2004-10-06
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
October 6, 2004, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, 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, and Clerk, Ella W. Carey.
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. Mark Shore, Director of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Visitors and Convention Bureau,
said they had almost 200 persons in attendance at their recent annual tourism reception held at Mt.
Alto. They gave the annual tourism “Person of the Year” award to Nancy Damann with the Virginia
Festival of the Book. He thanked the Board for allowing the Visitors and Convention Bureau to create
a new board, new funding formula and new contract. He updated the Board on some of their
performance measures. They have already met their goal of 25 percent private dollars matching the
marketing dollars given to them by the City and the County. He also informed the Board about the
new Birding Trail for Virginia which has opened across the entire state. There was an event on
September 30 at Monticello at Kemper Park on Saunders Trail. Virginia is the first state to have a full
state birding trail. This is the third component, and is for the Piedmont Area. He showed to the Board
members the birding guide (Discover Our Wild Side, Virginia Birding and Wildlife Trail, Piedmont Area)
and said there are six locations either in the City or the County listed in this new guide. He thinks it is
part of the County’s plan to save the scenic beauty in the County and that is why there are so many
sites mentioned in the book which are located in the County. He expressed his appreciation for the
Board’s support of the Tourism Bureau.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Shore will be traveling to Italy on Friday to represent this area at Poggio á
Caiano, Albemarle’s sister city. Mr. Shore said they decided to try and reach out to some of the travel
agents, so will be hosting a luncheon for 50 travel agents in the region of Prato, and will host the
regional minister of tourism as well as the president of the regional tourism board. They believe it
would be a good idea to have people from that area come here to visit.
Mr. Dorrier said he went to Italy in 1977 when this program first began. It was a great
experience in his life.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Farm Tour Announcement.
Mr. Dorrier asked that Ms. Marcia Joseph and Ms. Joan McDowell come forward. He said the
Board had a proclamation declaring Albemarle County Farm Day as October 16, 2004. He then read
from the proclamation and said this Board is committed to protecting agricultural and forestal lands.
He presented the following proclamation to Ms. Joseph:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY FARM TOUR DAY
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan gives highest priority to agriculture and forestry as a
land use in the Rural Area; and
WHEREAS, the citizens of Albemarle County in the 2002 Albemarle County Planning Survey
rated “preserving natural resources and open space” and “preserving
farmland and forested land” as the sixth and seventh most important goals out
of a series of twenty goals for the strategic plan; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County is among the top counties in Virginia for the market value of
agricultural products sold; and
WHEREAS, it is the land resource which provides the true value of agriculture and forestry to
this community, with related benefits of open space for cleaner air, watershed
protection, and wildlife habitat, scenic, rural and historic landscapes which
encourage tourism; and quality of life for all residents; and
WHEREAS, maintaining agriculture and forestry also enables the County to grow at a
measured and deliberate pace, and to better plan for services; and
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
WHEREAS, the loss of the agricultural and forestall resource base would permanently
damage the County’s economic base and natural environment; and
WHEREAS, the Agricultural and Forestall Industries Support Committee recommended that
educational programs be developed for the public, such as:
?
improving both the County officials’ and the general public’s
understanding of agriculture;
?
promoting appreciation of the rural area by the community, and
emphasizing the importance of agricultural and forestall lands to them;
?
supporting agricultural education in the classroom, and implementing a
farm day for school children; and
?
implementing an educational tour of County farms for the general public,
County officials and decision-making staff; and
WHEREAS, the future of agriculture and forestry in Albemarle County depends on the actions
of the farm and forest owners, but also on the support of elected officials and
other citizens;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim
October 16, 2004 as:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY FARM TOUR DAY
and commend the Albemarle Farm Bureau and the Piedmont Environmental
Council for helping to educate the citizens about the importance of farming to
our community through sponsorship of six farm tours.
Discussion
(: Ms. Joseph said Albemarle County, the Farm Bureau and the Piedmont
Environmental Council worked together closely to make sure this event happens. It is free. They get
a lot of staff help from the County, and they also get volunteers. She said these farms are very
impressive. They are in the Scottsville District south of Route 6. One is an Arabian Horse Farm, while
the other has Angus cattle, pigmy goats, and hayrides. Also, there is the First Colony Winery in the
area. Wineries are very important and help to keep some of the large parcels intact. She thanked the
Board for its attempts to preserve the rural areas.)
______________
Consent Agenda Item 6.2. Proclamation recognizing October, 2004 as Domestic Violence
Awareness Month.
th
Mr. Dorrier said the Board is recognizing the 25 Anniversary of the Shelter for Help in
Emergency. The Board recognizes October as Domestic Violence Month. He then presented the
following proclamation to Ms. Kimberly Flash and Mr. Tom Laux.
PROCLAMATION
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH
WHEREAS
, violence against women, children and men continues to become more
prevalent as a social problem in our society; and
WHEREAS
, in 2003, in the Commonwealth of Virginia, domestic violence programs
offered 150,447 safe nights of shelter to women, children and men;
24-hour intervention and referrals in response to 36,396 hotline calls; and 61,737 hours of
counseling and advocacy to families; and
WHEREAS
, in 2003, the Shelter for Help in Emergency offered 4,012 safe nights of
shelter to women, children and men; 24-hour intervention and referrals in response to 694
hotline calls; and 1,913 hours of counseling and advocacy to families; and
WHEREAS
, the problems of domestic violence are not confined to any group or
groups of people but cross all economic, racial and societal barriers; and are supported by
societal indifference; and
WHEREAS
, the crime of domestic violence violates an individual’s privacy, dignity,
security and humanity, due to systematic use of physical, emotional, sexual, psychological
and economic control and/or abuse, with the impact of this crime being wide-ranging; and
WHEREAS
, in our quest to impose sanctions on those who break the law by
perpetrating violence, we must also meet the needs of victims of domestic violence who often
suffer grave financial, physical, psychological and financial losses; and
WHEREAS
, it is victims of domestic violence themselves who have been in the
forefront of efforts to bring peace and equality to the home; and
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
WHEREAS
, the Shelter for Help in Emergency commemorates its 25th anniversary of
providing unparalleled services to women, children and men who have been victimized by
domestic violence;
NOW THEREFORE
, in recognition of the important work being done by the Shelter for
Help in Emergency, I, Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Chairman on behalf of the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim the month of
October, 2004 as
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH
and urge all citizens to actively participate in the scheduled activities and programs sponsored
by the Shelter for Help in Emergency to work toward the elimination of personal and
institutional violence against women, children and men.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5a. Presentation: Police Re-Accreditation.
Chief John Miller said he was glad to announce that the Police Department has been re-
accredited. He then introduced Mr. Ernie O’Boyle from the Virginia Law Enforcement Professional
Standards Commission.
Mr. O’Boyle said accreditation is a concept. The fact that the County’s law enforcement
agencies, including the Sheriff’s Office and the City of Charlottesville Police Department, have attained
accreditation is important to a variety of factors in the County. Accreditation is not an event. It means
the department is trying its best to serve the people of the County to the highest standard possible. It
is not a single event; it is a long-term commitment. The Albemarle Police Department has shown over
the last four years that it has maintained that commitment. The maintenance of the concept of
accreditation is most important. When law enforcement does not realize the concept behind
accreditation, they lose the value of accreditation. He said that in Albemarle County, the three major
law enforcement agencies have garnered from a variety of sources the concept of accreditation to the
point where it has become ingrained.
Mr. O’Boyle asked Chief Richard Jenkins of the town of Rocky Mount, Chairman of the
VLEPSC, Sheriff Jett from Stafford County, Co-Chairman of the Board, and Sheriff Ed Robb of
Albemarle, to step forward and present Chief Miller and his staff the certificate of re-accredited status
for the Albemarle County Police Department.
Sheriff Jenkins said it is a great honor for him to be present today, and he would like to say
how proud the Supervisors should be of the Police Department and the Sheriff’s Department.
Mr. Dorrier thanked all who had come for this presentation. He congratulated Chief Miller for
the hard work of his department and Sheriff Robb for his hard work for Albemarle County. He knows
this is not something that comes easy. It requires effort and performance from everyone in the
department. He thanked them for everything they do for the County.
__________
Mr. Dorrier then asked Ms. Sally Thomas to come forward. He said that on behalf of
Albemarle County, the Board members wish to present her with a certificate for being a Board member
for ten years. They thanked her for all she has done for the County, and for that which she will do in
the future.
_______________
Motionseconded
Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. was offered by Ms. Thomas, by Mr.
Rooker, to approve Items 6.1 through 6.11 on the consent agenda and to accept the remaining items
as information. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item 6.1. Approval of Minutes: March 17(N) and April 7, 2004.
Mr. Boyd had read the minutes of March 17(N), 2004, and found them to be in order as
presented.
Mr. Rooker had read the minutes of April 7, 2004, pages 22 (beginning at Item No. 14) to the
end, and found them to be in order as presented.
By the recorded vote set out above, the minutes which had been read were approved.
The other minutes will be placed on a future agenda for approval.
_________
Item 6.2. Proclamation recognizing October, 2004 as Domestic Violence Awareness Month.
(Mr. Dorrier presented the proclamation earlier in the meeting.)
__________
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
Item 6.3. Proclamation recognizing October, 2004 as Let’s Talk Month (Family Sexuality
Education Month).
Mr. Dorrier asked Ms. Mary Sullivan to come forward and receive a proclamation proclaiming
October as Let’s Talk Sexuality Month. Ms. Sullivan was not present at this time. The following
proclamation will be presented at a later time.
Proclamation
LET'S TALK MONTH
(Family Sexuality Education Month)
WHEREAS
, our culture conveys many conflicting and confusing messages about
sexuality; and
WHEREAS
, a parent can and should be their child’s primary sexuality educator; and
WHEREAS
, many local resources exist to assist parents in this endeavor; and
WHEREAS
, only parents, not peers, teachers, or the media, can convey the family’s
values messages regarding sexuality; and
WHEREAS
, children of all ages, including adolescents, cite their parents as primary
influences and want more information about love, relationships, and values from their parents;
and
WHEREAS
, research informs us that candid family discussion about sexuality will not
encourage early sexual activity, but, in fact, may help adolescents postpone sexual activity;
NOW, THEREFORE, I
, Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Chairman on behalf of the Albemarle
Board of County Supervisors, do hereby recognize October, 2004 as Family Sexuality
Education or “Let's Talk Month” in Albemarle County, Virginia, and call its importance to the
attention of all of its citizens.
__________
Item 6.4. Resolution authorizing the issuance of Industrial Development Authority Revenue
Bonds for the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $15,000,000.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc. has
requested the issuance of the Industrial Development Authority's revenue bonds in an amount not to
exceed $15,000,000 to assist the Foundation, or an entity related to the Foundation, in financing the
acquisition of approximately 330 acres of land in Albemarle County adjacent to Monticello and
commonly known as Brown’s Mountain.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution:
RESOLUTION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia
(“Authority”), has considered the application of Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc. (the
“Foundation”) requesting the issuance of the Authority’s revenue bonds in an amount not to
exceed $15,000,000 (“Bonds”) to assist the Foundation, or an entity related to the Foundation,
in financing the acquisition of approximately 330 acres of land in Albemarle County adjacent to
Monticello and commonly known as Brown’s Mountain (“Project”), and has held a public
hearing on September 14, 2004;
WHEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the
“Code”) provides that the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the issuer of private
activity bonds and over the area in which any facility financed with the proceeds of private
activity bonds is located must approve the issuance of the bonds;
WHEREAS, the Authority issues its bonds on behalf of the of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia (“County”); the Project is to be located in the County and the Board of
Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia (“Board”) constitutes the highest elected
governmental unit of the County;
WHEREAS, the Authority has recommended that the Board approve the issuance of
the Bonds; and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority’s resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds,
subject to the terms to be agreed upon, a certificate of the public hearing and a Fiscal Impact
Statement have been filed with the Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
1. The Board approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of
the Foundation, as required by Section 147(f) of the Code and Section l5.2-4906
of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended (“Virginia Code”) to permit the
Authority to assist in the financing of the Project.
2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds does not constitute an endorsement to
a prospective purchaser of the Bonds of the creditworthiness of the Project or the
Foundation.
3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
_________
Item 6.5. Greenway License Agreement with Route 240 Holdings, LLC (Crozet Park to
Lickinghole Greenway).
It was noted in the Executive Summary that one of the seven recommendations from the
Crozet Master Plan for the development of the Crozet–East area is to establish a greenway trail from
Lickinghole Basin to Crozet Park and downtown. The recommended route for this trail is through a
portion of Tax Map 56, Parcel 95, which is owned by Route 240 Holdings, LLC. The Parks and
Recreation Department is seeking approval of an agreement to allow a public access trail through this
property. Concurrently with this request the Parks and Recreation Department is seeking approval of
an easement agreement to establish the Lickinghole Basin property as a County park and a similar
license agreement on an adjoining property owned by the Daily family. Once these three agreements
have been finalized and an existing outstanding proffer with Western Ridge is executed, an
uninterrupted public greenway trail from Crozet Park to Lickinghole Basin can be established.
This property is located between the Daily property and the Western Ridge development open
space area which has been proffered to the County for the greenway trail. The Daily property is
adjacent to Crozet Park and the Western Ridge property is adjacent to Lickinghole Basin. This
property is currently under development review. A permanent agreement for the greenway trail is
anticipated during the formal review and approval process. This license agreement will serve as a
temporary agreement for a public access greenway trail during the interim. This section of trail will be
established and maintained as a Class B trail with minimal improvements, until such time that a
permanent arrangement is agreed upon.
The license agreement allows the County to establish trails and related improvements within a
30-foot wide greenway across the property; to maintain the trail, the improvements, and vegetation
within the greenway; and to open the greenway to the public for walking, jogging and other non-
motorized activities. The term of the license is one year, with an annual automatic one-year renewal
unless it is otherwise terminated. If the license is terminated, the County will be able to remove its
improvements. Some minor terms of the license agreement still need to be finalized.
Staff recommends that the Board approve the proposed license agreement and authorize the
County Executive to sign the agreement on behalf of the County after the agreement has been
approved by the County Attorney with any necessary changes.
Discussion
(: Ms. Thomas said she appreciates staff’s work on the greenway in Crozet and
opening up the Lickinghole Creek basin. It will be a tremendous asset to hikers.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the proposed license
agreement and authorized the County Executive to sign the agreement on behalf of the County
after the agreement has been approved by the County Attorney with any necessary changes.
__________
Item 6.6. Greenway License Agreement with Daily property (Crozet Park to Lickinghole
Greenway).
It was noted in the Executive Summary that one of the seven recommendations from the
Crozet Master Plan for the development of the Crozet–East area is to establish a greenway trail from
Lickinghole Basin to Crozet Park and downtown. The recommended route for this trail is through a
portion of Tax Map 56, Parcel 57B, which is owned by the Daily family. The Parks and Recreation
Department is seeking approval of an agreement to allow a public access trail though this property.
Concurrently with this request the Parks and Recreation Department is seeking approval of an
easement agreement to establish the Lickinghole Basin property as a County park and a similar
license agreement on an adjoining property owned by Route 240 Holdings LLC. Once these three
agreements have been finalized and an existing outstanding proffer with Western Ridge is executed,
an uninterrupted public greenway trail from Crozet Park to Lickinghole Basin can be established.
This property is strategically located adjacent to Crozet Park and the 2.19 acre parcel the
County purchased from the Crozet Park Board in 2003. The primary reason the County purchased
this small parcel in 2003 was to preserve this connection to the Daily property for the future greenway.
Currently the owners of the property are considering various development options and are unwilling to
offer a permanent contribution to the greenway at this time. This license agreement will serve as a
temporary agreement for a public access greenway trail. Since the trail alignment is along the existing
sewer line easement, it is unlikely that any future development would change the alignment. However
since this is a temporary agreement, this section of the trail will be established and maintained as a
Class B trail with minimal improvements, until such time as a permanent arrangement is agreed upon.
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
The license agreement allows the County to establish trails and related improvements within a
30-foot wide greenway across the property; to maintain the trail, the improvements, and vegetation
within the greenway; and to open the greenway to the public for walking, jogging and other non-
motorized activities. The term of the license is one year, with an annual automatic one year renewal
unless it is otherwise terminated. If the license is terminated, the County will be able to remove its
improvements. Some minor terms of the license agreement still need to be finalized.
Staff recommends that the Board approve the proposed license agreement and authorize the
County Executive to sign the agreement on behalf of the County after the agreement has been
approved by the County Attorney with any necessary changes.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the proposed license
agreement and authorized the County Executive to sign the agreement on behalf of the County
after the agreement has been approved by the County Attorney with any necessary changes.
__________
Item 6.7. Deed of Easement Agreement with Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority establishing
County Park at Lickinghole Basin.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA)
owns and maintains a 69-acre property in the Crozet growth area which includes a regional sediment
detention facility known as Lickinghole Basin. The property has long been considered a potential site
for future recreational use; that was confirmed during the recent Crozet master planning effort. The
Parks and Recreation Department deferred requesting establishment of a County park at this location
until suitable public access to the site could be obtained. Pending Board approval of two agreements
with private property owners being considered concurrently with this request, and acceptance of an
existing outstanding proffer with Western Ridge, public access can be achieved with a trail head at
Crozet Park.
There are seven recommendations in the Crozet Master Plan for the development of the
Crozet–East area. Two of those recommendations are to explore and develop potential access points
to Lickinghole Creek Basin and to establish a greenway trail from Lickinghole Basin to Crozet Park
and downtown. Approval of this request is critical to achieving those recommendations. It is important
to note that Lickinghole Basin has already become a destination for hiking, fishing and other less
desirable uses. Formalizing the use of this property as a park is directly in line with Chapter 2, Natural
Resources and Cultural Assets, of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan, and in particular, its
objectives to coordinate stormwater management with other programs, to protect wetlands from
inappropriate uses, and to coordinate recreation and water supply planning. The primary responsibility
for maintenance and supervision of the area will be shared by existing Parks and Recreation staff, the
new community inmate workforce program, and Crozet area trail volunteers. Additional costs to the
County for the operation of this park will be minimal.
The RWSA Board received a presentation on the proposed recreational use in October, 2003.
The proposed deed of easement has been reviewed by the Authority’s attorney, and subject to minor
changes, it is ready to be approved. Staff recommends that the Board approve the proposed
easement and authorize the County Executive to sign the deed of easement on behalf of the County
after the deed has been approved by the County Attorney with any necessary changes.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the proposed easement and
authorized the County Executive to sign the deed of easement on behalf of the County after the
deed has been approved by the County Attorney with any necessary changes.
_________
Item 6.8. Albemarle County’s Priorities for Primary Road System Improvements.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that Albemarle County has the opportunity to provide
VDOT with the County’s priorities for improvements to the primary road system in the County. Primary
roads are those roads with route numbers below 600, including interstate highways (Routes 6, 20, 22,
29, 231, and 240, 250 and I-64). The County has maintained a priority list of improvements for a
number of years and uses this list as the basis for each year’s update. The deadline for written
comments is October 9, 2004. A teleconference hearing originating from the VDOT Central Office in
Richmond with the Culpeper, Fredericksburg and Lynchburg Districts is scheduled for September 29,
2004. Unfortunately, due to the timing of the notification for this meeting, staff was unable to schedule
the Board’s review and update of the priority list in time to allow for it to be presented at this
teleconference.
Staff made revisions to last year’s statement and included it with the Executive Summary as
Attachment A. The revisions focus on incorporating the recommendations of the recently adopted
CHART Plan. The major proposed changes include:
?
Route 29 North - The status of the projects listed in this section has been updated, including
references to the 29H250 Study, Hillsdale Drive and Airport Road. A new project, Berkmar
Drive Extended, was added; it is a recommended improvement identified in CHART.
?
Northern Free State Road (formerly Meadow Creek Parkway Phase II) – The explanation of
the study has been revised to state that the County is planning to study the concept of this
road as part of a larger transportation network study for the County’s Northern Development
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
Areas from the Charlottesville City limits to the Greene County line. The transportation
component of the Northern Development Areas Study includes Phase III of the 29H250 Study.
?
Update on the Route 250 East Corridor Study - This study has recently been resubmitted to
the County for further consideration and action. The County will now consider the
recommendations of this study as part of the planning process for the Pantops Urban Area
Neighborhood Master Plan.
?
Undertake improvements of Fontaine Avenue – This request has been modified to change the
terminus of the project from Fontaine Research Park to the western terminus of Fontaine Ave.
The section of the road past the Research Park is in need of improvement given the road’s
current condition and future traffic associated with potential future development. Also added is
a comment noting the ongoing City, County and University update of the Southern Urban Area
B Study.
?
Crozet TEA-21 Enhancement Grant – It is noted that the County received TEA-21 funding in
July, 2004 for Phase I of the Crozet Streetscape Plan. The County will submit an application
for Phase II in October, 2004 which will include replacing existing deteriorated curbs and
sidewalk, constructing new sidewalks, and installing other streetscape improvements
(landscaping, plaza/bench, lights crosswalks, etc.) along the section of Crozet Avenue near its
intersections with Jarman’s Gap Road and Tabor Street.
Staff recommends that the Board approve the recommended list of priorities for primary road
system improvements. Staff will make any modifications recommended by the Board and forward the
final version of the statement to VDOT by October 9, 2004.
Discussion
(: Mr. Boyd said he has a couple of questions. First, he asked why the last
paragraph on Page 4 was being deleted. It has been his impression that the Meadow Creek Parkway
is the No. 1 priority, so why would the Board not want funds which might become available to be
devoted to that project.
Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. Boyd was talking about Free State Road.
Mr. Boyd said “no”, he was talking about the last paragraph on Page 4 which has been
deleted. He said that paragraph refers to redirecting funds that VDOT will not spend on over-passes
or interchanges on Route 29 to the Meadow Creek Parkway. He said that whole paragraph has been
struck.
Mr. Rooker said he understands that this applied to what used to be called Meadow Creek
Parkway, Phase II. It is now being called “Free State Road Connector”. It is a road for which the
County never got any significant funding from the State over the years. This is not the Meadow Creek
Parkway from Rio Road to Melbourne Road.
Mr. Boyd said he did not relate this paragraph to the paragraph above it.
Mr. Rooker said no money is being taken from the Meadow Creek Parkway.
Mr. Cilimberg said historically the County has been requesting that the moneys VDOT would
have funded for interchanges be used now for what was called Meadow Creek Parkway, Phase II, and
that the road be made eligible as a primary project. Because of changes this year to Northern Free
State Road, that paragraph was removed because there is a new approach to dealing with the section
of road from Rio Road to Route 29.
Mr. Boyd asked if it is not going to just be put into the other Corridor study. Mr. Cilimberg said
that is the plan.
Mr. Boyd asked if the Board is going to make a recommendation for those funds. Mr.
Cilimberg said those funds were taken away, and the County is wishfully asking that they be returned.
Mr. Boyd made reference to Page 8 where it speaks about the National Highway System. He
is concerned about a previous position of this Board which was to eliminate any reference to the
proposed Route 29 Bypass. He said if the MPO has made that statement, it should stand on its
merits. If the previous Board was unanimously opposed to any Route 29 Bypass, that statement
needs to be updated because there are new members on the Board now. He is talking about the last
sentence “The County believes any projects that are included in the NHS should reflect the
recommendations that result from the previously referenced transportation improvement study of the
Route 29 North corridor area.” He thinks the list should come from this Board and not the MPO. He
asked how that sentence might be changed since he is concerned it may not be the posture of one
hundred percent of the present Board members.
Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Boyd disagreed with that sentence because the County is about to
put some money in and all communities have been involved in what is referred to as “previously
referenced transportation improvement study of Route 29 North.” She asked if Mr. Boyd does not
want the projects that come out of that study to be included in the Federal Highway Administration’s
list.
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mr. Boyd said he does not have a problem with that part of the statement, but with the
suggestion that there is 100 percent support of this board.
Mr. Dorrier said he does now know how Mr. Boyd got that from this statement.
Mr. Rooker said he also does not see that. First, this Board saw a package of materials which
had a copy of the letter to VTRAN which contained a history of the proposed Route 29 Bypass. This
Board has consistently proposed that particular route.
Mr. Boyd asked if that position has been voted on this year.
Mr. Rooker said if Mr. Boyd wants to propose a motion at some point, it could be put on an
agenda and talked about. Included in that packet was a copy of a letter sent to Gov. Warner in 1997
that was signed by four of six members of this Board of Supervisors. On the one hand, he does not
think this particular language is reflective of that policy established by this Board. Second, if Mr. Boyd
wants to raise that issue, it should be put on the agenda and discussed.
Mr. Boyd said he does want to raise that issue. He thinks there have been some recent
surveys indicating that the public does not share the view of the prior Board.
Mr. Rooker said he disagrees with Mr. Boyd’s characterization of the survey. The survey
indicated that only 16 percent of the people supported this particular route.
Mr. Boyd said the statement talks about a Route 29 Bypass and does not say if it is a
“western” or an “eastern” bypass.
Mr. Rooker said this particular language does not take a position on that question. To the
extent that it talks about a road, it says “the Route 29 bypass” which most people refer to as a
particular route in a particular location.
Mr. Boyd said that perhaps this subject needs to be brought up in another session.
Mr. Dorrier said the statement does not necessarily involve the supervisors. It does not
mention that all Board members support it 100 percent. It does not refer to either a western bypass or
an eastern bypass.
Mr. Boyd said whether the survey is disputed or not, it indicates the public is interested in a
bypass.
Ms. Thomas said the first two sentences are factual. The third sentence says the Board is
urging that the National Highway System reflect recommendations that result from what is an ongoing
study. She does not see how Mr. Boyd can argue with any of those sentences. She understands the
point, but does not think this is the place to assert that.
Mr. Boyd said that is alright.
Ms. Thomas then referred to Page 7, No. 2 under the enhancement projects. She asked if the
Board should talk about construction of pedestrian walkways along Route 20 North since the County is
already working on those.
Mr. Cilimberg said there is more that staff had hoped to get accomplished on Route 20 North.
One side of the road is being done with CIP monies. As development occurs, they hope to get most of
the sidewalk system in place. Then there is the other side of the road, and they do not want to lose
that idea.
Mr. Rooker said that next year he would like consideration given to adding a request for an
enhancement project to widen the shoulders on Garth Road for a bicycle lane. The local Residency
Office strongly supports this suggestion.
Ms. Thomas said she believes the Bike Plan suggests that the bikeway be separate from the
roadway particularly where trees line the roadway in a number of locations.
Mr. Boyd said as a point of clarification, he will take back his pulling of Consent Item 6.8 so the
whole consent agenda can be voted on at one time.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the recommended priorities for
the primary road system improvements contained in Attachment A to the Executive Summary.
__________
Item 6.9. Resolution to accept Rosedell Lane (Route 1663) in Rosemont Subdivision into the
State Secondary System of Highways.
