from the Department of Building Code and Zoning Services
stipulates that the establishment is in conformance with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building, and Zoning
Ordinance. Since the applicant has received the necessary approvals to operate a dance hall by right as
defined above, staff recommends approving the request for a dance hall permit from Kokopelli’s Cafe.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the request for a dance hall permit
for Kokopelli’s Café at 5793 The Square in Crozet, Virginia.
__________
Item 6.9. Authorize County Executive to accept the University of Virginia’s request to prepay their
pro-rata share of the 800 MHz Radio System Financing.
It was noted in the staff’s report that an agreement entered into in June, 2003 between the County
of Albemarle, City of Charlottesville and the University of Virginia provided for the financing, funding and
repayment of costs associated with the implementation of the joint 800 MHz Radio System. The County as
fiscal agent agreed to finance $7.0 million of this project using a lease purchase agreement with the Bank
of America; the City and University agreed to reimburse the County for their pro-rata share of the annual
repayments.
The University's share of the project was 15.03 percent with their pro-rata share of the financing
being $1,052,100. Based on the repayment schedule the University has reimbursed the County for their
share of the first payment made in May, 2004 in the amount of $44,884.92 leaving a balance due of
$1,007,215.08. The University has recently expressed a desire to pay off their remaining balance.
After reviewing the County's planned financings in FY ’04-05 and the unanticipated Levy property
acquisition, it would appear to be in the County's best interest to allow the University to prepay this portion of
their obligation and retain this amount for the County's current capital plans. Since the total financing was
by the County, the only action required to accomplish this would be notification to the University of the
County's agreement and acknowledgement of their payment. This amount, along with additional state
revenue, would provide approximately the amount needed for the Levy property purchase. In addition, the
interest rate of 3.2755 percent on this financing was much better than had been anticipated now or on
financings in the near future.
If the Board is in agreement with this plan, staff is requesting authorization for the County Executive
to notify the University of approval of their request along with the total amount due including interest from
May, 2004 to the date of payment. Staff will also prepare an appropriation request for future action
covering the County's increased share of the debt service payments. The annual increase in debt service
payments for the 10-year term will be $124,232.00.
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors authorize the County Executive to accept the
University of Virginia’s request as detailed above.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board authorized the County Executive to accept
the University of Virginia’s request as outlined in the staff report above.
__________
Item 6.10. VACO 2005 Legislative Packet.
It was noted in the staff’s report that the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo) has requested that
the County submit legislative proposals to be considered for inclusion in VACo's 2005 Legislative Program.
The following proposals are submitted for the Board's consideration and will be transmitted to VACo for
discussion in their summer steering committee sessions.
Staff proposes that VACo include the following items in their 2005 legislative program. The first
nine items are items the County submitted last year. The last four items are new items for VACo’s
consideration this year:
?
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Permit Application Fees - Request budget
amendment to require DEQ to reduce the permit application fees associated with stormwater
management and stream mitigation projects, which have been drastically increased in the last year.
Due to recent changes in Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES), municipal
separate storm system permit requirements, localities now have much of the responsibility for
protection of streams and rivers. DEQ’s recent fee increases adversely impact the ability of
localities to adopt regional stormwater management programs or to undertake projects needed for
stream protection.
July 7, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
?
Amend Va. Code § 15.2-1507 pertaining to the composition of panel hearings – Request an
amendment to authorize localities to utilize an administrative hearing officer in lieu of the three-
member panel in all cases, similar to the method established for state employee grievances in Va.
Code § 2.2-3005. This should help ensure consistency in applying policies.
?
Transient Occupancy Tax - Retain the flexibility currently available in transient occupancy tax
legislation so that these funds can continue to be used to support the protection of valuable open
space and resources of historical, cultural, ecological and scenic value that attract tourism.
?
Growth Management - Request legislation to provide high-growth jurisdictions with growth
management tools such as adequate public facilities ordinances and impact fees, and provide
statewide funding for open space and natural resources, such as the Purchase of Development
Rights program for localities that establish and locally fund such a program.
?
Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) - Request that the state fully fund CSA mandates
including obligations for administrative overhead and children, both of which have been shifted to
localities in recent years.
?
Scenic Protection and Tourist Enhancement - Request enabling legislation to provide for a scenic
protection and tourist enhancement overlay district. As the County pursues options to protect the
visual quality of land as an aesthetic and economic resource, this legislation would provide
localities with a method to ensure full consideration of visual resources and scenic areas when the
County or State makes land use decisions in designated areas.
?
Passenger Rail Service - The County continues its support for and endorses the provision of
passenger rail service from Bristol, VA to the Richmond, VA and Washington, DC areas with links
to communities along the way.
?
Reauthorization of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program – Request that the
state take advantage of the Federal reauthorization of TANF by streamlining eligibility requirements
and providing maximum flexibility to localities so that counties can implement the TANF program
that best meets local needs.
?
Photo-monitoring systems for traffic signal enforcement - Continue to support legislation
authorizing all localities to use photo-monitoring systems for traffic signal enforcement.
?
Virginia Retirement System (VRS) - Request the state to undertake long-term planning in
establishing VRS rates so that localities are not burdened with significant year-to-year rate
changes.
?
Transportation Funding – Request the state to increase funding for transportation so that the
present and future transportation needs of the state can be achieved.
?
Constitutional Officers – Request that current division between state and local governments
regarding duties and funding for constitutional offices remain intact.
?
Regulation of Panhandlers – Request the state to grant all counties the same authorization that
Henrico and Arlington counties were granted by special legislation in 1980 and that cities have
generally in the regulation of panhandlers in public rights of way.
VACo plans to complete the first drafts of their 2005 Legislative Program by mid-August. Should
the County identify additional legislative issues it would like to have considered, additional proposals can be
submitted to VACo later in the summer or in the fall. VACo's Legislative Program and Policy Statements
will not be finalized until November, 2004.
This information was provided for the Board's review and comment prior to communicating
these legislative proposals to VACo.
_________
Item 6.11. Copy of letter dated June 8, 2004, from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning
Administration, to John D. Griffin, re: Official Determination of Development Rights and Parcels – Tax Map
48, Parcels 58 (property of John D. Griffin and Michele H. Griffin) Section 10.3.1, was received for
information.
__________
Item 6.12. Copy of letter dated June 8, 2004, from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning
Administration, to William Downer, re: Official Determination of Development Rights and Parcels – Tax
Map 29, Parcels 36 (property of Estate of Gertrude F. Via) Section 10.3.1, was received for information.
__________
Item 6.13. Copy of letter dated June 10, 2004, from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning
Administration, to Donna Cooper, re: Official Determination of Development Rights and Parcels – Tax Map
94, Parcels 24 (property of Gertrude Y. Hart, George Yates, Jr., Hattie Scranage, Henry Yates ETAL)
Section 10.3.1, was received for information.
__________
July 7, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Item 6.14. Child Assault Prevention (CAP) Project Annual Report for School Year 2003-2004, is on
file in the Clerk’s Office and was received for information.
__________
Item 6.15. Comparative Report of Local Government Revenues and Expenditures for the year
ended June 30, 2003 as prepared by the Commonwealth of Virginia Auditor of Public Accounts, on file in
the Clerk’s Office, was received for information.
__________
Item 6.16. Update on Nuisance Dogs.
It was noted in the staff’s report that information was recently requested concerning regulations
regarding nuisance dogs. According to Sharon Tate, Animal Control Officer, officers often respond to calls
regarding dogs that are chasing bicycles, attacking other animals, or trespassing on private property. Most
of these problematic dog encounters occur in the rural areas of the County, although the problem exists in
the development areas as well.
The County currently has a countywide dangerous and vicious dog ordinance, and has running-at-
large ordinances for specific neighborhoods (Sec. 4-400 and Sec. 4-213). However, until a bite occurs, the
dog cannot be classified as dangerous or vicious and if the area of the County does not have a dogs
running-at-large ordinance, there is little that Animal Control officers can do to help alleviate nuisance dog-
related problems. As Albemarle County grows, the management of uncontrollable dogs could become a
growing concern for Albemarle County residents.
Animal Control statistics show that dog incidents in the County, especially those regarding
aggression, are on the rise. Notably, Animal Control projects there could be 150 to 200 dog bites in 2004
(more than three times recent years). Animal Control states that most dogs who display initial aggressive
behavior will repeat that behavior and may escalate their actions. 2004 statistics collected by Animal
Control Officers are as follows:
Documented Animal Related Incidents, 2004 (January-Present):
?
Dog incidents of aggression involving person (other than pet owner): 62 (28 unprovoked, 34
provoked)
?
Total dog bites involving owners and other individuals: 76
?
Persons bitten while riding bicycle on rural highway: 5
?
Persons bitten while a pedestrian on rural highway: 9
?
Dogs attacking other dog or companion pet: 15
?
Average number of dogs picked up per year: 600, 40 percent of which were dogs trespassing on
another’s property
Other localities’ dog ordinances were examined for comparison (four counties and five cities).
Every locality examined had a dangerous and vicious dog ordinance. Several localities, such as Fairfax and
Henrico, which have large densely populated and urban areas, have running-at-large ordinances for the
entire jurisdiction. Others, such as Bedford, use the neighborhood-by-neighborhood approach that
Albemarle utilizes. Staff noted that several cities have dog ordinances which regulate “nuisances” such as
excessive barking or chasing vehicles or bicycles, and attacking other domestic animals.
At this time, the state only authorizes two ways for counties to regulate aggressive nuisance dogs,
either through: 1) dangerous and vicious dog ordinances (Va. Code § 3.1-796.93:1), or 2) running at large
ordinances (Va. Code § 3.1-796.93). Staff’s research has determined that creating an ordinance
specifically for “nuisance dogs” is not an option for Virginia counties by state law. One option that may help
to address this issue is to create a countywide Dogs Running-at-Large Ordinance. However, this would
strain County enforcement resources and staff does not believe overall density in the County would justify a
countywide ordinance or that there is widespread community support for such an all encompassing
ordinance at this time.
The County currently does not have state authority to create an ordinance specifically to regulate
nuisance dogs. Staff does not recommend the implementation of a countywide Dogs Running-at-Large
Ordinance at this time. Staff recommends that the County continues to monitor this situation, encourage
dog owners to responsibly manage their pets, and re-assess this issue at a later time.
This report was received for information only.
__________
Item 6.17. Draft Planning Commission minutes for April 20, April 27, May 11 and May 25, 2004,
received as information.
__________
Item 6.18. VDOT Monthly Report for July 2004, received for information.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7a. Transportation Matters: Route 29H250 Study, Presentation by Harrison Rue.
Mr. Harrison Rue, Executive Director, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, was
present. He said he will show some slides of the which was completed in May,
29H250 Intersections Study
2003. The study area was expanded northward to include the Greenbrier Drive and US-29 intersection and
July 7, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
westward to the Barracks Road and US-250 Bypass interchange. When various options were shown at a
workshop in April, they had showed “A”, “B”, and “C” together. Today, he will show the hybrid “B1” solution
and will explain the reasons it was selected. “B1” appears to have the best value for the money and will
have a positive economic impact while solving the transportation problem. He said a longer version of this
presentation will be made at the 5C’s Committee meeting on July 20, 2004, at 4:00 p.m. at Alumni Hall. He
said Secretary Whit Clement will be present and will talk about the State Multi-modal Plan. CTB member
Butch Davies will talk about regional transportation plans. He will then make a presentation concerning
Route 29.
Mr. Rue said the TJPDC has been involved in an intensive public process. They looked at
transportation, economics, pedestrian/bike access, transit access, vehicular access, as well as quality of
life, sustainability, and water quality issues.
Mr. Rue said the Option "A" concepts looked at a balanced investment of all the intersections with
designs for each one. He said that under this option they rejected a recommendation to add a lane to the
westbound on-ramp to the US-250 Bypass at US-29 as being unneeded, so there would be no affect to a
day care center in that area. That neighborhood is no longer concerned, and they do like the proposal that
will be presented today.
Mr. Rue said Option “C” was deleted because it was too expensive and did not do enough to be
worth the investment, and it had a greater impact. It essentially had an elevated expressway going down
Hydraulic Road to move the traffic faster. Their economic consultants felt that because of the fractured
parcels in that area, it would be less likely to develop as more of a main street, so this option did not have a
“positive spin”.
Mr. Rue said Option “B” was selected because it takes Hydraulic Road and turns into a kind of a
main street by improving its traffic flow. He then explained the project using a map. He referred to the
extension of Hillsdale and the realigning of Angus Road/Holiday Drive. He said the report refers to building
a couple of roundabouts, but they may never be needed. Although they appear to improve traffic flow,
there is “more bang for the buck” by doubling the lane at BestBuy and taking it over the bridge. Option “B”
reconfigures Hydraulic Road between US-29 and the US-250 Bypass as a two-lane roadway. Intersections
on Hydraulic Road could be modern roundabouts, but the project could also be built without them. The
expensive part of the project is reconfiguring some of the existing lanes.
Mr. Rue said fixing safety problems is a good reason to spend money on the right-hand side of
Hydraulic Road. It appears to be buildable incrementally while maintaining traffic flow. The study shows
how pedestrian access would work in that area. He said that after fifteen years, the Hydraulic/Route 29 at-
grade intersection in Option “B” would no longer work. They have recommended including in Option “B” the
grade-separation shown in Option “A”. At this time, an actual design is needed in order to determine if the
Single-Point Urban Interchange should be constructed (Route 29 would go under Hydraulic Road), or have
roundabouts, or have signalized intersections. They have actually recommended that the PE exercise be
done to decide which one works best, and they have recommended it for inclusion in the B1 alternative.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks it is important because the study indicates that traffic fails in about 15
years at that intersection without a grade-separated interchange. It will probably be 10+ years by the time
the whole thing is built out. He said that while right-of-way has been set aside by the developer of the
project on the Sperry property, he thinks there should be some concrete plans for how much of that right-
of-way would be used if a grade-separated interchange were built.
Mr. Rue said that Mr. Jack Kelsey has actually been the lead County person and will work with
them this summer. They are going to look at the maximum amount required plus whatever is required to
build and define that so in the Board’s negotiations with the developer, it will have that line certain. He said
if a grade-separated interchange is built at Hydraulic/ Route 29, there will be need for an access plan also.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks Mr. Rue is recommending the at-grade improvements to Hydraulic
and Route 29. He asked the timing on the other project Mr. Rooker pointed to on the map.
Mr. Rue went to the “Master Map” which was posted on the wall. He said because of funding by the
Commonwealth, the timing of the projects will have to be worked up in the next five years. He said the
people in Culpeper have actually divided this study into 10 or more projects. He thinks it would be wise to
put the money into the smaller projects now. The grade-separated interchange is the most expensive
piece. He said if someone comes into the City with a proposal to develop on the City side of the road, and
there were private money to use for construction of some portions, certain projects would “jump” to the top
of the list.
Ms. Thomas asked if the City is on line with this study because a lot of the projects are in the City.
Mr. Rue said they have been fully on line in participating in the study, but Council has not been presented
with this selection. The first time this will be presented to the full Council will be at the 5C’s meeting. City
staff has participated, and several Council members have attended meetings.
Mr. Rooker asked if there are cost estimates on the various projects. Mr. Rue said “yes.” He then
showed visualizations of how these projects would work.
Mr. Bowerman said he did not understand if what the Board just saw was with an at-grade or a
grade-separated interchange at Hydraulic Road. Mr. Rue said they modeled the B-1 alternative thinking it
would be the one chosen. That is with an at-grade intersection at Hydraulic and Route 29. There was not
enough money to model it with a grade-separated interchange. At the upcoming 5C’s meeting, he will have
July 7, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
a model in the room to show that.
Ms. Thomas said there will not be a great deal of difference to the driver from what occurs today.
There will be two stop lights, but drivers will be able to get onto the Route 250 bypass easier.
Mr. Rue continued with the visualization slides. He said the grade-separation is included in the
recommendations. The average delivery project time in Virginia is 17 years start to finish, so planning
needs to begin now.
Mr. Rooker said he is concerned about spending a lot of money for an at-grade intersection in this
plan and then by the time it is built a grade-separated interchange is needed. There is a natural repulsion
to tearing up improvements just paid for to build something else. He thinks that if the money can be found
this needs to be planned.
Mr. Boyd asked if the projection that the road will fail in 20 years includes any kind of a bypass
option. Mr. Rue said “no.” He said when the first phase of the plan was done it was modeled in both ways.
Since that time, all the modeling was completed for the long-range UNJAM plan. This study was based on
that newly adopted UNJAM plan. VDOT'S own modeling of the UNJAM plan showed that of the money
available to the localities over 20 years (estimated by the State at about $240.0 million), the package
recommended in UNJAM (Berkmar Extended all the way up to Hollymead; Meadow Creek Parkway; the
Southern Parkway; a series of other connect-the-dot projects; and widening existing Route 29 all the way to
the Airport to six lanes), gives more of a transportation benefit for the dollar than any bypass. In the long-
range plan, that was selected.
Mr. Rooker said the CHART plan shows that the $240.0 million (a combination of Primary,
Secondary and Urban Road funds combined for the area for the 20-year period), would not cover the cost
of a bypass.