At the request of the County’s Engineering Department, by the recorded vote set out
above, the Board adopted the following Resolution:
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
R E S O L U T I O N
Rosemont Subdivision,
WHEREAS, the street(s) in described on the attached
October 6, 2004
Additions Form SR-5(A) dated , fully incorporated herein by reference, is
shown on plats recorded in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County,
Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised the Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision
Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County
Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the road(s) in
Rosemont Subdivision,
as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated
October 6, 2004
, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of
Virginia, and the Department’s Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted
right-of-way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage
as described on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the
Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
* * *
The road(s) described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is:
Rosedell Lane (State Route 1663)
1) from the intersection of Route 1660
(Rosemont Drive) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 05/19/2004 in
the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book
2755, pages 311-314, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.10
mile.
Total Mileage - 0.10 mile.
__________
Item 6.10. Resolution to accept Little Fox Lane (Route 1266) in Cory Farm Subdivision into
the State Secondary System of Highways.
At the request of the County’s Engineering Department, by the recorded vote set out
above, the Board adopted the following Resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
Cory Farm Subdivision,
WHEREAS, the street(s) in described on the attached
October 6, 2004
Additions Form SR-5(A) dated , fully incorporated herein by reference, is
shown on plats recorded in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County,
Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised the Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision
Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County
Cory
Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the road(s) in
Farm Subdivision, October 6,
as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated
2004
, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia,
and the Department’s Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted
right-of-way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage
as described on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the
Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
* * *
The road(s) described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is:
Little Fox Lane (State Route 1266)
1) from the intersection of Route 1260
(Cory Farm Road) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 03/09/2000 in
the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book
1597, pages 210-219, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.07
mile.
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
Total Mileage - 0.07 mile.
__________
Item 6.11. Resolution to accept roads in Keswick Farms Subdivision, Phases 1 and 2, into the
State Secondary System of Highways.
At the request of the County’s Engineering Department, by the recorded vote set out
above, the Board adopted the following resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
Keswick Farms Subdivision, Phases 1 and 2,
WHEREAS, the street(s) in de-
October 6, 2004
scribed on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated , fully incorporated
herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised the Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision
Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County
Keswick
Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the road(s) in
Farms Subdivision, Phases 1 and 2,
as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A)
October 6, 2004
dated , to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229,
Code of Virginia, and the Department’s Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted
right-of-way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage
as described on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the
Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
* * *
The road(s) described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is:
Fox Hunt Drive (State Route 1056)
1) from the intersection of Route 616
(Union Mill Road) to the intersection of Vista Court (Route 1057), as shown on
plat recorded 01/27/2000 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 1890, page 0407, with a 50-foot right-of-way
width, for a length of 0.06 mile; and from the intersection of Vista Court (Route
1057) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 01/27/2000 in the office of
the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1890, page
0407, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.81 mile.
Vista Court (State Route 1057)
2) from the intersection of Route 1056 (Fox
Hunt Drive) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 04/24/1997 in the
office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book
1607, page 147, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.11 mile.
Total Mileage - 0.98 mile.
__________
Item 6.12. FY 2005-06 County Operating Budget and Capital Improvements Plan (CIP)
Events Calendar.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that the process of developing the County’s Operating
Budget for FY 2005-06 and the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for FY 2006-10/Capital Needs
Assessment for FY 2011-15 is underway. The proposed schedule of the upcoming budget process
events is sent to the Board to establish firm dates for Board meetings and public hearings on the
budget and CIP, and to provide the public with as much notice as possible for planned community
meetings, public hearings and work sessions related to the budget and the CIP. Dates have been
identified in March and April of 2005 for public hearings on the budget, Board work sessions, and
adoption of the FY 2005-06 Operating Budget, CIP and 2005 calendar year tax rate. No Board action
The calendar was provided for informational purposes only.
is required at this time.
__________
Item 6.13. Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) Draft Legislative
Program.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that the Thomas Jefferson Planning District works with
the County and other localities in the planning district each year to develop a regional legislative
program for the General Assembly session. The Draft 2005 Legislative Program follows the same
format as in prior years, with priority “action items” and a section highlighting some of the most
important ongoing concerns. The County’s major issues are included in the draft program. Staff
recommends that the Board members review the Draft Program and submit any suggested changes to
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
rd
No
the County Executive so the Board can approve the Program at its November 3 Board meeting.
Board action was required at this time.
__________
Item 6.14. Copy of Draft Planning Commission minutes for July 20, August 24 and September
were received as information
14, 2004, .
_________
Item 6.15. Copy of letter dated September 10, 2004, from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning
Administration, to Kenneth L. Klotz, re: Official Determination of Development Rights and Parcels –
was received as
Tax Map 111, Parcel 8Z2 (property of Kenneth L. Klotz I - Section 10.3.1,
information.
__________
Item 6.16. Copy of letter dated September 15, 2004, from Janice D. Sprinkle, Deputy Zoning
Administrator, to Constance Hallquist, re: Official Determination of Development Rights and Parcels –
was received as
Tax Map 79A1, Parcels D1, D2, D20, D25, D33, E1, E4, E7 and E9 - Section 10.3.1,
information
.
__________
Item 6.17. Copy of Statement of Assessed Values for Local Tax Purposes for Railroads and
, was
Interstate Pipeline Transmission Companies as prepared by the Virginia Department of Taxation
received as information.
__________
Item 6.18. Copy of assessment made for year 2004 by the State Corporation Commission of
Virginia of real and personal property of electric light and power corporations, electric suppliers, gas
and pipeline distribution corporations, telecommunications companies and water corporations as of the
was received as information.
beginning of the first day of January, 2004 for Albemarle County,
__________
Item 6.19. Draft 29H250 Phase 2 Report. A copy of the 29H250 Phase 2 Report, Draft at
9/15/04 and a copy of the 29H250 Phase 2 Report Appendix, Volume 2: Economic/Fiscal Analysis,
Draft at 9/15/04, had been furnished to the Board members. It was noted in the Executive Summary
that this project is a continuation of the 29H250 Intersections Study, completed in May, 2003. The
study area is expanded northward to include the Greenbrier and US-29 intersection and westward to
the Barracks Road and US-250 Bypass interchange. An efficient, highly inclusive process was used
to develop and evaluate several solutions that met the following goals:
?
Improved function for all transportation types (regional and local auto, truck, transit,
pedestrian, bicycle, and ADA)
?
Access and safety maintained during construction
?
Financially feasible in terms of construction cost and minimizing lost tax revenue.
?
Near-term economic impacts are balanced with long-term gains.
?
A road network that supports redevelopment opportunities and a mix of uses.
?
Improved landscape quality and stormwater systems, and the visual character of private
development and streetscape are enhanced.
These studies were received for information.
__________
was received as information.
Item 6.20. VDOT Monthly Report for October, 2004,
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7a. Transportation Matters: Reallocation of Secondary Road Funds for
Route 29 North Corridor/Northern Development Areas Transportation Study.
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the Executive Summary. He said a number of transportation
planning initiatives in the past two years have generated recommendations for new approaches to
deal with land use and the transportation network in the Route 29 North Corridor and the County’s
northern Development Areas. Funding sources need to be identified now that can be used in doing
the work. The work needs to be tightly coordinated with (“married to”) the Northern Development Area
master plan. Staff has identified the opportunity to shift some of the funds which previously had been
allocated to what was the Meadow Creek Parkway Phase II project to the Route 29 Corridor
Transportation Study. That amount would be $300,000 from what is about $1.5 million in what was
the Meadow Creek Parkway Phase II project which is now being called “Northern Free State Road” in
the Secondary Road Plan. That amount would be combined with other moneys in the County’s CIP,
moneys that were received through proffers and other sources the MPO is working with and it would
bring the total to $900,000. Staff has provided the Board with a draft resolution which covers all the
points of the work which has been going on. Staff recommends that the Board adopt the draft
resolution requesting that the money be shifted for that purpose.
Mr. Dorrier asked for comments from the Board.
Mr. Boyd asked if this is real money. Mr. Cilimberg said this is money which has been
appropriated for what was Meadow Creek Parkway Phase II.
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Ms. Thomas asked about the $1.5 million. Mr. Cilimberg said the $1.5 million is the
appropriated amount to this date.
Mr. Rooker said for a long time there were funds appropriated to the north section of Meadow
Creek Parkway; the money was intended to start an environmental impact statement for that project
and do a location study. Some of that money was moved from a prior project for Meadow Creek
Parkway. It was never spent because enough money was never accumulated to do the work. The
County has never been able to get any other money allocated to that project by the state, and it was
never able to get that road included as a primary road project. Even after ten or twelve years, a good
estimate of the cost was never made. To him, it makes sense to complete the study for Route 29
North which will hopefully develop a plan that can be implemented over a period of time as money
becomes available including parallel roads, adding lanes as needed, etc. However, first there must be
a plan in order to implement the plan.
Mr. Cilimberg said this will allow the County to look at the new concept for a Northern Free
State Road. That will be bundled into this overall work.
Mr. Boyd asked if the money has to be spent on studies. Mr. Cilimberg said in this case,
“yes.” As it previously existed, it was part of the money for the ultimate construction of the Meadow
Creek Parkway Phase II.
Mr. Boyd said he knows VDOT allocates some money for construction and some money for
studies. Mr. Cilimberg said this money is coming out of the Secondary Construction Program. It is
replacing what would have been the preliminary engineering and environmental impact study work that
would have occurred on Meadow Creek Parkway Phase II.
Mr. Boyd said he is concerned that a lot of time and money seems to be spent doing studies
and nothing seems to get built. He recognizes the complexities and the money situation, but he is
thinking that more studies will be done when previous studies have not even been completed.
Mr. Dorrier said Mr. Harrison Rue, Executive Director of the TJPDC, is present. He asked him
to speak about these studies.
Mr. Rue said this money is in the secondary program now and can be used to either study or
design, or build a specific secondary road. In the UNJAM plan, the CHART Committee decided that
MCP Phase II as designed in that particular area did not align with what developers are actually doing
on the ground. The Northern Free State Road concept is to look at, rethink and redesign what is
actually happening on the ground working with the developers as was done in the 29H250 Study. He
said Berkmar Drive Extension is a good example. A developer is actually building a section of it now.
In order to justify spending millions of VDOT dollars, a new study that models and shows a new road
network having significant transportation benefits, must be done. In the 29H250 study they came up
with a series of discreet buildable projects, some of which CTB members are actually looking for the
money to build.
Mr. Cilimberg said the potential benefit is that they will be able to break down the smaller
projects into projects which can be funded. It takes years to get the bigger, more expensive projects
funded. One project in the 29H250 study is to build a second on-ramp to the existing Route 250
Bypass from Route 29 to deal with the traffic backup that occurs between Hydraulic and the Bypass.
Mr. Boyd said he understands the $300,000 will not build a road, and he likes the concept of
coming up with some achievable goals. He said a huge area was studied and a lot of options brought
forward to just add another on-lane to an access ramp. He is concerned that transportation issues are
not being completed, just moving on to the next study. If money is continually allocated to studies, and
nothing is ever finished, those studies will become obsolete.
Mr. Bowerman asked what Mr. Boyd would suggest doing.
Mr. Boyd said he is suggesting that this Board needs to make a concentrated effort to start
devoting some money and a plan to building some of these roads. He said when things come up
money is taken from here and from there. The Board is dealing with study issues and not dealing with
building issues.
Mr. Bowerman said part of the reason the developer on the Free State Road Connector is not
abiding by some of the things the Board would like to have happen is that the Board does not know
exactly what it wants in that area. There was an alignment through there, but the developer is going
ahead and building things that are not necessarily in the best interest of the Free State Road
Connector. The Board has to have information on which to base a decision.
Mr. Rooker said Mr. Boyd’s statement that a lot of money was spent on the 29H250 Study to
suggest a ramp is not an accurate characterization. That study was partly paid for by County, partly
paid for by private funds, partly paid for by VDOT, and partly paid for by the City. That study
recommends a whole network of roads, not just a ramp onto the 250 Bypass. The first part of that
plan was received with great favor by the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB). It then voted
to fund money to pay for the second part of that study. They thought it was an exceptional study with
a minimum allocation of resources and a great example of multi-jurisdictional coordination and
contribution. Studies of that nature often cost five or six times what that study cost. That was due to
Mr. Rue’s ability to bring in outside people and some of them did not charge for their work. There is
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
now a plan for a specific set of projects to be done on the Route 29 Corridor to improve traffic, and
with actual traffic models done to show what the improvement will be from each of those projects.
There was also an economic study done to demonstrate what the impacts on the revenue base will be
when those projects are constructed. He thinks there was a great benefit derived from paying for that
study. He agrees with Mr. Boyd that projects need to be built, not just studied. There also has to be a
plan for what will be built. In this case, money was leveraged in a way that is getting a lot of mileage
for the dollars. This particular funding has been sitting there for years. It was also allocated for a
study, in this case the study of the Meadow Creek Parkway North. He thinks that money would be
better spent to complete what is being done on Route 29. He thinks that ultimately the County will be
able to get primary road funding for those projects. The County cannot get primary road funding for
the Meadow Creek Parkway; it tried to do so for ten years. The chances of ever having that project
funded and built are low. The chances of having these other projects funded and built are much
higher.
Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. Rue if there is any possibility of converting study money into actual road
building.
Mr. Rue said the project was designed in order to have VDOT, the County, the City and the
developers work together on something that is doable. He said that is happening in the Phase II study
which is before the Board now. One thing that was done was to look at potential funding other than
that from VDOT. They have looked at revenue enhancements. He said that at least 80 percent of the
roads being built in the area now are being built by developers in neighborhoods. The actual “connect
the dots” issue is applying the public money at places between the developments and figuring out how
to use that to knit together the parallel road network. Until this study that models the benefits of that
system is completed, VDOT will not be convinced to spend the $5.0 million or more to “connect the
dots” or those bridges. He is convinced that this study can develop a plan to link the development that
is happening in that area, and show the benefits of the primary transportation network to pull down the
VDOT money.
Mr. Wyant asked if the modeling will show the impact with or without the Meadow Creek
Parkway.
Mr. Rue said the modeling being done at Route 29 and 250 will be the same upfront in the
northern area. It assumes Meadow Creek Parkway Phase I will be built.
Mr. Rooker said traffic modeling was done with and without the Meadow Creek Parkway when
the modeling was done for the twenty-year plan. Most of this money has been accumulated to start
that project, but it was put back a year because of VDOT’s funding shortfall.
Mr. Dorrier asked for a motion to adopt the proposed resolution.
Motionseconded
was offered by Mr. Rooker, by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt the following
resolution authorizing reallocation in the current Secondary System Construction Program of $300,000
from Meadow Creek Parkway Phase II (Northern Free State Road) Project R000-002-253,PE101, to
the 29 North Corridor/Northern Development Areas Transportation Study.
Ms. Thomas said it is a popular thing to say we are studying instead of constructing, but she
thinks it is the job of the Supervisors to learn enough about these studies in order to tell the public
what is being studied and why it is being studied. If today has not been sufficient to get that
understanding to all Supervisor members, then Mr. Boyd is invited to attend some MPO meeting or get
some more education. It is something into which taxpayer dollars are going so the members should
feel comfortable with what is being done. She thinks the Supervisors have a long history of studies
starting with what was called “the $7.0 million Sverdrup Study.” It was not followed because of the
County’s Commonwealth Transportation Board member at the time. There are other studies that have
been supported but not followed through and are now being redone. For the most part, Albemarle has
had a tremendous amount of road building that somehow people forget. She is glad this money will
be put in the study, but she thinks everybody should be comfortable with that.
Mr. Dorrier called for a roll call. The roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS,
the 29H250 Phase 1 and 2 Studies have identified alternative
transportation improvements and land use scenarios in City/County 29N/250
Bypass/Hydraulic Road/Barracks Road area; and
WHEREAS,
a third phase of the 29H250 Studies has been anticipated by the
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County to
take place in the Route 29 corridor north from the Phase 1 and 2 study area to the Greene
County line; and
WHEREAS,
the regional CHART 2025 Plan has been under development and, in its
final form, recommends new construction projects and studies in this same area, including
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
Berkmar Drive Extended, Meadow Creek Parkway Phase I, Hillsdale Drive Extended and
Northern Free State Road (location study); and
WHEREAS,
$1,552,051 in funding has accumulated in the County’s Six-Year
Secondary System Construction Program for study/preliminary engineering of Meadow Creek
Parkway Phase II, which has been re-designated in CHART and by the County as the
Northern Free State Road; and
WHEREAS,
Albemarle County has accumulated $300,000 in CIP and developer
proffered contributions for the study of regional transportation improvements in the Route 29
North corridor; and
WHEREAS,
the County has selected the Northern Development Areas, the
geographic area within which the above-mentioned projects and studies would occur in the
County, as the next area to be master planned; and
WHEREAS,
the critical interrelationship between land use and transportation makes
the coordination of land use and transportation study efforts essential; and
WHEREAS
, the timing of the Route 29 Corridor Phase III Study and the Northern
Development Areas Master Plan creates an opportunity to combine the two study efforts to
accomplish a comprehensive analysis and set of findings and recommendations for future
land use and transportation system development in the northern Development Areas of the
County; and
WHEREAS
, the overall project will integrate transportation planning, modeling,
analysis, and design concepts for both the primary system’s Route 29 North Corridor and the
surrounding secondary road system; and
WHEREAS
, locations for the CHART proposed Berkmar Drive Extended and
redefinition of the purpose, intent and feasibility of Meadow Creek Parkway Phase II, now
known as the Northern Free State Road, as well as Route 29 corridor and other transportation
improvements can be identified that are complimentary with land use proposals for the study
area; and
WHEREAS
, funding of this study supports the ultimate construction of portions of the
secondary road network as well as the primary Route 29 North corridor; and
WHEREAS
, there is not currently full funding of the transportation system component
that would be realized through the Corridor Study; and
WHEREAS
, it has been determined that $300,000 should be re-allocated from
existing funds in Meadow Creek Parkway Phase II (now Northern Free State Road) to this 29
North Corridor/Northern Development Areas Transportation Study.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
this Board requests re-allocation in the
current Secondary System Construction Program of $300,000 from Meadow Creek Parkway
Phase II (Northern Free State Road), Project R000-002-253,PE101, to the 29 North
Corridor/Northern Development Areas Transportation Study.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7b. Transportation Matters: Criteria Utilized to Rank Secondary Roads
(continued from September 1, 2004).
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development, said staff is still trying to complete its
work with Mr. Wyant. They hope to have that information available for the November meeting. He
referred the Board members to the Executive Summary for further information.
_______________
Public Hearing
Agenda Item No. 7c. Transportation Matters: to consider resolution
endorsing The Downtown Crozet Streetscape Project for TEA-21 Enhancement Grant application.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on September 20 and September
27, 2004.)
Mr. David Benish said this is a continuation of a project the County has been working on for a
number of years. Staff made major TEA-21 grant requests a few years ago to fully fund the concept of
the project. The project was found to not be competitive so staff changed its strategy and broke the
project into several pieces and is focusing on getting funds for the sidewalk improvements and some
of the streetscape improvements. This revised concept makes sense because the Crozet area will be
redeveloping anyway. Some of the other improvements may be obtained through redevelopment
projects. This request is for Phase II which calls for sidewalk and streetscaping improvements along
Crozet Avenue from Tabor Street up to the Blue Goose building. Staff is proposing the following
improvements in Phase II:
?
Demolish existing deteriorated curbs and sidewalks and demolish existing retaining walls and
other roadside elements in front of the residences as necessary for construction.
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
?
Construct new concrete curb and gutter, and five-foot wide sidewalks along both sides of the
street.
?
Construct new gateway pedestrian plaza at the Tabor Street intersection with brick pavers,
low seating walls, benches, lights and gateway landscaping.
?
Construct two small, pedestrian plazas at the Blue Goose intersection with brick pavers, low
seating walls, benches, lights and gateway landscaping.
?
Install concrete paver crosswalks and concrete handicap ramps at all plaza intersections.
Install painted crosswalks at all other intersections.
?
Install street trees with grates and pedestrian-scaled lighting in all pedestrian areas.
?
Construct a downtown entrance feature and sign at/near the Crozet Avenue/Tabor Street
gateway.
?
Construct new curb inlets, stormwater pipes and upgrade the stormwater utility system as
required.
Mr. Benish said the estimated cost at this time is about $700,000. Within existing CIP funding
and proposed program CIP funding through the five-year plan there is sufficient funding for the next
phase. Some of that money comes from a project which could not be completed because necessary
right-of-way is not available. He said that after holding the public hearing, staff recommends that the
Board adopt a resolution to apply for the TEA-21 Enhancement Grant for the Downtown Crozet
streetscape improvement project.
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
Mr. Wyant said this project is worthwhile and needed, so he will offer a to adopt the
seconded
required resolution (set out in full below). The motion was by Ms. Thomas. Roll was
called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS
,in accordance with the Commonwealth Transportation Board
construction allocation procedure for a TEA-21 Enhancement Grant application, it is
necessary that a request by resolution be received from the Board of Supervisors in order for
the Virginia Department of Transportation to approve an enhancement project in the County of
Albemarle;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, hereby requests the Commonwealth Transportation Board to fund the
Historic Crozet Streetscape Enhancement Project; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,
that the Board of Supervisors hereby agrees to pay a
minimum of twenty (20) percent of the total cost of this project, and that if the County of
Albemarle subsequently elects to cancel this project, it agrees to reimburse the Virginia
Department of Transportation for the total amount of the cost expended by the Department up
to the date the Department is notified of such cancellation.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7d. Transportation Matters not listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Brent Sprinkle, Acting Resident Engineer, was present. He told the Board members he
was prepared to present them with an update on bridges in Albemarle County as was requested at a
previous meeting.
Mr. Dorrier suggested this be added to a future agenda in order to allow sufficient time for the
review.
Mr. Wyant asked how bridges in Albemarle County compare with the condition of bridges
nationally.
Mr. Sprinkle said he thinks the bridges on secondary roads in Albemarle County are in fairly
good condition. Bridges on primary roads and interstate highways are in very good shape.
__________
Mr. Wyant said he is scheduled to look at some road issues in the County with Ms. Teresa
Butler.
__________
Ms. Thomas asked what construction is occurring with regard to the Tilman Road intersection.
Mr. Brent replied that within the next two weeks larger stop signs and other signage should be
installed. VDOT’s contractor originally indicated that Spring would be the earliest time for this
installation, but is currently trying to get it done before the end of the calendar year.
__________
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
Ms. Thomas said she noted in VDOT’s Monthly Report that a lot of time and effort was spent
cleaning up after the recent hurricanes (Francis and Ivan). She thanked VDOT for that work saying
many of her constituents appreciated it.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she has received word that there is nothing legislatively needed to let local
businesses who want to adopt a highway to put a logo on the VDOT signs. It is an idea that has been
used in other states to make them feel they are getting advertising in a low key way. It helps recruit
businesses to participate in this program.
__________
Mr. Rooker said at a previous meeting the Board discussed sidewalk maintenance. He had
requested removal of grass growing in sidewalks along both Hydraulic Road and Commonwealth
Drive. He thinks there are other areas where this is a problem, so he would appreciate someone
taking a look at this problem.
__________
Mr. Rooker mentioned prior communications regarding removal of signs placed by private
interests in VDOT’s rights-of-way. The Board got an e-mail from Mr. Davis giving a statutory reference
and saying VDOT has the authority to remove these signs. He said there is a proliferation of signs
throughout the County.
Mr. Chuck Proctor, Acting Resident Engineer, indicated that VDOT does periodically go out
and remove signs. During election times, they send out letters saying that signs are not to be placed
in VDOT’s right-of-way. The superintendents at area headquarters do remove those signs.
Mr. Wyant said he is more concerned about yard sale signs. Those signs stay up for a long
time and just trash the highways.
__________
Mr. Rooker said Mr. Boyd had mentioned earlier the problem of actually getting highway
projects built. He asked if the Board would authorize the County Attorney to meet with the City
Attorney to work out a legislative proposal enabling the County and the City to form a joint
Transportation Service District and bring that proposal back to the Board for consideration.
Mr. Boyd said he was not ready to make that “leap” at this time to finance roads. He would
prefer studying available options. He is not in favor of service districts or increased gasoline taxes.
That is what he was referring to earlier to facilitate financing if the State cannot be relied on for the
funds. Is there anything else the Board can rely on to do that?
Mr. Rooker said the Board only has the option of using property taxes and/or general fund
revenues. Northern Virginia counties have a two percent gasoline tax which they can use for
transportation projects. He is only suggesting that in order to move the concept forward the County
Attorney meet with the City Attorney to develop something that might be a workable legislative
proposal and present that as an option for the Board and Council to consider. He said that in three
years the County will receive 35 percent fewer funds in real dollars than it got four years ago. During
that period of time, the cost of construction will double. If the Board wants to do anything other than
engage in rhetoric about building projects, a way will have to be found to do it. He is only asking that
the Board get “a game plan” for how that might be accomplished. It can be debated at that time, and a
decision be made as to whether it should be pursued.
Mr. Boyd said he agrees that a “game plan” is needed. He supports figuring out a way to get
this accomplished. He does not think the Board should go in just one direction which includes a
service district and gasoline taxes without pursing other options. There is an increase in property tax
revenues, North Pointe will provide the possibility of $3.0 million plus in tax revenues, an increase in
sales tax revenues is expected next year, and there are other moneys which will be flowing to the
County. If the Board earmarks those funds for transportation instead of earmarking them for
something else, that is another alternative.
Mr. Rooker said a service district could be financed with property taxes.
Mr. Dorrier said this is a big issue and it cannot be debated as a tag on to transportation
matters today. The Board needs to have staff look at it and bring the Board a list of alternatives, and
set it on the agenda for a work session so it can be discussed in a logical manner.
Mr. Rooker said staff is working on the current legislative packet. He is only suggesting that
options be discussed with the City Attorney and that a set of options be presented for discussion. A
good example is the interchange of the Meadow Creek Parkway at McIntire Road. That is probably a
$20.0 million project. There is no funding to build that interchange. Traffic studies show that if the
Meadow Creek Parkway is built without that interchange, the Parkway does not work well from a traffic
standpoint.
Mr. Dorrier asked how the Board can request the County Attorney to go to the City Attorney
and come up with a plan when there is no money involved.
Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Rooker is only asking them to look at the situation.
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
Mr. Rooker said the idea is that they would bring back several different legislative ways that
the County and City might obtain the authority to go forward with raising funds or building projects
locally under different scenarios. He said the Board could then hold a work session on that
information.
Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. Davis if this request is doable. Mr. Davis said he had previously
presented the Board members with a memorandum setting out different, existing legislative options.
He provided the Board a chart which shows that the big deficiency is the funding mechanism. He said
other areas in the Commonwealth have legislation which allows them to charge a two percent gas tax.
There was legislation adopted last year which allows for creation of a transportation district that has
some restricted funding options to levy additional ad valorem taxes on commercial and industrial
property. There are some examples that can be studied. Staff can give the Board information on what
has happened in other localities and what could potentially be done in Albemarle. The major flaw in
the existing authority for the Board is funding. Without some ability to impose an additional tax on
gasoline or some other basis, creating a transportation district is problematic from a funding
standpoint.
Mr. Rooker said some game plan is needed to fund road projects.
Mr. Boyd asked if legislative authority is needed in order for this Board to simply say they will
allocate “x” percentage of capital improvement funds to transportation issues.
Mr. Davis said the County has the authority to build roads if it chooses to do so. Other
localities have issued general obligation bonds and the debt service is supported primarily by property
taxes. That is an option the Board has but it would require that a referendum be held.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks that should be included in any recommendations that come forward.
Mr. Rooker said he agrees. The reason that a transportation district is an interesting concept
to him is that the Meadow Creek Parkway interchange project should be a high priority since the
County has all the money needed to build the road, and the road does not work well without the
interchange. To superimpose an interchange later would require tearing up 25 percent of what had
been built. He thinks money needs to be found to fund that interchange which actually lies in the City.
The Board would need to decide if it were going to spend County money to fund an interchange which
lies entirely in the City because it helps the local transportation network.
Mr. Tucker said staff will furnish a staff report on this issue in November.
__________
Mr. Dorrier asked VDOT to look at installing signage or flashing lights to indicate the left turn
from Route 29 South onto Route 708 for Walton Middle School. Cars traveling north are stopped and
backed up at a curve.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Rural Areas Fire/Rescue Staffing Standards.
Mr. Dan Eggleston, Director of Fire and Rescue, said that approximately seven years ago, the
County began providing fire/rescue staffing for Seminole Trail, Earlysville and the Stony Point
volunteer fire stations. Fire/Rescue staff worked with the volunteer chiefs to design a schedule that
provided staffing twelve hours per day between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. One to two
career staff (depending on annual/sick leave) provided coverage from 6:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., while the
other one to two staff provided coverage from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. This schedule worked well
because volunteer assistance was usually available from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. and from 4:00 p.m. to
6:00 p.m. to augment the career staffing to meet a three-person minimum staffing standard. However,
over time the availability of daytime volunteers declined creating a situation where one to two career
firefighters were responding to fire calls outside of the minimum staffing standard putting career staff at
risk.
Mr. Eggleston said that during the FY 2004-05 budgeting process, additional staffing was
requested to insure that there would be at least three people during those 12 hours of coverage. A
decision was made to add one additional staff person for the Seminole Fire Station as well as
Earlysville, because those stations serve development areas. Staffing was not obtained for Stony
Point or Scottsville because both departments serve rural areas. Since then, they have tried to reduce
hours in the rural stations so a minimum staff of three can be assured at all times. During this process
Stony Point said this was unacceptable as they need 12 hours of coverage.
Mr. Eggleston said staff and Mr. Ken Boyd met with members of the Stony Point Volunteer
Fire Department to discuss concerns regarding the reduction in hours. The general consensus at the
end of the meeting was that: a) due to the work schedules of volunteer members, career assistance is
needed 12 hours per day, five days per week, and, b) it is important to adhere to the Fire Rescue
Department’s minimum staffing standards to ensure employee safety. He said the Board needs to
discuss today whether it is willing to look at 12-hour per day coverage, or if it wants to stay with 10-
hour per day coverage in the rural area.
Mr. Eggleston said the cost of doing this is shown in the Executive Summary, but before
discussing that, he has an update on another project that impacts that amount positively. The
Department has been working with the Charlottesville/Albemarle Rescue Squad to help staff an
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
ambulance. They have just received notice from CARS that they can commit a driver for five days a
week during daytime hours. That will allow the reassignment of a Firefighter ALS person to help with
the rural staffing if the Board decides to go with 12-hour per day staffing.
Mr. Eggleston said he would like to clarify that the intent of the agreement with CARS is to
allow the County’s Fire/Rescue Department to train its ALS providers. It is not an agreement for
supplemental staffing such as was done for some fire stations and the Scottsville Rescue Squad. He
said the challenges in the system do not belong to any one agency, but the problems belong to
everybody. The advantage of the jointly-staffed ambulance is that it will provide an ambulance in the
Route 29 North Corridor to help achieve response time goals. Because this partnership is working
well, there is the ability to reassign a firefighter and cut costs in half.
Mr. Rooker asked if this means that only one additional person is needed. Mr. Eggleston said
that is correct.
Mr. Tucker asked Mr. Eggleston to talk about the Earlysville Fire station. Mr. Eggleston said
the Earlysville Volunteer Fire Department recently sent a letter to staff requesting that the 12-hour per
day, five-day per week career staffing be maintained in Earlysville after the new Northern Station
opens. During the early planning stages for the Northern Station, it was thought that at least one
career person from Earlysville (staffing times would change from 12 hours/day to 10 hours/day) could
be transferred to the Northern Station. Staff realizes now that Earlysville still needs the daytime help
and supports keeping career staff there for the 12-hour day. As planning goes forward for the
Northern Station, some analysis will be needed to determine what the staffing requirements will be for
that station after considering daytime staffing at Earlysville.
Mr. Boyd asked the timeframe for construction of the new station. Mr. Eggleston said staff is
working out a deal for the land. When that is finalized, construction could start in the latter part of
Spring 2005. Construction of the station will take one year.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the fire station will be located in the UVA Real Estate Park. Mr.
Eggleston said it will be in the park.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Board has decided that is the correct thing to do rather than
increasing the size of an existing station. Mr. Eggleston said due to the amount of development
occurring in that area, a fire station is needed in that location to serve the Hollymead development
area. Analyses were done of existing stations and response time standards could not be met without
this new station.
Mr. Wyant asked how Earlysville and this new northern station will operate. Mr. Eggleston
said one reason he supports staffing for daytime hours in Earlysville is because that staff will be
needed to augment the northern station staffing. Also, if there was a fire in the rural area, the northern
station could back up Earlysville. He said the County has a well-integrated system that involves
several fire stations responding to a call. It is important to have enough staffing in the daytime to take
care of any problem. He said that is the operational side. On the administrative side, they are
currently working with Earlysville to recruit some additional volunteers so there will be a large
volunteer presence in this new station.
Mr. Wyant asked if staff had ever considered having a “floater.” Mr. Eggleston said a floater is
used now to avoid paying overtime. Also staffing standards are constantly being revised.
Mr. Wyant asked about recruiting volunteers. Has it been successful? Mr. Eggleston said
because of concerns about recruiting another task force has been developed to help address the
recruitment process. They are using a global recruitment process and it is working. Classes were
held and surveyed and it showed that over 50 percent of the attendees joined.
Mr. Bowerman said the Fire Office has been very proactive in terms of dealing with volunteers
and working with the individual stations to see that they have the staffing needed. He thinks the staff
has kept abreast of all of the important issues. He complimented Mr. Eggleston for his work with the
volunteers.
Mr. Wyant asked if the CARS ambulance driver will move out toward Seminole Trail. Mr.
Eggleston said he understands the driver of that ambulance will be housed at the Seminole Trail
Department when it is not deployed.
Mr. Boyd said during budget discussions the thought about not having the same level of
service in the rural area as in the urban area was mentioned. He thought the Board was talking about
the proximity of a one station to another and response times. He never realized until now that the
Board’s policy would leave two hours per day at Stony Point and potentially Earlysville where there
would be no coverage. He is concerned about this and will propose that the Board establish 12-hour
coverage as a policy.
Mr. Tucker said staff needs directions from the Board about amending the policy to 12-hour
coverage, five days per week, weekdays, and one additional firefighter, as well as directions
concerning Earlysville.
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
Mr. Boyd asked if the Board establishes that as a policy if it will carry over to Earlysville when
and if that situation comes about. Mr. Eggleston said it would have an impact not only on Stony Point,
but on Scottsville and Earlysville.
Mr. Tucker said Earlysville is actually requesting that their career firefighters stay in Earlysville.
They do not want their career people moved to the new northern station.
Mr. Bowerman asked if when talking about Scottsville it is the fire department or the rescue
squad. Mr. Eggleston said it is the Scottsville Rescue Squad.
Mr. Rooker said he does not think the Board can make a decision about Earlysville today. He
would like to have some information about how the new station will be staffed and, historically, what
types of calls are being received in that area now.
Mr. Wyant asked if a minimum policy of three is being established. Otherwise, some stations
would have to be defined as substations. He does not think that is doable.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks this needs to be discussed further before making a decision that
is broader than the question before the Board today. This will tie in with everything the Board is going
to talk about concerning the rural areas. If the Board fosters further development in the rural areas,
then this is only a small indication of the expense that will be encountered. She is willing to follow Mr.
Boyd’s advice for his district and appreciates staff essentially cutting the expense in half for this year.
She is still uneasy because of the rural service policy and the path the Board is stepping down, and its
budgetary consequences. She does not think the Board should make a broad policy for the entire
County at this point.
Mr. Wyant said if the GIS system were used, it could demonstrate to the Board staffing
requirements and the actual boundaries these stations have to cover. Mr. Eggleston said staff has
worked with GIS to put maps together for the northern station, and it shows there is a service gap now
in that development area.
Mr. Rooker said this proposed policy change is not increasing the level of service in the rural
areas. Several weeks ago, the Board adopted a policy for providing emergency services and
response times in the development area and in the rural area. There is a difference in response times
in those two areas. The question is whether the Board will allocate resources to meet the lesser
standard of service it established for the rural areas. There is nothing in the policy to support a
position of having no coverage in the rural areas during certain hours. He thinks the Board should go
ahead and be sure it is staffing to meet the policy objectives which have been established.
Mr. Dorrier asked for a motion to approve the Stony Point and Scottsville staffing requests.
Motion
was offered by Mr. Boyd to support revising County policy to change the staffing
standard for rural areas to ensure coverage 12 hours per day, five days per week, for Stony Point Fire
Department and the Scottsville Rescue squad, and to appropriate the necessary funds to accomplish
this for the fiscal year.
Mr. Rooker asked if Earlysville is included in the motion.
Mr. Tucker said this policy should apply to any station where the County provides career
motion
staffing. Mr. Boyd said that was the intent of his .
Ms. Thomas said she did not see the fiscal impact of this for future years mentioned in the
Executive Summary.
Mr. Tucker said some of the positions have already been funded, so only an additional amount
for this year is needed to meet that new policy.
Mr. Rooker said he understands this would cost an additional $57,500, but for this fiscal year
only one-half of that amount would be allocated. Mr. Tucker said that is right.
Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. Boyd to restate the motion.
move
Mr. Boyd said he will to revise County policy to change the staffing standard for rural
areas to ensure coverage 12 hours per day, five days per week in the rural area stations and to
appropriate the necessary funds to accomplish this for this fiscal year.
seconded
The motion was then by Mr. Wyant.
Mr. Rooker said he wanted to be certain that without doing this, coverage objectives in the
rural areas cannot be met. Mr. Eggleston said it would mean that the staffing would have to go to a
10-hour day.
Mr. Rooker said for two hours there would be no staff on duty. Mr. Tucker said only the
volunteers could cover that time; they cannot so that is the reason this is being discussed today.
Mr. Bowerman asked if this means that if a request is received from another station it would
get the same thing. Mr. Eggleston said that is his understanding.
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. MACAA Presentation by Noah Schwartz, Executive Director.
Mr. Noah Schwartz said he is the Executive Director of the Monticello Area Community Action
Agency. He came to Charlottesville from an agency in Connecticut, and has been here for about three
years. This is his first time to appear before this Board. He gave a short history of the agency, and
said that many people in the County have been involved with MACAA over the years (see copy of
presentation on file in the Clerk’s Office).
Mr. Schwartz said MACAA has a yearly budget of about $3.7 million. It delivers ten core
programs in fulfilling its mission to eradicate poverty in the community. Their largest program is Head
Start. They also have the Parents Education Program, Project Discovery Elementary Program, and
Project Discovery High School Program. Their case management programs include Family Support
and Development geared toward families which are one-step away from full sufficiency and Rural
Outreach Programs which provide similar case management in the rural counties. They operate the
Hope House Program which is a transitional housing program for families coming out of shelters or in
near homeless situations. Also, the Wheels to Work Program provides cars to needy families so they
have transportation to work or training.
Mr. Schwartz said their newest program is the CARES Program, an emergency services
program providing cash assistance to families at risk of losing their homes or having their utilities
terminated due to nonpayment. They run a program in collaboration with the Thomas Jefferson Health
Department, that is the Jefferson Area CHIP Program which provides health and outreach services.
Mr. Schwartz said MACAA is well-supported by the communities in which it operates. Of their
$3.7 million budget, there is just a little over $180,000 from Albemarle County, $285,000 from the City
of Charlottesville, and $107,000 from the United Way. The agency also brings in about $165,000
through general fundraising activities.
Mr. Schwartz said MACAA is a mission-driven organization focusing on documented needs of
low-income families and individuals. Every year they formally gather a wide set of information about
the community in determining their course for the year. Programming does not change radically from
year to year, but how it works tends to change.
Mr. Schwartz said the biggest need in Albemarle County now is Limited English Proficiency
(LEP) issues. According to the Virginia Department of Education, LEP students in Albemarle have
increased 400 percent since 1997. The biggest issue for those families is living and working in the
County when they are struggling with language. The second issue on the side of the service provider
is how to provide service to those individuals. He said Head Start uses a number of different
community resources to address the issue. Spanish is not their main concern; in Head Start they have
students who speak eight other languages. The CHIP program does well in dealing with LEP issues.
For their CARES Program they have been able to hire a bi-lingual receptionist to help with outreach for
that program.
Mr. Schwartz said they are still sorting through data from their annual Client Needs Survey.
He listed the top ten issues (which are just indicators of services needed) as: regular dental care; help
with the social behavior of a child; help with improving reading skills of a child; help paying utility bills;
major repairs to a car; financial assistance to buy food; move to more affordable housing; learn about
food nutrition; dental care for a current condition; and, financial assistance to purchase a car.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this assumes that the person with the need already has a job. Mr.
Schwartz said MACAA uses that as a broad indicator for any client they serve.
Mr. Schwartz said relative to affordable housing, MACAA has been working with the TJ
Planning District and local housing agencies, including the Albemarle County Housing Office, to
design and implement a counseling program for residents on the Section 8 Choice Voucher waiting
list. This counseling helps clients when they come off of housing vouchers to successfully “lease up”
and better use their housing subsidy. MACAA has a home maintenance and repair program with this
program, a rights/responsibilities of the tenants’ piece to the program, and a home search piece. He
said this program costs nothing because the participating agencies volunteer their time. He said the
housing agencies put up $25,000 that can be used as loans for people who attended the courses so
they can use part of that as a security deposit. He said no one from Albemarle has taken advantage
of the loans to date.
Mr. Schwartz said a big issue among the top ten has to do with finances. They are trying to
address that through their CARES Program. He said MACAA had CARES as one its programs for
years, then three years ago gave it up and it was run by Work Source Enterprises. MACAA took the
program back this year as it is a better fit with its mission. It is geared as preventing eviction and utility
terminations for people who typically have a balanced budget. It comes into play where a person
normally has enough income to pay their bills except for one month where some unforeseen expense
was incurred. In the two months they have had the program they have spent about $30,000 in direct
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
cash assistance. For those who are not eligible for the program, they are referred to other
organizations in the community.
Mr. Schwartz said the Charlottesville/Albemarle Dental Association has formed the
Charlottesville/Albemarle Dental Access Task Force (CADA) to look at creating another clinic in town
to provide dental care, essentially for children. He said MACAA had been trying to address that issue
and recently received a $2,000 grant to subsidize Head Start students to have their dental care issues
addressed. About 60 percent of all Head Start students need dental care.
Mr. Schwartz said in an age where there is a focus on outcome measurements as part of the
budgeting process, agencies lose sight of the clients who do not fit prescribed program needs.
MACAA does not have specific programming to address those needs, but now has a receptionist who
helps to make referrals. Everybody is sent to CARES which is also making referrals. There is a need
for funding for that sort of position since the needs of clients do not fit into a neat box. He then offered
to answer questions.
Mr. Dorrier thanked Mr. Schwartz for the report. He said MACAA does provide needed
services to the community.
Note
(: At 10:55 a.m., the Board recessed and reconvened at 11:05 a.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Citizen Survey Results.
Mr. Tom Guterbock, Director of the Center for Survey Research, University of Virginia, was
present and gave a slide presentation of the results of the most recent citizen satisfaction survey (see
copy of all materials on file in the Clerk’s Office with the permanent records of the Board of
Supervisors).
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. End-of-Year 2003-04 Financial Report.
Mr. Richard Wiggans, Director of Finance, gave a short slide presentation related to this
financial report. He referred the Board members to Attachment A of the Executive Summary (on file).
He said the numbers he will present today are all preliminary numbers because the auditors have not
yet presented the County with their report. At this time it appears the County ended the fiscal year
with revenues which exceeded appropriations by approximately $5.8 million. This was due primarily
due to Real Estate Taxes, Sales and Use Taxes, Business Licenses, Utility Taxes, Other Local
Revenues and State Revenues. There was one decrease in revenues and that was from Other Local
Revenues which decreased by $0.135 million primarily related to interest earnings.
Mr. Wiggans said on the expenditure side, the year ended with spending $1.675 million or 1.1
percent under budget. He said this amount came from two primary sources. General Fund
departments saved $1.566 million. There were also non-departmental savings of approximately
$100,000.
Mr. Wiggans said the financial year began with a Fund Balance of $13.015 million. Taking the
two figures he gave above, $7.475 million was generated in additional revenues over expenditures
and that makes a preliminary fund balance of $20.49 million. An amount of $13.0 million was set
aside in a reserve account for cash flow purposes, leaving a preliminary available Fund Balance of
$7.49 million. In July, August and September, the Board had appropriation requests totaling $2.920
million and those were authorized. That leaves a revised ending balance of $4.571 million.
Mr. Wiggans said staff proposes using approximately $0.698 million of that number in four
categories. First, there is $94,000 worth of purchase orders which were not filled in FY ’04; $348,000
worth of projects that were not completed; $124,000 for the UVA share of the 800 MHz project debt;
and, later today there is an agenda item where staff recommends re-appropriating $132,00 worth of
supplemental initiative requests from the Fund Balance (which includes funds for new digital recording
software and hardware for the upstairs Circuit Court Room; consultant funding for organizational
developments not used in FY ‘04; funds for the Fire/Rescue Department to conduct recruitment drives,
etc.; appropriation of cost recovery funds received by the Fire Marshal’s Office for a Hazardous
Materials and Environmental Compliance Program; temporary help for the Community Development
Central Operations Division; GIS software; consultant assistance, software and copy costs for
emergency services addressing map book production; re-appropriation of startup funds for the
Groundwater Program Manager position which was not filled in FY ’04; and, an emergency response
vehicle for an EMS Supervisor).
Mr. Boyd said he was confused by the written report. Why is the County paying for the
University of Virginia’s share of the debt for the 800 MHz radio system? He thinks that should be
money coming to the County from UVA.
Ms. Thomas said she had the same question.
Mr. Tucker said this resulted from an agreement approved by the Board a few months ago.
Mr. Melvin Breeden, Budget Manager, said the County financed the debt on the entire 800
MHz system. The University’s share was roughly $1.0 million. The University said they wanted to pay
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
off their share, so the County has received their $1.0 million and it was applied to some capital
projects. That means the County now has to assume the University’s share of the debt service on the
total loan, and it amounts to $124,000 at this time.
Mr. Boyd asked if the debt is a bond issue and would it have been possible to just redeem
those bonds. Mr. Breeden said it is a lease/purchase type of financing on that project. While that was
a possibility, there were some other capital projects pending and it was better to apply that money to
those projects considering the interest rate on that financing.
Mr. Wiggans said starting with the $4.571 million figure, using $700,000 of that amount for
other uses gives a revised figure of approximately $3.9 million, which will be the current available Fund
Balance.
Mr. Wiggans said he would like to discuss how staff recommends using that Fund Balance.
During the 2004 Virginia General Assembly Session, the Legislature revised the Personal Property
Tax Relief (PPTR) Act. Beginning in FY 2006-07, they are capping PPTR reimbursements to localities
at $950.0 million. Albemarle County will get a percentage of that based on its reimbursement
requests. However, the way the legislation was written, the County will not receive reimbursement
from the State for the Spring 2006 billing until after the end of the fiscal year. The County is looking at
a potential $8.0 million loss of revenues for its FY 2005-06 budget. The State is aware of this and the
issue is being studied by various committees. It will be discussed in the Legislative Session beginning
next year. Staff is optimistic that State funding will be available, but there is no certainty of that. He
said there are other potential funding sources that could be considered. The preliminary number for
the School Fund at the end of FY ’04 is approximately $3.0 million. Therefore, staff recommends that
the available end-of-the year funds in the amount of $3.873 million be held in the Fund Balance
reserve pending a resolution of the State PPTR crisis.
Mr. Tucker said this is an issue staff has been following. This matter will be presented to the
area legislators when the Board meets with them in December. VACo and VML both have proposed
legislation. There are approximately 32 localities (those that have split billing of taxes) “which are in
the same boat.”
Mr. Rooker said the Legislature also fixed the amount of that reimbursement so revenue will
never grow again. When the State first eliminated the car tax, there was an assurance given that the
funds that otherwise would have been available to localities would not be reduced. That assurance
has been breeched by this legislation.
Mr. Bowerman asked why this legislation was adopted in this manner. Mr. Wiggans said the
savings to the State will be approximately $240.0 million.
Mr. Rooker said although that one payment will be deferred, the County will not lose the
stream of revenue, but it will never get the $8.0 million back; that $8.0 million will have to be made up
from the pockets of the taxpayers in Albemarle County.
Mr. Tucker said staff is suggesting that the Schools do the same, hold on to their fund
balance. Part of the problem is that the Board will be in the middle of the next budget work sessions
before knowing whether the problem gets corrected. He said a lot of people at the State level are
aware of the problem, including those in the Governor’s Office, and they have said they will support
legislation to correct the problem.
Mr. Rooker said this problem is not mentioned in TJPDC’s Legislative program. Mr. Davis
said the legislation only affects Albemarle County.
Mr. Rooker said he does not think any member of the TJPDC would oppose legislation to
correct this problem. He thinks they should look at modifying the program to include this request.
Mr. Boyd said he was curious as to what would have been done in past years with this money.
Mr. Tucker said some of it would go into the CIP Reserve and some would be used to fund re-
appropriations.
_______________
Public Hearing
Agenda Item No. 12. : Proposed FY 2004 Budget Amendment. (Notice of
this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on September 26, 2004.)
Mr. Melvin Breeden said these numbers were reflected in the figures presented to the Board
under the previous agenda item. He said this budget amendment is comprised of 14 separate
appropriations (ten of which have already been approved by the Board), in the amount of
$912,218.35. The four new requests are:
Appropriation No. 2004-090, $77,856.89. The General Adult Education Program is a
federally-funded program that provides instructional services to meet the needs of adults who are
working toward a high school diploma. Albemarle County, by Federal mandate, provides a 40 percent
match to receive General Adult Education funds. Part-time teaching and administrative staff provide
adult education instructional services to approximately 160 adults in the area. Expenditures exceeded
appropriations for FY 2003-04 due to an increase in enrollment. This program received an additional
$2,576.83 from tuition for FY 2003-04.
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
The need to provide additional learning time for students at risk of not meeting benchmarks
has been recognized by the School Division and funding to provide intervention during the summer
has been allocated. In addition to local funding, the State provides summer remedial funding. The
Division has traditionally operated high school summer school as a self-sustaining program. Local and
state funding was provided for elementary and middle school programs. Expenditures exceeded the
appropriation for FY 2003-04 by $38,831.00. It is requested that $1,945.67 from the Fund Balance be
used and the remaining balance of $36,885.33 be covered by additional revenue received in FY 2003-
04 from the State and for tuition.
The State Department of Education reimbursed Albemarle County Schools $538.56 for
satellite related expenses incurred by the Albemarle Resource Center.
The Drivers’ Safety Fund consists of Driver’s Education Behind-the-Wheel and the Motorcycle
Safety Programs operating on a fee for service basis. Approximately 1,300 students are trained each
year in Driver Safety. Operating before school, after school, and in the summer, students receive
eighteen hours of training. Expenditures exceeded appropriations for FY 2003-04 due to an increase
in the number of classes and types of classes offered. This program received an additional
$24,783.90 from the State and $6,578.79 for tuition for FY 2003-04. This additional revenue will be
used to offset the expenditures incurred.
The Virginia Department of Education awarded Albemarle Public Schools an additional
$4,547.81 for the Community Service Grant in support of the Enterprise Center’s Alternative Program
that serves long-term suspended or expelled students. The Enterprise Center will partner with
TeensGIVE, a community attention program that will provide structured community service activities to
suspended students at the Enterprise Center.
Appropriation No. 2004-091, $760.70. The Shannon Foundation for Excellence in Public
Education annually awards several Albemarle County Public School teachers with project grants.
Expenditures have exceeded appropriations for FY 2003-04. Some grant recipients were unable to
expend their funds in FY 2002-03 but did so in FY 2003-04. It is requested that $760.70 be
reappropriated to cover expenditures incurred in FY 2003-04.
Appropriation No. 2004-092, $26,243.92. The Bureau of Justice awards continuous funding
toward the purchase of bulletproof vests to the Albemarle County Police Department, Sheriff’s
Department and the Regional Jail. The award funds up to 50 percent of the total cost applied for. The
local match amounts for each department come from their current police supplies budget.
Appropriation No. 2004-093, FY 2004 Over-Expenditures, $329,000.00. General Fund over-
expenditures total $329,000.00. Funding for these expenditures is provided from the Fund Balance.
?
Board of Supervisors, $13,300.00. Health insurance for new member and a significant
increase in public official liability insurance.
?
Commonwealth’s Attorney, $6,000.00. Funding for health insurance and salary increases.
?
Emergency Communications Center, $8,600.00. Expenses related to transfer of Fire Dispatch
from the City of Charlottesville to the Emergency Communications Center
?
Fire/Rescue – Monticello Station, $30,000.00. Salary and overtime expenses related to
adequate staffing.
?
Fire/Rescue – Tax Credit, $3,500.00. Cost of program exceeded projections.
?
Juvenile Detention, $15,100.00. Usage and per diem increases due to reduced State funding.
?
General Services – Solid Waste, $111,500.00. Expenditures for Keene Landfill, recycling
program and tipping fees exceeded projections.
?
Tax Relief for the Elderly, $57,000.00. Increase in number of applicants.
?
Tax Refunds, $84,000.00. Refund of utility tax erroneously reported and paid to the County in
prior fiscal year.
?
The School Fund over-expenditure of $40,000.00 is funded by a transfer from the
Maintenance category to the Construction category to cover the cost of asbestos removal.
Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public
hearing was closed and the matter was placed before the Board.