Mr. Boyd said he has not seen any numbers to support that statement.
Mr. Rooker said the CHART Plan shows that.
Mr. Boyd said before throwing around numbers of this size he would like to see those numbers
written down somewhere.
Mr. Rooker said they have been available for some time. They came when legislation was being
proposed by people down state to penalize the local area and the MPO if the Western Route 29 Bypass is
not built. He said Mr. Butch Davies put together the numbers. He came up with $240.0 million not including
funds for the northern terminus. He is quoted in several newspaper articles on this subject.
Mr. Tucker asked if the CHART plan is on TJPDC’s website. Mr. Rue said it is, but he would be
glad to print a copy for Mr. Boyd.
Mr. Wyant asked if the region was modeled from the Airport into town. He asked if the traffic
projected in 20 years can be handled with these improvements.
Mr. Rue said that is actually what the CHART plan does. They modeled 11 or 12 packages of
projects. They looked at every possible combination of projects. At the beginning of the report is shown the
output of the last model run. The volumes for each of the projects are shown in the plan. The modeling
was done by VDOT staff.
Mr. Wyant said if that can be shown somehow that would help some people understand the whole
issue.
Mr. Bowerman said all of those issues were looked at.
Ms. Thomas said all of that information is in CHART.
Mr. Bowerman said for the Hollymead Land Trust, the Board discussed the improvements that will
happen there.
Mr. Rooker said the MPO insisted that when CHART did their exercise, they do extensive modeling
on a number of options. They went through 11 or 12 different models with important improvements in or
out of the model. Impacts with and without various improvements being made can be seen on traffic. The
idea was to make sure that the community spends its transportation dollars to provide the most traffic
benefit. At any time that a project is funded, it needs to be determined how much traffic relief it will provide
for the dollars spent. That was the focus of what CHART did. The 20-year plan is based on an analysis of
a lot of traffic modeling to determine how to get the most for the community. He said it is recognized that
transportation money is very scarce. If anyone has read articles in the in the last couple
Washington Post
of weeks, VDOT has basically said they are out of the new project funding business for the foreseeable
future due to the increased cost of maintenance. Six-Year Plan funding this year is $1.0 billion less than
last year. That is a 17+ percent reduction.
Mr. Wyant said that is why he thinks the reasons need to be shown as to why one project has a
higher priority than another.
Mr. Bowerman said that is what has been done with all of the studies.
July 7, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
Mr. Boyd said this is only one intersection being dealt with in this study. What about the intersection
at Greenbrier Drive? What about Rio Road?
Mr. Rue said that is a good question. TJPDC got $250,000 from the CTB last year to do this study.
They are presently negotiating with Mr. Mark Graham and VDOT staff to come up with the money to fund
this level of technical rigor going all the way to Airport Road to answer questions linked to the developers.
They have been working closely with the developers on this phase. They want to do this in concert with the
County’s Comprehensive Plan update. For the first time, they may come up with policies both in the County
and at VDOT to link land use and transportation decisions based on good science.
Ms. Thomas said TJPDC already has a computer model for each of those intersections showing
what their level of service will be. That modeling has been done.
Mr. Boyd asked if there had been any financial modeling done for those intersections.
Ms. Thomas said not for the design and costing out, but rather for the traffic impacts. That sort of
thing was used when deciding what proffers were wanted for development along Route 29 North. That
area has received additional attention since the CHART model was done. The word “rigor” was used, but
maybe saying “in greater detail” would be better.
Mr. Bowerman said this intersection was picked first because it is the worse case at this time.
Mr. Rue said it is where the City and County lines abut, and is where the State has a lot of concern
and they know something needs to be fixed. He said for the two new members on the Board who were not
involved in the two-year CHART and UNJAM process, he would be glad to show them the 12 models and
give an update on each. To give the timing and numbers on this intersection he showed some graphs. He
said they looked at development opportunities in the area and analyzed what type of development might be
appropriate. They diagrammed the three main parcels in the area including the Comdial property. He
continued with his visual presentation (see copy of Study on file in the Clerk’s office). He said Option “C”
was rejected because it was too costly. He said they took all the designs, added a buffer around them and
measured every square foot taking away from every lot for impact. They handed that information to the
economic folks who then predicted the seven-year potential value of the properties. The land values in the
City would more than double after seven years. This would take place by creating access through Hillsdale
Extended which would open up big parcels with frontage access. The K-Mart area would almost triple in
value because Hillsdale comes through there and it gets the “main front street” frontage. He said that on
the western side of Route 29 Option “C” is a little better, but value does not double. The economists
thought it would be less likely to happen. He noted that the figures on the graphs do not include right-of-
way costs. He said there are a series of implementable projects (without right-of-way) costing between $2.0
and $5.0 million each. There are also a series of projects which can be programmed which cost between
$5.0 and $10.0 million each, and results would be seen immediately from those projects by stimulating
economic activity. By July 20th, they will have finished the remaining items and have information available
to hand out.
Mr. Rue said they did not measure things on the County side of Route 29 because the County is
already involved with the Albemarle Place development. The City is more concerned as to what will
happen with City revenues. The study looks at all revenues and seven years after the improvements are
completed there would be a net of $2.5 million more per year for the City. That is also one of the reasons
the B1 option was chosen. It shows that as much as $1.0 million per year would come from taxes.
Mr. Dorrier asked how these figures were derived. Mr. Rue said it was a combination of an
increase in value of the property and additional customers. Along the main street there is an assumption
that on Hydraulic Road some portion of it would be in restaurants, so there would be additional meals taxes
collected. The economist actually went through a parcel by parcel analysis looking at what might be
expected to happen in the area. These economists are experienced, and they based part of their analysis
on their years of experience. That will be detailed in the final report.
Mr. Rue said in talking about the $2.5 million increase in taxes after seven years, if right-of-way had
to be purchased, the increase in taxes on the City side alone would almost pay for the project, not counting
increased money coming in from Albemarle Place. There is some room to look at the potential for bonding
or a taxing district.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board is running into a time problem and asked that Mr. Rue summarize his
presentation.
Mr. Rue asked that the Board members come to the presentation before the 5C’s Committee on
July 20th to see their study in the context of whatever Secretary Clement and Delegate Davies will say.
Mr. Dorrier thanked Mr. Rue for the presentation.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7b. Transportation Matters: Sunridge Road Improvement Project, Discussion of.
Mr. Tucker said that the Sunridge Road (formerly Wakefield Road) public right-of-way was platted
as part of the Northfields Subdivision (1960’s) and a portion of the road was constructed approximately 30
years ago. This development predates the County Subdivision Ordinance which became effective in 1980,
as well as the County’s public street inspection program. The road was never completed and the portion
July 7, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
constructed was never taken into the state system. The constructed portion of the road currently serves five
dwellings and one undeveloped lot. The remaining rough-graded portion serves three undeveloped lots.
Mr. Tucker said that in early 1999 residents of Sunridge Road complained to the County and VDOT
that the road was in severe disrepair and should be state-maintained. In addition, they cited a specific
incident when snow obstructed emergency vehicles from responding to a 911 call from one of the
residents. The residents of the street requested that the County and VDOT repair and maintain it as a
public street. Since design standards had changed since the street was platted, both the County and VDOT
recognized that improvements would be needed before the street could be accepted into the State system.
County and VDOT staff inspected the road (in April, 1999) seeking to establish the bare minimum
improvements necessary. Those improvements included the upgrading of an existing 12-inch culvert to a
15-inch diameter culvert to meet VDOT’s minimum diameter standard. A pre-bid conference was held in
October 1999, but the project stalled when VDOT requirements also necessitated a drainage easement
from the proposed upgraded culvert outfall across private properties to the Dellwood Drive right-of-way.
Mr. Tucker said that in response to the concerns expressed, the Board approved proceeding with
the project after drainage easements were acquired, either through voluntary means or through
condemnation. Although this project qualified for the VDOT Rural Additions Program, the Board approved
the use of $25,000 in General Funds to expedite the process. Rather than pursue condemnation, staff has
worked with residents to acquire voluntary easements since the Board’s approval in January of 2000.
Mr. Tucker said that in early Summer 2003, County staff met with VDOT staff to reaffirm consensus
on the minimum improvements. Additional improvements were requested by VDOT, within the constraints
of this 30-year old street, most notably:
?
Plant removal and replanting for a sight distance easement at the northeast corner of Sunridge and
Northfield Roads;
?
Four new sections of storm pipe along sections of Sunridge Road;
?
Relocation of existing trees at the end of Sunridge Road;
?
Costlier road paving requirements.
Mr. Tucker said the original scope of work estimated at approximately $25,000 in 1999, was a bare
minimum project that would have required further VDOT effort to truly meet State standards. The above-
mentioned changes coupled with the increasing cost of construction have increased the project value
estimate to $75,000. Based on the change in scope and $50,000 increase in cost, the Board will need to
determine if it still supports bringing this road up to State standards for acceptance by VDOT. If the Board is
still committed to completion of the project, the following options exist for proceeding:
1. Add this project to the Priority List for Secondary Road Improvements and pursue as a Rural
Addition.
2. Pursue the project through the use of a combination of the previously allocated County General
Funds and funding from the CIP Fund Balance.
3. Pursue a cost-sharing arrangement with the affected homeowners.
Mr. Tucker said Option 1 (Rural Addition) would not normally be the mechanism for this project
because of developer interests. However, all vacant lots in this subdivision are owned by individuals. If this
project were to be added to the Priority List for Secondary Road Improvements to be completed as soon as
possible, it could delay other projects currently on the list.
Mr. Tucker said Option 2 (County General Fund/CIP Fund Balance) would allow the project to
proceed as soon as all easements were recorded. Staff believes it would be advisable to establish a set of
criteria for accepting and evaluating future requests of this type.
Mr. Tucker said Option 3 (Cost-Sharing Agreement) would recognize this case as a shared
responsibility of the County and the homeowners. A negotiation procedure would have to be established.
Again, staff believes it would be advisable to establish a set of criteria for accepting and evaluating future
requests of this type.
Mr. Tucker said that because of the long delay in this project and the County’s previous
commitment to bring the road up to State standards, staff recommends that the Board authorize the use of
$50,000 from the CIP Fund Balance to cover additional projected construction costs. If this
recommendation should be approved, staff will follow up with the appropriate appropriation forms on the
consent agenda at the next meeting. He said Mr. Bowerman is familiar with this request.
Mr. Bowerman said the minutes from the meeting in 2000 are very detailed as to the discussion
held by the Board. He said it took quite a while to get the easements from the property owners, but the
project is ready to move forward now. The question is, how much does the County spend on this project?
This project would only be for Phase I which would take the road to the last existing residence. Beyond that
point, the road is not included in the scope of the work. There are three or more additional lots on that road
which could be developed if there were adequate access.
Mr. Rooker said he would hope there would be some participation from those property owners if
the County decided to extend that road.
Mr. Bowerman said that neither he nor staff recommends that it be done at this time. He thought
the road work had been completed because he had not heard anything about it recently. It has taken an
extended period of time to get the easement.
July 7, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
Mr. Rooker said the road is in the Development Area and he thinks it is a problem that needs to be
cured. He is in favor of moving forward with the project before the cost increases again. If the Board looks
at other options for funding, the project will be delayed substantially.
Mr. Bowerman said there was a resident present who would like to speak.
Mr. Dorrier invited her to speak.
Ms. Christine Stacy said she lives in the last house on Sunridge Road. When they bought their
property, the road went all the way. It was platted as a County road in 1960 as part of Northfields
Subdivision. It is the only road in the subdivision which is not paved and not state maintained. She said
there was an easement and a drainage culvert. They bought the lot next to their house thinking that some
day they would build a small house there and downsize, as did their neighbors. Because this somehow fell
through the system and the road has not been maintained, they spent a significant amount trying to keep
the road drivable. She thinks it is time for the County to fix the road.
Ms. Stacy said when she exits Sunridge Road onto Northfields Road, visibility is poor because of
the shrubbery planted by neighbors. Years ago her son was hit by a car at that location. She fell on that
road and broke her wrist. The post office will not deliver her mail. She is almost 70 years old, and plans on
living in the neighborhood until she dies. In 2000, it was said that Phase III could not be done because that
would be considered as improving her property. She said it would only be correcting an error on the
County’s part and not improving the property. (Note: Mr. Dorrier left the room at 10:00 a.m.) Her husband
has died, and she is thinking about downsizing and building on the adjoining lot. The entire project needs to
be done and the last 200 feet fixed (she has waited 44 years for this road to be fixed). She said that last
year the residents on Wakefield Road paid over $10,000 in property taxes. She has lived there for 32
years. She begged the Board to consider fixing this road promptly.
Mr. Boyd asked how much money is in the CIP Fund Balance.
Mr. Tucker said that Fund Balance is used for all the projects in the CIP. He will get that
information.
Mr. Bowerman offered motion that the Board proceed with the reconstruction of Sunridge Road as
recommended by staff, and included use of another $50,000 to complete the project. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Boyd.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Dorrier.
__________
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Paul Muhlberger when the project will actually begin. (Note: Mr. Dorrier
returned to the meeting at 10:03 a.m.)
Mr. Muhlberger said there is one piece of this question that has not yet been resolved. That is
obtaining a sight distance easement that Ms. Stacy referred to at the intersection of Sunridge Road and
2500 Northfields Drive. He said the owner of that property is present today. When she signs an easement,
staff can procure the project.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks it would be in everybody’s best interest to do that.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7c. Transportation Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Jim Bryan, Resident Engineer, referred to his letter dated June 7, 2004, regarding the
resolution adopted by the Board endorsing VDOT’s design of the Meadow Creek Parkway. He asked if the
letter satisfactorily addresses the concerns expressed by the Board regarding a grade-separated
interchange of the Parkway and Melbourne Road with no access to Melbourne Road. He said VDOT’s
people in Richmond modeled this suggestion. It showed that in 2020, the whole network would be so
saturated with traffic that it would not make any difference. (Note: Mr. Bowerman left the room at 10:04
a.m.)
Ms. Thomas said she wants to be sure this request also considers a roundabout. Some people
have not given up on the idea that this would be a good location for one. She understands the response to
having a grade-separated interchange. Mr. Bryan said VDOT recommends a conventional signal at that
location, but can still look at the issue of having a roundabout.
Mr. Rooker asked if the traffic modeling included the potential for an interchange at Route 250 with
the Meadow Creek Parkway. Mr. Bryan said he would look into that and respond to the Board. (Note: Mr.
Bowerman returned to the meeting at 10:09 a.m.)
__________
Mr. Wyant mentioned a drainage problem in Albemarle Lake Subdivision. Mr. Bryan said he would
call Mr. Wyant.
_________
July 7, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
Ms. Thomas asked if the traffic lights on either side of Free Bridge (Route 250 East) are
coordinated since one is in the County, and the other is in the City.
__________
Mr. Rooker said in the City stop lights were added on Route 29 at the Bodo’s intersection and the
off-ramp of the Route 250 Bypass going south. That light does not permit a right turn on red. He asked if
someone could look at permitting a right turn on red at the off-ramp to prevent traffic from backing up. In
addition a vehicle traveling south on Route 29 at this same location cannot turn left into Bodo’s and that
commercial area on a green light. Vehicles must wait for the green turn signal. This causes traffic to back
up. He asked that someone look at this situation.
__________
Mr. Rooker mentioned the North Pointe development and said that proffers have been submitted to
County staff and a new conceptual site plan is under review. He asked when the County will get final input
from VDOT on the traffic improvements necessary for the project. Mr. Bryan said VDOT has already
provided comments unless changes are made to the plan again.
__________
Mr. Boyd asked Mr. Bryan to comment on the Blenheim Road (Route 795) situation. Mr. Bryan said
the applicant applied for a permit to work within VDOT’s right-of-way; VDOT gave him the okay under
certain conditions. He was told that his plans must meet VDOT standards, and they did. Most of the work
is being done on the applicant’s property. The applicant did not apply to do any work on the bridge and if he
had VDOT probably would not have allowed it. He has said many times that this project is privately-funded.
He continues to feel good about the project and VDOT will maintain its vigilance for environmental
concerns, etc. The applicant has done everything he said he would do and VDOT has done everything it
said it would do. Because it is privately-funded, it is only a permit; it is not a VDOT project. The project
should be completed by October.
__________
Mr. Dorrier asked that VDOT look at the turn lane on Avon Street Extended into the industrial park.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. ALS Ambulance Service – Route 29 North Corridor.
Mr. Tucker said the Fire Rescue staff has been working with County volunteer rescue squads to
develop a system to provide the final in-field training for 16 newly-trained career advanced life support
(ALS) personnel. The purpose of the training is to allow the ALS providers to independently practice their
skills under the supervision of a certified ALS provider on an emergency EMS call. The process takes
approximately 100 hours to complete per person.
Mr. Tucker said because of training difficulties that currently exist and its impact on service, staff
evaluated several alternatives to provide the final training needed for EMS providers to achieve their ALS
certification. They include, (1) hiring three firefighter/ALS personnel and staffing a Charlottesville-
Albemarle Rescue Squad (CARS) ambulance during day time hours and (2) continuing to send staff to
Chesterfield County. A third alternative of only sending staff on a limited basis to Western Albemarle
Rescue Squad (WARS) and Scottsville Rescue Squad (SRS) is also an option, but would clearly require
considerable time.