Motion
was offered by Mr. Rooker to approve the budget amendment as requested, and to
seconded
adopt the following resolutions of appropriation. The motion was by Mr. Bowerman. Roll
was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2004-090
DATE: 10/6/2004
EXPLANATION: VARIOUS EDUCATION PROGRAMS
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 3133 63321 132100 P/T Wages-Teacher J1 1,600.00
1 3133 63321 210000 FICA J1 122.40
1 3133 63321 360000 Advertising J1 303.00
1 3133 63321 580000 Miscellaneous J1 56.75
1 3133 63321 601300 Inst Supplies J1 494.68
1 3310 61120 137100 P/T Wages-Bus Driver J1 11,116.78
1 3310 61120 210000 FICA J1 850.40
1 3310 61124 132100 P/T Wages-Teacher J1 5,552.00
1 3310 61124 137100 PT/ Wages-Bus Driver J1 8,257.72
1 3310 61124 210000 FICA J1 1,056.44
1 3310 61125 132100 P/T Wages-Teacher J1 11,100.00
1 3310 61125 210000 FICA J1 897.66
1 2114 61320 331100 Repair/Maint-Equip J1 538.56
1 3305 61235 132101 PT Wages-Teacher J1 13,696.29
1 3305 61235 210000 FICA J1 1,047.77
1 3305 61236 132100 P/T Wages-Teacher J1 3,061.80
1 3305 61236 210000 FICA J1 234.23
1 3305 61237 115000 Salaries-Ofc Clerical J1 12,375.86
1 3305 61237 210000 FICA J1 946.74
1 3154 61311 301210 Contract Services J1 4,547.81
2 3133 16000 161232 Revenue-Tuition J2 2,576.83
2 3310 16000 161222 Tuition J2 4,171.33
2 3310 24000 240282 Revenue-State J2 32,714.00
2 3310 51000 510100 Approp-Fund Balance J2 1,945.67
2 2000 24000 240262 Rev-Elec Classroom J2 538.56
2 3305 16000 161209 Driver Ed-Motorcycle J2 6,578.79
2 3305 24000 240771 Driver Ed-State J2 24,783.90
2 3154 33000 330031 Comm Service Grant J2 4,547.81
3133 0501 Est Revenue 2,576.83
3133 0701 Appropriation 2,576.83
3310 0501 Est Revenue 38,831.00
3310 0701 Appropriation 38,831.00
2000 0501 Est Revenue 538.56
2000 0701 Appropriation 538.56
3305 0501 Est Revenue 31,362.69
3305 0701 Appropriation 31,362.69
3154 0501 Est Revenue 4,547.81
3154 0701 Appropriation 4,547.81
TOTAL 155,713.78 77,856.89 77,856.89
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2004-091
DATE: 10/6/2004
EXPLANATION: SCHOOL GRANTS AND PROGRAMS
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 3502 51000 510100 Fund Balance J 2 760.70
1 3502 60606 601300 Instruct Supp J 1 760.70
3502 0501 Est Revenue 760.70
3502 0701 Appropriation 760.70
TOTAL 1,521.40 760.70 760.70
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO: 2004-092
DATE: 10/6/2004
EXPLANATION: BULLET PROOF VEST GRANT
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1241 33000 330001 Federal Grant J 2 6,210.28
2 1241 51000 510109 Transfer - In J 2 20,033.64
1 1241 31013 601000 Police - Vests J 1 35,449.95
1 1241 31020 601000 Sheriff - Vests J 1 (1,811.90)
1 1241 33024 601000 Jail - Vests J 1 (7,394.13)
1241 0501 Est Revenue 26,243.92
1241 0701 Appropriation 26,243.92
TOTAL 52,487.84 26,243.92 26,243.92
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2004-093
DATE: 10/6/2004
EXPLANATION: FY ‘04 GENERAL FUND AND SCHOOL FUND OVEREXPENDITURES
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 11010 231000 BOS-Health Ins J 1 4,400.00
1 1000 11010 360000 B0S-Adv J 1 5,900.00
1 1000 11010 530700 BOS-Pub Off Ins J 1 3,000.00
1 1000 22010 110000 Comm Att-Salary J 1 2,000.00
1 1000 22010 231000 Comm Att-Health J 1 4,000.00
1 1000 31040 560610 ECCFire Dispatch J 1 8,600.00
1 1000 32019 110000 F/R-Mont.-Salaries J 1 30,000.00
1 1000 39000 561405 Fire/Res Tax Cr J 1 3,500.00
1 1000 39000 563400 Juv Detention J 1 15,100.00
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
1 1000 42040 390001 G/S-Keene Landfill J 1 41,000.00
1 1000 42040 390010 G/S-Recycling J 1 21,000.00
1 1000 42040 510430 G/S-Tipping Fees J 1 49,500.00
1 1000 59000 579100 Tax Relief J 1 57,000.00
1 1000 92010 580301 Tax Refunds J 1 84,000.00
1 2433 62420 510400 Maint-Elec Serv. J 1 (40,000.00)
2 1000 51000 510100 G/F Balance J 2 329,000.00
1000 0501 Est Revenue 329,000.00
1000 0701 Appropriation 329,000.00
TOTAL 658,000.00 329,000.00 329,000.00
_______________
Public Hearing
Agenda Item No. 13. : Proposed FY 2005 Budget Amendment. (Notice of
this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on September 26, 2004.)
Mr. Melvin Breeden said this budget amendment is comprised of 17 separate appropriations,
four of which have already been approved by the Board (No. 2005-006 provided for the transfer of
$164,322.93 in Fund Balance from the Fire Loan Fund to the General CIP Fund Balance; No. 2005-
007 allocated $19,340.70 in additional State Fire Program Funds for equipment purchases in the Fire
Rescue Department; No. 2005-008 in the amount of $50,000.00 provided funding to bring Sunridge
Road up to State standards; and, No. 2005-009 in the amount of $175,000.00 provided funding for
three firefighters/ALS). These 17 appropriations total $31,595,990.45, primarily for re-appropriation of
funds to existing projects.
Mr. Breeden said the 13 new appropriations are as follows:
Appropriation No. 2005-010, $124,231.00. Funding is required to recognize the payoff by the
University of Virginia for their share of the 800 MHz Radio Debt and to assume the UVA share.
Appropriation No. 2005-011, $15,000.00. Funds requested by AHIP to complete the financing
for a replacement home in the Red Hill area. The existing mobile home is too dilapidated to repair and
will be replaced by a new manufactured home. AHIP is receiving $50,000 from the State's Indoor
Plumbing Program for the estimated $73,000 job cost. This request is to appropriate $15,000 of
recaptured program income from past rehabilitation projects. The funds are restricted to low- and
moderate-income housing initiatives for which this project qualifies. AHIP will secure the funds as a
part of the overall financing through a deed of trust with payments based on the client's ability to pay.
Appropriation No. 2005-012, $45,684.79. The County has received funds from the Federal
Government for the Child Care Quality Initiative. These funds will be used in conjunction with the City
of Charlottesville Department of Social Services (DSS) to create a position that will be housed at
Albemarle DSS and will serve both departments under the grant. No local match is required.
Appropriation No. 2005-013, $361,919.45. Albemarle County Public Schools received a grant
from the Carol M. White Physical Education Program. The federally-funded program allocates funds
for initiating, expanding or improving physical education programs for kindergarten through 12th grade
students by providing equipment and support to enable students to participate actively in physical
education activities, and providing funds for staff and teacher training and education in order to make
progress toward meeting State standards for physical education. There is a fund balance retained by
the Federal government from FY ‘2004 which may be used for FY ‘2005 in the amount of $214,983.25.
The Charlottesville-Albemarle Community Foundation Grant was not fully expensed during FY
‘2004 and has a fund balance of $5,157.20. It is requested that the Fund Balance be re-appropriated
for use in FY ‘2005 to help purchase musical instruments.
Albemarle County and Charlottesville City Schools have partnered with the University of
Virginia to implement a Carnegie Foundation Incentive Grant, “Teachers for a New Era”. To
accomplish the goal of the program, University staff currently is partnered with School Division staff
over a three-year grant period to develop and implement a series of initiatives designed to recruit, train
and retain teachers within the profession. One component of the larger grant initiative is the allocation
of funds to partnering school divisions so that they can develop best practice mentorship programs
within schools. Division staff developed a TNE proposal for using funds to: release a full-time teacher
advisor to work with new secondary teachers, and to fund a .25 teaching assistant in four pilot
elementary schools to provide release time for mentors to coach and work more closely with new
teachers. Division staff received notification from Dr. Victor Luftig, Teachers for a New Era Director,
that the staffing component of the Albemarle County proposal has been approved with assurance of
funding from the Carnegie Foundation.
Appropriation No. 2005-014, $93,824.48. Several departments had funding for projects
approved in FY ‘2004 that had not been completed as of June 30, 2004. This appropriation will re-
appropriate the remaining balances for the uncompleted projects for which purchase orders were
outstanding as of June 30, 2004.
Appropriation No. 2005-015, $867,025.07. The Department of Justice has awarded the
Albemarle County Police Department a grant in the amount of $187,500.00 in Federal funding to
assist in the purchase of advanced in-car equipment for the Police Department’s mobile data computer
system.
The Department of Justice awarded the Albemarle County Police Department a grant in the
amount of $49,675.00 in federal funding to assist in the development of the mobile data system,
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
specifically to purchase ten Mobile Data Computers which will increase the efficiency, effectiveness
and privacy of communications between the Emergency Communication Center and police officers.
This increased efficiency and effectiveness will improve public safety and the local quality of life.
The Department of Justice awarded the Albemarle County Police Department a grant in the
amount of $99,350.00 in federal funding to purchase 20 in-car DVD cameras, designed for use by
police officers. Currently original VHS tapes must leave the evidence storage area for court. Because
the officer has the original VHS allows for an argument of tape manipulation. With a back-up DVD, all
originals will remain in the evidence storage area. There is no local match associated with this grant.
Recommended funds to be expended in FY ‘2005 total $3,158.24.
The U.S. Department of Justice awarded the Albemarle County Police Department a grant in
the amount of $21,388.00 with a local match of $2,376.00 for a total of $23,764.00 to fund overtime
hours by current officers in support of reducing crime and improvement of public safety.
Recommended funds to be expended in FY ‘2005 total $22,365.15.
Albemarle County received grant funds in the amount of $63,579.28 to assist in the
preparation of response to incidents involving mass destruction weapons. These funds will be split
equally between Fire/Rescue and the Police Department. The equipment purchased under these
grants must come only from the commodity areas targeted by the Federal government. There is no
local match. Recommended funds to be expended in FY ‘2005 total $2,411.33.
Albemarle County received a grant in the amount of $72,963.00 to assist the Police and
Fire/Rescue Departments in purchasing equipment related to domestic preparedness. The grant will
be split equally between the two departments. Equipment approved by the Department of Emergency
Management includes self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA), tactical vests, night vision
equipment, surveillance and monitoring equipment, and cardiac defibrillation equipment. There is no
local match. Recommended funds to be expended in FY ‘2005 total $34,630.35.
Albemarle County received a grant in the amount of $224,335.00 to assist the Police and
Fire/Rescue Departments in purchasing equipment and training related to domestic preparedness.
The grant will be split equally between the two departments. Training will cost approximately five
percent of the total grant with the remainder of the funds used for equipment. Examples of equipment
approved by the Department of Emergency Management include self-contained breathing apparatus
(SCBA’s), tactical vests, night vision equipment, surveillance and monitoring equipment, and cardiac
defibrillation equipment. There is no local match. Recommended funds to be expended in FY ‘2005
total $154,456.10.
There is a Greenway Program Grant in the amount of $43,150.00 from the Virginia Recreation
and Trail Fund for the Old Mills Trail downstream from Free Bridge. The project is currently going
through the site plan review process with construction planned in 2005.
Albemarle County is a rapidly developing area; part of this development is bicycle activity.
Several hundred miles in the County are designated as “Share the Road” with bicyclists routes. In
addition to the actual accidents and injuries, the County is experiencing a growing number of
complaints about motorists and bicyclists not abiding by the laws of the road. In an effort to increase
public safety awareness and increase coverage at large “non vehicle” friendly events, the DMV
awarded Albemarle County a grant in the amount of $5,000.00 to purchase bicycles and uniforms for
officers; there is no local match. Recommended funds to be expended in FY’ 2005 total $1,892.03.
The County of Albemarle received an award of $375,100.00, of which $341,000.00 is for direct
cost of construction and $34,100.00 to cover the cost of administration, from the Department of
Housing and Community Development through the Community Development Block Grant program to
construct a 3,295 square foot community center at Whitewood Village Apartments. The center will be
used to provide after-school programs for children and other life-skill programs for low- to moderate-
income residents of the apartments and neighborhood. Recommended funds to be expended in FY
‘2005 total $364,786.87.
The Albemarle County Police Department, Police Senior Advisory Council, and the Sheriff’s
Office are working together to enhance safety services and education to the local senior population.
The Department of Criminal Justice Services has awarded a grant in the amount of $3,000.00 for the
purpose of printing brochures on local scams and frauds to be used in meetings and functions
concerning the senior population of Albemarle County. There is a 25 percent local match that will be
transferred from the Police Department’s budget.
Appropriation No. 2005-016, $29,063,044.57. Ongoing Capital Improvement Fund projects
have balances requiring re-appropriation from FY ‘2004 to FY ‘2005. Local Government capital project
re-appropriations total $24,514,529.63, School Capital projects total $3,254,571.69, and Stormwater
projects total $1,293,943.25.
Appropriation No. 2005-017, $43,617.00. The U.S. Department of Justice has awarded the
Albemarle County Police Department a grant in the amount of $9,973.00 with a local match of
$1,108.00 for a total of $11,081.00. The grant will fund overtime hours by current officers in support of
reducing crime and improvement of public safety.
The Department of Criminal Justice Services has awarded the Albemarle County Police
Department a grant in the amount of $19,522.00 in federal funding with a local match of $6,507.00 for
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
a total of $26,029.00. These funds will be used to improve the capability to deter, detect and/or
prevent terrorism and to purchase equipment, supplies or services related to community policing and
crime prevention.
Appropriation No. 2005-018, Carryover for New Initiatives - $132,161.97. Funds totaling
$9,600.00 to defray costs for obtaining new digital recording software and hardware for the upstairs
Circuit Courtroom, and an update of equipment in the main Courtroom. The Albemarle County Circuit
Court is required by statute to record all proceedings in felony cases. It is imperative that this
equipment be updated to keep abreast of new changes in technology for the expeditious rendering of
cases coming before the Court. New equipment will be interchangeable and compatible between the
main and upstairs courtrooms.
Organizational Development consulting funding of $6,659.02 that was not used in FY ‘04 is
requested to be carried over to provide additional staff development opportunities around high
performance in 2004-2005.
Throughout each year, the Department of Fire/Rescue conducts numerous recruitment drives,
safety fairs, public education events, etc. The Department also provides materials and supplies to 12
of the fire rescue stations and many schools. The Department distributes a large amount of
brochures, information, pamphlets and public education materials. Staff regularly spends time loading
and unloading the materials into vehicles and transporting them to job sites. Staff recommends
purchasing a towable storage trailer to stow, transport and distribute these materials. The purchase of
the trailer would serve several purposes: 1) the trailer will be used in place of office space to stow
these materials; 2) the trailer will be marked as a mobile billboard to serve as a volunteer recruitment
resource; 3) the trailer can be used to transport these materials to job sites for all department
personnel to use. The cost to purchase and place this trailer in service is $4,300.00.
The Fire Marshal's Office has received cost recovery funds of $4,147.95 for its Hazardous
Materials and Environmental Compliance Program. These funds are associated with the
reimbursement of cost for mitigation, investigation and clean-up of hazardous materials incidents or
issues involving a threat to the environment. These recovery costs were deposited into the General
Fund. These funds are needed to continue to fund the program. The costs are derived from a
standard cost assessment for the City of Norfolk Environmental Compliance Program and the Federal
Environmental Protection Agency as well as actual costs.
Funding in the amount of $8,050.00 for temporary help (two positions) was used in the
Community Development Central Operations Division during July and August. Temporary help was
needed in this division due to one employee being on an extended leave and in order to get the
Central Reception and Central File areas established for the department. The division will be fully
staffed in September eliminating the need for the temporary help.
Funding of $2,500.00 for GIS software (ArcGIS Network Analyst Extension). This software
extension will complement the new GIS software solution (ArcGIS) that the County is now using
consistent with recommendations in the GIS Program Implementation Plan. The Network Analyst
Extension will be used to conduct drive-time analysis, point-to-point routing, service area delineation
and closest facility determinations. Staff will be able to use this software for time/distance applications
to determine the optimal locations for future public facilities such as fire/rescue stations or police
substations based on travel time, distance and service area delineation.
Funding of $12,500.00 for consultant assistance, software and copy costs for emergency
services addressing map book production. Consultant assistance is required to develop a map book
template using the new GIS software solution (ArcGIS) that the County is now using consistent with
recommendations in the GIS Program Implementation Plan. The Addressing Map Book is used by all
emergency service personnel (police, fire and rescue) when responding to calls for service in the field.
The Map Book provides sufficient detail to pinpoint the exact location (by structure address or road
name) of Enhanced-911 calls. The consultant assistance and software (ArcGIS Maplex Extension)
will provide County staff with a map book template and the necessary software tools to become self-
sufficient with respect to updating the Addressing Map Book on an annual basis. It is estimated that
map book production could take County staff a year or more to complete (taking current workload into
consideration) which could compromise staffs' ability to dedicate resources to other elements of the
GIS Program Implementation Plan.
A Groundwater Program Manager position was funded in FY ‘2004. However, this position
has not been filled at this time. This request is for the re-appropriation of the “start-up” funds needed
for this position (i.e. desk, chair, computer, phone, etc.) that were budgeted in FY ‘2004. The total
amount required is $8,905.00.
Emergency Response Vehicle (fully equipped) for EMS Supervisor. During the FY ‘2005
budget planning process, the need for an EMS Supervisor for the department was identified, justified
and ultimately approved by the Board. Funding for the position included salary and most one-time
costs associated with the position. The plan was to request one-time funds for an emergency
response vehicle through the end of year balance re-appropriation process. Cost estimates:
Vehicle/markings/emergency lights/radios, $42,000.00; defibrillator, $22,000.00; EMS equipment,
$8,000.00; command module/equipment rack, $3,500.00; for a total of $75,500.00.
Appropriation No. 2005-019, Re-appropriations for Incomplete Projects, $403,024.75. The
Office of Housing requests carryover of $33,005.00 to pay for consultant services for the City Share
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
Housing Study. The contract was not completed as of June 30, 2004. Contract services should be
completed during first quarter of FY ‘2005.
Expenses for the Magistrate's office are shared equally between the City of Charlottesville and
the County. The City, who serves as fiscal agent for the Magistrate's office, did not submit the final
invoice for FY ‘2004 expenses until after the FY ‘2004 accounts payable deadline. The invoice, in the
amount of $1,395.87, is for the period of February, 2004 through June, 2004 and will now have to be
paid from FY ‘2005 funds. A re-appropriation of $1,395.87 is requested to cover these expenses.
The Police Department has four police officer vacancies due to retirements and resignations.
They anticipate three more in FY ‘2005. These vacancies along with four new positions will be filled
by October, 2004. As a result, funding of $5,000.00 for new uniforms is needed. In addition, the
department has received twenty M-16 machine guns from the U.S. Army. Training on the use of these
weapons will necessitate an additional $10,000.00 for ammunition.
The Fire Department requests the re-appropriation of $2,772.06 in donations to continue
funding the Car Seat Safety Program.
The Clerk of the Circuit Court requests carryover of funds appropriated for purchase or lease
of microfilm reader printers to replace older models in the office. Because there are many on the
market with newer technology and the need to have machines that are user-friendly, the cost is
beyond what was appropriated. It is necessary to have at least two newer machines, but the amount
appropriated for FY 2004-05 only covers the cost of one machine. Request is made to add carryover
funds in the amount of $20,000.00 to the line item to allow for the possible purchase of two machines.
Funds are requested for payment of fees related to the Financial Forecasting Model,
subscription service to a Grants monitoring system and training funds not expended in the FY ‘2004
budget. An appropriation of $39,600.00 is required to cover these expenses.
The County’s contribution to the RWSA’s operating expenses totals $100,000.00 not
expended in FY ‘2004.
Southern Urban Area B Study. This is to provide funding to complete this joint study under a
contract with Renaissance Planning Group (PO 2004-0116) which the County is managing on behalf
of the City of Charlottesville, the University of Virginia and Albemarle County. The total request is
$47,171.00.
Northern Development Area Master Plan. This was previously approved by the Board as the
next master plan in the Development Areas. This plan was scheduled to be under contract in FY
‘2004 with funding anticipated to occur over two fiscal years (FY ‘2004 and FY ‘2005). Consultant
procurement is currently underway and it is anticipated that a contract will be finalized and this study
will commence by the end of this calendar year. Carryover funds of $144,080.82 will be combined
with FY ‘2005 funding of $115,000.00 to cover this contract.
Appropriation No. 2005-020, $10,000.00. Albemarle County Public Schools “Families in
Crisis” project has been awarded a $10,000.00 grant for the FY ‘2005 school year under the
McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Assistance Improvement Act, Title X, Part C, of the No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001. “Families in Crisis” is designed to create lasting and effective structure needs
of homeless students living in the Albemarle County School District, or being forced to move out of the
district because of circumstances beyond their control.
Appropriation No. 2005-021, $171,722.00. Western Albemarle High School and the Warrior
Club received donations in the amount of $125.00. Daniel Belew donated $25.00 and Nicholas and
Angela Lynn donated $100.00. These donations will be used to purchase weight room equipment for
the new Weight/Wellness Room that is being constructed at the school.
Albemarle County Public Schools received a one-time Community Health Partnership
donation in the amount of $6,868.00 from Martha Jefferson Hospital. This donation will be used to
purchase three Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs). The gift matches the funding budgeted for
AEDs by the School Board and will be used to purchase additional AEDs for each of the three high
schools.
Woodbrook Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $1,500.00 from Century
21, Ray Caddell and Associates. This donation will be used by the School Community Group to assist
with neighborhood-based activities and to train parents and teachers on focus areas and to support
the homework club for the students at the school.
The Sam's Club Foundation has awarded Agnor-Hurt Elementary School a grant in the
amount of $2,000.00. This grant will be used for the literacy education program.
Five Albemarle County Public School teachers have been awarded staff development
stipends in the amount of $1,000.00 each under the Golden Apple Award. Better Living, Inc. is the
sponsor of the Golden Apple Award.
The Shannon Foundation for Excellence in Public Education has awarded several teachers of
Albemarle County Public Schools grants totaling $6,229.00. Baker-Butler received $2,825.00,
Broadus Wood received $492.00, Brownsville received $937.00, Hollymead received $500.00,
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
Woodbrook received $500.00 and Yancey received $975.00. These grants will provide opportunities
for various projects to benefit the students at the respective schools.
The Virginia Department of Education awarded Albemarle County Public Schools a Project
Graduation Regional Academy Grant in the amount of $75,000.00 and a Continuation Academy Grant
in the amount of $75,000.00. The grants are state-funded, non-competitive grants awarded to
collaborative remedial efforts of two or more school divisions within each Superintendent's Study
Group Region. In Region 5 only Albemarle County and Charlottesville City Schools elected to
participate together. Albemarle County is serving as the fiscal agent for this grant. The Continuation
Academy Grant funds will be serving seniors who should graduate in 2004 but have not obtained the
appropriate verified credits in reading, writing and algebra, and a Project Graduation Summer
Regional Academy focusing on juniors who need verified credits in algebra.
Appropriation No. 2005-022, $20,394.67. Appropriation of unexpended grant balances for the
Emergency Communication Center.
__________
Ms. Thomas noted one item saying “County’s contribution to the RWSA’s operating budget . . .
.” She asked if this should be for the RSWA, Rivanna Solid Waste Authority. Mr. Tucker said that is
correct, it should be RSWA.
Ms. Thomas said she was surprised to learn that the Police have received twenty M-16
machine guns. That led her to thinking that the County is receiving lots of grants for weapons dealing
with mass destruction and domestic preparedness, or the terrorism act. She knows the Police
Department has someone who is doing a great job writing grant applications. She just wants to make
sure expectations are not being built up that will have to be met with local dollars when the grants run
out. She trusts staff will always have that in mind.
Mr. Rooker asked if the Police Department had $10,000 to spend if this is the place that would
be chosen to spend it. Mr. Tucker said he can find the answer to that question. It will be ongoing
training; it will not be just one training set.
Ms. Thomas said the Police received the machine guns so the County is not paying for them.
There is only one sharpshooter on staff now. Should 20 people be trained to operate these guns?
She does not usually question these things, but this one was different. Mr. Breeden said he does not
think this is the type of gun a sharpshooter would use.
Ms. Thomas said it was explained to her that that was the person who needed the gun
because rifles were not accurate enough.
Mr. Dorrier said Homeland Security is changing the approach to all of these problems and he
does not think the Board should second guess what is going on without getting more information.
Mr. Wyant said in reference to the appropriation for the emergency vehicle, where would this
person be housed and where would the equipment be housed. Mr. Breeden said the vehicle is
actually for use by the EMS supervisor position that was approved. These vehicles are presently used
for response and the supervisors are also trained as responders.
Mr. Tucker said during budget review the Board approves staffing and the use of one-time
money to fund capital items. That is the purpose of this request. The Board has already approved the
position.
Mr. Rooker said concerning the ammunition, if this will be a recurring item, he would like Chief
Miller to tell the Board he needs to have a number of people trained to use this particular weapon. He
does not think this is a weapon that the Police Department would normally use. Under what
circumstances would they use them?
Mr. Boyd said he was confused about what budget cycle the Board is talking about. Mr.
Breeden said this amendment is for FY 2005-06.
Mr. Boyd asked when the $29.0 million for capital projects will be spent. Mr. Breeden said this
deals with approved projects which had appropriated funding, and which have not yet been
completed.
Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing at this time. With no one from the public rising to speak,
the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion
was offered by Mr. Rooker to approve the budget amendment as advertised, and to
seconded
adopt the following Resolutions of Appropriation. The motion was by Mr. Boyd. Roll was
called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2005-010
DATE: 10/06/0-4
EXPLANATION: FUNDING TO ASSUME UVA’S SHARE OF 800 MHz RADIO DEBT
AND RECOGNITION OF UVA PAYOFF
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 93010 930011 Transfer to Debt J1 124,231.00
2 1000 51000 510100 General Fund Bal J2 124,231.00
1000 0501 Est Revenue 124,231.00
1000 0701 Appropriation 124,231.00
2 9910 51000 512004 Transfer fr G/F J2 124,231.00
2 9910 19000 160512 Univ of Virginia J2 (124,231.00)
2 9010 18000 180150 UVA-800MHz J2 1,015,802.15
2 9010 51000 510100 CIP Fund Balance (1,015,802.15)
TOTAL 248,462.00 124,231.00 124,231.00
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2005-011
DATE: 10-6-04
EXPLANATION: FUNDS REQUESTED BY AHIP TO COMPLETE THE FINANCING FOR A
REPLACEMENT HOME IN THE RED HILL AREA
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1224 51000 510100 Fund Balance J2 15,000.00
1 1224 81031 563100 AHIP J1 15,000.00
1224 0501 Est Revenue 15,000.00
1224 0701 Appropriation 15,000.00
TOTAL 30,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2005-012
DATE: 10-06-04
EXPLANATION: CHILD CARE QUALITY INITIATIVE
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1561 53115 110000 Salaries J1 33,425.00
1 1561 53115 210000 FICA J1 2,557.01
1 1561 53115 520100 Postage J1 350.00
1 1561 53115 800100 Equipment J1 3,315.78
1 1561 53115 601700 Printing J1 377.00
1 1561 53115 600100 Office Supplies J1 410.00
1 1561 53115 550100 Travel J1 700.00
1 1561 53115 332104 Computer Maint J1 450.00
1 1561 53115 520300 Telecommunications J1 600.00
1 1561 53115 540100 Rent J1 1,500.00
1 1561 53115 310000 Criminal History J1 2,000.00
2 1561 33000 330001 Federal Revenues J2 45,684.79
1561 0501 Est Revenue 45,684.79
1561 0701 Appropriation 45,684.79
TOTAL 91,369.58 45,684.79 45,684.79
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2005-013
DATE: 10-06-04
EXPLANATION: VARIOUS EDUCATION PROGRAMS
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 3303 61101 160300 Stipends-Staff/Cur Dev J1 21,750.00
1 3303 61101 210000 FICA J1 1,664.00
1 3303 61101 312700 Prof Svc Consultants J1 1,000.00
1 3303 61101 550400 Travel J1 1,277.81
1 3303 61101 601300 Inst Supplies J1 16,354.25
1 3303 61101 800100 Mach/Equipment J1 172,937.19
1 3143 61101 601300 Inst Supplies J1 5,157.20
1 3156 61101 112100 Salaries-Teacher J1 87,377.00
1 3156 61101 114100 Salaries-Teacher Aide J1 11,685.00
1 3156 61101 160300 Stipends-Inst J1 1,250.00
1 3156 61101 210000 FICA J1 7,674.00
1 3156 61101 221000 VRS J1 11,616.0?
1 3156 61101 231000 Health Ins J1 14,807.0?
1 3156 61101 232000 Dental Ins J1 489.00
1 3156 61101 520301 Telephone-Local J1 250.00
1 3156 61101 520302 Telephone-Long Dist J1 250.00
1 3156 61101 550100 Travel-Mileage J1 381.00
1 3156 61101 580000 Misc Expenses J1 6,000.00
2 3303 33000 330600 White Phy Ed Grant J2 214,983.25
2 3143 51000 510100 Com. Found Grant J2 5,157.20
2 3156 18120 189900 Teachers New Era Grant J2 141,779.00
3303 0501 Est Revenue 214,983.25
3303 0701 Appropriation 214,983.25
3143 0501 Est Revenue 5,157.20
3143 0701 Appropriation 5,157.20
3156 0501 Est Revenue 141,779.00
3156 0701 Appropriation 141,779.00
TOTAL 723,838.90 361,919.45 361,919.45
_____
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO 2005-014
EXPLANATION: REAPPRORIATION OF FY ‘04 OUTSTANDING PURCHASE ORDERS
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 12010 312390 County Executive J1 25,000.00
1 1000 12013 580030 Community Resources J1 24,603.93
1 1000 12013 600000 Community Resources J1 1,500.00
1 1000 12015 312390 Management & Budget J1 9,602.24
1 1000 31013 601102 Police Patrol Service J1 5,250.00
1 1000 31013 600900 Police Patrol Service J1 1,660.66
1 1000 32015 600400 Fire/Rescue-Operations J1 597.00
1 1000 32015 800700 Fire/Rescue-Operations J1 495.91
1 1000 32016 800120 F/R Recruit & Retention J1 1,190.00
1 1000 32019 600900 Monticello Fire Station J1 3,176.86
1 1000 32019 601100 Monticello Fire Station J1 639.14
1 1000 32020 800100 Volunteer Fire Dept J1 2,244.00
1 1000 32020 800100 Volunteer Fire Dept J1 8,756.00
1 1000 42040 390001 Gs Solid Waste/Recycling J1 349.67
1 1000 42040 390001 Gs Solid Waste/Recycling J1 5,767.07
1 1000 42040 510430 Gs Solid Waste/Recycling J1 2,200.00
1 1000 43002 332200 Gen Services-Maint Division J1 792.00
2 1000 51000 510100 G/F Balance J2 93,824.48
1000 0501 Est Revenue 93,824.48
1000 0701 Appropriation 93,824.48
TOTAL 187,648.96 93,824.48 93,824.48
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2005-015
DATE: 10-06-04
EXPLANATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF GRANT FUNDS
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1541 33000 300001 Federal Grant J2 187,500.00
1 1541 31000 800700 ADP Equipment J1 187,500.00
1541 0501 Est Revenue 187,500.00
1541 0701 Appropriation 187,500.00
2 1517 33000 300001 Federal Grant J2 49,675.00
1 1517 31013 800100 Equipment J1 49,675.00
1517 0501 Est Revenue 49,675.00
1517 0701 Appropriation 49,675.00
2 1516 33000 300001 Federal Grant J2 3,158.24
1 1516 31013 800100 Machinery & Equip J1 3,158.24
1516 0501 Est Revenue 3,158.24
1516 0701 Appropriation 3,158.24
2 1538 51000 510100 Fund Balance J2 22,365.15
1 1538 31013 120000 Overtime J1 20,772.83
1 1538 31013 210000 FICA J1 1,592.32
1538 0501 Est Revenue 22,365.15
1538 0701 Appropriation 2,365.15
2 1528 51000 510100 Fund Balance J2 2,411.33
1 1528 31091 800100 Machinery & Equip J1 2,411.33
1528 0501 Est Revenue 2,411.33
1528 0701 Appropriation 2,411.33
2 1543 51000 510100 Fund Balance J2 34,630.35
1 1543 31091 800100 Machinery & Equip J1 4,089.01
1 1543 31092 800100 Machinery & Equip J1 30,541.34
1543 0501 Est Revenue 34,630.35
1543 0701 Appropriation 34,630.35
2 1544 51000 510100 Fund Balance J2 154,456.10
1 1544 31091 800100 Machinery & Equip J1 42,288.60
1 1544 31092 800100 Machinery & Equip J1 112,167.50
1544 0501 Est Revenue 154,456.10
1544 0701 Appropriation 154,456.10
2 1715 24000 240765 Virginia Trail Grant J2 34,520.00
2 1715 51000 510100 Fund Balance J2 8,630.00
1 1715 71018 800605 Recreation Trail J1 43,150.00
1715 0501 Est Revenue 43,150.00
1715 0701 Appropriation 43,150.00
2 1529 33310 330308 DMV-Grant Revenue J2 1,892.03
1 1529 33310 800100 Machinery & Equip J1 492.03
1 1529 33310 601100 Uniforms & Apparel J1 1,400.00
1529 0501 Est Revenue 1,892.03
1529 0701 Appropriation 1,892.03
2 1221 33000 330009 Categorical Aid – Fed J2 364,786.87
1 1221 81030 950161 Whitewood Com Ctr J1 364,786.87
1221 0501 Est Revenue 364,786.87
1221 0701 Appropriation 364,786.87
2 1525 33000 330001 Grant Revenue J2 2,250.00
2 1525 51000 510100 Fund Balance J2 750.00
1 1525 31013 350000 Printing & Binding J1 3,000.00
1525 0501 Est Revenue 3,000.00
1525 0701 Appropriation 3,000.00
TOTAL 1,734,050.14 867,025.07 867,025.07
_____
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2005-016
DATE: 10-06-04
EXPLANATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF CAPITAL PROJECTS
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJ DEPT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 9010 11200 800200 Cob 5th St/Furn & Fix J1 300,000.00
1 9010 11200 800300 Cob 5th St/Comm Equip J1 300,000.00
1 9010 11200 800901 Cob 5th St/Bld Renov J1 2,541,007.09
1 9010 12140 950004 Finance/Assessment Sys J1 33,767.57
1 9010 12200 800700 IT/ADP Equipment J1 90,538.58
1 9010 12200 800714 IT/Technology Upgrade J1 180,734.00
1 9010 21000 331000 Courts/Rep & Maint J1 93,956.25
1 9010 21020 800100 GD Ct/Mach & Equip J1 5,000.00
1 9010 21050 331000 Juv Ct/Rep & Maint J1 62,384.52
1 9010 21050 800901 Juv Ct/Bld Renov J1 5,516,912.10
1 9010 21060 800708 Clerk of Ct/Docu Imag Sys J1 53,977.00
1 9010 31000 800305 Public Safety/Radio System J1 2,106,445.00
1 9010 31000 800306 Public Safety/Comp Aid Disp J1 109,633.14
1 9010 31000 800910 Pb Safety/Train Ctr/Fire Rng J1 50,000.00
1 9010 31000 950150 Pb Safety/Mob Comm Cntr J1 1,118.30
1 9010 31010 800714 Police/Technology Upgrade J1 900,992.03
1 9010 31010 800733 Police/Video Equipment J1 438.26
1 9010 32010 800309 Fire/Radios-Fire Dispatch J1 15,148.98
1 9010 32010 800521 Fire/VFD Fire & EMS Appar J1 669,789.46
1 9010 32010 950092 Fire/Rescue-Bldg & Equip J1 35,976.64
1 9010 32010 950110 Fire/Records Management J1 18,503.64
1 9010 32010 950140 Fire/Fire Incident Reporting J1 7,000.00
1 9010 32017 312350 N Fire Sta/Eng/Planning J1 230,000.00
1 9010 32017 800605 N Fire Sta/Construction J1 556,500.00
1 9010 32019 811102 Mont Fire Sta/Mont-Tanker J1 300,000.00
1 9010 32020 810501 Vol Fire/Crozet-Engine J1 122,976.94
1 9010 32030 815701 Amb Rescue/Scottsville J1 430,000.00
1 9010 41000 700006 Engineering/Ivy Landfill J1 761,120.43
1 9010 41000 800690 Engineering/Sdwlk Impv J1 564,005.78
1 9010 41000 800960 Engineering/Street Lights J1 199,929.21
1 9010 41000 950039 Eng/Meadowcreek Parkway J1 24,275.41
1 9010 41000 950059 Eng/Keene Landfill Closure J1 460,664.80
1 9010 41000 950061 Eng/Meadowcreek Path J1 20,000.00
1 9010 41000 950116 Eng/Meadow Creek Pkway J1 3,850.33
1 9010 41000 950143 Eng/Corville Farm Imp J1 5,000.00
1 9010 41000 950167 Eng/Red Hill Water System J1 93,493.95
1 9010 41020 950024 Street Imp/Landscap-29 N J1 7,370.00
1 9010 41020 950068 Street Imp/Wakefield Rd Imp J1 20,841.00
1 9010 41020 950081 Street Imp/Rev Sh Roads J1 851,176.90
1 9010 41020 950115 Street Imp/Airport Rd Sdwlk J1 127,000.00
1 9010 41020 950158 Street Imp/Airport Rd Imp J1 300,000.00
1 9010 41020 950159 Street Imp/Powell Ck Dr Tfic J1 42,530.39
1 9010 43100 800666 Public Works/Facility Maint J1 973,744.58
1 9010 43100 950119 Public Works/Bd Rm. Renov J1 21,895.50
1 9010 43100 950127 Public Works/Dvlpment Dept J1 50,000.00
1 9010 43100 950128 Public Works/COB Entry Cor J1 49,308.08
1 9010 43100 950141 Public Works/Central Filing J1 13,095.20
1 9010 43100 950168 Pb Wks/COB Central (Ph I) J1 14,894.80
1 9010 71000 800949 Parks/Maint Projects J1 29,438.26
1 9010 71000 950003 Parks/Crozet Park Imp J1 8,157.76
1 9010 71000 950009 Parks/Scott Comm Ctr J1 29,132.15
1 9010 71000 950044 Parks/Ath Fld Study/Devel J1 283,732.82
1 9010 71000 950121 Parks/Simpson Park J1 83,022.16
1 9010 71000 950137 Parks/Irrigation-Sch Fields J1 24,756.07
1 9010 71000 950148 Parks/Cashier Booths J1 69,000.00
1 9010 71000 950152 Parks/Rec Fac Nds Asses J1 43,497.09
1 9010 71000 950155 Parks/Towe Tennis Courts J1 87,900.00
1 9010 71000 950156 Parks/SOCA Partner/Fields J1 300,000.00
1 9010 71000 950166 Parks/PVCC - Dog Park J1 10,000.00
1 9010 72030 568901 Tourism/Visitor Bur-Maint J1 2,584.00
1 9010 72030 580416 Tourism/Conserv Esmnt J1 153,778.00
1 9010 72030 950026 Tourism/Greenway Pgm J1 108,436.00
1 9010 72030 950055 Tourism/Rt 250/616 Turn Ln J1 110,000.00
1 9010 72030 950107 Tourism/River Access Imp J1 64,000.00
1 9010 72030 950111 Tourism/Greenbelt-Bt Acs J1 361,747.50
1 9010 72030 950135 Tourism/Court Square J1 250,000.00
1 9010 73020 800949 Libraries/Maint Projects J1 124,269.23
1 9010 81010 580409 Planning/Conserv Esmnts J1 1,233,416.70
1 9010 81010 950053 Planning/Neighborhood Plan J1 1,230,174.48
1 9010 81010 950108 Planning/Greenbrier Ped/Bk J1 75,000.00
1 9010 81010 950136 Planning/Transp Planning J1 300,000.00
1 9010 81010 950139 Planning/Parcel Convrsn Pj J1 22,236.25
1 9010 81010 950147 Planning/G.I.S. Project J1 168,473.58
1 9010 81040 950151 Zoning/Permit Trkg Proj J1 4,781.72
2 9010 24000 240800 Cat State/Clerk's Tech Trust J2 44,300.00
2 9010 33000 330630 Cat Fd/DEQ-Red Hill Study J2 65,800.00
2 9010 51000 510100 Transfers/Fund Balance J2 24,404,429.63
9010 0501 Est Revenue 24,514,529.63
9010 0701 Appropriation 24,514,529.63
1 9000 60202 800901 Brownsville/Renovations J1 8,166.90
1 9000 60205 800901 Hollymead/Renovations J1 555,323.55
1 9000 60209 800605 Scottsville/Construction J1 86,678.00
1 9000 60216 800909 V L Murray/Athletic Track J1 25,517.80
1 9000 60251 800901 Burley/Renovations J1 5,097.88
1 9000 60252 800901 Henley/Renovations J1 604,941.21
1 9000 60253 800901 Jouett/Renovations J1 177,471.72
1 9000 60254 800901 Walton/Renovations J1 676,985.23
1 9000 60302 800656 W Alb Weight/Wellness J1 346,963.08
1 9000 60304 800605 Monticello/Construction J1 689,272.76
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
1 9000 61101 800700 Class Instruc/ADP Equip J1 42,653.90
1 9000 62190 800700 Adm.-Tech/ADP Equipment J1 3,702.62
1 9000 62420 800949 Facility Maint/Maint Proj J1 31,797.04
2 9000 51000 510100 Transfers/Fund Balance J2 3,254,571.69
9000 0501 Est Revenue 3,254,571.69
9000 0701 Appropriation 3,254,571.69
1 9100 41000 800975 Eng/Storm Water Control J1 919,750.45
1 9100 41000 950093 Eng/Drainage Study/Plan J1 59,660.62
1 9100 41036 312400 Birnam-Wynrdg/Pf Ser Eng J1 8,077.00
1 9100 41036 800975 Birnam-Wynrdg/Strmwtr Cntl J1 200,350.18
1 9100 41037 800975 Ivy Road/Strmwtr Control J1 80,000.00
1 9100 41049 800975 Wdbrook/Strmwtr Control J1 26,105.00
2 9100 51000 510100 Transfers/Fund Balance J2 1,293,943.25
9100 0501 Est Revenue 1,293,943.25
9100 0701 Appropriation 1,293,943.25
TOTAL 58,126,089.14
29,063,044.57
29,063,044.57
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2005-017
DATE: 10-06-04
EXPLANATION: PUBLIC SAFETY GRANTS
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1539 33000 300001 Grant Revenue J2 9,973.00
2 1539 51000 512004 Trs - General Fund J2 1,108.00
1 1539 31013 120000 Overtime Wages J1 10,233.30
1 1539 31013 210000 FICA J1 847.70
1 1000 31013 930200 Trs - Grant Projects J1 1,108.00
1 1000 31013 120000 Overtime Wages J1 -1,023.23
1 1000 31013 210000 FICA J1 -84.77
1539 0501 Est Revenue 11,081.00
1539 0701 Appropriation 11,081.00
2 1526 33000 330001 Federal Grant J2 19,522.00
2 1526 51000 512004 Trs fr Drug Assets J2 6,507.00
1 1526 31013 800100 Mach & Equip. J1 26,029.00
2 1236 51000 510100 Drug Assets F/B J2 6,507.00
1 1236 31013 930200 Trs to Grant J1 6,507.00
1526 0501 Est Revenue 26,029.00
1526 0701 Appropriation 26,029.00
1236 0501 Est Revenue 6,507.00
1236 0701 Appropriation 6,507.00
TOTAL 87,234.00 43,617.00 43,617.00
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2005-018
DATE: 10-06-04
EXPLANATION: REQUESTED USES OF CARRYOVER FUNDS FOR NEW INITIATIVES
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 21010 800101 Cir Ct-Mach & Eq J1 9,600.00
1 1000 12031 301210 Hum Res-Cont Sv J1 6,659.02
1 1000 32016 800100 F/R-Trailer J1 4,300.00
1 1000 32013 600000 F/R-Haz Material J1 4,147.95
1 1000 81021 320000 Com Dev-Tmp Hlp J1 8,050.00
1 1000 81023 800710 Com Dev-Software J1 2,500.00
1 1000 81023 312701 Com Dev-Consult. J1 8,000.00
1 1000 81023 800710 Com Dev-Software J1 2,500.00
1 1000 81023 601700 Com Dev-Copying J1 2,000.00
1 1000 81022 520300 Pl-Telecomm. J1 500.00
1 1000 81022 800100 Pl-M&E J1 200.00
1 1000 81022 800200 Pl-F&F J1 13,000.00
1 1000 81022 800700 Pl-ADP Equip J1 1,825.00
1 1000 81022 800710 Pl-Software J1 1,100.00
1 1000 81022 800901 Pl-Renovations J1 2,280.00
1 1000 32015 800100 F/R-Equip. J1 33,500.00
1 1000 93010 939999 F/R-Trs-Vehicles J1 42,000.00
2 1000 51000 510100 Fund Balance J2 132,161.97
1000 0501 Est Revenue 132,161.97
1000 0701 Appropriation 132,161.97
1 9200 91085 800500 Motor Vehicles J1 42,000.00
2 9200 51000 512004 Trs Fr G/F J2 42,000.00
9200 0501 Est Revenue 42,000.00
9200 0701 Appropriation 42,000.00
Total 348,323.94 174,161.97 174,161.97
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2005-019
DATE: 10-06-04
EXPLANATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF UNCOMPLETED FY 04 PROJECTS
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 81030 580417 Housing Study J1 33,005.00
1 1000 21030 700003 Magistrate J1 1,395.87
1 1000 31013 601101 Police-Uniforms J1 5,000.00
1 1000 31013 601011 Police-Ammunition J1 10,000.00
1 1000 32015 561415 F/R-Seat Belts J1 2,772.06
1 1000 21060 800101 Clerk's Of-Mac & Eq J1 20,000.00
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
1 1000 12015 312210 OMB-Contract Serv J1 30,000.00
1 1000 12015 312390 OMB-QUIP Training J1 9,600.00
1 1000 42040 999851 RSWA Svs Contr J1 100,000.00
1 1000 81022 312344 So Urban Area B J1 47,171.00
1 1000 81022 312342 Devel Areas Study J1 144,080.82
2 1000 19000 190240 UVA Share J2 8,300.00
2 1000 19000 190245 City Share J2 27,300.00
2 1000 19000 190246 CITY-HOUSING J2 19,002.50
2 1000 51000 510100 G/F-Fund Balance J2 348,422.25
1000 0501 Est Revenue 403,024.75
1000 0701 Appropriation 403,024.75
TOTAL 806,049.50 403,024.75 403,024.75
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2005-020
DATE: 10-06-04
EXPLANATION: FUNDING FOR FAMILIES IN CRISIS PROJECT
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 3304 33000 330001 Families/Crisis Grant J2 10,000.00
1 3304 61101 111400 Salaries-Other Mgt J1 7,299.00
1 3304 61101 210000 FICA J1 559.00
1 3304 61101 221000 VRS J1 887.00
1 3304 61101 231000 Health Ins J1 522.00
1 3304 61101 232000 Dental Ins J1 18.00
1 3304 61101 601300 Inst Supplies J1 715.00
3304 0501 Est. Revenue 10,000.00
3304 0701 Appropriation 10,000.00
TOTAL 20,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO: 2005-021
DATE: 10/06/2004
EXPLANATION: EDUCATION DONATIONS AND GRANTS
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 9000 18100 181123 WAHS Weight Room J2 125.00
2 2000 18100 181109 Donations J2 8,368.00
2 3104 18000 189900 Literacy Grant J2 2,000.00
2 3104 18000 181258 Gold Apple Award Grant J2 5,000.00
2 3502 18000 181223 Shannon Foundation J2 6,229.00
2 3217 24000 240296 Proj Grad/Reg Academy J2 150,000.00
1 9000 60302 800656 WAHS Weight Room J1 125.00
1 2430 62150 580000 Misc Expense J1 6,868.00
1 2212 61411 580500 Staff Development J1 1,500.00
1 3104 60215 601300 Inst Supplies J1 2,000.00
1 3104 61311 580500 Staff Development J1 5,000.00
1 3502 60606 601300 Inst Supplies J1 6,229.00
1 3217 63334 160300 Grad-Reg Stipends J1 44,400.00
1 3217 63334 210000 FICA J1 3,397.00
1 3217 63334 580000 Misc Expense J1 12,375.00
1 3217 63334 600100 Office Supplies J1 350.00
1 3217 63334 600200 Food Supplies J1 11,178.00
1 3217 63334 601300 Inst Supplies J1 3,300.00
1 3217 63335 160300 Grad-Reg Stipends J1 45,000.00
1 3217 63335 210000 FICA J1 3,433.00
1 3217 63335 580000 Misc Expense J1 13,950.00
1 3217 63335 580500 Staff Development J1 2,272.00
1 3217 63335 600100 Office Supplies J1 350.00
1 3217 63335 600200 Food Supplies J1 5,495.00
1 3217 63335 601300 Inst Supplies J1 4,500.00
9000 0501 Estimated Revenue 125.00
0701 Appropriation 125.00
2000 0501 Estimated Revenue 8,368.00
0701 Appropriation 8,368.00
3104 0501 Estimated Revenue 7,000.00
0701 Appropriation 7,000.00
3217 0501 Estimated Revenue 150,000.00
0701 Appropriation 150,000.00
3502 0501 Estimated Revenue 6,229.00
0701 Appropriation 6,229.00
TOTAL 343,444.00 171,722.00 171,722.00
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2005-022
DATE: 10-06-04
EXPLANATION: EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION CENTER REAPPROPRIATION OF
UNEXPENDED GRANT BALANCES
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 4100 31045 800700 ADP Equipment J1 12,296.95
1 4100 31045 130000 P/T Wages J1 2,539.00
1 4100 31045 312500 Prof Services J1 2,000.00
1 4100 31045 600100 Office Supplies J1 1,572.69
1 4100 31045 800700 ADP Equipment J1 986.03
1 4100 31045 800712 Software Upgrade J1 1,000.00
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
2 4100 51000 510100 Fund Balance J2 20,394.67
4100 0501 Est Revenue 20,394.67
4100 0701 Appropriation 20,394.67
Total 40,789.34 20,394.67 20,394.67
_______________
Public Hearing
Agenda Item No. 14. : To consider adoption of Ordinance to amend
Albemarle County Code Appendix A.1, Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Program by
amending Section A.1-108, Ranking Criteria, and Section A.1-111, Purchase of Conservation
Easement. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on September 20 and
September 27, 2004.)
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development, summarized the Executive Summary
which is on file in the Clerk’s Office with the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said
on September 1, 2004, the Board received background information from the ACE Committee on a
recommended change to provide that the rule for determining the income of C-corporations would be
the average annual adjusted income of the corporation. There was concern by some Board members
that this rule could lend itself to potential abuse since prospective ACE lands could be placed under C-
corporation ownership generating little or no income as a mere landowner. In the revised draft of the
ordinance, staff has proposed that the income of C-corporations having ten or fewer shareholders be
based on the average weighted income of the individual shareholders, and that the income of C-
corporations having more than ten shareholders be based on the income of the corporation itself.
Upon analysis, staff believes that the ten-shareholder threshold will discourage prospective higher
income ACE applicants from owning land through a C-corporation in order to circumvent the ACE
program’s income rules.
Mr. Benish said the ACE Committee recommended several changes to the ranking criteria in
the ordinance. The proposed changes would grant more points for parcels or resources deemed
worthy of protection which are those lands in proximity to protected lands, Virginia Scenic Highways or
Byways, entrance corridors, and those containing architectural or historically significant features, and
certain important waterways. He said the changes are explained in Attachment A to the Executive
Summary for September 1, 2004.
Ms. Thomas said she only checked to be sure there was a change in Sec. A-1-111.B3, and
asked if that was the only section that was changed. Mr. Davis said there are two sections under Sec.
A-1-111, B2 and B3 which deal with C-corporations. The language was modified to address the
concerns expressed by Mr. Rooker.
Mr. Dorrier asked Ms. Sherry Buttrick if she would like to address the Board.
Ms. Buttrick thanked the Board for hearing this ordinance change. The Committee has hoped
to see this change come about for some time. The Committee has not seen the C-corporation
language because it was included since the Committee met the last time. She said the bulk of the
aggregate income change was drafted in consultation with Mr. David Kudravetz who is a tax lawyer.