Mr. Tucker said based on an analysis (on file in the Clerk’s Office), staff believes hiring three
additional staff is necessary to adequately address patient care and response goals. Without the in-field
training necessary to achieve ALS certification, the County’s 16 career staff and the 25 volunteers at CARS
will be unable to administer drugs and provide the other high level patient care necessary at the scene of an
emergency. Through this option, both career and volunteer ALS training needs will be better met in the
shortest period of time. In addition, this option will improve response times in the 29 North Corridor, an area
already targeted for improved service with the planned construction of the Northern Fire/Rescue station.
Mr. Tucker said there is a considerable fiscal impact to hiring staff at this time. The expected total
cost of this alternative is $162,000 in ongoing personnel costs and $13,000 in one-time startup costs.
However, because these staff would be hired for the planned northern station within approximately two
years, this is viewed more as an accelerated process for hiring rather than an unexpected cost not
previously planned for. Staff expects a $25,000 saving in projected personnel cost in FY ‘04-05 due to the
delay in providing ALS pay to the staff members pursuing certification. If approved by the Board, a request
for appropriation will be presented to the Board on a future agenda. Staff recommends Board approval of
hiring three Firefighter/ALS personnel to staff a CARS ambulance during the daytime hours.
Ms. Thomas asked if funds are available for this request. Mr. Tucker said “yes”, staff would bring
back an appropriation request at another meeting for the funds to be transferred from the General Fund
Balance.
Mr. Rooker asked if this new ambulance would be housed at the new fire station. Mr. Tucker said
he will let Mr. Dan Eggleston speak to where these new personnel would be housed initially.
Mr. Bowerman asked if three people will be transferred to ALS and then new people hired.
Mr. Eggleston said “yes.” He said staff has been meeting with people from CARS planning the
details should the Board approve this proposal. They have looked at joint staffing models where they could
help with both volunteers and career staff members. He said the idea now is to staff an ambulance at the
July 7, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
Seminole Trail Fire Station on Berkmar Drive. There is no area in the north where it could be housed at this
time.
Mr. Rooker asked if these people will be County employees. Mr. Eggleston said “yes.” He said this
is the same model used now at Earlysville, Scottsville and Stony Point stations. It is a combination model
where the County provides the employees and CARS officers supervise.
Mr. Boyd asked if CARS provides the equipment. Mr. Eggleston said “yes” and they also provide
people. They have a duty supervisor during the day that coordinates where the ambulances go. Although
this ambulance would be staffed by County career people, it would fall under the supervision of CARS.
Mr. Boyd asked if the whole idea is to free up a person to do the training. Mr. Eggleston said it
actually provides a means for the County to train its staff, as well as any volunteers needing training to be
certified to administer advanced life support. It also provides another staff ambulance for the system to
help relieve some of the strain being experienced.
Mr. Boyd asked about the statement in the staff report that CARS is having trouble servicing the
County. He imagines that a large part of their contributions come from the County. He asked if they
consider themselves a City-type organization. Mr. Eggleston said they are both County and City. It is rare
that they cannot answer a call; it is usually just a delay. They answer over 12,000 calls each year. Often
there is a call pending so they have to do a quick turnaround at the hospitals. Sometimes there is a delay in
getting an ambulance to the scene, and that is something they want to address, especially in the
Development Areas.
Mr. Boyd asked if staff feels this is a greater need than other unmet fire station needs. Mr.
Eggleston said there is an obstacle at this time to releasing the trained ALS providers. This is a way to get
those people out in the system as well as to provide another staffed ambulance.
Mr. Rooker said it was mentioned in the staff report that Fire/Rescue staff has worked with
Chesterfield County to train the County’s career ALS providers. However, the estimated period to complete
ALS assessments through Chesterfield is two years at an estimated cost of approximately $57,200. He
asked how quickly people can be trained if the Board approves the route recommended by staff.
Mr. Eggleston said it is difficult to say. Training will be more accelerated than that offered by
Chesterfield, but now it is determined by the number and type of calls. It is a skill-based release process. It
also will put County people into the system where they are treating County citizens.
Ms. Thomas said this is just another cost of growth.
Mr. Tucker said the land the County is getting for the new northern station was proffered.
Mr. Wyant asked about equipment. Mr. Eggleston said that is something which has been worked
out with the rescue squad. Their equipment will be used, and sometimes their preceptors will be used as
well. The details of this are being worked out now with CARS.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks this is a good solution. He then offered motion to approve the hiring
of three firefighter/ALS personnel to staff a CARS ambulance during daytime hours.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Department of Social Services 2004-2006 Strategic Plan, Presentation of.
Ms. Kathy Ralston, Director, said this is the third strategic plan developed for the department. She
then presented a slide presentation for the Board (copy on file in the Clerk’s Office). Through facilitated
sessions over several months, the strategic planning team developed the Department’s vision, mission,
core values, and an action plan. The vision they developed talks about a time in the future. The mission is
about their core business, setting out the work of the department. Their core values are the things they
value in culture and they are used as a basis for decision-making. They held six sessions during this
process, and in five of those they talked about core values.
Ms. Ralston said when they developed their goals, they were developed based on data. One of the
changes in the department over past years is that they make most of their decisions based on fact and
data. These goals were derived from a lot of data in the full strategic plan. They had 32 challenges in their
strategic plan, and they were boiled down to five. Five goal groups are currently working on implementing
an action plan. Ongoing management of the plan will be accomplished through the use of “team services”
technology.
Ms. Ralston said that in two years they will create strategic alliances to augment services. They
hope to create two new alliances in the coming year. They are currently working on new alliances with the
Health Department, the Child Support Enforcement Office and the Jefferson Area Board for Aging. They
hope to achieve a 90 percent customer satisfaction rating from these new partners.
Ms. Ralston said a second outcome is that residents are more aware of services. They hope to
July 7, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
increase community awareness by 20 percent. They hope to get a baseline on that through the County’s
customer telephone survey which has just been completed. A question in that survey had to do with
awareness of the Social Services Department. A third outcome in two years is to increase customer
satisfaction, internal and external, and to achieve a 90 percent customer satisfaction rating. They have
baselines on that having done an internal customer satisfaction survey. They have done internal customer
satisfaction ratings. They were pleased with the results from those, but there is room for improvement.
They hope they will be able to achieve that 90 percent without too much problem. In year three, they will be
looking for significant outcomes. Funding for department services will become more diversified since state
and Federal funding can no longer be relied on. The diversification speaks to a survival standard for the
department in terms of services provided
Mr. Rooker asked what potential diversified sources are available. Ms. Ralston said they are
looking to foundation resources, non-traditional governmental resources (ex. Department of Labor), and
general private donations. She said a lot of foundations will not fund government services. One thing seen
in their action plan is to pursue development of non-profit status and have a non-profit arm of the
department that could pursue and access those types of dollars.
Ms. Ralston said a second outcome within three years is to increase staff satisfaction. That may be
accomplished by decreasing the staff turnover rate by 25 percent. The last time Human Resources looked
at their turnover rate it was 6.98 percent, which is not too bad. Research says that a lower turnover rate in
staff will increase customer satisfaction. They hope to increase staff access to relevant training
opportunities. That is an issue with the State at this time because they are not good at providing policy
training in a timely way. They hope to make changes in that through the Departments’ strategies.
Ms. Ralston said that they hope to increase the organization’s ability to respond to language needs
of the population. She said there is an increase in the Hispanic population, but in their data research they
found a comparatively high Asian population. They hope to increase recruitment efforts for bilingual staff
rather than paying interpreters.
Ms. Ralston said their three-year outcomes talk about effective and sustainable prevention and
early intervention strategies. That can be accomplished by increasing the percent of resources dedicated
to prevention and early intervention, with the community identifying the Department as the provider of
choice for those services. They expect referrals to increase by 25 percent. They hope to decrease the rate
of children in foster care from 8.4 to no more than 6.0 per thousand. They hope to increase awareness
among customer groups about domestic violence. They know domestic violence is a primary indicator of
childhood problems and problems in later life.
Ms. Ralston said they hope to increase high school graduation rates of youth aging out of foster
care by 15 percent. Research shows that over a lifetime, adults make more money and are more
economically independent if they graduate from high school. Finally, the Advisory Board has taken on the
task for developing a communication plan. In summary, the leadership team has been involved since the
beginning; there are goal groups working on the goals, there are 31 staff members and 12 people from the
community who volunteered to work with the goal groups. The community has been involved in this
process all along. Each unit within the department is also looking at the outcomes, and the Advisory Board
is involved in the process.
Mr. Dorrier thanked Ms. Ralston for the report.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing: An ordinance to amend Chapter 12, Regulated Enterprises,
Division 1, Dance Halls, Section 12-201, Permits – Required; Applications and Section 12-202, Revocation
of Permit, of the Albemarle County Code, to change the process of approving dance hall permits to an
administrative process. (Notice of this public hearing as published in the Daily Progress on June 21 and
June 28, 2004.)
Mr. Tucker summarized the staff’s report which is set out in the minutes of June 9, 2004. He said
staff recommends that the Board adopt the ordinance as proposed after holding the public hearing.
Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public
hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion to adopt An Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Chapter 12, Regulated Enterprises, Article
II, Amusements, Division I, Dance Halls, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by amending
Section 12-201, Permits-Required; applications, and Section 12-202, Revocation of permit, was offered by
Mr. Rooker. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The ordinance as adopted is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 04-12(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 12, REGULATED
ENTERPRISES,ARTICLE II, AMUSEMENTS, DIVISION I, DANCE HALLS,
OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
July 7, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that
Chapter 12, Regulated Enterprises, Article II, Amusements, Division I, Dance Halls, is hereby
amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Section 12-201 Permits-Required; applications
Section 12-202 Revocation of permit
CHAPTER 2. REGULATED ENTERPRISES
ARTICLE II. AMUSEMENTS
DIVISION 1. DANCE HALLS
State law reference--authority to adopt article, see Va. Code §§ 18.2-432, 18.2-433.
Sec. 12-200 Dance hall defined.
For the purposes of this division, the term “dance hall” means any place open to the
general public where dancing is permitted.
(Code 1967, § 8-1; Code 1988, § 3-11; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference--Authority to codify ordinance, Va. Code § 18.2-433
Sec. 12-201 Permits--Required; applications.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a dance hall in the county unless
such person shall have first obtained a permit from the county.
B. Applications for such permits shall be filed with the zoning administrator. Such
applications shall contain the following information:
1. name of the person owning the dance hall;
2. name of the person managing the dance hall;
3. the location of the dance hall;
4. a statement as to whether or not alcoholic beverages are to be served on
the premises of such dance hall; and
5. certification from the building official and fire marshal that such dance hall
is in conformity with applicable provisions of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and the
Fire Prevention Code.
(4-21-76; Code 1988, § 3-12; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 04-12(1), 7-7-04)
Sec. 12-202 Revocation of permit.
Permits issued by the county pursuant to the provisions of this division may be revoked by
the zoning administrator for any violation by the permittee of the provisions of this division or for any
false statement made on the application required by the preceding section. No such permit shall
be revoked unless the permittee shall have received reasonable notice that he is entitled to a
hearing before the zoning administrator prior to action on revocation. Such notice shall state the
time and place such hearing is to be held.
(Code 1988, § 3-13; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 04-12(1), 7-7-04)
Sec. 12-203 Attendance of persons under eighteen years of age.
It shall be unlawful for any person operating a dance hall to allow any person under the
age of eighteen (18) years to enter or remain in such dance hall while dancing is being conducted
therein, unless such person is accompanied by a parent or legal guardian or by a spouse, brother
or sister over the age of eighteen (18) years, unless such person has the written consent of such
parent, legal guardian or spouse.
(Code 1967, § 8-2; Code 1988, § 3-14; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
Sec. 12-204 Exemptions.
A. The provisions of this division shall not apply to dances conducted for benevolent
or charitable purposes, or when such dances are conducted under the auspices of religious,
educational, civic or military organizations.
B. The provisions of this division shall not apply to dance halls in any town in which an
ordinance adopted pursuant to the provisions of Virginia Code § 18.2-433 is in effect.
(Code 1988, § 3-15; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
July 7, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
Sec. 12-205 Violations; penalties.
Any person violating the provisions of this division shall be guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor.
(Code 1988, § 3-16; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
Sec. 12-206 Relation of article to zoning ordinance.
In addition to the provisions of this article, dance halls shall be subject to all requirements
of the county zoning ordinance.
(4-21-76; Code 1988, § 3-17; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing: An ordinance to amend Chapter 11, Parks and Recreation
Facilities, Article I, In General, Division 3, Conduct Within and Use of Parks, Section 11-109, Disorderly
Conduct, Fireworks and Weapons Prohibited in Parks, of the Albemarle County Code, to repeal the
prohibition against the carrying of firearms in County park facilities as required by Virginia Code Section
15.2-915, amended July 1, 2004. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on
June 21 and June 28, 2004.)
Mr. Tucker summarized the staff’s report which is set out in the minutes of June 9, 2004.
Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public
hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Ms. Thomas said that in the staff report under Strategic Plan it says this is being done to serve the
public efficiently and effectively. She thinks it is really being done to comply with a state mandate. Mr.
Rooker said he agrees.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Wyant, to adopt An
Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Chapter 11, Parks and Recreation Facilities, Article I, Division 3,
Conduct Within and Use Of Parks, of the Code of the County Of Albemarle, Virginia, by amending Section
11-109, Disorderly conduct, fireworks and weapons prohibited in parks.
Roll was called, and the motion carried b the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The ordinance as adopted is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 04-11(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 11, PARKS AND RECREATION
FACILITIES, ARTICLE I, DIVISION 3, CONDUCT WITHIN AND USE OF PARKS, 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 11, Parks and Recreation Facilities, Article I, Division 3, Conduct Within and Use of Parks,
of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained by amending
Section 11-109, Disorderly conduct, fireworks and weapons prohibited in parks, as follows:
CHAPTER 11. PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES
ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL
DIVISION 3. CONDUCT WITHIN AND USE OF PARKS
Sec. 11-109 Disorderly conduct, fireworks and discharge of weapons prohibited in parks.
A. No intoxicated person shall be permitted entry to any park and, if discovered
therein, any such person shall be ejected.
B. The discharge of any firearm, air gun, gas gun or B.B. gun is prohibited, unless
expressly permitted by state law. Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit a law-enforcement
officer, as defined under state law, from acting within the scope of his duties.
C. Fireworks are prohibited in parks unless authorized by the director of parks and
recreation.
D. No person shall, while in any park, conduct himself in a loud, rowdy or disruptive
manner or otherwise act in such manner as to interfere with the reasonable use of such park by
any other person.
(9-12-79; Code 1988, § 14-6.3; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 04-11(1), 7-7-04)
This ordinance shall be effective on and after July 1, 2004.
July 7, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
________________
Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing: FY 2005 Budget Amendment. (Notice of this public hearing
was published in the Daily Progress on June 27, 2004.)
Mr. Melvin Breeden, Budget Director, said this budget amendment totals a little more than $5.5
million. More than half of that amount is a transfer of funds. He said the County is to receive about $2.6
million in additional revenue from the State. The first appropriation shows half of that amount being
allocated to the General Fund to be transferred to the Capital Fund for projects. The remaining $1.3 million
goes to the School Fund for various items set out on Attachment A to the staff’s report (teacher salary
increases, four positions mandated by the State along with the requirements that came with the additional
funding, and some money being transferred into the computer and textbook replacement funds).
Mr. Breeden said the second appropriation is for $11,168 the result of the Board’s approval of an
increase in the salary of the Commonwealth’s Attorney. The third appropriation is for the County’s share for
purchase of the Levy property which is where a portion of the additional State funding will be used. The last
appropriation shows $176,790 for the At-Risk Four-Year Old program and comes from the additional
money received from the state.
Mr. Boyd asked how much money is actually in the CIP Fund. Mr. Breeden said the balance is
getting fairly low, probably only a couple of million dollars. Most of it is allocated to projects over the five-
year plan.
Mr. Tucker said when the tax rate was increased a few years ago, the Board specified that a certain
amount of that increase go to the CIP to avoid having to borrow funds for these types of projects.
Mr. Boyd said he thought there was also a threshold set. Mr. Breeden asked if Mr. Boyd was asking
about totally unappropriated funds vs. funds which are not allocated to projects over the five years of the
plan. There is a difference because things change over the life of that five-year plan.
Ms. Thomas said the Board has a policy as to how much will go into the CIP.
Mr. Rooker said there has to be an adequate reserve to fund ongoing projects. He said there are
projects that have been started but which are not yet completed. Mr. Breeden said those would not be
counted as part of the reserve because those funds have already been committed.
Mr. Rooker said there is a difference between what might be in the bank account, and what has not
been appropriated. Mr. Breeden said there will be differences seen in the CIP in the upcoming year
because there have been problems funding some school projects when a project was budgeted over two or
three years. When it is time to sign a contract for a $10.0 million school and the expenditures are to be
spread over two or three years, staff will have to pull the total appropriation back into the year the contract is
signed. That does not coordinate with cash flow.
Mr. Boyd asked if all of the money is borrowed upfront before the project starts. Mr. Breeden said
the borrowing has been split at times, and that will probably be the case more often in the future.
Mr. Rooker said a good part of this appropriation will go toward purchase of the Levy Opera House
property for the court system. While that is a current expenditure of capital funds, it also alleviates a larger
planned expenditure included in the budget over a period of years. He said it is clear that this saves the
County funds in the long term. Mr. Breeden said it does not have a great deal of impact on the balance
because of this additional state revenue which was not anticipated.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Board will decide how the $1.3 million will be allocated. Mr. Tucker said
that is what the Board will be doing if it approves these appropriation requests.
Mr. Boyd said he sent an E-mail to the members because he thought there was a conferee
committee which got together to work out the school system’s budget. He thought there was going to be a
joint meeting of the two boards to do that. It bothered him that he did not know in advance this would not
come to this Board so it could say the Chair and the Vice-Chair should do it. He wondered if having four
elected officials get together follows all the open meeting requirements. Mr. Tucker said it does as long as
they are not appointed by this Board or the School Board. If they were to be appointed by this Board, they
would become a committee of the Board and would then have to meet FOI requirements. He said this was
a way to meet and discuss items that might be somewhat sensitive. Originally, staff had thought about
having the two boards meet, but it looked like it would be easier to split it 50/50.
Mr. Rooker said he was invited to the meeting. When he talked to Ms. McKeel about this issue, hhe
suggested that the County Executive’s staff and the Superintendent’s staff meet and bring a
recommendation to the Board. That was just his idea; only a suggestion. The group that met consisted of
the two chairmen. It was clear that the group had no decision-making capacity. The four people who met
were asked if they could recommend the plan to their respective boards. He recommends the plan to the
Board. He said Mr. Dorrier was also present at that meeting and he thinks Mr. Dorrier also recommends
the plan to the Board.
Mr. Bowerman said he would rather have a committee not appointed by the Board looking at issues
more directly than they could as a full board. The full Board could then take their recommendation under
advisement.
July 7, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
Mr. Boyd said he agrees, but this is not what that was. What Mr. Rooker just explained was that it
was not a committee appointed by this Board.
Mr. Bowerman said he did not mean to infer that; he was talking about people who meet together
to bring a recommendation on some matter to the Board.
Mr. Boyd said he has some real questions about some of the allocations, particularly having
another $900,000 go into teacher salaries which he fully supports. Does that mean it will be spent in the
current year? He is concerned that the School System has gone away from what the joint committee
decided on salary evaluations years ago as regards to teachers. There are real discrepancies between the
amount given to teachers and how their classified employees are treated. They are not participating with
local government in the Total Rewards Program. They have opted out of the benefits review.
Mr. Tucker said he thinks they are waiting to see how that comes out with the County, and then they
may join in. The Schools presented a plan of what they thought teacher salaries should be. It was felt that
it could not be funded over a one-year period, so they will do it over two years. They basically have funded
one-half. With this additional funding it will move them up to about 75 percent. That removes their need for
additional revenue in next year’s fiscal budget. Staff saw a benefit to using these funds in this year,
because they will not need that additional $910,000 in the ’06 budget.
Mr. Rooker asked if the four additional positions are included in that $910,000. Mr. Tucker said
those positions are separate, based on SOQ requirements.
Mr. Boyd said he was interested in the fact that the two Boards would have a joint meeting to talk
about budgetary issues. He thought it would go further, and there would be talk about how school funds
will be allocated in the future. He has gotten a great number of questions about fund balances which do
not get recorded. Personally, he thinks the School System’s finances are a little deceptive in accounting
procedures. That bothers him. He had hoped that some of this could be “hashed out.” Mr. Tucker said
that is an issue staff has not forgotten about. He said Mr. Breeden has already started putting together
information on fund balances. He had sent out an E-mail regarding this yesterday afternoon.
Mr. Rooker said it was a very good explanation. Mr. Tucker said that is the kind of information they
want to bring to the boards later so they can hash out the issues Mr. Boyd has been raising.
Ms. Thomas said she will join Mr. Boyd in being uneasy about how the Board is spending this
money. She looked back over the various cuts the State made to revenues in the last two years. She
knows the Board was supposed to talk about reducing the tax rate; that was part of State legislation when
they increased revenues to localities. She thinks that having this overriding CIP project is a good
opportunity to save taxpayers a lot of money.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the localities will see themselves bearing more and more of the cost of
transportation improvements. Right now, the County receives 40 percent less in real dollars for secondary
road funding than four years ago. This year’s total state budget is $1.0 billion (18%) less than last year.
Transportation and traffic modeling shows that no matter what is built among the potential improvements
based on funding, a lot of roads are still over the abiding capacity ratio today of 1:1. There is not the money
in the State allocated system to keep up with the traffic increase in the area at its current pace. Innovative
ways will have to be found to fund improvements in this area.
Mr. Wyant said the Board is really talking about new construction. Maintenance costs will be a big
burden on the County.
Mr. Boyd said he agrees with everything everyone has said. It is not his intent to micro-manage
School funding, but he thinks that because the Board makes the appropriations, it must be concerned that
in the matter of per pupil spending, Albemarle has one of the most expensive systems in the state, and it
has not kept up with teacher salaries.
Ms. Thomas said Albemarle spends less than the state average of counties per capita on its
schools.
Mr. Boyd said when the figures are adjusted for per pupil spending, it is spending more.
At this point, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the
public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Rooker to approve the FY 2005 Budget Amendment in the
amount of $5,568,782.00 and to adopt the following Resolutions of Appropriation for FY ’05. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The appropriation resolutions are set out in full below.)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2005-002
DATE: 07/07/04
July 7, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
EXPLANATION: Recognition of additional State school revenues and reduction of G/F transfer.
Allocation of total additional State school revenues to Schools and G/F Capital
Improvement Fund.
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 2000 24000 240202 State Basic Aid J 2 93,324.00
2 2000 51000 512004 Trs Fr G/F J 2 (93,324.00)
1 1000 93010 930001 Trs To S/F J 1 (93,324.00)
2 1000 51000 510100 G/F Balance J 2 (93,324.00)
1000 0501 Est Revenue 93,324.00
1000 0701 Expenditure 93,324.00
1 1000 93010 930001 Trs To S/F J 1 1,346,662.00
1 1000 93010 930010 Trs To CIP J 1 1,346,662.00
2 1000 51000 510100 G/F Balance J 2 2,693,324.00
1000 0501 Est Revenue 2,693,324.00
1000 0701 Expenditure 2,693,324.00
2 2000 51000 512004 Trs Fr G/F J 2 1,346,662.00
Administration J 1 119,846.00
Instruction J 1 1,076,816.00
Other Uses J 1 150,000.00
2000 0501 Est Revenue 1,346,662.00
2000 0701 Expenditure 1,346,662.00
2 9010 51000 512004 Trs Fr G/F J 2 1,346,662.00
2 9010 51000 510100 CIP F/B J 2 (1,346,662.00)
TOTAL 7,893,324.00 4,133,310.00 4,133,310.00
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2005-003
DATE: 07/07/04
EXPLANATION: ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR COMMONWEALTH’S ATTORNEY
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 22010 110000 C'WEALTH ATT - SALARY J 1 9,925.00
1 1000 22010 210000 C'WEALTH ATT - FICA J 1 144.00
1 1000 22010 221000 C'WEALTH ATT - VRS J 1 1,092.00
1 1000 22010 270000 C'WEALTH ATT - WK COM J 1 7.00
2 1000 51000 510100 APPROPRIATION - F/B J 2 11,168.00
1000 0501 EST REVENUE J 11,168.00
0701 APPROPRIATION J 11,168.00
TOTAL 22,336.00 11,168.00 11,168.00
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2005-004
DATE: 07/07/04
EXPLANATION: PURCHASE OF LEVY PROPERTY
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 9010 21050 800750 Property Purchase J 1 2,687,500.00
2 9010 51000 510100 CIP F/B J 2 2,687,500.00
9010 0501 Est Revenue 2,687,500.00
9010 0701 Expenditure 2,687,500.00
TOTAL 5,375,000.00 2,687,500.00 2,687,500.00
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2005-005
DATE: 07/07/04
EXPLANATION: Recognition of additional State revenues for Bright Stars Program and
transfer of the additional matching local funds from the General Fund
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1553 24000 240283 State Aid J 2 62,573.00
2 1553 51000 512004 Trs Fr G/F J 2 114,217.00
1 1553 61150 999999 Bright Stars Cont J 1 176,790.00
1553 0501 Est Revenue 176,790.00
1553 0701 Expenditure 176,790.00
1 1000 53013 930208 Trs To Bright Stars J 1 114,217.00
July 7, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
2 1000 51000 510100 G/F Balance J 2 114,217.00
1000 0501 Est Revenue 114,217.00
1000 0701 Expenditure 114,217.00
TOTAL 582,014.00 291,007.00 291,007.00
(Note: At 11:05 a.m., the Board recessed and reconvened at 11:14 a.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Economic Development Discussion.
Mr. Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive, said that on a number of occasions over the past
several years, the Board has discussed the County’s role in economic and business development. This
discussion is timely because the Planning Commission will soon be reviewing the County’s Economic
Development Policy which is part of the County’s Comprehensive Plan. Today, the Board will discuss new
approaches or strategies to economic development. Staff has provided to the Board information on the
current policy and an urban policy related to urban development. It would be helpful if the Board would give
its thoughts on the current policy. Is it appropriate? Should the County move in new directions? Are there
certain areas which should be emphasized? He said that some counties have placed greater emphasis on
the rural areas by hiring rural economic development people to help with establishment of new agricultural
uses.
Mr. Foley said a second area for discussion concerns emerging policy such as the recently adopted
Neighborhood Model which contemplates the existence of vibrant downtown areas as an essential core
component of successful urban areas. He asked if the Board wants to play a more active role in trying to
create vibrant downtown areas. The idea would be to make the urban areas more attractive so people will
want to live in those areas. He said there are statements in the Crozet Master Plan that the County will be
more proactive and it talks about having incentives for small businesses within the development areas.
Mr. Foley said because an update of the Economic Development Policy will take place this fall,
staff believes discussion by the Board regarding emerging issues and current thinking on economic
development would be helpful. He said the Board has adopted a Resolution of Intent to amend the
Economic Development Policy. That issue will be before the Planning Commission this upcoming fall.
Mr. Dorrier asked when the current policy was adopted. Mr. Foley said it was adopted in 1995 and
there have been some fairly significant land use policies adopted since then. A regional plan was adopted
last fall. At the Board’s planning retreat last year it discussed economic development and said that perhaps
the Comprehensive Plan should be updated. It talked about the regional policy, and then adopted that
policy.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board has limited time to discuss this matter today. He thinks staff wants the
Board to focus on which specific items should be worked on.
Mr. Foley asked if staff should emphasize anything new. For instance, in the regional plan it says to
“attract high technology business” and the County is not doing that at this time. The County has no
economic development person to attract new jobs. The urban development plan talks about encouraging
and guiding new business, and encouraging new business incentives.
Mr. Dorrier said the County has created a new position for an economic development person. Mr.
Foley said it is important to set framework to define what that person will do. He said if the Board feels the
person should be more involved in promoting wineries and agricultural operations, the duties of that position
will be impacted to some degree. He read from the business plan approved by the Board. The description
for this position reads: “A planner for Neighborhood Model implementation. This initiative would fund an
urban development position to focus on activities related to development of the County’s master planned
and other urban areas. This would include working with business and real estate interests in bringing about
the core business and economic activity needed to realize vibrant neighborhood and business centers. This
position will also be involved in the development of public infrastructure projects including the evaluation of
possible funding alternatives in partnerships.” He said this position is not intended to attract new jobs to the
community, but is about creating a downtown area. The Crozet Master Plan says the library should be put
on a particular piece of land that has been a parking lot in front of the post office and the bank; that property
is privately owned. If that is where the County would like to see the library placed, someone needs to be out
in the community working with the bank and the business community, etc., to determine if that can be
brought about. That library is expected to be the core of the whole downtown area and should help attract
others to the area. There is no one on staff at this time trained to do that type of work. Also, if the library is
built there, should there be other things in the area to attract people to live closer to the downtown area. If
these places are going to become engines so people will want to live in the area, there needs to be new
efforts on the part of the County. This position was recommended to do that type of thing, but not to go out
and market a large company to come into the
County. If some of the Board members want to take that approach, there will need to be thought given to
how it would affect this position before it is advertised.
Mr. Dorrier suggested thinking about the Comprehensive Plan. He asked what specifically is being
recommended to be changed in the Economic Development Policy in the Plan.
Mr. Rooker said the Board has a list of what is being called “A Compilation of Variables that
Measure a Locality’s Economic Well-being.” He said that list of things could be computed and he thinks it
would be helpful to have that information when looking at the Comprehensive Plan component for
July 7, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
economic development, particularly if anyone wants specific changes in the general Comprehensive Plan.
He suggested that things just adopted in the regional plan about six months ago be incorporated into the
County’s plan.
Mr. Foley said if new job growth is tracked by the Chamber and the County’s policy is not focused
on creating new job growth but on retaining current jobs, then the wrong thing might be tracked. There are
a lot of different measures, but what is measured depends on what is to be accomplished.
Mr. Rooker said a lot of information is already available. To get that information showing the last
five-year period would be helpful to him. Although some of this information may not be immediately
available, he thinks it would be helpful to get the data that is available so there are comparative numbers to
look at.
Mr. Foley said that can be done. Staff expects to take the information compiled by Mr. Steve
Allshouse, Fiscal Impact Planner, for the Planning Commission’s review and focus on those numbers. If
there are particular things the Board feels are important to look at, staff would like to know those things
now.
Ms. Thomas said the Board received a huge amount of information before it held its first Strategic
Planning session a few years ago, and the Board did not refer to those pages even once during the two
days it spent in that session. She is a bit more willing to put on brakes in terms of asking staff to compile a
lot of information if each Board member is going to pick out one thing and say that proves his point. She
thinks staff wants the Board to give it some idea of what it should pay attention to.
Mr. Rooker said most of what he is requesting is readily available data. He thinks the danger of not
getting the information is that someone might rely on just one piece of information to prove a point.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks the staff wants “thinking out of the box” creative ideas from the Board.
Mr. Boyd agreed with Ms. Thomas about putting the data together. But, he thinks the Board needs
to develop a philosophical approach to economic development. As he reads through the Comprehensive
Plan and the Regional Plan, he sees things like “encourage”, “develop”, “attract”, and to him all of these
words say there is some proactive function that must be done in the County. That bothers him because the
County has no mechanism in place to attract, to encourage, or to support, economic development. He
thinks it comes back to this position that is being talked about. It is the key and the place where the
discussion should start. The other things will measure how well the County is doing.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks Mr. Boyd is pointing why there are an awful lot of 3:3 votes on this
Board. The members are taking very different views concerning economic development. She reads books
on economic development because it is of great interest to her. One thing that is clear is that if there is a
pleasant community, more people spend their time and dollars in that community. That is not something
that can be measured, but economists have done studies all over the nation and that is their conclusion.
She thinks it is important. She supports the Architectural Review Board; she supports a number of things
the County does because she thinks she is doing something good for the economy. If others think that the
only way to prove the County is helping local businesses is to have a person who has economic
development “on his chest”, then the Board members will just disagree and probably no amount of figures
will change that view. She had hoped that what economists have found throughout the nation would have
some influence on the Board members’ thinking about economic development.
Mr. Boyd said economists have opposing views on that. He thinks of this from a businessman’s
point of view. You cannot just open a business and wait for people to come to you. If the County promotes
a vibrant economy, does that promote growth? That is the real issue.
Mr. Dorrier said there is one area that needs to be worked on and that is better coordination with
the City of Charlottesville and the University of Virginia as far as what Albemarle County wants for this
region.
Mr. Boyd asked if there is not a City/County Committee.
Ms. Thomas said there is, and it meets quarterly.
Mr. Boyd asked if there are minutes taken.
Ms. Thomas said she and Mr. Rooker try to pick out controversial items to put on the agenda each
meeting. They challenge the University about housing, about transportation, jobs creation, etc. Then they
get back a nice report from the University saying what their impact on the community is.
Mr. Rooker said they describe a tremendous engine of growth in the community.
Mr. Boyd said the University has an economic development group in place with the idea of having it
become a top research university. They would love for the County to be a participant in it.
Mr. Bowerman said the County has already approved their research park based on certain criteria.
Anybody they can bring in who meets their criteria is fine. They are marketing that park because they own
it.
Mr. Boyd said they would like for the County to be a partner.
July 7, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
Mr. Bowerman asked what “being a partner” means. What would the County do?
Mr. Boyd said he saw their slide presentation and it had the City of Charlottesville’s logo on it, but
not the County’s.
Mr. Bowerman asked what the presentation was about, where did it occur, and who made it?
Mr. Boyd said it was done by people involved with the Research Park.
Mr. Bowerman asked if it was the Real Estate Foundation.