He tried to make sure the language accurately reflects what the Committee felt was a fair and
equitable way to handle a problem that was arising when there were multiple ownerships. When three
farmers own a farm and each makes $30,000 a year, adding all of their income and saying the owner
of the farm is a $90,000 customer is not fair. Mr. Kudravetz said because a C-corporation is so
different from other entities listed in the ordinance, it takes a lot of language to explain its uses; it is
seldom seen. C-corporations were used in the 1920s and 1930s on farm land. Since then, the use of
them has been discouraged. Concerning the ten shareholder rule, there is no particular rationale to
have the breakpoint at ten. She believes that Mr. Kudravtez’s original concept of leaving the C-
corporations out and then treating them on a case-by-case basis rather than in an ordinance, is
probably better so the Board does not get in a situation where it would have to deal with a waiver.
She suggested that C-corporations not be included at all in the language.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing.
Ms. Katie Hobbs said she has two concerns. She has always believed the ACE Program had
a missing piece because it did not include BMPs as part of the easement. She said the newly-formed
Water Resource Protection Foundation of the Soil & Water Conservation District does include BMPs.
She said it makes no logical sense to not expect this of any landowner who is receiving money from
Albemarle County and is not already practicing best management practices. She does not believe that
including a landowner’s income should be part of the decision about an easement on his land. If the
County finds in its overall master plan for land that it wishes to acquire a certain parcel of land that is
important to the plan, the income of the owner should not be a consideration. This ACE Program is
about an added level of protection for land in Albemarle County. Land that is vital for environmental
reasons for keeping agricultural and forestal lands in production, i.e., keeping the watersheds
protected. That’s the long-term goal. Saying the County wants to protect open space is not the
answer. Quality open space is what needs to be addressed.
Mr. Ches Goodall said he is the ACE Program Coordinator. He wished to address Ms. Hobb’s
comments about the BMPs. BMP criteria in the ordinance specifically states that anyone putting a
permanent buffer around their property must adhere to the BMPs. The deed of easement addresses
that in the forestry section. It is not a required law, but the threat of any kind of sedimentation in a
stream does meet with a fine. He shares Ms. Hobb’s concern about water quality. He thinks the
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
protection of water quality in the drinking water supply watersheds is a critical issue. He thinks ACE
addresses that issue through the deed of easement.
Mr. Neil Williamson from the Free Enterprise Forum said he wanted to raise the concept of the
County’s hands being tied unnecessarily by the income restrictions. It seems the County has a plan to
adopt the best pieces of land for preservation. Those easements should be purchased if the ACE
Program goes forward. He thinks ACE needs to be strengthened. By opening up the aperture, it will
allow ACE to find better parcels rather than having to jump through the current hurdles that the
Committee goes through to have the applications come through and meet the income and other
criteria. Other then income, the new criteria are improvements to the ordinance. He commended the
Committee for its work. He asked that the Board hold a further discussion of the need for income
requirements and how that serves the two purposes cited in the Executive Summary.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
placed before the Board.
Mr. Wyant said he knows the Committee worked on these revisions for a long time. He thinks
the County wants to preserve the open space, protect the watersheds, etc., and asked if it had to be
tied to income.
Mr. Davis said income does not affect the ranking of the property. The property is ranked on
the other factors. The only thing the income affects is the offer of the purchase price. Depending on
the amount of the income, the price the County pays for the easement is less. Initially, the philosophy
was that people with greater income already have an incentive to make ACE easements because of
tax advantages. The lower income people do not have those same tax incentives to make the
donations. The focus of Albemarle’s program is on those people who otherwise would need a
financial incentive in order to participate in the ACE Program. He believes the program has been
successful in that respect. The changes being made today to the purchase price based on income will
cause the County to pay a higher purchase price for properties that have multiple ownerships or are
owned by S-Corporations because the weighted average approach generally lowers the amount of
income that will be reflected, and that will result in a higher purchase price.
Mr. Davis said the ACE Committee felt the way the purchase price was structured was
keeping people from offering their land because they were not being paid enough. These were not the
people getting the tax incentives. In their estimation, this will help bring in more applicants who are
lower-income applicants who will gain a greater advantage by participating. The basic issue is that it
does not change the properties that are bought, but changes the amount of money paid for those
properties.
Mr. Rooker said if somebody has an income such that they would only receive four percent of
the appraised value of an easement, they would not sell so it ultimately affects what is bought.
Ms. Thomas said they also could then get quite a tax break because it would have been a
“firehouse” sale.
Mr. Rooker asked if Ms. Thomas was saying that the 96 percent “left on the table” could be
used to justify a deduction for the difference. He does not think the Board should make any significant
change in this program today such as removing the income test. He said there is a whole body of
information on which that decision was based. He was a member of the Planning Commission during
the original discussions of this program, and he questioned that for the same reasons that Mr.
Williamson raised this morning. Information came forward at that time which persuaded him this was
the wise approach. He would suggest the Board adopt what is in front of it, and if at a later time the
Board wants to remove the income test entirely, let the ACE Committee come before the Board and
explain their rationale.
Mr. Wyant asked about the C-corporation issue mentioned by Ms. Buttrick. He said the
Committee has not seen that language yet.
Mr. Rooker said the Board asked for that amended language at an earlier meeting. He agrees
with Mr. Kudravetz that there is a difference between a C-corporation and a S-Corporation. However,
the “hole” in the means test is that there could be a C-corporation with only one owner whose income
was a million dollars but because it was a C-corporation instead of a S-corporation, the means test
would not apply. Any landowner could take land and put it into a C-corporation one year and the next
year have the basis for the value of the land. The next year he could file under ACE. Under the
current ordinance it would be tested according to the income of that C-Corporation which could be
zero and yet the owner might have substantial income. To him that is a significant loophole in the
existing ordinance that he thinks the Board should look at closing.
Mr. Boyd asked how many C-corporations have applied for the ACE Program. Mr. Davis said
he does not know the answer to that question. However, under the current ordinance there is a
disincentive for C-corporations to apply because the cumulative income of all the shareholders has to
be used. C-corporations are not treated favorably by the existing program. Under the ordinance, if
there is a piece of property owned by the C-corporation that made the income “off the charts”, the
Board has the ability to grant a waiver to set an acceptable purchase price. That remains part of the
ordinance under the revised draft. The ACE Committee wanted to identify some recurring situations
and fix it so it did not have to be a waiver. He does not think the Board will ever solve all possible
situations. The ordinance in front of the Board today will create other situations where the Board will
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
have to deal with them on a waiver basis. He said there has been an attempt to address those
situations staff can think of today and generally set some different policies as to how single individual
owners and S-corporations are dealt with. He agrees with Mr. Rooker that if someone wanted to find a
loophole in the proposed draft, it is that a C-corporation could be formed with one or two people and
eliminate income as being a factor; that C-corporation could have no income and yet get one hundred
percent of the purchase price.
Mr. Boyd said if there has not been an application by a C-corporation, there is no way to know
if anyone has taken advantage of the ordinance. He is not that concerned about it because there is
nothing facing the Board at this time dealing with that issue. He does want to mention Mr. Rooker’s
comments about the means testing. The last time the Board discussed this he was concerned. He
keeps hearing that the program has been successful the way it is constructed using means testing. If
the County has attracted and gotten targeted properties, and if it has been successful in getting
targeted properties in the Program, then he would agree with that it has been successful.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks that is the great strength of this Program. The County has
managed to save real family farms. Without taking advantage of the State and Federal tax breaks,
many of those farms would have ended up being developed. She thinks the Board assumed that the
first time taxpayer dollars went to a very wealthy person or someone like Westvaco, the program
would be doomed. That is what happened in Loudoun County and it led to the demise of that
program. It has been a program which has done precisely what it was hoped it would do in terms of
getting properties where otherwise a family could not afford to put the land into a conservation
easement. There are tremendous tax breaks at the State and Federal levels if the person has an
income that can take advantage of those tax breaks.
Mr. Wyant said the ACE Committee has worked hard to publicize this program and attract
more parcels. They recently put out a new flyer which lists a big initiative to try and generate more
motion
interest. He then offered to adopt An Ordinance to Amend Appendix A.1, Acquisition of
Conservation Easements Program, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia by Amending:
Sec. A.1-108, Ranking criteria, and Sec. A.1-111, Purchase of conservation easement (ordinance draft
dated September 21, 2004, and shown as Attachment A to the Executive Summary for this meeting).
seconded
The motion was by Mr. Rooker.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks the change made for the C-corporations is a small issue, but in
the future she would prefer that these things go to the Committee working on such matters.
At this time, the roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 04-A.1(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND APPENDIX A.1, ACQUISITION OF CONSERVATION
EASEMENTS PROGRAM, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that
Appendix A.1, Acquisition of Conservation Easements Program, of the Code of the County of
Albemarle is amended as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. A.1-108 Ranking criteria.
Sec. A.1-111 Purchase of conservation easement.
APPENDIX A.1
Acquisition of Conservation Easements Program
Sec. A.1-108. Ranking criteria.
In order to effectuate the purposes of the ACE program, parcels for which
conservation easement applications have been received shall be ranked according to the
criteria and the point values assigned as provided below. Points shall be rounded to the first
decimal.
A. Open-space resources.
1. The parcel adjoins an existing permanent conservation easement, a
national, state or local park, or other permanently protected open-space: two (2) points, with
one additional (1) point for every five hundred (500) feet of shared boundary; or the parcel is
within one-quarter (1/4) mile, but not adjoining, an existing permanent conservation easement,
a national, state or local park, or other permanently protected open-space: two (2) points,
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
2. Size of the parcel: one (1) point for each fifty (50) acres.
B. Threat of conversion to developed use.
1. The parcel is threatened with forced sale: five (5) points.
2. The parcel is threatened with other hardship: three (3) points.
3. The number of division rights to be eliminated on the parcel: one-half
(1/2) point for each division right to be eliminated, which shall be determined by subtracting
the number of retained division rights from the number of division rights.
C. Natural, cultural and scenic resources.
1. Mountain protection: one (1) point for each twenty (20) acres within a
ridge area boundary. For purposes of this section, the term “ridge area boundary” means the
area that lies within one hundred (100) feet below designated ridgelines shown on county
mountain overlay district elevation maps.
2. Working family farm, including forestry: five (5) points if at least one
family member’s principal occupation and income (more than half) is farming or foresting the
parcel; three (3) points if at least one family member produces farm products derived from the
parcel.
3. The parcel adjoins a road designated either as a Virginia scenic
highway or byway, or as an entrance corridor under section 30.6.2 of Chapter 18 of the
Albemarle County Code: two (2) points, with one (1) additional point for each six hundred
(600) feet of road frontage; the parcel adjoins a public road: two (2) points, with one (1)
additional point for each one thousand (1000) feet of road frontage; or, the parcel is
substantially visible from, but is not contiguous to, a public road designated either as a Virginia
scenic highway or byway, or as an entrance corridor under section 30.6.2 of Chapter 18 of the
Albemarle County Code: two (2) points.
4. The parcel contains historic resources: three (3) points if it is within a
national or state rural historic district or is subject to a permanent easement protecting a
historic resource; two (2) points if the parcel is within the primary Monticello viewshed, as
shown on viewshed maps prepared for Monticello and in the possession of the county; two (2)
points if the parcel contains artifacts or a site of archaeological or architectural significance as
determined by a qualified archaeologist or architectural historian under the United States
Department of Interior’s professional qualification standards.
5. The parcel contains an occurrencelisted on the state natural heritage
inventory: five (5) points; or the parcel is within one-quarter (1/4) mile of an occurrence list on
the State Natural Heritage Inventory: two (2) points.
6. The parcel contains capability class I, II or III soils (“prime soils”) for
agricultural lands or ordination symbol 1 or 2 for forest land, based on federal natural
resources conservation service classifications found in the United States Department of
Agriculture Soil Survey of Albemarle County, Virginia: one (1) point for each fifty (50) acres
containing such soils to a maximum of five (5) points.
7. The parcel is within the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir Watershed, the
Chris Greene Lake Watershed, or the Totier Creek Reservoir Watershed: three (3) points; or
the parcel adjoins the Ivy Creek, Mechums River, Moormans River, Rocky Creek (of the
Moormans River), Wards Creek (of the Moormans River), Buck Mountain Creek, South Fork
Rivanna River, North Fork Rivanna River, Swift Run (of the North Fork Rivanna River), Lynch
River (of the North Fork Rivanna River, Rivanna River, Hardware River, Rockfish River,
James River, any waters designated as “Exceptional Waters” by the Virginia Water Control
Board, any public water supply reservoir or emergency water supply reservoir: one-half (1/2)
point for each one thousand (1000) feet of frontage.
8. The parcel adjoins a waterway designated as a state scenic river:
one-half (1/2) point for each one thousand (1000) feet of frontage.
9. The parcel is subject to a permanent easement whose primary
purpose is to establish or maintain forest buffers adjoining perennial or intermittent streams,
as those terms are defined in Chapter 17 of the Albemarle County Code: one (1) point for
each one thousand (1000) feet of buffer that is between thirty-five (35) and fifty (50) feet wide;
one and one-half (1½) points for each one thousand (1000) feet of buffer that is greater than
fifty (50) feet but not more than one hundred (100) feet wide; two (2) points for each one
thousand (1000) feet of buffer that is greater than one hundred (100) feet wide. If the owner
voluntarily offers in his application to place the parcel in such a permanent easement, then the
above-referenced points may also be awarded.
10. The parcel is within a sensitive groundwater recharging area
identified in a county-sponsored groundwater study: one (1) point.
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
11. The parcel is within an agricultural and forestall district: two (2) points.
D. County fund leveraging.State, federal or private funding identified to
leverage the purchase of the conservation easement: one (1) point for each ten (10) percent
of the purchase price for which those funds can be applied.
(Ord. 00-A.1(1), 7-5-00; Ord. 02-A.1(1), 12-11-02; Ord. 04-A.1(1)
Sec. A.1-111. Purchase of conservation easement.
Each conservation easement shall be purchased as follows:
A. Identification of initial pool. From the list of applications received under section
A.1-110(D), the board of supervisors shall designate the initial pool of parcels identified for
conservation easements to be purchased. The purchase price may be supplemented by non-
county funding. The size of the pool shall be based upon the funds available for easement
purchases in the current fiscal year and the purchase price of each conservation easement in
the pool established under section A.1-111(B).
B. Determining purchase price. The purchase price of a conservation easement
shall be calculated by multiplying the appraised value by the applicable percentage of
appraised value set forth in the table below. The average annual adjusted gross income shall
be determined as follows:
1. Single individual. If the parcel is owned by a single owner of record
who is a natural person (an “individual”), the average annual adjusted gross income shall be
the average of that individual’s federal adjusted gross income for the three (3) preceding tax
years. For purposes of this calculation, the federal adjusted gross income of a spouse
(provided that the individual and the spouse file joint returns) or dependent child (provided that
the child is claimed on the individual’s federal income tax return) of an individual shall be
included in that individual’s federal adjusted gross income.
2. Multiple individuals, C-corporations having ten or fewer shareholders,
S-corporations, partnerships, limited liability companies, trusts, or estates. If the parcel is
owned by more than one owner of record who is an individual or is owned by a C-corporation
having ten (10) or fewer shareholders, S-corporation, partnership, limited liability company,
trust, estate (an “entity”) or any combination thereof, the average annual adjusted gross
income shall be based on a weighted average of federal adjusted gross income for the three
(3) preceding tax years. The weighted average for each tax year shall be calculated by
multiplying each individual’s respective percentage ownership interest in the parcel or in the
entity by that person’s federal adjusted gross income, and then adding together the results.
For purposes of this calculation, the federal adjusted gross income of a spouse (provided that
the individual and the spouse file joint returns) or dependent child (provided that the child is
claimed on the individual’s federal income tax return) of an individual shall be included in that
individual’s federal adjusted gross income.
3. C-corporations having more than ten shareholders and other entities
not identified in subsection 2. If the parcel is owned by a C-corporation having more than ten
(10) shareholders or another entity not identified in subsection 2, the average annual adjusted
gross income shall be the average of that C-corporation’s or other entity’s federal adjusted
gross income for the three (3) preceding tax years.
Average Annual Adjusted Gross Income
Percentage of Appraised Value
$0 - $55,000 100%
$55,001 -$65,000 94%
$65,001 - $75,000 88%
$75,001 - $85,000 82%
$85,001 - $95,000 76%
$95,001 - $105,000 70%
$105,001 - $115,000 64%
$115,001 - $125,000 58%
$125,001 - $135,000 52%
$135,001 - $145,000 46%
$145,001 - $155,000 40%
$155,001 - $165,000 34%
$165,001 - $175,000 28%
$175,001 - $185,000 22%
$185,001 - $195,000 16%
$195,001 - $205,000 10%
$205,001 or more 4%
C. Invitation to offer to sell. The board shall invite the owner of each parcel
included in the initial pool to submit an offer to sell to the county a conservation easement on
that parcel for the purchase price, and/or to donate to the county the balance of the fair market
value of the conservation easement, subject to the terms and conditions of a proposed deed
of easement. The purchase price shall not be subject to negotiation. The invitation shall be in
writing and shall include the purchase price, the proposed deed of easement, and the date by
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
which a written offer must be received by the program administrator in order for it to be
considered. The invitation also may include a form offer to be returned by the owner if the
owner desires to offer to sell a conservation easement.
D. Offer to sell. Each owner who desires to sell and/or donate a conservation
easement shall submit a written offer that must be received by the program administrator by
the date contained in the invitation to offer to sell. The offer should include a statement
substantially stating the following: “(The owner) offers to sell and/or donate a conservation
easement to the County of Albemarle, Virginia for the sum of (purchase price), subject to the
terms and conditions set forth in the proposed deed of easement enclosed with the invitation
to offer to sell.” Nothing in this appendix shall compel an owner to submit an offer to sell.
E. Acceptance. An offer to sell a conservation easement shall be accepted by
the board of supervisors only in writing, and only following an action by the board authorizing
acceptance. An offer shall not be accepted by the board if the proposed easement would be
inconsistent with the policies and goals of the comprehensive plan at the time the offer is
received. Nothing in this appendix requires the board to accept an offer to sell a conservation
easement.
F. Easement established. A conservation easement shall be established when
the owner and an authorized representative of the holder of the easement have each signed
the deed of easement. The deed shall be recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court
of the County of Albemarle. A single conservation easement may be established for more
than one parcel under the same ownership.
G. Offers not made; offers not accepted; invitation to other owners. If an owner
invited to submit an offer elects not to do so, or if his offer to sell is not accepted by the board
of supervisors, then the board shall send an invitation to offer to sell to the owner of the next
highest ranked parcel remaining on the list of parcels identified in section A.1-110(E).
H. Costs. If the board of supervisors accepts an offer to sell, the county shall
pay all costs, including environmental site assessments, surveys, recording costs, grantor’s
tax, if any, and other charges associated with closing. Provided, however, the county shall not
pay fees incurred for independent appraisals, legal, financial, or other advice, or fees in
connection with the release and subordination of liens to the easement purchased by the
county.
I. Reapplication. An owner who fails to submit an offer to sell or whose offer to
sell was not accepted may reapply in any future year.
(Ord. 00-A.1(1), 7-5-00; Ord. 02-A.1(1), 12-11-02; Ord. 04-A.1(1)
__________
Mr. Wyant said there was a mistake in the Executive Summary which referred to September
30 as the application deadline. He thought the Board had decided at last month’s meeting that the
application deadline be extended to October 31. Mr. Benish said the Board took action on that matter
last month.
Mr. Davis said that date has not been changed in the ordinance. Mr. Benish said the date will
be fixed. Ms. Thomas asked if the Board had not just taken action to change that date. Mr. Davis said
“no”, the request from the Committee previously was to act on the exception, not on a change to the
ordinance. That is an easy change to bring back for the Board to approve, but it will require changing
several different dates; staff can advertise the change and bring it back to the Board in December.
_______________
Public Hearing
Agenda Item No. 15. : To consider granting temporary and perpetual sanitary
sewer line easements across Tax Map 91 Parcel 8B (Route 20 South). (Notice of this public hearing
was published in the Daily Progress on September 20 and September 27, 2004.)
Mr. Tucker said the Board approved a special use permit for Kappa Sigma last May, but it
requires that the property be connected to public sewer. The trustee for the Albemarle Carter
Mountains Trust, the owner of the Kappa Sigma parcel, has requested that the County grant it a 20-
foot wide temporary easement to allow for the construction and installation of the sewer line, and grant
it a perpetual easement over the lands to the Albemarle County Service Authority to allow the
Authority to maintain and operate the sewer line. The sewer line will be constructed and installed at
the Trust’s sole expense. Staff does not believe this will have any impact on County property.
Granting of the easement does require that the Board first hold a public hearing.
Mr. Tucker said staff recommends that the Board approve the proposed easement with the
additional changes recommended by the County Engineer and authorize the County Executive to sign
the deed of easement on behalf of the County after the deed has been approved by the County
Attorney with the necessary changes.
Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing.
Mr. Bill Downer, on behalf of the applicant, said he was present to answer any questions
concerning this request.
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
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 Ms. Thomas to approve the proposed easement with the
additional changes recommended by the County Engineer and to authorize the County Executive to
sign the deed of easement on behalf of the County after the deed has been approved by the County
seconded
Attorney with the necessary changes. The motion was by Mr. Wyant.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
DEED OF EASEMENT
THIS DEED OF EASEMENT, made this ______ day of _________, 2005, by and
between COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia,
hereinafter referred to as the Grantor; and ALBEMARLE CARTER MOUNTAINS
MANAGEMENT CO., LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, as Trustee of the
ALBEMARLE CARTER MOUNTAINS TRUST, a Delaware statutory trust, hereinafter referred
to as First Grantee; and the ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY, a political
subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, whose address is 168 Spotnap Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia 22911, hereinafter referred to as Second Grantee.
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, the Grantor holds title to real property identified as Albemarle County,
Virginia Tax Map 91 Parcel 8B, and First Grantee holds title to real property identified as
Albemarle County Tax Map 91, Parcel 16; and
WHEREAS, the Grantor acquired its title by deed from KIMCO, LLC, a Virginia limited
liability company, dated November 10th, 2000, and recorded in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit
Court of Albemarle County, Virginia in Deed Book 1979, page 44; and
WHEREAS, the First Grantee wishes to construct at its own expense a certain public
sanitary sewer line across Grantor’s aforesaid real property in order to provide sewer service
to the First Grantee’s aforesaid real property; and
WHEREAS, the public sanitary sewer line will benefit the Grantor as well as the First
Grantee; and
WHEREAS, the Second Grantee is willing to accept such public sanitary sewer line at
such time as the same shall have been constructed in a lawful manner pursuant to its
specifications, but not before; and
WHEREAS, the Grantor is willing to convey a temporary easement to the First
Grantee to permit it to construct and install such a sanitary sewer line for the use of the public;
and the Grantor is further willing to convey to the Second Grantee a perpetual easement
across their land for the maintenance and operation of such public sanitary sewer line, which
easement is to be deemed accepted by the Second Grantee only at such time as the said
public sanitary sewer line shall be formally accepted by it for maintenance as being
constructed in accordance with its specifications;
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00), and other good
and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor does
hereby GRANT, BARGAIN, SELL and CONVEY with General Warranty and English
Covenants of Title unto the First Grantee, its successor and assigns, a temporary right-of-way
and easement across the aforesaid property of the Grantor (as identified approximately on the
annexed Plat Showing A 20’ Permanent Easement and 10’ Wide Temporary Construction
Easements To Be Obtained By Albemarle County Service Authority Across Tax Map 91-8B in
green color) centered forty (40) feet in width and running generally along the northern side of
the creek, which crosses the Grantor’s aforesaid property in an east-west direction, to
construct, install, maintain, repair, replace and extend a public sanitary sewer line, consisting
of pipes and appurtenances thereto; which said right-of-way and easement shall remain in
effect only until the said sewer line shall have been formally accepted for maintenance by the
Second Grantee, whereupon all rights of the First Grantee to such right-of-way and easement,
except such rights as it may have in common with the public, shall automatically terminate and
be of no further effect.
FURTHERMORE, and for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00),
and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the
Grantor does hereby GRANT, BARGAIN, SELL and CONVEY with General Warranty and
English Covenants of Title unto the Second Grantee, its successors and assigns, a perpetual
right-of-way and easement across the aforesaid property of the Grantor (as identified
approximately on the annexed Plat Showing A 20’ Permanent Easement and 10’ Wide
Temporary Construction Easements To Be Obtained By Albemarle County Service Authority
Across Tax Map 91-8B in pink and green color) centered twenty (20) feet in width and running
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
generally along the northern side of the creek which crosses the Grantor’s aforesaid property
in an east-west direction, to construct, install, maintain, repair, replace and extend a public
sanitary sewer line, consisting of pipes and appurtenances thereto; PROVIDED, HOWEVER,
that it is expressly understood and agreed that the Second Grantee shall not be deemed to
have accepted the conveyance set forth hereinabove until such time as the same shall have
been evidenced by the affirmative acceptance thereof in accordance with the usual and
customary practices of the Second Grantee.
The Grantor, for itself and for its respective successors and assigns, agrees (1) that
new trees, shrubs, fences, buildings, overhangs or other improvements or obstructions shall
not be placed within the easements conveyed herein, unless otherwise approved by the
Second Grantee; (2) that the First Grantee and/or the Second Grantee shall have the right to
enter upon the Grantor’s aforesaid property within these easement locations for the purposes
of installing, constructing, maintaining, repairing, replacing and extending such sewer line (and
the appurtenances thereto) within such easements and the right of ingress and egress thereto
as is reasonably necessary to construct, install, maintain, repair, replace or extend such sewer
line; (3) that the First Grantee and/or the Second Grantee shall have the right of ingress and
egress over the aforesaid property of the Grantor adjacent to the locations of these rights-of-
way and easements in the event of the First Grantee’s and/or Second Grantee’s inability to
reasonably exercise such rights of ingress and egress; (4) that the First Grantee and/or the
Second Grantee shall have the right to cut any trees, brush and shrubbery, remove
obstructions and take other similar action reasonably necessary to provide an economical and
safe sewer line installation, operation and maintenance without any responsibility to Grantor,
its successors or assigns, subject to an obligation to replace or reimburse the cost of said
trees, brush, shrubbery or obstructions if cut, removed or otherwise damaged; and (5) that the
facilities constructed within the Second Grantee’s permanent right-of-way and easement shall
be the property of the Albemarle County Service Authority, which shall have the right to
inspect, rebuild, remove, repair, improve and make such changes, alterations and connections
to or extensions of its facilities within the boundaries of the permanent easement as are
consistent with the purposes expressed herein.
The First Grantee’s and/or Second Grantee’s right-of-way and easement conveyed
herein by the Grantor are subject to the express condition that, whenever it is necessary to
excavate earth within the easement, such excavation shall be backfilled in a proper and
workmanlike manner so as to restore the ground surface as nearly as practicable to the same
condition as existed prior to the excavation, including the restoration of such paved surfaces
as may be damaged or disturbed as a part of such excavation.
The First Grantee and the Second Grantee shall protect the vegetated areas along
Cow Branch from impacts during installation, construction, maintenance, repair, replacement
and extension of the sewer lines and mitigate impacts thereto by using best management
practices within the easement and the temporary construction easements during such work,
as deemed to be adequate by the Grantor’s county engineer.