Mr. Boyd said he did not know. It is a new group.
Mr. Bowerman said he never heard about it. Where was the presentation given?
Mr. Boyd said it was put on for the local commercial realtor’s organization.
Mr. Bowerman asked if it was a meeting or a dinner.
Mr. Boyd said it was just a regularly scheduled meeting and they asked the University development
people to come.
Mr. Bowerman asked the name of the organization.
Mr. Boyd said it was whatever arm of the real estate organization deals with commercial
development.
Mr. Bowerman said that is the Real Estate Foundation.
Mr. Boyd said the meeting was put on by the local realtor’s association that deals with commercial
development; it may be a separate part of CAAR that deals with commercial property as opposed to
residential property.
Mr. Foley said he is sure it was the Real Estate Foundation.
Mr. Boyd said he got the impression that they are restructuring it to be more economic development
oriented.
Mr. Bowerman said they do have a lot of land to sell.
Mr. Boyd said he got the impression that they are anxious to increase research and to do that they
must bring in corporate partners. It is back to the fact that everybody needs to work together as a
community. He said the numbers put together by Mr. Allshouse need to be done on a regional basis.
Mr. Rooker said he thought Mr. Boyd just said he did not need the data.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks staff wants to know if there is anything that is not in the present
Comprehensive Plan. She has one thing that came up after the Plan was adopted. The community
opinion survey done about nine years ago divided the answers into race to see if there was any distinction
between how people responded and their concerns by race. It turned out that there was only one, and it
was the feeling of job availability. The African-American community felt strongly that there were not jobs
available. Since then, the community thinks of itself as having a diversity of population. She does not think
the same question was a part of this year’s survey. That was such a strong factor from that survey that she
thinks race relations have to be part of the Board’s discussions on an economic development policy. She
said the economic development policy of the Planning District has as number one to support existing
businesses. It became evident to her that while approving new retail developments, the County is not
considering existing businesses at all. She would like to see existing businesses emphasized in the local
plan. She said the County has done nothing for the rural nonresidential economy. The Board had an Ag-
Forest Advisory Committee, but the Board has never followed any of their recommendations.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board needs to include in the Comprehensive Plan sections supporting
viticulture and the wine industry in Central Virginia. Albemarle County is the number one county in Virginia
in terms of the wine industry and the Plan should reflect that fact.
Mr. Bowerman said the County supports the industry, but only people with the necessary capital
can do it. Since they are the people making the investment, what can this Board do to help them?
Mr. Dorrier said the Board should have a policy statement saying it encourages them.
Ms. Thomas said when the Board allows sprawl, and introduces housing into the middle of what
otherwise could be a vineyard, conflicts which will kill off viticulture will inevitably arise.
Mr. Rooker said when he met with several people from the farm component of the Chamber of
Commerce, they talked about that. They brought up numerous antidotal situations where people move into
subdivisions in the rural area, and houses are not compatible with the farm uses around them. There is a
natural conflict there.
Mr. Wyant said that gets into the idea of buffering. He said the apple industry is dying out because
July 7, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
there is no market to sell their apples. He thinks the County will move into an entirely different kind of
agricultural industry over the years, and that needs to be reflected in the Plan.
Mr. Boyd said he keeps coming back to the idea that all of this is just rhetoric. These are just words
in a plan if the County does not do anything to make things happen. Maybe that is what some members of
the Board want to do.
Mr. Rooker said there are different ways of accomplishing these things. He said Ms. Thomas just
outlined an entire philosophy which is different from that of Mr. Boyd. He thinks that every time the Board
makes a land use decision that is helpful to business, business has been encouraged in some way. The
County does not buy acreage and develop wineries, but tries to create a climate that is a good place for
businesses of various kinds to operate.
Mr. Boyd said if the County does not coordinate that economic development with its land use
policies, how does the house in the middle of the orchard get there?
Mr. Rooker said the revised Rural Areas Plan will come to the Board soon. He said that in 1980 the
County down-zoned 95 percent of the County to Rural Areas and dramatically changed what could be done
in the County. That created the 21-acre remnant situation, it created the five development rights per tax
map parcel, and maybe that strategy in today’s climate is not adequate for protecting the rural economy of
today. That is one reason the Rural Areas Plan is being looked at now. He said the plan contains general
guidelines, but at any point specifics could be recommended which relate to any of the guidelines. The
Board does so every year at budget time. It did so when it approved hiring this new employee the Board
has been discussing. Every year at budget time the Board makes decisions on what to do to further these
objectives and goals.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks there are two areas the Board needs to discuss. There is a general
perception among the business community that Albemarle County is unfriendly to business. He thinks the
Board should correct that perception because he does not think the County is unfriendly.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks approval of Albemarle Place and the Hollymead Town Center had to
do with “leakage”, because they do not help the small business people. He said it will create a dramatic
impact on the local retail market.
Mr. Dorrier said that combats the perception that the County is not friendly toward business, but he
thinks zoning and planning regulations cause people to turn away and think the County is unfriendly. He
thinks the Board can correct some of that. The goals, objectives and strategies of the Economic
Development Policy will come into reality through planning and zoning operations by making the regulations
more user-friendly. He thinks the Board needs to deal with the process.
Mr. Bowerman said the County is presently creating a community development department.
Mr. Rooker said the County has created the “one-stop” window because people said they had to go
to many different places to pursue an application. This Board has supported staff’s recommendations to
unify information for the public and create a single point of reference. He thinks it is important to find more
ways to better serve the public and move the applications more rapidly through the process.
Mr. Dorrier said he has a second point. People tell him that when their children finish college they
have to leave the area because there are not sufficient jobs available. Does the Board want a County
where a job applicant is limited and must leave the community in order to find good employment?
Mr. Rooker said if the community had one million people, there would be jobs of all kinds and
categories available. Since the community has only 80,000 people it will never be able to employ everyone
in the local area. He does not think every antidotal case can be cured. He thinks the County needs to be
the best community of 80,000 people that it can be and provide the best quality of life for a community of
that size.
Mr. Boyd said what Mr. Rooker just said is his problem with the philosophy on this whole issue.
Earlier he did not get to make his point. He said Mr. Rooker has said there can be economic development
or there can be land use policies, but not both.
Mr. Rooker said he never said that.
Mr. Boyd said Mr. Rooker is trying to couch the discussion into the point that jobs should not be
created here because Albemarle cannot expect to be New York. There has to be a good economy to
accommodate at least some of the graduates.
Mr. Rooker said the County does have those businesses, for instance, S&L Security which has
grown from five or six employees to 250 employees.
Mr. Boyd said his point is that economic development in and of itself will not create sprawl or in and
of itself create a huge population growth. It will not create a Loudoun County. There are a lot of things in
Loudoun that make it the fastest growing county in the country and Albemarle should not be compared to
Loudoun. He thinks the County needs to be proactive in economic development if Albemarle is to continue
to be a vibrant community. That does not mean it has to attract big plants. It needs to be a community that
puts out the persona to the business community that it is open to business and that the business community
July 7, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
is valued here. He knows Mr. Allshouse has been working to get a figure which shows how much tax
revenue should come from the business community as opposed to the personal property tax. The County
is out of kilter with what some people think that number should be.
Ms. Thomas said what she has looked at shows Albemarle to be better than all but Henrico
County.
Mr. Boyd asked how many other counties in the state do not promote economic development in
some manner.
Mr. Rooker asked how many communities in the state have a better economy than Albemarle.
Mr. Boyd asked how Mr. Rooker defines that economy.
Mr. Rooker said by the unemployment rate and population growth.
Mr. Boyd asked about the high cost of land in Albemarle and its having the highest cost of living in
the state.
Mr. Rooker said that is not true, and Albemarle does not have the highest cost of living in the state.
By most definitions, the community is successful and vibrant. It is growing from a population standpoint.
There are a lot of communities which are losing population. It is adding jobs, and a lot of communities are
not adding jobs, etc.
Mr. Dorrier said he would like to continue this discussion at some future date, and in the meantime
have the supervisors bring in some specific recommendations to change the Comprehensive Plan
Economic Development Policy.
Mr. Rooker said he has made the recommendations that he has, to incorporate the regional plan
into Albemarle’s plan where there are differences. He would like to get some of the data which was talked
about earlier. Also, Ms. Thomas had a number of suggestions she thought should be added.
Mr. Foley said he could summarize the suggestions he got and speak about the process. This
discussion started by talking about some specific strategies. Ms. Thomas made a few suggestions about
the regional plan. He said the Planning Commission will look at these suggestions and then write some
strategies which will then come to this Board to adopt. If the Board members have some ideas on specific
strategies, they should be discussed.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks it should be a larger discussion than just among the Board members. He
would like to invite the Chamber of Commerce, the T.J. Partnership, the University of Virginia, Citizens for
Albemarle, Planning District Commission and have them participate in the discussion.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the Board needs to understand where this process stands at this time.
What the Board is looking at today is giving some guidance to the Planning Commission which will at some
point hold a public hearing(s) on recommended changes to the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed plan
would then come to the Board, and the Board could hold work sessions and could get input from people in
the community on the proposed changes. It would be undercutting the Commission to go out and in effect
start holding a public hearing when there is not even a proposal on the table at this time.
Mr. Boyd said he is not as concerned about the Comprehensive Plan words as he is about the
actions the Board should take to enforce what will end up in the Plan.
Mr. Rooker said the Board will be working on a new budget soon, and at any time Mr. Boyd can
propose any change to that budget that he wants.
Mr. Boyd said there is a position now that is defined. He wants to know what the Board will do with
that person.
Mr. Rooker said his job was defined and it is in the budget. What Mr. Foley was asking was if the
Board wanted to change that description in any way so staff would know what type of person to look for.
Mr. Foley asked if there was anything mentioned in this discussion that would affect the job
description for that position.
Mr. Wyant mentioned the Crozet Master Plan again. He said Crozet was an employment center at
one time, and that is why it was designated as a growth area. The jobs are not there now. He would like to
talk to some businesses because jobs are needed in order to make the Crozet plan work.
Mr. Rooker said the job description was focused on having someone help to create a vibrant
downtown in Crozet because of the master plan. He understood one of the primary jobs for this person
was to work with Crozet to help achieve that. There are some stakeholders in Crozet that have properties
with substantial possibilities.
Mr. Boyd said he would prefer that the position be called an economic development officer as
opposed to an urban planner.
Ms. Thomas said it is an urban development person. The example of the library was perfect
July 7, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
because the planners are now talking with people from Bank of America, but that is not in their job
description.
Mr. Foley said staff wants to define it so someone does not come in and be unsure about the
expectations for the job. To get to what the Board is talking about staff can bring an outline of the position
to the Board’s meeting on August 4th for more input. The question is, where the line is drawn between
working with a local real estate person and getting a coffee shop in place. Nothing staff would put before
the Board would indicate that this person would be working with the State Department of Economic
Development to get an industry in, but small business and those kinds of things have been mentioned.
Mr. Boyd said staff then does not expect the County to work with the state as far as bringing in new
businesses.
Mr. Foley said he does not know how to answer that. Staff did not envision this position as being
the typical economic development person. They did not put anything in the description related to that. If the
Board wants to change that description, it can be changed. He thinks this employee’s full-time job will be
right there in the community working with the businesses that are in place now.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks that scope is too narrow.
Mr. Wyant asked how you will get businesses to locate there.
Mr. Rooker said everybody has their own expectations, but he would expect them to be somewhat
“plugged in” at the state level.
Mr. Foley said he agrees. There is interaction needed at the state level based on local needs. The
things he has gotten from this conversation are to incorporate the regional plan, consider the rural
economy, and perhaps some agricultural things the County might give greater support, support the wine
industry specifically, and continue to look at improvements in the County’s review process in order to be
efficient and provide better customer service.
Mr. Wyant mentioned the request for data.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to be assured that staff will talk to people in the wine industry and get
their input. He has heard many times that what is requested gets filtered through staff and does not come
to the Board in its pure form.
Mr. Rooker said when there are land use changes which necessitate changes in the
Comprehensive Plan and zoning, if these have any impact on agri-business, citizens come to the Board
meetings and let the Board know what would benefit them and what would not benefit them. One thing the
Board has discussed for the rural areas was to make certain there are ways people can viably support
themselves on rural property. He understands that the rewrite of the Rural Areas Plan probably expands
potential uses that are compatible with the rural areas.
Mr. Dorrier thanked all who had participated this morning in this discussion.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Groundwater Ordinance, Work Session. Due to the lateness of the hour, this
item will be heard after lunch.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Closed Session: Personnel Matters.
At 12:11 p.m. motion was offered by Mr. Boyd, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, that the Board
adjourn into closed session pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to
consider appointments to boards and commissions; under Subsection (1) to conduct an administrative
evaluation; under Subsection (3) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding the acquisition of property
for public use; under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding probable litigation
arising from a claim against the county; under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff
regarding pending litigation concerning the police department; and, under Subsection (7) to consult with
legal counsel and staff regarding probable litigation concerning a violation of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Certify Closed Session.
At 2:13 p.m. the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman that
the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member’s knowledge only public
business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of
Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the closed session were heard, discussed or
considered in the closed session.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Boyd. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
July 7, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant.
NAYS: None.
__________
Motion was offered by Mr. Boyd to adopt the following resolution denying the claim of Karl
Mansoor against the County of Albemarle presented in a letter dated May 24, 2004. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION TO DENY CLAIM
ASSERTED BY KARL MANSOOR
WHEREAS, Karl Mansoor, by counsel, has asserted a $1,000,000 claim against the
County of Albemarle arising from alleged wrongful actions of the Albemarle County Police
Department; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds that the claim is not supported by the facts or
by law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia denies the claim of Karl Mansoor for alleged damages in the amount of
$1,000,000.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Appointments.
Ms. Thomas offered motion to:
Reappoint Mr. John A. Scrivani to the Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Committee,
with a term to expire on August 1, 2007.
Reappoint Mr. Joseph T. Samuels, Jr., to the Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE)
Committee, with a term to expire on August 1, 2007.
Appoint Mr. Richard Keeling to the Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Committee, with
a term to expire on August 1, 2007. Mr. Keeling replaces Mr. A. C. Shackelford, Jr., whose term expires on
August 1, 2004.
Appoint Mr. Jimmy Powell to the Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Committee, with a
term to expire on August 1, 2007. Mr. Powell replaces Mr. Joseph Cochran.
Reappoint Mr. Charles M. Rotgin, Jr., to the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee, with a term to
expire on July 8, 2005.
Reappoint Mr. William P. Jackameit to the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee, with a term to expire
on July 8, 2005.
Reappoint Mr. Jeff Werner to the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee, with a term to expire on July 8,
2006.
Reappoint Mr. Richard L. Jennings as the joint appointee to the Joint Jail Authority, with term to
expire June 30, 2007, subject to concurrence by City Council..
Mr. Bowerman offered motion to appoint Ms. Brenda Doremus-Daniel as the Rio District
representative on the Board of Social Services to replace Ms. Mildred Kelly, with a term to expire on
December 31, 2005.
Mr. Boyd offered motion to appoint Ms. Marsal Stoll as the Rivanna District representative on the
Board of Social Services, with a term to expire on December 31, 2007. Ms. Stoll replaces Ms. Karen L.
Powell.
Mr. Dorrier recommended that Mr. Carlton Gregory be appointed as the Scottsville District
representative on the Board of Social Services, with term to expire December 31, 2007. Mr. Gregory to
replace Ms. Donna Marshall.
Mr. Rooker seconded all of the nominations. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. SP-2004-008. Karin M. Gest (Sign #82). Public Hearing on a request to
allow private school for classroom driver training in accord w/Sec 20.4.2.1 of the Zoning Ord. This is an
July 7, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
expansion of an existing classroom driver training use. TM 61Z3, P 202, contains .245 acs znd PUD. Loc
on Incarnation Dr at intersect of Rt 1694 (Branchlands Blvd) & Rt 1427 (Hillsdale Dr). Rio Dist. (Notice of
this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on June 21 and June 28,2004.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff’s report which is on file in the Clerk’s Office with the permanent
records of the Board of Supervisors. He said this is a previously approved special permit for a driving
school in the Branchlands Professional Center. This expansion would allow more physical space to be
devoted to the school use, but would not increase enrollment or staff. Consistent with the previously
approved school, this special permit would result in one employee and up to ten students at any given time.
Classes would be conducted in the evenings, generally from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. He said the conditions
recommended for this permit are essentially the same as those for the last special permit. It is noted that
the necessary parking areas have been determined to exist and they have been delineated.
Mr. Bowerman asked why this request is before the Board again. Mr. Cilimberg said there was one
unit in the Branchlands Professional Center they wished to expand the school into and it was not part of the
original request.
At this point, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the
public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Bowerman immediately offered motion to approve SP-2004-008 subject to the two conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wyant. Roll was called,
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. Maximum enrollment shall be ten (10) students; and
2. Normal hours of operation for the school shall be from 4:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M. provided that
occasional school-related events may occur outside of these hours.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Groundwater Ordinance, Work Session.
Mr. David Hirschman, Water Resources Manager, said staff and the Planning Commission have
been working with the Groundwater Committee for a number of years to develop a groundwater ordinance
and assessment standards. This program has a long history (see staff report which is on file in the Clerk’s
Office). He said there are basically three elements to the recommended program. One has to do with
looking at groundwater prior to any development approvals. It would require modification/amendments to
the Water Protection Ordinance and the Subdivision Ordinance because it deals with plats, and the Zoning
Ordinance because it deals with site plans and building permits.
Mr. Hirschman said the second element of the program has to do with design standards. The
Groundwater Committee spent most of its time on these design standards, which, if adopted, will become
part of Chapter 5 in the Design Standards Manual which is the Water Resources Chapter. The third
element of the program has to do with long-term monitoring of wells. Everyone involved with this realizes
there is no good information available. Working through the drought made them realize that groundwater
behaved during that time in ways that were not anticipated. If there is to be any sense of the County’s
resources in terms of groundwater, both as to quality and quantity, long-term monitoring wells need to be
put into place. He said those are the three elements of the program.
Mr. Hirschman said there have been several work sessions thus far. The Planning Commission
held a public hearing on June 1st on just the Zoning Text amendment, and there have been further minor
amendments recommended since that time, basically where to locate fees in the ordinances. Another
public hearing before the Commission is scheduled for August 10th. He said staff would like to have
feedback today on the overall program, ordinance and standards. He said the Commission felt strongly
that the long-term monitoring wells should be funded from general revenues, because those wells are for
the benefit of all County citizens and not just for a narrow group of people. There was discussion of having
developers drill the monitoring wells and then have the wells dedicated to the County, or, put a surcharge
on building permits to fund those wells. When the Board adopted the resolutions of intent on September 3,
2003 to modify the ordinances in order to adopt this program, the assumption was that staff would present a
fee structure based on one hundred percent recovery of program costs. That fee would primarily deal with
the position of Groundwater Manager. The fee structure in the proposal was designed to recover one
hundred percent of costs, if possible, except for the monitoring wells. After the Commission’s meeting, that
proposal was deleted.
Mr. Rooker asked the anticipated costs of those wells. He assumes it would be an ongoing budget
item that would increase as wells were added. Mr. Hirschman said the initial cost is drilling the well and
putting in the monitoring equipment. Periodically there would be some equipment costs. The other cost
would be for a staff member to collect and catalogue the data.
Mr. Rooker asked if four wells are to be installed over a period of time; have sites already been
selected. Mr. Hirschman said at this time the plan is only to have a plan. The Groundwater Committee felt
that after the groundwater specialist is hired, it would be that person’s responsibility to look at all the studies
and then target particular areas for the monitoring wells.
July 7, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Committee looked at the possibility of having some of the wells privately
owned. Mr. Hirschman said that is an option. In fact, Loudoun County has a program where people donate
wells which are no longer in use so the County can monitor them.
Mr. Davis said one additional cost of the program might be acquisition of the well sites; that was not
factored into this proposal anticipating that the sites might be dedicated or voluntarily given. That is not a
certainty, so there could be acquisition costs.
Mr. Hirschman said part of the Tier 2 and Tier 3 standards is to get dedication of a well site as part
of the approval process.
Mr. Davis said that is a limited process, and there is also a question about the County’s ability to do
that.
Mr. Hirschman said Mr. Graham has said the wells could be put in the right-of-way with newly
approved subdivisions just as the County gets drainage easements or right-of-way easements.
Mr. Wyant asked if that had been cleared with VDOT. Mr. Graham said there are a number of
circumstances now where VDOT has given permission for monitoring wells, particularly with leaking
underground storage tanks. The Ivy Landfill has monitoring wells in the public right-of-way.
Mr. Wyant asked what these wells would be monitoring. Mr. Hirschman said they would be used to
monitor the water level over a period of time, and periodically, water quality.
Mr. Wyant said monitoring for quality could be very expensive. Mr. Hirschman said he thinks the
groundwater specialist would decide what would be monitored.
Mr. Wyant said there are a lot of monitoring wells in place now. Maybe the County could work
something out with some property owners and it would be less costly.
Ms. Thomas said if water is being pumped out and used, that well is not truly a monitoring well. Mr.
Hirschman said it would not be useful for monitoring water level.
Mr. Wyant said recharge has to be considered. If a well were pumped for 72 hours, it would be
pulling down wells adjacent to it. If it were a deep enough well, it could dry up adjacent wells. Mr.
Hirschman said this would mainly be to keep track of water table levels. The pump tests would be done
only to rate the wells. There would be no need to do that unless it was turned into a production well.
Mr. Rooker said that is done every time a well is drilled for consumption. Well drillers do that. Mr.
Hirschman said they do not make that determination with a well pump.
Ms. Thomas said that in her district people are frantic about a new housing development with 23
houses in the rural area. People are concerned that their wells will be drawn down. She does not see
anything in this report that says any attention is paid to what happens to the neighbor’s wells during that 72-
hour drawdown. Mr. Hirschman said that is part of the assessment if you get into aquifer testing. There are
two wells; there is a test well and two monitoring wells that determine what the offsite impact would be from
drawing the wells down.
Mr. Bowerman asked if it is possible in that 72-hour drawdown to determine how one well is
drawing down the other. Mr. Hirschman said it can vary based on geology. When Keswick expanded their
water supply they had to do a 72-hour test and they monitored offsite wells. It is a fairly routine type of
procedure.
Mr. Wyant said geology will determine how much is drawn down by a well that is a few hundred or
a few thousand feet away. It depends on the rate at which the well is pumped.
Ms. Thomas referred to the staff’s report and said that at this time, aquifer testing is only
recommended for Tier 4. Mr. Hirschman said that is correct. She said her example of 23 houses going in
on the corner of Morgantown and Ballard Roads would be a Tier 3 and that would not require any test to
see whether the neighbor’s water is being affected. Mr. Hirschman said it would require a groundwater
management plan which would have to take that into consideration, but would not require the drilling and
testing of a certain percentage of the wells to make that determination.
Mr. Wyant said what is done with the well will determine if it affects a neighboring property. A
water-intensive operation could drawdown and dry up the wells on surrounding properties. If it is a house
on a property (it probably uses only 250 gallons per day), there would not be a lot of drawdown from just
one home. The critical thing to remember is that before building a house the person should be sure there is
water available on the property.
Mr. Rooker said that has been emphasized for a long time. Before getting a building permit, a
person should be sure there is a functioning well site on the property.
Mr. Wyant said he does not think someone should stake out a house and then find that there is no
water.
July 7, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
Mr. Rooker said if you get a Tier 4 test and it shows that you drawdown water from neighboring
wells, there is no way to deny an application. Tier 4 only applies to industrial, commercial and central well
system uses. Hopefully, there will not be too many of those requests. Mr. Hirschman said there might be a
request for a golf course; there are not a lot of those uses that go on well water. He said people have the
perception that residential development will also impact them.
Mr. Rooker said for the Keswick Club expansion, that was a big issue about the potential for
drawdown of wells in neighboring areas. Mr. Hirschman said Tier 3 requires the aquifer test. If it showed
offsite impacts, staff would have some ability to affect the approval process. They would have to approve
an aquifer test plan and the final plan and groundwater management plan.
Ms. Thomas said this goes back to a 1997 Attorney General’s opinion requested by the Board. He
opined that the Board had the ability to assure adequate water. She thinks the Board has the assurance
that it could make some reaction if somebody’s well lowered the levels of the wells around them.
Mr. Davis said the Attorney General said the County could require as part of the subdivision process
that as a condition of approval there would be an identified well location on a lot. He does not think that
opinion specifically addressed whether the Board could deny a subdivision if that approved well location
affected adjacent property. He said staff is comfortable that part of the regulatory process is to ensure
there are not improper impacts to adjacent property owners. The difficulty is measuring that to some level
of reasonableness what happens on one lot is affecting another lot to the exclusion of all other factors.
That is sometimes difficult to prove.
Mr. Rooker asked if a 72-hour test is done, if correlation is not established. Mr. Hirschman said in
that case a correlation could be established.
Mr. Wyant asked if the County gets a request for a 25-lot subdivision with three wells, can a test on
those three wells determine the drawdown on adjacent parcels?
Mr. Rooker said that example would not occur under the proposal submitted today. Mr. Hirschman
said that is right. Under another draft of this proposal it was recommended that three wells be tested, but
25 wells might be installed. They felt people would look to those tests and feel the County had certified that
the development would not impact their well. Truthfully, there is no way to make that certification. This is a
way to do better planning instead of trying to tie it to numbers.
Mr. Rooker said if someone has a thousand acres of land in the rural area with one hundred
development rights and decides to put in a one-hundred unit subdivision not on a central water system, this
proposal requires them to put together a water management plan to determine there is a well site on every
lot. It does not provide for aquifer testing based on one hundred wells being drilled, and it does not provide
any mechanism to actually turn down that development (which may be a by-right development), based on
its impact on water. Mr. Hirschman said their groundwater management plan could be denied if it was not
adequate.
Mr. Rooker said if there were a well site on every parcel, without doing any aquifer testing to
determine how it impacts the water levels in the area generally, there would be no factual basis to
determine that the subdivision could not take place because of its impact on water. As he reads the
proposal, it does not provide any basis for denying development in the rural areas based upon water except
where there might be a central water system. Mr. Hirschman said that is correct. He said staff’s research
shows that localities having some type of testing have never denied a subdivision plat based on the results
of the tests because it gets to be a numbers game. People he talked with were not sure they had the
authority to deny subdivision plats based on aquifer test results.
Mr. Rooker said he is not sure there is the ability to deny an application even in Tier 4 unless there
is an ordinance put into place. Mr. Hirschman said this program is not meant as a means to deny a
subdivision plat, but to say that groundwater has been looked at before development takes place. It is
possible the developer would need to have a better design based on the groundwater management plan.
He has not seen any problem using something like this as the basis to deny subdivision plats.
Mr. Wyant said there is a lot of geological data available for review before drilling for water. He
likes what is mentioned in the report about reusing gray water. He said it is not detrimental to society. It is
another means of saving groundwater. He said the developer of Earlysville Forest has sold the water
system to another firm and every time it rains they are getting dirt in their water. They are also losing water.
He said this proposal mentions “developer”, but he wants “to see teeth put into this.” These people are not
allowed to drill another well, so they are being “held hostage”. He said this is something the County has to
deal with.
Ms. Thomas said that is the real problem with central well systems.
Mr. Rooker said there is a website called “etest.com” that provides extended water testing results
for about 200 trace minerals and contaminates at a cost of about $125.00. That is only 15 percent of the
cost of any other service he has found.
Ms. Thomas said she found several years ago that in Red Hill there was a contamination plume
from an existing gas station. Houses were built near Red Hill School, and apparently DEQ knew about the
contamination plume but did not tell anybody, the Health Department did not tell or did not know, and the
County did not know or did not tell anybody. People built houses, drilled wells, started drinking the water
and some years later realized their children had been drinking petroleum-laced water for years. She said
that is a red flag. Under Tier 2 people get that kind of response or have to find it out for themselves. What
July 7, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
about Tier 1? These are people building a new structure on an existing lot, and she thought the new
proposal would keep that mistake from being duplicated. However, under this proposal that only comes
into affect if a new lot is being created.
Mr. Rooker said the question would be whether quality testing could be required under Tier 1.
Ms. Thomas said it was not quality testing so much as sharing knowledge that existed somewhere.
Somebody had that information, but it was not shared with the purchasers or the realtors. She wants to be
sure that cannot happen again. The County is now putting a lot of money into trying to find a new well for
those people.
Mr. Wyant said DEQ already has a data base on this. Maybe the County could download that
information. Mr. Hirschman said a list of all of the currently leaking underground storage tanks is a part of
the County’s data base.
Mr. Rooker said Tier 1 does not assume quality testing. Mr. Hirschman said all that is required
through the state is bacteria testing.
Mr. Rooker asked if there could be a requirement for more extensive quality tests for wells as part
of the certification process. Mr. Hirschman said in the case mentioned by Ms. Thomas, the product would
not be detected until the well began pumping.
Mr. Boyd asked the reaction to these recommendations from the development community. Mr.
Hirschman said there was good input received, but a great number of people did not “weigh in on this” at
all.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Blue Ridge Home Builders got a copy of this proposal.
Mr. Josh Goldsmith, Chairman of the Government Affairs Committee of the Blue Ridge Home
Builders, was present. He said he is not the one who is most versed on this proposal. Theirs is a volunteer
organization, so different people have spoken to different parts of the proposal. The last piece that he saw
seemed acceptable to them. He has heard about it and they talked about it with some well drillers. There
was not a lot of “heartburn” with the proposal, but he cannot speak for the committee.
Mr. Rooker asked if the committee had voted on it. Mr. Goldsmith said they do not generally do
that.
Mr. Davis said the Groundwater Ordinance would not have a public hearing before the Planning
Commission. It provided comments, but the public hearing will occur before this Board.
Mr. Bowerman said it might be less costly to drill all of the wells at the beginning of the program.
But, that shifts the burden of paying for those further up in the process. That would cost development
companies some money. It might be possible to drill all of the wells in a subdivision because all of the
equipment is on site.
Mr. Rooker said he assumes that if one were buying a lot, you would pay more for a lot which
already had the well on it.
Mr. Wyant said if he were going to buy a lot and the sale were contingent on having water on that
lot before consummating the sale, would that be allowed under this new procedure. Mr. Hirschman said
the County has no control over the purchase of lots. He knows that since the drought a lot of the lending
companies are requiring that water be available at the time of purchase. The County’s trigger is the building
permit.
Mr. Rooker said this is not triggered at the time of sale, so it does not protect people who buy a lot
and then find out there is no water on that lot. Is staff saying there is no way to move it forward in the
process sooner than applying for a building permit? Mr. Hirschman said it could be moved to the
subdivision plat.
Mr. Rooker said there is nothing in this process that prevents a person from buying a lot that does
not have water. He thinks it would be preferable to identify water before somebody buys a lot. However,
that raises other issues because someone could buy a lot without any intention of building on that lot.
Mr. Hirschman said the County Attorney asked staff early in this process, “Who are you trying to
protect?” What is this ordinance attempting to do, promote better planning and public interest, or protect
the lot buyer? He said it should promote the general public interest in the way of planning and that
groundwater is considered and studied prior to development.
Mr. Davis said the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances are designed to protect the public health,
safety and welfare, and not necessarily be a consumer protection act. From a good land use standpoint,
there should not be houses built where no water is available. That is a legitimate focus. But, should the
County protect someone from buying a lot and not thinking to have a contingency that a well be identified
before they close on it gets to be difficult to move that far back in the process. For existing subdivisions, the
County has no regulatory control over those lots. The Tier 2 and Tier 3 assessments, short of requiring a
well to be drilled on every lot, even with the best methodology available, does not guarantee there will be a
well on any particular lot just because of the geology in the area.
Mr. Rooker said this ordinance does not provide for a mass drilling of wells. The developer does
July 7, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
not pay for this, but the individual pays before he gets a building permit. Mr. Hirschman said the
Commission discussed this also. One Commissioner preferred a program that actually had the wells drilled
prior to platting.
Mr. Dorrier asked what the Board wanted to do with this proposal.
Mr. Boyd said he had a comment about the original conversation about drilling the test wells. He
asked if there is any new technology to monitor aqua flow in a well that is pumping. It is beyond his
knowledge, but he heard that someone had developed a piece of equipment. Mr. Hirschman said water
levels can be monitored in a well that is pumping. That has been done for a long time on production wells.
Mr. Boyd asked why that would not be usable in testing the impact of new wells in an area, as
opposed to drilling test wells and installing equipment at individual homes. Mr. Hirschman said with the
long-term monitoring network they planned to measure resting water levels to see if there is a trend over a
series of months. Going into the drought of 2002, it was found that the groundwater levels were harbingers.
They started dropping before the streams and reservoirs, etc. There is a distinction between pumping and
monitoring for a production well versus having a network of wells where the resting water level is measured.
Potentially it could be done with a residential well, but he would be concerned with doing so because the
water level would go up and down depending on the usage of the well rather than just based on
environmental factors.
Mr. Boyd asked if the test wells are designed to test the level of water given environmental
conditions, not necessarily given the number of wells drilled around it and the amount being pumped out.
Mr. Hirschman said if the water level were dropping in a resting well because the 20 wells around it were
pumping too much water from the ground that could be measured.
Mr. Dorrier again asked what the Board would like to do at this time.
Ms. Thomas suggested that the Tier 1 owner somehow be allowed to get a Tier 2 check for red
flag conditions if an extra $25 were paid. Also, she thinks staff wanted to know whether this cost should be
paid for countywide or by a fee from the applicant. She said that next week the Board will be talking about
the stormwater system and how to pay for it. She had an idea that the well system throughout the County
could be paid for at the same time. Urban land dwellers are not going to see the value of those test wells all
over the County, but groundwater is tied to their surface drinking water. Likewise, the rural people will not
see the value of the stormwater testing, but in fact, that does impact the water that gets absorbed back into
the ground as well as the water they drink when they are in the City. She thought that putting the two
together in the same fee structure might be a way to have all the residents of the County pay for the water
system in the way of stormwater and monitoring well testing. She agrees with the Planning Commission
that it is of countywide value and not just of the applicant’s value.