The sewer line shall be made of ductile iron pipe across the aforesaid property.
This Deed of Easement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which
shall be deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute one and the same
instrument.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. STA-2001-08, Comprehensive Revision of the Subdivision Ordinance,
Update on.
Mr. Mark Graham, County Engineer, said the DISC II Committee has met three times in the
last month going over the Board’s recommendations for changes to the draft ordinance. They have
now given directions to staff who are working on language for those revisions. It is anticipated that
staff will meet with the Committee again on October 19 and 26, and hopefully be back before the
Board for a final work session on November 3.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Closed Session: Personnel and Legal Matters.
motion
At 12:40 p.m. was offered by Mr. Boyd that the Board adjourn into closed session
pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider
appointments to boards, committees and commissions; under Subsection (1) for an administrative
evaluation; under Subsection (3) to consider the acquisition of property by purchase and/or lease for
courthouse and related facilities; under Subsection (3) to consider the acquisition of property for a
public park; and, under Subsection (5) to discuss a prospective business locating in the County.
seconded
The motion was by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
_______________
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
Agenda Item No. 18. Certify Closed Session.
Motion
At 2:10 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. was immediately offered by
Mr. Boyd that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member’s knowledge
only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia
Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the closed session were heard,
discussed or considered in the closed session.
seconded
The motion was by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. Appointments.
Because the Board meeting was running behind schedule, this item was skipped at this time.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. Parks & Recreation Consultants Report.
Mr. Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks & Recreation, introduced Mr. Ken Ballard of Ballard*King
& Associations, the consultants who have conducted the Community Recreational Facilities Needs
Assessment Study. He said that Phase I of the study was presented to the Board in February. Today,
Phase II will be presented. It deals more with indoor recreation needs and strategies to meet those
needs.
Mr. Ballard reviewed Phase I of the report using a PowerPointe presentation (see copy on file
in the Clerk’s Office with the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors). Helping with the
presentation was Mr. Elio Alfon from the Hughes Group Architects. The conclusion of the report is to
build a South Facility in partnership with the YMCA on property where the new middle school is to be
built. The facility would consist of approximately 86,000 square feet at a capital cost of $19.0 million.
Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. Ballard knew of other communities that have built facilities like this.
Mr. Ballard said he and his partner have operated public facilities in the public sector since they
opened their doors. They are aware of the costs for operating such facilities. If the Board decided it
wanted to move forward with this facility, they would go take the design and rework this report on the
operational side to define the true operating costs.
Mr. Rooker asked about the revenue side. He asked if their projection of revenues is fairly
accurate. Mr. Ballard said at this point in the process, estimates could vary by 10+ percent. If the
facility’s design is changed and the fee structure changed, it would impact the bottom line. Revenues
would depend on the market, the size of the County’s population, and looking at a partnership with the
YMCA. They made a fairly conservative projection based on a developed fee structure. He does not
think they were overly aggressive projecting revenues.
Mr. Boyd said there is no capital debt service shown in the numbers. Mr. Ballard said that is
correct. He said most public providers tend to separate those two costs. The assumption on the
capital side is that there would be a financial investment by the YMCA in the facility, so a considerable
amount of the $19.9 million price tag would be provided by them.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Ballard was talking about the current situation with the local
YMCA. Mr. Ballard said they have had conversations with the YMCA regarding the facility, its location,
and their financial involvement and commitment. He does not think they are ready to sign anything at
this time. They have indicated to him that they are willing.
Mr. Bowerman asked why southern Albemarle was picked for the first facility. Mr. Ballard said
the County owns the property, it is a good site, and it is easy to access. There are real issues on the
north side. There is no publicly-owned property of the magnitude needed to do the facility and its
required parking.
Mr. Bowerman said most of the population lives on the north side. Mr. Ballard said in the long-
term there cannot be just the one facility built. Something will be needed on the North side, and also
in Crozet.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this would start swimming programs for all of the high schools. Mr. Ballard
said one reason for the competitive-sized pool is that it would be available for competitive activities.
Mr. Wyant asked if the figures given by Mr. Ballard are the total cost of the facility, with or
without the YMCA. Mr. Ballard said the figures are predicated on the YMCA operating the facility. He
said the operational model shown in the slides is a kind of blended operations plan. If the YMCA were
building this facility themselves, they would not include all of the pieces shown in the slides. In initial
discussions with the YMCA, they did not have an interest in building a big, competitive pool because it
is not a strong revenue producer. They put the two entities together in what the needs are and in
terms of both capital and operational involvement in the project. If this project is to move forward, a lot
of time will have to be spent hammering out the details.
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
Mr. Dorrier asked if they had considered partnerships with private providers. Mr. Ballard said
they had looked at what partnerships are possible. He said working out a partnership on this facility
with the two entities of the YMCA and the County is probably where the County would want to start. It
would be more difficult to bring in two or three more partners on a big project. However, they have
talked about a facility on the North side and one in Crozet. On the north side, because ACAC Athletic
Club is already in the area, a partnership might be possible on certain amenities. They focused on a
big south facility as being the first, but on others the partnership aspect needs to be thoroughly
evaluated and pursued. That is the way Parks & Recreation has been doing business up to this time.
One of their strengths is their ability to partner for facilities, programs and services. The consultants
are not recommending changing that.
Mr. Rooker asked what size piece of land would be needed for a north facility and for a facility
in Crozet. Mr. Ballad said on the north side they were looking at five acres. The south facility would
be sharing parking with the middle school which would provide some economies of scale.
Mr. Rooker said there is a substantial amount of additional land on the
Albemarle/Jouett/Greer/Ivy Creek School site. A lot of it is steep. Mr. Pat Mullaney said it is a difficult
site. Staff has talked with School staff about it, but it would be difficult to get usable space.
Mr. Ballard said during the site analysis process they tried to find something that had easy
accessibility, and they were not so far away from bringing in needed services, such as roads, electric,
water and sewer. They looked at where they could share some of those costs, and not put out a lot of
dollars. He said the north facility was identified as being a little smaller with a lot of the same
amenities, but without the competitive aquatic piece. It would have lower capital costs. In projecting
costs for a Crozet facility which probably would not occur for 12 or more years, a lot of the projected
costs would change.
Mr. Ballard said this completes the Phase II part of the study. They intend to give the Board
some bound volumes of Phase I and Phase II in the next couple of weeks. After that, it is up to the
County as to how it wants to proceed. He hopes they have identified some directional things for the
Board.
Mr. Rooker said he would like to see some comparables. Mr. Aldo said they just did a facility
in Leesburg comparable to the size of this south facility, but without a running track. Overall, the size
of the fitness area, the pool component and the fundamental elements are the same. Also, they did a
partnership project with the YMCA and Fairfax County. It would be a good model for the Board
members to visit.
Mr. Dorrier said there are two major medical facilities in this community, and there has been
talk about having medical therapy. Mr. Aldo said he and Mr. Ballard did a project in Harrisburg where
a component of that facility is a therapy area. Mr. Ballard said it was clinical health in an area of about
3000 square feet. He said they did talk with some hospital providers about that. He said the long-term
plans of Martha Jefferson Hospital are to build a new campus with some of the amenities they have
discussed. He does not think they are prepared to move forward with any formal partnership at this
time. He said the pool they showed the Board this morning is a warm water pool which can be used
for those purposes.
Mr. Dorrier thanked Mr. Ballard for the presentation. He asked if the Board needed to take
any action today. Mr. Tucker said “no.” He said Mr. Mullaney will pull together some of these
proposals and the Board will begin to see recommendations/suggestions from Parks and Recreation
as it starts working on the CIP.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there is any money in the CIP at this time for this type of facility. Mr.
Mullaney said there is money programmed in the CIP in three different years for an indoor gym. He
said staff approached this project realizing there are funds programmed in the budget, and realizing
what the YMCA says their fundraising potential is, a partnership could possibly provide a facility like
this where the County’s contribution is still within the range of the CIP.
Mr. Dorrier asked if staff should drive this process, of if the Board should appoint a committee
to look at it. Mr. Tucker said that may be necessary later, especially if the Board decides to shift the
emphasis to the northern area.
Mr. Boyd said he has touted an aquatic center for a high school program for the past four or
five years. But, he had not envisioned the County getting into a fitness center type of facility as
opposed to just a swimming facility for competitive swimming. He was a little overwhelmed when he
saw this proposal for three different sites. Right now, he is not sure that is the correct direction for the
County. Mr. Tucker said staff was taking a more comprehensive look at it rather than focusing only on
one aspect. The project can always be reduced in scope.
Mr. Rooker said he assumes that competitive swimming facilities could be added to existing
school facilities. Then, there would be no problem with finding sites. The other side is the revenue
side. One thing that is interesting about this proposal is that the net operational costs on an annual
basis are not bad if one is comfortable with the numbers.
Mr. Boyd said the capital costs were not included.
Mr. Dorrier said ACAC is expanding, so there is a real market in the County for these services.
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the County should be talking to private providers about these
needs. These providers might have some ideas about how to meet the needs in conjunction with
them. The issue is whether the private market can provide the services in a way that is competitive.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board needs to take a hard look at whether the private sector is more
appropriate than the public sector to provide these services. The YMCA is fine, but he does not know
if it is the strongest vehicle to use. There are a lot of things to consider.
Ms. Thomas said the University of Virginia is a major provider of recreation in the community,
so that makes this community different from other communities. She said that soon the Board will be
hearing a request for a large development, and it will include proffers. The value of this report is that it
gives the Board an idea of what to look for in terms of indoor recreation. It might help the Board deal
with opportunities in the future which cannot be envisioned now.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the County should talk to private providers in the area before
“getting too far down the road.” Mr. Tucker said the consultants have done some of that already.
Mr. Boyd said this falls in with the Chairman’s thought about forming a committee. He would
be interested in being a part of that effort. Mr. Wyant also said he would like to serve. Mr. Tucker said
Board participation would have to be limited to two members because of FOI requirements.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks holding a work session is a better idea than having a committee.
Mr. Rooker said he is in favor of another work session.
Mr. Ballard encouraged the Board members to look at the Phase I report. A lot of time and
effort was spent in determining what County citizens want. Also, in talking about partnerships, he
suggested the Board members keep in mind that there are public facilities, non-profit facilities and
private facilities across the country. He said they looked at a facility that would be uniquely set up to
serve the needs of the general population. It does not make money and it does not cover its operating
costs or its debt service. It is a community service type of facility. That same amenity cannot be
brought over onto the private side because it does not make financial sense. He said all the
discussions are warranted, but he would warn the Board to be careful about assuming that the private
sector can come in and do the type of thing being looked at without a major contribution from the
public sector to make those numbers come out right. He said ACAC has done a fine job of doing that,
but some of the things asked for in this facility are beyond the scope of what can be provided by the
private sector.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks the Board members need to visit some existing facilities. Mr. Ballard
encouraged the Board members to do that.
Mr. Rooker said that in terms of capital costs, he thinks it would be helpful to have the cost of
building an indoor swimming facility alone.
_______________
Public Hearing
Agenda Item No. 21. : ZMA-2003-05. The Meadows Expansion Amendment
(Sign #57). Request to rezone 26.843 acs from PRD to PRD to allow addition of 40 new dwelling units
at The Meadows residential community. TM 56, Ps 14C & 14C1. Loc on Rt 240 (Crozet Ave), approx
1/4 ml N of intersec of Crozet Ave & Rt 250W (Rockfish Gap Turnpike). (The 1996 Comp Plan, Land
Use Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Density Residential [3.01-6 du/ac] in the
Community of Crozet. White Hall Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily
Progress on September 20 and September 27, 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 The Meadows community in Crozet has
existed for some time with 58 residential units (ZMA-77-07 was approved for 27 units; ZMA-85-05 was
approved for an additional 31 units). This expansion would add 38 more units. He said this request
has been through a number of discussions with the Planning Commission which ultimately led to their
recommendation for approval with provision of the proffers which accompanied the request. He said
the major issue in review of this request was the need for inter-parcel connection(s). Staff
recommended that a connection be made from Crozet Avenue to the Old Trail development, via
existing Meadows Drive and west to a new road alignment that would be developed behind the
schools.
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant was concerned that through traffic at the front of the
development would pose a threat to the elderly residents of the complex, and was unwilling to make
such a connection. An alternative involving an extension to Davis Drive, adjacent to the White Oaks
subdivision, was proposed by the applicant and reviewed by Natural Resources staff. This alternative
appeared to be problematic under the Water Protection Ordinance and unacceptable to the White
Oaks property owners, whose property would be impacted. Staff then suggested another alternative
of providing a temporary construction easement along The Meadows southern property line that would
be needed for construction of a future connector road between the baseball field on the backside of
the school complex and The Meadows property boundary. The applicant was agreeable to this
easement, and also to making a connection from The Meadows to the future road. In addition, the
applicant agreed to staff’s request for a walking path to be used by residents only, as an amenity for
the development.
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
Mr. Cilimberg said with that and the proffers from the applicant addressing the revised density,
occupancy, walking path, easement and land disturbance, the Planning Commission recommends
approval of the petition to the Board.
With no questions for staff, Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Forrest Kerns said he is the president of the Jordan Development Corporation. They
operate 92 apartments in the County for elderly and handicapped low-income senior citizens. They
provide rental subsidies for these citizens. They own two separate facilities in Crozet, and one in the
old Scottsville School. He said Albemarle County also operates a community center that serves The
Meadows and The Meadowlands. Albemarle County supports the Jordan Board by appointment of
two representatives. The current plans are to build 38 additional apartments on the land they have in
Crozet. They will finance this expansion with Federal funds and they will also provide rental subsidies
for their low-income tenants. He said that he is accompanied by Mr. Don Nobles, a member of the
Jordan Board, two current residents, and Mr. Bryan Smith, their consultant.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing.
Ms. Lambert said she is a resident of The Meadows. She has lived at The Meadows for a
year and has found that it offers more than just housing. This is what older people and handicapped
people need today. They need recreation, planned programs, a caring staff, and close-by neighbors.
The big question is what will happen with this expansion. She has been told the general population
will increase in the next few years by 24 percent. Those over 60 years of age will increase by 43
percent. She has been told that of the people in this group, 70 percent will be low-income. That
shows there is a definite need for places like The Meadows. She said this facility offers everything a
senior citizen will want. It provides a caring staff, recreation and is close to doctor’s offices and the
rescue squad. More space is needed and it is needed now.
Mr. Don Nobles said this is an outstanding proposal. Everybody at The Meadows gets a great
deal of pleasure from living there. They want other elderly people to come in and have the same
privileges. He asked that the Board approve this petition.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
placed before the Board.
Motion
was offered by Mr. Wyant to approve ZMA-2003-04 subject to the proffers signed and
seconded
dated September 29, 2004. The motion was by Mr. Boyd. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
Note
(: The approved proffers are set out in full below.)
PROFFER FORM
Date: October 6,2004
ZMA #2003-005
Tax Map and Parcels Number(s) 56-14C & 14C1
26.843 acres to be rezoned from PRD allowing 40 dwelling units to PRD allowing 96
dwelling units.
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly
authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied
to the properly, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning
and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2)
such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request. The proffers apply to
rezoning and the Application Plan prepared by Brian P. Smith, P.E. and dated September 29,
2004.
Maximum Units.
1) The maximum number of residential units is ninety-six.
Occupancy.
2) Occupancy shall be limited to persons aged sixty-two years or older,
low and moderate income elderly and/or disabled persons who qualify as such under
regulations established by the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development. A husband and wife occupying a dwelling unit shall be qualified
occupants provided that one of the spouses is at least sixty-two years old.
Walking Path.
3) The walking path (identified on the Application Plan as "Proposed
Walking Path") shall be located as shown on the Application Plan and shall be shown
on every subdivision plat or site plan. The path shall be no less than five feel in width,
except where existing landscaping or utilities prevent the full five foot width. The
subsurface shall be four inches of crashed stone and the surface shall be asphalt,
prime and seal, recycled pavement, crusted stone, or any other hard surface
approved by the Courtly Engineer.
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
Temporary Construction Easement.
4) The Owner shall reserve that area identified on
the Application Plan as "20’ Wide Temporary Construction Easement…” Upon the
request of the County, the Owner shall grant to the County a twenty-foot wide
temporary construction easement in the location shown on the Application Plan to
facilitate the construction of a street on Tax Map 56 Parcel 17A connecting Crozet
Avenue to the Old Trail Subdivision. This proffer and the Owner’s grant of this
easement shall be conditional upon the County agreeing in the deed of easement to
restore as nearly as possible the premises within the easement to their original
condition by backfilling trenches, replacing fences, trees and shrubbery, and
reseeding or restoring groundcover, provided that the County shall not be required to
replace or replace any structures within the easement. If the County does not request
the temporary construction easement within ten years of the date of approval of ZMA
2003-005, this proffer shall expire and the lands shall thereafter not be subject to this
reservation.
Land Disturbance.
5) Land disturbance shall be limited to those areas where a
structure, utility, driveway, street, parking area or other such improvements are shown
on file application plan. Additional disturbance may take place ff the agent finds that
the location, design, construction, and maintenance of these improvements will have
the minimum environmental impact on the area and yet allow the improvements to
adequately serve the project. The site plan shall include a Tree Conservation Plan as
described on Section 32.7.9.4(b) of the Zoning Ordinance. The tree preservation area
shall be shown on the site plan.
(Signed) Jordan Development Corporation
By Forest W. Kerns, President _______________________ Sept. 29, 2004
Signatures of All Owners Printed Names of All Owners Date
_______________
Public Hearing
Agenda Item No. 22. : SP-2004-00028. Snow’s Rental Units (Sign #69).
Request to establish contractor’s outdoor storage on TM 90, P 35. This property consists of approx
8.167 acs. Znd LI & EC. Outdoor storage & display in the EC requires SUP in accord w/provisions of
Sec 30.6.3.2(b) of the Zoning Ord. Loc on E side of Rt 742 (Avon St) opposite Mill Creek S.
Scottsville Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on September 20
and September 27, 2004.)
Note
(: Mr. Wyant said he has a personal interest in this petition so will disqualify himself. He
left the room at 3:05 p.m.)
Mr. Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development, 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 for re-
approval of a special use permit (SP-2001-046) which was approved by the Board on September 11,
2002, but the use was never established. The property is located on Avon Street Extended, just south
of Snow’s Nursery for outdoor storage and display. He said the applicant is proposing to build 16 units
that will have outdoor storage for bulky materials such as pipe, wire, vehicles and other materials
outside. This request is identical in all respects to the special use permit previously approved by the
Board. The permit simply expired prior to construction. A preliminary site plan was also approved and
it also expired before they could perfect the final site plan. It is under review at this time, and is near
completion.
Mr. Fritz said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 14, 2004, unanimously
recommended approval of the petition. However, they were concerned that the Architectural Review
Board had not reviewed this request again so staff took the petition to the ARB yesterday and asked
them to reaffirm their action. They did so and reauthorized the Design Planner to issue the Certificate
of Appropriateness based on their prior action. There is no need to change any condition from those
the Commission recommended. He offered to answer questions.
With no questions for staff, Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Duane Snow was presented. He said nothing has changed since the request was
originally submitted in 2002.
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 SP-2004-00028, Snow’s Rental
Units, subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was
seconded
by Mr. Boyd. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
Note
(: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. The site shall be developed in general accord with the plans entitled “Snows Storage
Yard” revision date of 7/23/04 by David Wyant, P.E.;
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
2. The height of stored items shall be limited to eight (8) feet in the front row of storage
areas (the row closest to Avon Street) and in the southernmost storage area in the back
row as delineated on the plan;
3. Eight (8) foot high solid wood fencing of a design that meets Architectural Review Board
(ARB) approval shall be used as delineated on the plan for the north and south
perimeters of the front row of storage yards, the portions of fencing that connect storage
yards in the front row, and the southern side of the southernmost storage yard in the
back row;
4. Chain link fence shall not be visible from the Entrance Corridor (EC). Chain link fence
may only be used following ARB confirmation that such fencing will not be visible from
the EC;
5. The landscape plan shall be subject to ARB review and approval; and
6. The ARB shall issue a Certificate of Appropriateness prior to final site plan approval.
Note
(: Mr. Wyant returned to the meeting at 3:09 p.m.)
_______________
Public Hearing
Agenda Item No. 23. : SP-2004-00039. ALLTEL/Keswick II (Signs #43 &
55). Request to allow 3 flush-mounted antennas to be mounted to existing self-supporting tower &
three equipment shelters in accord w/Sec [10.2.2.6] of the Zoning Ord which allows microwave &
radio-wave transmission & relay towers in the RA Dist. TM 94, P 41A1. Znd RA & EC. Loc on Rt
250E (4460 Richmond Rd) near Boyd Tavern, just W of where Richmond Rd & Rt 794 (Three Chopt
Rd) intersect. Scottsville Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on
September 20 and September 27, 2004.)
Mr. Fritz 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 an application for the collocation of one new array
consisting of three new antennas at approximately 93 feet in height on an existing 150 foot tall lattice
tower with additional supporting ground equipment. The proposed flush-mounted panel antennas are
approximately six feet in length and 11.2 inches in width. Ground equipment would be installed in
three cabinets within the existing fenced compound. The property is located off of I-64 near its
interchange with Route 616 near Boyd Tavern. He said this is one of the last towers approved prior to
the Board’s adoption of the current wireless policy and the concept of treetop towers.
Mr. Fritz said this proposal has been reviewed for consistency with the wireless policy and
staff recommended approval. When the Planning Commission reviewed this request, they had a
question about the applicant’s request to remove a condition the staff proposed which would require
landscaping on the eastern boundary of the property. Instead, the applicant wanted to do fencing
around the lease area only, which is a small cluster of trees near the middle of the site in a pasture.
The Commission did not endorse the applicant’s request being concerned that a fence around it would
make it more visible. The Commission was concerned because it is a highly visible tower and this
request compounds the problem. They asked the applicant how many treetop towers would be
required to provide the same coverage. They discussed the concept of retrofitting all the existing
antennas on the site which do not meet the current wireless policy of being flush-mounted. They did
not recommend that condition in this case, but they do support the concept in future actions on all
previously-approved sites.
Mr. Fritz said the Commission first had a motion for approval, but that motion failed by a 3:4
vote. The next motion was for denial; it passed by a 4:3 vote. They stressed that should the Board
choose to approve this request, they should consider the conditions developed by the Commission
recommending a change to Condition No. 6 as proposed by staff. That condition would read: “No
existing trees within 200 feet of the facility shall be removed.” The Commission also recommended a
change to Condition No. 9 as proposed by staff. Their change replaces “Design Planner” to
“Architectural Review Board”. The Commission also recommended a change to Condition No. 10 as
proposed by staff. They changed the word “building” to “tower.” He then offered to answer questions.
With no questions for staff, Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Pete Caramanis said he was present to represent Alltel. He said this request for
collocation is before the Board because it will be the fifth carrier on this tower. There are three
antennae arrays on the tower, as well as a fourth set of flush-mounted antennas. This proposal is also
for flush-mounted antennas.
Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. Caramanis had put some photo simulations on the Internet in an E-
mail.
Mr. Caramanis said he did, but he brought a hard copy of those photos tonight because some
of those E-mails were rejected. He then explained the photos which are on file. He said since the
proposed antennas will be flush-mounted to the structure they will not adversely affect the visibility of
this tower. When this went to the Planning Commission, even though it was recommended for
approval by staff, and approved by the ARB, the Commission had some concerns about the tower
itself. They did not like the fact that the tower was ever approved so were not happy about adding
anything to it making it a “bigger mistake” in their view.
Mr. Caramanis said it is the applicant’s position that locating the antenna on this tower makes
better use of the tower without creating an additional adverse visual impact. If this tower has to exist,
they might as well get as much use out of it as possible. The County’s tower policy encourages the
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
use of existing structures. They understand the County has a concern about overloading things and
making it more of an intrusive structure. In this case, that would not be the result.
Mr. Caramanis said he would like to mention the conditions. The changes in No. 6 and No. 9
were just wording changes and they have no issue with those. He said that Condition No. 4 was
added by the Planning staff after receiving a call from a neighboring landowner, Mr. Wilberger, who
expressed concern that he might be able to see the ground equipment from his property. That
property is the only property where it could be seen, and the recommendation from staff to plant
landscaping was simply to address that one specific issue. Alltel had a concern about the
landscaping. This is a parcel which has cattle grazing. A main concern was planting any vegetation
or trees that would likely get destroyed by the cattle. Alltel approached Mr. Wilberger to discuss his
concern because he had not come forward at the meeting, or had not written to Planning staff. After
speaking with him, Mr. Wilberger had no problem with the proposal to replace the fence (it is a chain-
link fence now), on the side of the lease area between the equipment and his property. That would
prevent him from seeing any of the equipment itself. He was perfectly agreeable to that solution rather
than planting the trees, and Alltel did submit a letter from him indicating his agreement. He said that
condition was to deal only with visibility from Mr. Wilberger’s property, so the fact that he is agreeable
should make it agreeable to everybody. He asked that Condition No. 4 be changed to remove the
landscaping requirement and have language instead stating that the fence on that side of the
compound between the equipment and his property would be replaced by a wooden fence. He
offered to answer questions, and asked that the Board approve this request.
At this time, 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 asked staff if the fence basically looks right or whether having it wooden is
something that sticks out, or does not look like it fits in the area. Mr. Fritz said it is not something that
would customarily be seen. He personally thinks it would make the ground-based equipment more
obvious. There is already a 150-foot tower there, so how much more visible would it be. He thinks it
would attract more attention. He said the ARB did not review a fence around the base of the facility,
so it would need to go back to them for that review.
Ms. Thomas said she remembers when the Board approved this tower. She had gotten
information at the time about treetop towers, but the other Board members had not seen that
information, and although she argued that this tower was not needed, no one else had that level of
information. Soon afterwards, the Board discovered that this was the wrong way to go. Every time
she drives by it, it is a stab in the eye because it is a really ugly entrance into Albemarle County and
does not match what the Board has tried to do in the rest of the County.
Mr. Bowerman said he thought that at the time it was approved, the Board had no other
option.
Ms. Thomas said that is correct. It was all that most knew at the time about these towers.
She agrees with the majority of the Planning Commission that an addition to something that is a
mistake is still an addition. On the other hand, as the photo simulations point out, there is not much of
an addition. But, it is increasing the use of that tower so that if the industry changes so that some
people drop off that tower and use some other means of transmitting their signals, the County would
be all the more stuck with that tower.
Mr. Dorrier said he was struck by the photos. You actually cannot see that it is on the tower, it
is basically invisible. He does not see how it harms anything.