Mr. Rooker said that is an excellent idea to look at. It balances the cost between rural and urban
areas based upon benefits derived in both areas.
Mr. Wyant said he thinks it would be a good compromise.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Board should vote to send this back to the Planning Commission. Mr.
Hirschman said there is no need for a vote. The Commission will have a public hearing on August 10, so if
the Board agrees with Ms. Thomas’ suggestions, and if the Board agrees with the Commission to find some
way to pay for the monitoring wells, that is all the information needed by staff today.
Mr. Rooker said he agrees with Ms. Thomas’ suggestions.
Mr. Davis said the Planning Commission needs to consider the fees in the Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances. If the monitoring wells are not to be covered by those fees, the Commission needs to know
that before considering those fee amendments. The problem is that under the stormwater utility enabling
authority it strictly defines what that fee can be used for and it does not appear there is a way to pay for
monitoring wells with a stormwater utility fee. However, there are other options to be presented to the
Board next week as to paying for the stormwater utility system. One of the alternatives is the service district
concept that would allow those costs to be covered in a service district proposal in a countywide service
district. The General Fund alternative would also allow for that to be done. It will be a little complicated
having that discussion before the Board’s meeting next week.
Mr. Wyant said stormwater and groundwater are related. The better we do in stormwater
management, the better the groundwater will be. We would be keeping it here instead of flooding and
having it end up in the Atlantic Ocean.
Mr. Rooker said there is one other point that was discussed. Does the Board want to make it clear
in a Tier 3 application that an application can be denied based on the fact that the plan is not approved?
Ms. Thomas said that would give the neighbors of large subdivisions greater assurance.
Mr. Rooker said he is not sure what happens when someone submits a Tier 3 plan and staff does
not think it is a good plan. If the subdivision is a matter of right, can the site plan be denied based on the
fact that staff has made a number of recommendations about the water plan that are not being followed? If
it is just requiring someone “to jump through a number of hoops” and no action can be based on it, he
thinks there needs to be some action potential based on the information generated.
Mr. Wyant said if a plan is submitted and it has a professional engineer’s stamp on it, that person is
July 7, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
held responsible for that plan. Each of those elements is needed for a data base, and if the plan addresses
all of those elements, it should be accepted. It does deal with geology and water flow and direction of the
water flow, etc. There is all the information needed to keep the data base up-to-date.
Ms. Thomas asked if the language “the plan shall comply with the requirements” and “the owner’s
plan must be approved by the program authority” is strong enough.
Mr. Rooker asked who “the program authority” is. Mr. Hirschman said it used to be the Engineering
Department, but he does not know which department it is now.
Mr. Davis said he thinks it is still the Engineering Department. This is part of the Water Protection
Ordinance. The point is a good point. What this does for the Groundwater Management Plan is that it says
it must meet the requirements of Chapter 5 of the Design Manual. The requirements of the design manual
are not before the Board, but it is a ministerial ordinance, and if it meets the criteria of the design manual
then it has to be approved. If the criteria is clear and it is not met, the groundwater plan could be
disapproved and the subdivision not be approved. If it meets the minimum criteria of the design manual,
then it has to be approved.
Mr. Rooker said that is fine if the design criteria are sufficient. He thought the goal was to be sure
development took place in a way that minimized its impact on groundwater and helped assure quality in the
groundwater necessary for development when it is first built. As long as the Subdivision Ordinance assures
those administrative factors are geared toward leading to that result that may be fine. He wants to make
certain the County is not just requiring people to “jump through hoops and spend money” to generate a
piece of paper that gets put in a file and has no basis for any kind of an act.
Mr. Davis said in Ms. Thomas’ example, if someone wanted a 22-lot subdivision and the neighbors
thought it might impact their adjacent wells, this ordinance would not protect them. There is no measurable
analysis done of what impacts there are on adjacent lands.
Mr. Wyant said it might show if there is something on the property that is impacting a well.
Mr. Davis said he does not think subdivisions will be denied based on adjacent impacts.
Mr. Hirschman said this is very similar to the stormwater management plan required at this time. It
would function in a similar way. Design criteria would have to be met and a stormwater plan reviewed by
the County to be sure the requirements were met.
Mr. Dorrier asked for a motion. The Board still has to discuss the Subdivision Ordinance
amendments.
Ms. Thomas said the final point made depresses her considering the work that has taken place on
this subject since 1996. That is, the County still cannot provide any assurance to existing houses, which
tend to be the affordable houses in the County, that a new subdivision will not be built and have a significant
impact on the amount of water they have for their existing house.
Mr. Bowerman said he still does not know if this is an ordinance to gather information for the Board,
or if it is something to control each new development because it has a severe impact and does not have the
water.
Mr. Rooker said he does not think it does the latter except in a Tier 4 case. That might be one
application each year.
Ms. Thomas said if the Planning Commission’s suggestion for the rural area goes into effect, there
will be more applications for central wells.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this will go back to the Planning Commission and then come back to this Board
this fall. Mr. Hirschman said the Board would need to take action to set a public hearing after the
Commission acts. If the Board wants this to go to the Commission to have the comments made today
considered that would be another step.
Mr. Boyd asked what the sticking point is, the enforcement of Tier 2 or Tier 3? Is that where this
matter is hung up?
Mr. Rooker said part of the hang up is that perhaps there should be a certain size subdivision that
requires an aquifer test to determine if that subdivision would have a significant impact on other wells in the
area.
Mr. Bowerman said that would determine whether it had water for its own use.
Mr. Rooker said it would show if there were adequate water for all of the wells contemplated in that
subdivision. He thinks there is a size of subdivision at which the Tier 4 should kick in.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board should ask the Blue Ridge Home Builders to give their input on this
matter.
July 7, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
Mr. Rooker said he would like their input and anybody else’s, if possible.
Mr. Wyant said he might put down a well on a hundred acres and not have enough water to support
one house.
Mr. Rooker said it is more likely that if someone is going to put in 50 wells in an area, they would
have an impact instead of drilling just one well.
Mr. Wyant said the geologists can tell the Board a lot about rock and the water bearing rock and
can say how often these wells have an impact on each other.
Mr. Rooker said he would like staff to bring back a recommendation on the size of a subdivision
where the County could require Tier 4 requirements and how that might work administratively. Mr. Tucker
asked if Mr. Rooker wanted that information before this goes to the Commission for its public hearing. Mr.
Rooker said “yes.”
Mr. Boyd asked if that was discussed when deciding on the tier levels. Mr. Hirschman said that was
actually discussed in the 1999 verifying groundwater paper. He said there are a lot of different ways this
could be put together. As a mater of fact, there is no way to certify or guarantee that there will be water
available for the new use on that site, or that there will not be an impact. A line must be found where we
say “this is enough information” prior to development and the County feels the development has submitted
enough information to go forward. Verification might be the word to use. The idea of certification or
guarantee must be steered away from because it does not exist.
Mr. Rooker said Tier 4 is being required for certain users. The County is not guaranteeing it will not
impact someone’s well. That is true at every level, and the County is not saying that any of these levels of
testing certify that the user will not have some impact on other groundwater in the area. The question is at
what point you want those tiers to kick in.
Ms. Thomas said that on page 30 it says “The committee decided that Tier 4 (aquifer testing) is not
an appropriate test for residential subdivisions that use individual well and septic.” She said maybe the
Board just needs a little more convincing of that. The Board may be convinced that Tier 4 is appropriate
when you get to “x” number of residential individual wells and septic systems.
Mr. Dorrier said he would like for staff to keep the development community “in the loop” on this. Mr.
Hirschman said they have been having one-on-one sit downs with different folks.
Mr. Rooker said the Tier 4 kicks in for commercial users of more than 2,000 gallons per day. The
question is “Do we want to apply the same standard of usage to drawdown for residential as far as the tests
are concerned?”
Mr. Bowerman said that is more likely than the former.
Mr. Tucker said staff has adequate directions on what the Board is looking for.
Mr. Wyant asked if this proposal asks that a geologist be present when a well is drilled. Mr.
Hirschman said “no.” He said a previous version of this proposal has exactly what the Board is asking for.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier recessed (3:20 p.m.) the meeting, and it was reconvened at 3:40 p.m. in
Room 235.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. Subdivision Text Amendment, Work Session.
The meeting was called back to order in Room 235 at 3:40 p.m.
Ms. Lee Catlin said that at its meeting on May 5, 2004, the Board directed staff to invite
representatives of interested organizations to join them in a series of facilitated work sessions to discuss
four issues where the community had not reached consensus regarding the proposed Subdivision
Ordinance text amendment: interconnections, private streets, over-lot grading and urban street
improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalks and planting strips). On June 2nd, the Board held a work session on
interconnected streets. This work session will cover the proposed changes regarding private streets and
over-lot grading. Staff would like for the Board members to give some directions today on what part of
these amendments needs to come back to the Board looking differently.
(From the staff’s report:
“Over-Lot Grading: The existing ordinance does not require grading plans for subdivisions. Road
plans include grading for the road, but the lot grading is not required. The proposed ordinance includes a
new § 14-313, which requires approval of an over-lot grading plan for the entire subdivision. Staff
recommends this new regulation as a means of addressing the health, safety and welfare issues of
developing to a higher density on steep slopes. The new standards, which will be achieved with an over-lot
grading plan, are summarized as follows:
?
The plan sets the standard for constructed slopes at flatter than 2:1 (horizontal distance: vertical
distance). Constructed slopes may be 2:1 or greater with agent approval.
?
Surface drainage may not flow across more than three lots before being collected in a storm sewer
July 7, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
or directed to a drainage way outside of the lots.
?
No surface drainage across a lot may have more than one-half acre of land draining to it.
?
All drainage from streets shall be carried across lots in a storm sewer to a point beyond the rear of
the building site.
?
Driveways may not be steeper than twenty percent and shall include flatter transitions at the street.
?
An area of at least ten feet in width around the entire house must be graded no steeper than ten
percent to provide a “bench” around the foundation, where homeowners could safely maintain the
outside of their house.
In higher density developments there is less flexibility in the placement and construction of buildings
and associated lot improvements. The lot grading needs to be planned, designed, and then implemented
to avoid problems with drainage, erosion and safe and convenient access. Staff is engaged with these
problems today and recommends this new requirement regardless of the Neighborhood Model. The
development community has raised concerns with the cost of compliance, both in approval time and
construction costs. In response to these concerns, the proposed ordinance (§ 14-224.1) allows the agent
to waive the requirements of § 14-313 if it is determined that an alternative proposed by the subdivider
satisfies the purpose of the requirement to at least an equivalent degree. This waiver process was
recommended for approval by the Planning Commission.)”
Mr. Boyd said he heard a comment from the building community about the DISC proposal that
regards the market looking for “slab on grade”.
Mr. Mike West, on behalf of the Blue Ridge Homebuilders’, addressed the Board. He said that in
regard to on-grade and basements, on-grade type of grades is most often seen whether it is slab-on-grade
or crawl space. That is driven by two parts of the market. The elderly market wants everything on one
level, and the entry level market (those who have an economic constraint) are forced to make a
concession. The in-between market (about 70 percent of buyers) prefers a walk-out basement. He builds
the bigger portion of his houses on basements because the topography lends itself to walk-out basements.
They do not force in-ground basements on flat lots, but may force some lots that have a less than natural
topography for walk-out basements to accommodate a basement.
Mr. Dorrier asked how much extra cost is added to the price of a home for over-lot grading. Mr.
West said he does not know, but will say that at a certain density, it has to be done. It would be similar to
how the site plan ordinance deals with attached housing. When the development gets to a certain density it
is a necessity. His concern is driven by whether over-lot grading will be required in areas where it is not a
necessity and reduce the customer’s choice.
Mr. Bowerman asked what a buyer wants outside of his home in terms of lawn, backyard or side
yards. Mr. Wise said they would like to live where the property is all flat, if that were possible. Actually, they
want as much land as they can economically afford.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the price of the house goes up with additional ground, or does a building lot
drive the market. Mr. Wise said lots with more natural terrain will be premium priced, lots with a more
challenging terrain will be lower priced. The marketplace dictates who will get what in the whole scheme of
things. It can all be blended together with over-lot grading, but it will not look good during the grading
process. You are trying to give the owner something which is aesthetically pleasing, and there will need to
be compromises to retain wooded areas near and around them. He does not think much will be retained
with an over-lot grading plan that extends beyond what is necessary to perform the drainage functions
needed.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the homes are more expensive in a Dunlora type of situation, or a Forest
Lakes North type of situation. Mr. West said his experience in both with single-family houses was not much
different. There were challenging lots in both areas. He said Canterbury Hills was probably one of the
most challenging areas his company ever dealt with. The rear yard grading there, is not much different
from what is being looked at today. The density there is a little less than what is being tried on the mass
market today. There was an over-lot grading plan in Spring Ridge in Forest Lakes where the townhouses
are in the center of the development. Half of those townhouses would not meet the criteria of this grading
plan before the Board today. In the front of those townhouses, there are not ten percent grades for ten feet
around the front. There are a lot of areas that slope down in the front with flights of steps to get to the road;
those areas are taken up with plantings, etc. If the idea is to create an environment where everyone can
have a level area completely around their house, that is not practical. It is not practical to have an access
door coming out of the rear of the house and think there will be a ten-foot wide path on a ten percent slope
coming around to the front sidewalk or the driveway. He said some
people want access to their backyard even though they know they may not be walking around that side of
the house to the front yard.
Mr. Wyant said you will pay more for a nice building lot than for an undesirable lot, but by the time
site work is completed, the two lots might be somewhat equal in cost. Mr. West said that most developers
are value-pricing each lot.
Ms. Thomas asked if the developer is building on a new street, would the lots be sold before
grading started, or is the whole area graded first. Mr. West said they have had site plans that required over-
lot grading because of site plan conditions in townhouse environments. In those areas they go in with
regimented strict plans in place. In single-family lots there have been few. On the economics of clearing
and grading, the over-lot grading plan will be cheaper, but there will be more grading and clearing because
July 7, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
the developer will not know specifically what he is putting in.
Mr. Rooker said it appears to him that one of the benefits of the over-lot grading plan is that the
drainage throughout the subdivision can be taken into account as it is being graded. He said if that is not
done, then each lot develops separately without any drainage plan. Mr. West said he thinks there is a risk in
incrementally grading each lot because different people have different visions, and then there are
customers with their personal desires.
Mr. Rooker said that as regulations exist today, someone can build a house and make decisions for
that lot that have substantial impacts on lots in the surrounding area in terms of drainage and other issues.
He asked how that problem can be cured without over-lot grading. Mr. West said in this marketplace 80-
foot wide lots have been built on for decades and there have been the same issues. It is a matter of
choosing to police them or not. If the County does not police them, they balance out on their own accord.
Some people do not build, some people do, some people make choices on their own and want people to
bail them out. He does not have a problem with that riprap ditch coming over that hill. Whether the riprap
ditch is stabilized or not is an issue. Requiring that to be a drop inlet with an underground pipe is another
issue. The person who bought the house may not have been able to afford putting in that underground
pipe.
Mr. Rooker said he is bothered that the person making that choice is having an effect on the
downhill neighbor, and the neighbors come in and ask how the County could have allowed the subdivision
to be developed in that way. Mr. West said there are two issues. There is grading (the transfer of dirt from
one lot to the other), and there is water. People seem to have a lack of acceptance of what has been
historically the law related to water. They want to rewrite it all the time. They want to stop it from coming
their way instead of creating a system to accommodate it. They ask people to create a situation that is
adverse to what state law has been all the time. In grading, he does not know what to say about that
situation. Looking at a slide on the overhead projector, Mr. West said the garage should have been on the
other side of the house; a wrong choice was made. He thinks it is hard to put an aesthetic judgment on
what took place because functionally the retaining wall works fine.
Mr. Rooker said he is in favor of choice and maintaining as much vegetation as can be maintained,
but if there is no over-lot grading plan, he sees no solution to the other problems.
Ms. Catlin said time is running short. This has been a good discussion and she does not want the
conversation to end without staff having some sense of how the Board members feel about what they have
heard today. Staff needs some directions in terms of what the Board wants to be brought back for further
discussion.
Mr. Wyant said he would like to ask Mark Graham a question.
(From the staff’s report:
“Private Streets: The existing ordinance allows the Planning Commission or the agent to authorize
private roads under certain circumstances, but requires that the roads meet VDOT standards.
Under the proposed ordinance language, private streets could be allowed to a different standard
that better incorporates the street concepts of the Neighborhood Model. The proposed
amendment allows agent approval for multi-unit developments and authorizes the Planning
Commission to approve an alternative standard recommended by the County Engineer. The
alternative street standards being proposed by the County Engineer incorporate considerations for
streets in keeping with the Neighborhood Model. Staff is not aware of concerns from the
development community related to this language regarding private streets. However, this issue is
raised for discussion because the authorization of private streets may place a burden on the
County if homeowners associations fail to maintain private streets that are not constructed to VDOT
standards. If designed to the alternative standard, the private streets would not be eligible for
conversion to public streets maintained by VDOT and would become the responsibility of
homeowners associations or the County. Assuming ownership and responsibility for private streets
will become a significant issue for either the homeowners or the County and will need to be
considered by the Board prior to adoption of the proposed ordinance amendment. Staff intends to
have a broader discussion with the Board at an August work session on private streets and several
other significant urban infrastructure needs precipitated by the County’s established objectives to
increase density in the development areas.”
Mr. Wyant asked if the County has standards for the slopes on the main roads in a subdivision. He
said where the road is constructed has an effect on the lots on either side of the road. He said VDOT
has a standard for the grade. If the County allows a private road, that standard can be relaxed somewhat.
He asked if that is proposed.
Mr. Mark Graham, County Engineer, said he agrees with Mr. West that Albemarle County contains
challenging terrain in the remainder of the development area. He said Mr. Wyant is right about the
horizontal and vertical curvature on a road. If the County allowed private streets, the street could be placed
closer to the existing grade. The amount of grading that has to occur both for the lots and the adjoining
road decreases. Using the Neighborhood Model, a development can be fit better to its terrain. When staff
looked at over-lot grading, aesthetics were not an issue. They looked at it from the standpoint of public
safety and potential liability for future County boards. They looked at future drainage issues, etc. Staff did
not focus on aesthetic issues. He said previous boards decided not to expand the Development Areas.
They wanted DISC to look at ways to make better use of development areas. The Neighborhood Model
July 7, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
came from that study. One result of the Neighborhood Model is that it requires the County to be more
creative and look at denser development than has occurred in the past. As setbacks are decreased
between houses, the number of drainage and driveway problems will increase.
Mr. Rooker asked if it would make sense to require over-lot grading based on some density format.
Mr. Graham said it would. He concurs with the DISC II Committee’s 20,000 square-foot recommendation.
However, if the rest of the Development Area is developed at a half an acre, the County will have to look at
expanding the Development Area.
Mr. Bowerman asked if it would be better to have zero lot line development where there is the most
difficult topography to develop. Mr. Graham said that will be seen in the Zoning Ordinance amendments
later. Staff is looking at creating more flexibility recognizing that builders will need that opportunity in order
to find development that can fit particular pieces of land.
Mr. Bob Tucker said the Board has seen examples of private versus public roads. Private roads
are much more attractive but there could potentially be problems with them in future years. Some board of
supervisors would be facing an issue unless there is a way to insure that there are maintenance
agreements in place.
Mr. Bowerman said he has been involved with this issue for 26 years, first as a Planning
Commissioner. A lot of the problems seen today are problems created when he was on the Commission.
The Board is seeing problems with detention basins that homeowners’ associations cannot deal with, and if
there were more private roads there would probably be the same issue.
Mr. Rooker said there are private roads in subdivisions now. At this point, problems have more to
do with drainage. So far, where there are homeowners maintenance agreements in place, private roads
are being maintained. However, those covenants do not normally talk about drainage issues. Mr. Davis
said most of those streets were built to VDOT standards. Mr. Bowerman said that is much worse.
Ms. Thomas said since the Board wants the Development Area to be attractive in all ways, but have
higher density development, over-lot grading has to be allowed. The Federal government is requiring the
local government to have higher standards for stormwater care. This is not just a whim to go along with the
Neighborhood Model. The County will have to be more responsible for stormwater control. The areas
have to be developed so there can be good stormwater facilities. She is convinced that there must be over-
lot grading since development is now being done on the worst terrain.
Mr. Bowerman said that is fine as long as the County does not chase the homeowner who wants a
single plot out into the rural areas. There have to be enough existing single-family home sites to
accommodate the need.
Ms. Thomas said she has been impressed with what is happening in Crozet when people talk about
having a town center. Suddenly, people are buying lots as close as they can get to the town center. She
said all of the years of work by DISC brought up the idea of what will be a very attractive place for people to
live. It is just that it cannot be pointed to today. In a couple of years, there will be something to point to.
Mr. Boyd asked how Ms. Thomas knows people are buying because of the proposed town center
as opposed to where the stock is available.
Ms. Thomas said that is what the real estate salesman is finding. He is surprised because that is
not what he was expecting.
Mr. Boyd said he has mixed emotions. He hears a lot of complaints from people in the Fontana
Subdivision about problems with stormwater runoff. On the other hand, he hears about the “strip mining” at
Hollymead Town Center from Forest Lakes residents. He thinks that is a by-product of over-lot grading. He
said that “one size does not fit all.” It seems that there must be some flexibility based on topography, site,
and density, and he thinks this ordinance amendment must take that into consideration. He would like to
work with some developers to come up with some verbiage that might blend in. He thinks the development
community could come up with some proposed language that would serve both purposes.
Ms. Thomas said the Board should not offer unintended incentives to do the opposite of what the
Growth Management Plan proposes.
Mr. Boyd said he agrees, but he thinks the two bodies can agree on some situations that do not
lend themselves to over-lot grading.
Mr. Rooker asked if that is not what DISC II recommended. There was a committee which spent a
lot of time on this, and if one looks at the conclusion they came to on over-lot grading, the middle paragraph
basically says what Mr. Boyd just said. He thinks the Board should try and work toward that solution. There
is a problem that needs to solved, but the Board should not “kill an ant with a steamroller.” The Board
should not be in a situation where every tree in a development area is taken down if it is not necessary. He
thinks circumstances where it does not make sense to have over-lot grading are defined. He thinks DISC II
tried to create some exceptions. He would recommend that the Board go ahead with the Private Road
Ordinance since no member seemed to have a problem with that recommendation and it does seem to
accomplish the goal of enabling the kind of private streets wanted in the urban area to be built.
Ms. Thomas said she had a question about private streets. In the Planning Commission minutes,
one commissioner said the County would have to go on faith that someday VDOT will come to its senses
and take these roads into its system. She asked if that time is anywhere near.
July 7, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
Mr. Cilimberg said this is a fundamental dilemma staff has been facing regarding the whole
Neighborhood Model road situation. There is national pressure on the design profession for engineering
roads to relax those standards to allow more urban streets. He thinks it is coming ultimately. The
fundamental dilemma is that in the future some board is going to be faced with the concern of private roads
that VDOT will not accept because they have not come around yet. However, if private roads are not
allowed, Albemarle Place will not be built. A lot of the other Neighborhood Model kinds of schemes talked
about will not happen.
Mr. Bowerman said Stonehenge is an area with a lot of dense housing and it has private streets
which have been maintained by the homeowners.
Mr. Cilimberg said one of the key points brought out by the DISC discussion is that there needs to
be a mechanism in place to insure long-term maintenance. Glenmore did that; their streets do not meet
VDOT standards. Those streets would not be accepted by VDOT now. In their rezoning process they
essentially created a corporation. There has to be some mechanism in place to insure those private
streets.
Mr. Bowerman said Branchlands has private streets.
Mr. Rooker said there are all kinds of private streets in subdivision around the County. He said the
maintenance fee in Flordon is about $150 and that seems to have worked out fine.
Ms. Thomas said that is all well until you get to something like a collapsed culvert. Suddenly, it is
something a neighborhood of fairly affluent people cannot afford to fix.
Mr. Rooker said that in some cases it might end up being a public expense, but if the roads were
taken into the system and those problems occurred, they would still be public expenses.
Ms. Thomas said she asked Mr. Graham a question which has not been answered.
Mr. Mark Graham, County Engineer, said he thinks it is more likely VDOT will figure out that they do
not want to maintain urban streets. He thinks they will ask the General Assembly to turn those streets over
to local government rather than accept a lower standard road. They do not have enough money to
maintain existing streets. Maintenance is an interesting point. He has talked with the Board about the fact
that VDOT does not get paid any differently per lane mile for a street with curb, gutter and sidewalk than for
a narrow two-lane rural road. Next week the Board will be discussing urban infrastructure.
Ms. Catlin said knowing that discussion will take place next week, does the Board have any
immediate comments to the ordinance language concerning the private street proposal. Mr. Rooker said
he is happy with it as worded based on the larger discussion the Board will have later.
Mr. Boyd said the Board did not get any language concerning over-lot grading. Ms. Catlin said the
Board did get language for both items. Since the Board has been talking about private streets, she
wonders if there are any further comments.
Mr. Boyd said that obviously the development community does not agree with this particular
language.
Ms. Catlin asked if the Board could finish the discussion of private streets since that is a separate
issue. If there are no comments, then concerning the over-lot grading, she heard the Board say there
should be something included about flexibility, taking into account topography, lot size, the impact of over-
lot grading, something along the lines of the DISC recommendation to the Board. She asked if there was
anything else that should be brought to staff’s attention.
Mr. Boyd said he wants to see language the developers can agree to.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks the issue which has not been resolved is the minimum lot size for over-lot
grading.
Mr. Rooker said the DISC Committee had representatives who are members of the development
community. He thinks staff should draft some recommended language. The development community can
then let the Board know how they feel about that language.
Mr. Boyd asked if it has to be done that way. Does it have it go back to DISC and then back to the
Board, etc. Ms. Catlin said DISC has already furnished suggested language. She understands staff
worked from their recommendation.
Mr. Boyd said it is not ordinance language. Ms. Catlin said that is correct. The recommendations
would need to be drafted into ordinance language.
Mr. Boyd said he hopes it is something the Blue Ridge Home Builders Association and the building
community could agree to before it comes back to the Board. Rather then drafting language and then
asking for an opinion, he would rather get their opinion first.
Mr. Rooker said he does not agree. He said the Board has had a lot of public input and it has not
looked to someone outside of the County to draft the ordinance.
July 7, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
Mr. Boyd said he was not looking to someone outside of the County. They are an important part of
the community.
Mr. Rooker said just as the Board took their input today, some significant changes will probably be
made in what is being done because of that input.
Mr. Boyd asked if Mr. Rooker disagrees with collaboratively working together. He does not
understand that.
Mr. Rooker said he does not agree that the language of the ordinance can be written by a
committee. He thinks the ordinance language needs to be drafted by the Board’s attorneys and then
submitted for public comment.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Board created DISC as a group that was to represent a cross-section in the
community of private and public interests. They actually made this comment. Staff might develop
language and take that language to them for their response and input before the Board gets the language.
Mr. Rooker said that is fine with him.
Mr. Boyd said he is still concerned.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Board will be discussing infrastructure in August. Ms. Catlin said that is
correct. The development community is represented on DISC.
Mr. Boyd asked if it is adequately represented.
Ms. Catlin said Mr. Steve Runkle is a member.
Mr. Runkle said there was a dialogue among the DISC Committee members at the meetings. At
some point, someone has to write the language. Typically, staff writes the language and then input is
solicited. One of the vehicles where they receive input is the DISC Committee. It is hoped that by the time
the language comes to the Board, the vehicle of DISC has satisfied the development community, the
private sector, and the advocates of many perspectives. They hope it is language they can support.
Mr. Boyd asked why DISC would not go to the development community and ask for specific
comments, not be outvoted because they are outnumbered.
Ms. Catlin said she thinks the development representative on DISC would take it back to his
constituents and get their discussion and feedback.
Mr. Boyd said the feedback he is getting is that the development community does not feel well-
represented in these committees. Whether that is by their own design because they have not put enough
people on it, or whether it is through the way the Committee developed. He had nothing to do with putting
together the DISC II Committee, and other people here did not either. That does not mean it is not a good
committee, but if it is not getting representative balanced input from the development community, then he
has a problem with that. If the committees are stacked and they are outvoted, he has a problem with that.
Mr. Bowerman said that is not the case.
Mr. Boyd said that is what he is hearing.
Mr. Cilimberg said he found at the DISC II meetings that they reached a consensus in their
comments; they have not had to vote. The representatives on the committee were appointed by this Board.
The members were to be a cross-section of the community.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Boyd if he had ever attended a DISC meeting.
Mr. Boyd said “no.”
Mr. Dorrier said the Blue Ridge Homebuilders knows this Board is meeting in August to discuss
infrastructure. They will be here then and they will have input.
Ms. Catlin asked if the Board is saying this language should be taken to DISC as a representative
body to come up with suggestions, look at the language that is written, react to it so that whatever comes
back to the Board would be amended ordinance language that had been discussed and vetted by the DISC
Committee as it exists now.
Ms. Thomas said that is correct.
Mr. Rooker said the Board can then have a public hearing, and if there is some language that
someone disagrees with, they would raise that issue, and the Board would then deal with it.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board will not be voting on that language in August.
Ms. Catlin said it is a separate discussion, but there would be some impact on the private road part
of this from the August discussion.
July 7, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
Mr. Dorrier thanked representatives of all the organizations who were present today.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Wyant mentioned receiving a letter from the Fraternal Order of Police regarding a disparity
between the benefit packages offered by Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville for their
respective public safety officers. Mr. Tucker commented that he has asked Human Resources to look into
these comments.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she represents the Board on the Mountain Overlay District Committee. The
Committee has decided it will proceed by consensus which means that it will take a long time. They hope
to come up with something that everyone can agree on but it will take longer than expected to come up with
a recommendation.
__________
Ms. Thomas said in 1997 she represented the Board on The VENTURE which was put together by
the Regional Competitiveness Act enacted by the General Assembly in 1996. It took them until last week to
produce a final product. That product was a map and toolbox for use by heritage tourist (tourism for people
who want to see more than just Monticello, people who are willing to stay in a bed and breakfast in Nelson
County and look at a mill in southwestern Albemarle).
__________
Ms. Thomas asked if staff is making any progress with HUD on the housing situation. Mr. Tucker
responded that it appears staff is making progress; a response has been received from Congressman Virgil
Goode.
Mr. Rooker asked if the costs the Board was concerned about will be covered. Mr. Tucker said the
costs may be covered but will not go back to the time when the County first began losing revenue.
__________
Mr. Bowerman asked that staff respond to the letters from the law enforcement personnel. Mr.
Tucker commented that the comparison with the City is not just for law enforcement personnel. The City’s
retirement and health benefits for all of their staff members are different. He understands the concerns
have to do with health care benefits for retired persons. The County does not cover health care beyond the
five-year VERIP benefit.
Mr. Boyd asked why this would not fall back to the Total Rewards Committee. Mr. Tucker said it
could.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the letters should be addressed now.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is any difference in the way police are treated from the benefits
standpoint and other County employees. Mr. Tucker said the State offers a benefit called “LEO” which is
for public safety personnel; it also covers firefighters. The County has had that for a number of years; the
City did not have anything like that, but they have now created it because they have their own retirement
package. They are not members of VRS. In addition, the City provided extended benefits for health care
for all of their employees. That is the gap the County must look at.
Mr. Rooker said that is the same for all County employees. Mr. Tucker said the LEO component
for the County’s law enforcement is just for law enforcement. The County does not have that health care
provision for all employees.
Mr. Boyd said he has followed VERIP costs for the last couple of years on the school side. It is
growing each year.
Mr. Tucker said the City has the same thing, but they went up because theirs does not end in five
years as the County’s does.
__________
Mr. Boyd said he heard the MPO has authorized the expenditure of $9.0 million to study eastern
connector roads.
Mr. Bowerman said that is not correct.
Mr. Boyd said he heard it was in the minutes of either the MPO or CHART. He asked if any money
has been approved for such a study.
Mr. Rooker said the CHART plan is a plan where the projects have to be listed in order to ever be
funded or ever get into the Six-Year Road Plan. There are numerous projects in CHART the Committee
thinks should be included because they might be included and funded at some point in the Six Year Plan.
Planning for the eastern connector is one of those potential projects. Building Berkmar Extended is one of
those projects. What has been done is to estimate a cost for these projects. No money has been allocated
to any of the projects except for the ones actually in the Six-Year Plan. He urged Mr. Boyd to look at the
July 7, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
TJPDC website and click on “CHART” and look at the list of projects. He said there are numerous projects
which are on a wish list and if and when there are funds to build them someone might want to bring one
forward to look at for inclusion in the Six-Year Plan. There is a process which must be followed to get a
project into the Six-Year Plan for actual funding. He said it is on a list of projects which at some time over
the next “x” number of years might be considered.
Mr. Boyd asked if those things get to a point for funding, is that something this Board would be
asked to give a consensus on. Mr. Cilimberg said the project would come through the Six-Year planning
process.
Mr. Boyd asked if there is anything allocated by the MPO or CHART that does not come through
the County’s plan.
Ms. Thomas said the Route 29H250 Study did not officially come to this Board.
Mr. Boyd said what he heard is that it was $9.0 million for a study.
Mr. Rooker said that is not right. CHART was required to create what is called a “Fiscally
Constrained 20-Year Plan”. They put a dollar amount on all of these projects. For the eastern connector,
the dollar amount is for planning and perhaps preliminary engineering.
Mr. Cilimberg said it also included an amount for right-of-way for the future of the project whatever
it might be.
Mr. Rooker said whether or not that project went forward would be a question for this Board.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. Adjourn to July 14, 2004, 4:00 p.m.
At 5:19 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, motion was offered by Mr.
Rooker, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adjourn this meeting until 4:00 p.m. on July 14, 2004.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant.
NAYS: None.
__________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the Board
of County Supervisors
Date: 06/01/2005
Initials: DJM