Mr. Rooker said he has been a big opponent to adding antenna to towers that were mistakes
in the first place. He has voted against virtually every one of them. In those cases, the antennas
proposed were very visible. In this case, the photo simulations show there will not be much of a visual
impact created by the antenna. In fact, it would probably not be more than a treetop tower in terms of
its visual impact, so he will support the application. He is not certain what to do with the question
about the fence and the trees. Is it true that the fence can only be seen from the Wilberger property?
Mr. Fritz said he believes it could be seen from a small portion of I-64, but it would have to be
analyzed to be sure that is the case.
Mr. Wyant said from the photo simulation the applicant showed, the additional antenna have
no real visual impact from the tower. He said if Mr. Wilberger would like some other kind of fencing,
he thinks something solid draws the eye, so something that blends in more would be more
appropriate. He guesses it is up to the ARB. He said the brown chain-link fences are more appealing
to him.
Mr. Fritz said if the Board is thinking about the ARB addressing this question, their view will be
limited to its impact on the entrance corridor district. If that eastern side is not visible from the
entrance corridor district, they will not analyze it.
Mr. Wyant asked what happens if it does not go back to the ARB. Mr. Fritz said if it is
determined that it is not visible from the entrance corridor district, it would be whatever the condition
was as recommended to the Commission by staff.
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50)
Mr. Boyd asked who made the original recommendation, the Commission or the ARB. Mr.
Fritz said Condition No. 4 which speaks about screening was a recommendation of staff to the
Commission. It was not an issue for the ARB to consider.
Mr. Boyd said it must have been assumed there is no visibility at that point. Mr. Fritz said for
what was proposed there was either no visibility for the ground-based equipment, or it was determined
that it was acceptable.
Mr. Wyant said if it was not visible in the first place, he would leave it alone.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks the landowner would have the option of getting the applicant to
put in trees as a condition of the lease. Mr. Fritz said he does not know what the lease agreement
provides for.
Mr. Dick Gibson asked to speak. He said that he spoke with Mr. Wilberger and he was pretty
low key. He was not concerned, but said if there was someway to screen some of the equipment from
his side, anything would be fine. He said a wooden fence would be fine, he did not care that much.
He said that maybe it would be less visible if slats were put in the fence that is there now. They
cannot put in more trees because Alltel does not control anything beyond the compound, and the
cattle are an issue.
Mr. Rooker asked if this is an either, or, condition.
Mr. Wyant said if Mr. Wilberger would be satisfied doing that, he would not have a problem
with it.
Mr. Gibson asked if they were to put the slats in the fence and put trees on Mr. Wilberger’s
property, if that would be acceptable.
Mr. Davis said there needs to be wording for this change. He suggested saying “The
applicant shall modify the existing fence located on the boundary line on the east side of the site
adjacent to Tax Map 94, Parcel 39, to screen the ground equipment to the satisfaction of staff or in the
alternative provide a landscaping plan and install landscaping on the adjacent property to the
satisfaction of staff.”
Mr. Fritz asked if the condition referred to the fence on the property line or the fence at the
leased area. Mr. Davis said it is on the east side of the site. Mr. Fritz said that is the lease area.
Motion
was offered by Mr. Wyant to approve SP-2004-00039 with the conditions as
recommended by the Planning Commission, amending Condition No.4 as stated above. The motion
seconded
was by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: Ms. Thomas.
Note
(: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
1. With the exception of any minor changes that would be required in order to comply with
the conditions listed herein, all work shall be done in general accord with that described in
the applicant’s request and site construction plans, entitled “Alltel (Keswick II)”, dated
June 14, 2004 and provided in this staff report with Attachment A;
2. The tower shall not be increased in height;
3. The additional array of panel antennas may be attached only as follows:
a. All equipment attached to the tower shall be painted to match the color of the tower.
The cables extending from the ground equipment may remain black;
b. The antennas shall be sized as shown on the construction plans; and
c. In no case shall the distance between the face of the tower structure and the faces of
the antennas be more than twelve (12) inches.
4. The applicant shall modify the existing fence located on the east side of the site adjacent
to Tax Map 94, Parcel 39, to provide adequate screening to the satisfaction of the staff or
in the alternative provide adequate vegetative screening to the satisfaction of staff on the
adjacent parcel;
5. With the exception of any safety lighting required by Federal Aviation Administration
regulations, no lighting shall be permitted for this the facility, except as herein provided.
Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminaire
shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane
running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For the
purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or
lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the
lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply;
6. No existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the facility shall be removed;
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 51)
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following requirements shall be met:
7. Revise the title on the construction plans to include the name of the owner of the subject
property;
8. With the building permit application, the applicant shall submit the final revised set of site
plans for construction of the facility. During the application review, Community
Development staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions
of the special use permit have been addressed;
9. This facility shall be designed, installed and maintained in accordance with any additional
conditions and requirements established by the Architectural Review Board through the
issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness;
After the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following requirements shall be met:
10. The applicant, or any subsequent owners of the tower, shall submit a report to the Zoning
Administrator by July 1 of each year. The report shall identify each personal wireless
service provider that use the facilities attached to the tower, including a drawing indicating
which antennas and equipment are associated with each provider;
11. All equipment and antennae from any individual personal wireless service provider shall
be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use is
discontinued. The entire facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within
ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service purposes is discontinued.
If the Zoning Administrator determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that
the facility will be removed as required, the permittee shall furnish to the Zoning
Administrator a certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter of
credit satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the
removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the
Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney; and
12. This special use permit must be amended to allow any of the four existing arrays of panel
antennas to be:
a. relocated on the structure;
b. modified to increase the number or size of panel antennas; or,
c. modified to increase the distance of the panel antennas from the structure.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 24. Albemarle County Service Authority Service (“Jurisdictional”) Area
Boundaries/Rural Area Policy, Work Session.
Mr. David Benish said as a result of the Albemarle County Service Authority’s (ACSA)
proposal to upgrade and extend service in the Ivy Area of the County, the Board directed the Planning
staff in 2003 to study the possible implications of serving all Rural Area properties (those designed as
RA in the Comprehensive Plan) within the ACSA Service (“jurisdictional”) Area boundaries. There was
concern that the jurisdictional areas located in the Rural Areas of the Comprehensive Plan are not
consistent with the County’s current policy for providing water and sewer service. These services by
policy are intended to serve the designated Development Areas where growth is encouraged and are
to be discouraged in the Rural Area because they are a potential catalyst to growth. Furthermore, the
policy discourages the extension of public water and sewer into the rural areas except in cases where
lines are adjacent to the property requesting service and there is an existing health/safety issue.
Major concerns expressed by the Board at that time included the possibility of increased pressure for
more properties to hook-up as lines moved closer to the fringe of the jurisdictional areas thereby
encouraging the continued extension of service in the rural area, and the possible strain on limited
water resources and capacity if all rural area properties within the jurisdictional areas are served.
Mr. Benish said this project analysis has taken quite a bit of time as staff was staging this and
waiting for GIS data to be developed. He said that information is now available, and attached to the
Executive Summary is a detailed assessment providing information including the history of
“jurisdictional” area boundary designation, current policies for provision of water and sewer service,
other relevant Comprehensive Plan policies related to these issues, and information regarding the total
amount of area designated within the “jurisdictional” area boundary that is served. Staff focused on
the development potential of the property within the Rural Areas of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff’s
discussion focuses on parcels that are undeveloped, vacant and focused on the primary zoning
designations.
Mr. Benish said the Executive Summary highlights some points that are a result of the
assessment. Four possible approaches have been outlined to address this issue. One would be to a
null option; i.e., leave the designation as it stands now. Two other options which staff feels are ways
in which the Board could modify the designation of the “jurisdictional” areas to make them more
consistent with the current policy are listed. A fourth option which specifically speaks to removing
certain geographic areas in the rural areas is one that calls for further study. If the Board is concerned
about certain properties that are more of a concern than others, i.e., large properties with large
development potentials, there would need to be further study. He said this report is provided only as
information; there is no recommendation included.
Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. Bill Brent if he would like to speak.
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 52)
Mr. Brent said he had nothing to say. The ACSA Board of Directors acknowledges that this
matter is totally at the discretion of the Board of Supervisors and it is prepared to follow this Board’s
directions.
Ms. Thomas said in reference to Option No. 4 which would require extensive extra staff work,
that is the sort of thing the Board wishes it had four years ago before going into master planning for
Crozet. Now, the County is getting into two other master plans. She asked if this kind of study would
be appropriate for either the Route 29 master plan or the Pantops master plan. Mr. Benish said it
could be part of the process. Staff is assuming that it would be looking at fringe issues to the
development area boundaries. He said most of the areas within the “jurisdictional” area designation
really do rim the existing boundaries. Ivy is probably the largest bulge that extends out beyond the
designated development areas. Staff had not thought about doing that in the Pantops area, but it
could be part of staff’s assessment for the northern urban area as well.
Ms. Thomas said this is the beginning of a project and it could be the basis for doing this type
of work as these come before staff. She was struck by the fact that many lots which do not have
structures now are within accepted subdivisions. If a new lot owner in Key West or Ashcroft were told
they could not have water when all their neighbors did, there does not seem to be any reason to do
that even though they are officially in the rural area. Then there are the lots which are not in an
accepted subdivision. It is hard to single them out legally or ethically from the ones who have water.
She was intrigued with the part of the report pertaining to the lots that are not in a subdivision, and to
those lots not already built on. She thinks it would be hard to distinguish those vacant lots from vacant
lots in an accepted subdivision unless someone has a legal way to do that.
Mr. Rooker asked is Ms. Thomas was referring to Reason No. 2 (Take all vacant parcels
without service out of the Jurisdictional Areas).
Ms. Thomas said it is a hybrid of Option No. 2 because there are many lots which have not
been built on but which do lie in a subdivision. There are several subdivisions mentioned in the report
which contain vacant lots.
Mr. Benish said staff recognized that difficulty, particularly for small-scale rural-type
subdivisions. They have been treated in the same way as large-scale subdivisions and have had
service. Staff thought that strategically it was looking at the few parcels that are large in acreage, and
some of the properties have different zoning. The County may have to legally defend making that
distinction now, but the lots are unique in terms of their potential impact because of their larger
development potential. The smaller parcels that would create minimal impact might be difficult to
differentiate.
Ms. Thomas said an example of a major impact is a thing called “Mosby Mountain.” It has
many lots, it is outside of the designated development area, but for a long time it has had a
designation for water service. It is being developed in the kind of sprawl at the edge of the urban area
that the Board had hoped to avoid when it adopted the Neighborhood Model. It is an example of
something gone wrong with the planning process because the Board did not go back and do
something with the jurisdictional area designations. She said none of the solutions in the staff’s report
seem to be a fair way to correct that from happening in the future.
Mr. Benish said without further direction from the Board, staff did not continue to do the work
to evaluate the possibilities. He had thought that type of discussion would take place if the Board
chose Option No. 4 (Remove only certain geographic areas of the Rural Areas from the ACSA
Jurisdictional Areas). He said one thing that would have to be studied is what would be done to those
strategic sites legally and morally under changes to the current policy. Staff wants to be able to
defend what is taken out and what is left in. One of the properties staff thought about is a property
adjacent to Mosby Mountain which has old PRD zoning on it.
Ms. Thomas asked if the owners had not applied to have a part of that property returned to a
rural designation. Mr. Benish said that is correct, it appears they will not develop to the density that is
necessary for PRD zoning. It is an example of Mosby Mountain, but one that has not progressed to a
planning stage where they have plans based on the jurisdictional areas. However, it is a property that
needs to have a closer look by staff.
Mr. Boyd said he needs to understand the problem. He asked if Mosby Mountain is
requesting water service now. Mr. Benish said the Mosby Mountain subdivision has old zoning,
zoning that falls outside of the designated development area. By policy, the intent is to provide service
to the designated development areas where growth is encouraged, and that capacity be reserved to
support the development areas. The jurisdictional area designation was never modified to reflect the
development area boundaries. It is a piece of the Comprehensive Plan rural area that has that
designation and is now receiving service. It provides for an extension of lines out into the rural areas
and theoretically creates greater pressures for further adjustments in the future.
Mr. Boyd asked if the question is whether or not a lot next to a lot with water service can also
have water service. Mr. Benish said that is correct. The property he mentioned is the property next to
Mosby Mountain which is clearly in the jurisdictional area boundary and would be a natural extension.
But, it further fingers out those utilities into the rural areas.
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 53)
Mr. Boyd asked if that is a proposed development under way now. Mr. Benish said Mosby
Mountain is approved and under construction. The next property, at this time, has not been finally
approved for development.
Ms. Thomas said that whatever this Board does, the ACSA may say it is not a fiscally
responsible decision to extend the waterline. Even if this Board does nothing and asks staff to be on
the alert to do Option No. 4, it is still the ACSA’s decision as to whether to extend the waterline.
Mr. Davis said the ACSA may not pay for it, but if a developer wanted to pay for that waterline
extension, then they would most likely approve the request.
Mr. Brent said he cannot speak for his Board when this question has not been put to them, but
he believes the Board of Directors thinks that if the Supervisors have included a property for service, it
is a directive to provide service at the time when the ACSA has the funds and there is interest in
having the service. That might be 20 years in the future. That was the case in the Ivy situation.
Ms. Thomas said that once there were five and now there are four landowners expressing
interest and if turns out to be only three, what the Board does today will either guarantee or force
water into that area.
Mr. Brent said that is correct. Each project has to stand alone when it is competing for the
limited funds the ACSA has in its capital improvement program. If interest dwindles, then the
likelihood the project will be funded immediately or in the near future also dwindles.
Mr. Rooker said if the developer is paying for the extension, then the ACSA does not have a
capital investment, so it is an easier decision for the ACSA. He thinks they look for guidance as to
where the line should go.
Ms. Thomas said she was just trying to make it clear that this Board is not forcing lines into
areas by any decision it makes or does not make today.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the Board should look at Option No. 4. He thinks No. 1 and No. 2
create a number of unfair circumstances. He thinks staff might look at strategic larger properties
where water might be made available in the rural areas encouraging more intense development, and
the Board might want to consider making a change based on the information that comes back from
staff.
Mr. Cilimberg said the most productive next step would be to look at strategic properties, and
bring the Board criteria based on those kinds of considerations, and let the Board decide which ones
should be pursued.
Mr. Benish said there is a typographical error in one of the tables in the attachment. It is the
fourth page of the attachments entitled “Zoning of Undeveloped Parcels and the Jurisdiction Area in
the RA”, and the formula did not work out, so the total is not correct. The cell totals are correct, but the
other total should be 1541 acres.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 25. Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA-2003-006), Work
Session.
Mr. Cilimberg said at its first Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan work session on September 1,
2004, the Board received the Planning Commission’s recommended Rural Area Plan and received a
brief overview of the Plan contents. This amendment has been through review by the Commission
over an extended period of time and a lot of issues were identified. At last month’s meeting, the Board
agreed to a facilitated review process that would focus on key issues of the proposed Comprehensive
Plan amendment. It is hoped that review of the key issues may be accomplished at this work session
and the one scheduled in November.
Mr. Cilimberg said to begin this work session, Ms. Joan McDowell, Planner, will outline each
issue and then one by one Ms. Lee Catlin will facilitate the Board’s discussion of that item.
Ms. McDowell said the first key issue identified at the last work session was the Guiding
Principles. The Planning Commission developed the Guiding Principles as a set of standards to guide
the drafting of this Comprehensive Plan revision. They are intended to identify the major goals,
principles and considerations that should guide rural-area policies. The most significant change found
in the Guiding Principles from current policy is that equal value will be placed on all the elements
making up the Rural Areas (Agriculture; Forestry resources; Land preservation; Land conservation;
Water supply resources; Natural resources; Scenic resources; Historical, archeological and cultural
resources). Having agricultural and forestal land uses be the primary land uses in the rural area is a
change from the current Comprehensive Plan. Ms. McDowell said she will outline each of these
areas, and then ask for Board discussion.
Ms. Catlin said that after the Board’s discussion, she will make sure the conversation has
been ended with some very specific directions to staff on each issue. Now that Ms. McDowell has
outlined the Guiding Principles, the Board may want to comment at this time.
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 54)
Mr. Rooker said he has read the Commission’s minutes. He was actually a member of the
Commission three or four years ago when they discussed the Guiding Principles. He is very satisfied
with the Guiding Principles, in particular with Section 1. He thinks it reflects the primary Guiding
Principles that the County is seeking to further in the Rural Areas.
Ms. Thomas said she has received a lot of communications and comments from people who
feel strongly about these guiding principles. This is the heart of the Comprehensive Plan. She feels it
is the farmer who is protecting the rural area and creating the environment that most people think of as
rural. She thinks there is a basis for saying the list should be in the form of hierarchy. She told an
informal group from the Farm Bureau that she agrees with them on this item. The other items seem to
fall naturally under these first two items. On the other hand, to set up a dichotomy and say that these
two items are distinct from the other items or that there is a conflict among them may be a false
dichotomy. The Plan itself talks about how portions of farmland are sometimes conservation pieces,
and under another owner and another plan that farmland becomes a pasture and goes back to being a
conservation area. Every use within those listed items can become the other use without scarring the
land. It is residential development that is contrary to each of these things. It has always been the
purpose of the Rural Areas portion of the Comprehensive Plan to have that rural area stay as
something other than residential. She thinks that should be the purpose and the first item listed
continues that. When the ACE Program was set up, there were people at the state level that did not
like the program because it was not totally for farms, but it was recognizing what the County had in its
Comprehensive Plan which said there are a lot of reasons for preserving land. She said she has
taken a long time to say what Mr. Rooker said in just a few words.
Mr. Wyant said agriculture does preserve the land and look after water resources. He grew up
in Albemarle County and agriculture is important to him. His family is still in the farming industry, and
he still “piddles” at it.
Ms. Catlin asked if Mr. Wyant is supportive of the Guiding Principles as laid out in the draft
report. Mr. Wyant said he is supportive.
Mr. Dorrier asked about biodiversity which is not shown as a separate item.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks natural resources and land conservation are considered inclusive
of that. The Board has not yet received the report from the Biodiversity Committee, but she has not
heard anyone suggest that another item be added to the list.
Mr. Dorrier said biodiversity is a big issue, and he just wonders if it should be listed as another
item.
Mr. Cilimberg said this new Rural Areas section will stand in companionship with the Natural
Resources and Cultural Assets section which was adopted several years ago which focuses on
biodiversity among a lot of different natural resource considerations. The Comprehensive Plan does
recognize the biodiversity importance.
Mr. Rooker said the Board adopted a Biodiversity section of the Plan. Mr. Cilimberg said that
is correct. It is in the “Natural Resources and Cultural Assets” part. He said that under “Natural
Resources” it could say “preserve and manage the rural areas natural resources and biodiversity.”
He asked if Mr. Dorrier wanted to add that language.
Mr. Dorrier said he would like to add it since he thinks it is important.
Ms. Catlin asked if the suggestion is to call out biodiversity as a specific item in that part.
Mr. Rooker said what he said and what he thought Mr. Dorrier agreed with is to say “Preserve
and manage the area natural resources and biodiversity in order to protect the environment and
conserve resources for future use.”
Ms. McDowell said that would make that an equal component with the other items. She called
the Board’s attention to wording on the next page: “Encourage and implement the protection and
enhancement of genetic species in ecosystem diversity for wildlife in the County.” She said that was
written specifically for biodiversity. It is an important component, but it is not an equal component with
agricultural, and forestal, and natural resources. She asked if the Board wanted to make this more
important.
Mr. Dorrier said it should not be as important as agriculture. He said it could be of lesser
importance.
Ms. Catlin asked if Mr. Dorrier agreed to mentioning biodiversity in Item No. 15. She asked for
other comments on the Guiding Principles.
Ms. Thomas mentioned No. 4 “Address the needs of existing rural residents without fostering
growth and further suburbanization of the rural areas.” She thinks that is very important. As the Board
has talked recently about how many staff members will be put at each firehouse and how many rural
roads will be paved, she thought the policy was to meet the needs of existing rural residents in accord
with a policy that does not foster greater residential development so limited fiscal resources can be
used within the development area. It may be that everyone understands that is what is said in No. 4,
but she thinks that thought should be reemphasized. The Board has often said it wanted to hand the
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 55)
people who move into the rural area a piece of paper stating what they are not to expect in the way of
services. She actually thought that might be a proposal in this amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan, but she has not found it yet. That is why she was thinking about emphasizing that the County’s
limited fiscal resources will be used in the development areas and not across the rural portion of the
County particularly in any way that fosters greater residential development. She said if the other
Board members are comfortable with the way No. 4 is written and they think it says that, she is okay
with it.
Mr. Boyd said he is not sure what No. 4 means. He thinks that despite all attempts, there are
times when all of a sudden the rural areas get a higher density because of by-right developments, etc.
He does not think it is right to penalize people who have had things grow up around them. There are
things they might have agreed to when there were only five houses on the road, but now there are 20
houses on the road because of something the County did. He would not see paving that road as
promoting growth. He thinks that is a “chicken and egg” situation.
Ms. Thomas said there is presently an expectation that a rural road will get paved if there are
enough houses on it, and that will definitely encourage rural residential development.
Mr. Boyd said he will mention the Pantops area where there are people who are just outside of
the growth area saying there will be infill right up to their neighborhood which is in the rural area and
that growth will create traffic conditions and situations which they never envisioned.
Ms. Thomas said that is a good example of where the Board would want to spend its scarce
resources, or VDOT’s even more scarce resources to make sure that the roads in the urban area, and
the connectivity of the urban area is working. If the Board is going to try to provide equally wide and
paved roads throughout the rural area, it will not have the resources to handle what it is encouraging
in the urban area.
Mr. Wyant said the decisions the Board makes does not just impact, for example, the area
around Crozet. It affects White Hall, Garth Road, Free Union, etc.
Ms. Thomas said that is why she put roads on her list.
Mr. Rooker said the bottom line is to accommodate needs without encouraging further growth
and sprawl.
Ms. Thomas said it essentially says that, but she thought it was worth making sure everyone
agreed.
Ms. Catlin said the Crozet master plan, and some other documents may state that the Board
supports that intent well enough, or it may not state that correctly and it may need to come back. The
Board may want to consider how this intent is reflected in the rest of the document.
Mr. Wyant said all the growth is impacting the farm people. For example, people trying to
move silage along a country road often have their tractors hits by automobiles who do not realize they
are driving on a rural road.
Ms. Catlin said it seems that in No. 4 the issue of accommodation versus encouragement is a
balance the Board wants to be mindful of.
Ms. Thomas said she did not understand what the Development Standards in No. 6 are for.
Ms. McDowell said staff was specifically thinking of rural preservation development standards,
standards for the Crossroads Communities and any other kind of standards that the implementation
measures require. That is a broad brush way to term it, but she believes that is what the Commission
was thinking when they discussed it.
Mr. Benish said one specific example is parking standards for rural churches and whether
there should be heavy paved areas and parking standards that apply more to urban areas, and still
meet the environmental impacts of that impervious area.
Mr. Cilimberg said he thinks this will be brought back during discussion of roads because that
is a level of improvement.
Mr. Rooker said for No. 6, it might be better to say “To establish development standards that
are consistent with these guidelines.” He is not sure of the meaning of “rural area characteristics and
expectations.” Since there are these guidelines, the Board might want to make sure the development
standards established are consistent with the guidelines.
Mr. Wyant said he concurs.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks the Board is talking about semantics.
Mr. Wyant asked if the problem is just standards.
Mr. Rooker said Ms. McDowell’s example was: if standards are to be established for parking
at rural churches, standards can be established for roads in the rural areas, sometimes numerical
guidelines. This language says it should be done consistent with rural areas characteristics and
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 56)
expectations. His example was to say it should be done consistent with the guidelines the Board is
interested in accomplishing in the rural areas.
Mr. Wyant said he thinks they should simply establish rural area standards, period.
Mr. Rooker said if the Board is looking for a guideline when it establishes a standard, what is
the guideline? Should the guideline be these principles?
Ms. Thomas said she likes the language “rural area characteristics and expectations.” Maybe
she has a better understanding of those expectations.
Mr. Rooker said there are subdivisions in the rural areas now, and the question is whether the
Board will establish standards that meet the expectations. Ms. Thomas said “no.” Mr. Rooker said if
that is the case, he thinks this should be taken out.
Ms. Thomas said she should have let Mr. Rooker finish his sentence. She thinks the people
who live in the rural area should still have a rural church nearby that has a rustic parking lot with logs
as boundaries and not jersey barriers.
Mr. Rooker said he agrees. But, to him the word “expectations” is problematic. He said when
500 people from outside of the area move into developments in the rural areas, all of a sudden they
expect services that are perhaps much greater than envisioned by the County.
Ms. Thomas said putting a period after the word “characteristics” may be the answer if Mr.
Rooker is worried that this would embody suburban expectations.
Mr. Wyant said expectations are different here.
Ms. Catlin said the word “expectations” could be eliminated or it could say something like
“Consistent with rural area characteristics and expectations as defined by these Guiding Principles.”
Mr. Rooker said he would prefer to delete the word expectations.
Ms. Thomas said she is happy with “rural characteristics,” period.
Mr. Rooker agreed.
__________
Ms. McDowell said the next item to be discussed is “Funding Priority for Easements.” She
referred the Board to Page 15 where funding for ACE has been increased and supplementary public
and private funding sources will be actively sought. That is an example of the strategies within the
plan. On Page 19 under “Voluntary Land Conservation Programs” there is a discussion about ACE.
She said so far ACE has eliminated 249 development lots, it has protected 3724 acres of farm and
forest land, and it has protected 272 acres on mountaintops. It has allowed ten working family farms
to continue to exist. She said according to this data, and also according to the public, ACE is a very
important component of how to protect the rural area. She said the funding for the ACE Program has
not been consistent every year. It started out with $1.0 million a year, with a portion coming from the
General Fund, and another portion from the Tourism Fund. She said that in 2003, the appropriation
from the County was $1.0 million, and PEC added over $22,000. Over $1.0 million was spent in
easements, with $15,000 being used for appraisals, title insurance, and recording of deeds. She said
that one hundred percent of what is allocated each year does not actually go to buy easements.
Mr. Rooker asked if these properties are exempted from the recording tax. Mr. Davis said that
is correct.
Mr. Rooker said the County does not pay substantial recording taxes. Mr. Davis said there
are fees, but it is a small percentage.
Ms. McDowell said the largest expense is the fee for the appraisals. One thing the
Commission wanted to emphasize was consistent, permanent funding for the ACE Program. She
talked with the County Assessor yesterday (the assessments go up each year), and he is predicting
that the assessment over the next assessment period will increase 20 to 25 percent in the rural areas.
That means that less can be bought with the allocation.
Ms. Thomas said she noticed when Loudoun County had its program that it appeared that
Albemarle County was buying three times the land for the dollar as what Loudoun was getting.
Mr. Rooker said one strategy to consider is issuing bonds to buy more easements upfront and
then having some dedicated source of revenues to service those bonds. In a rapidly accelerating real
estate market, it may make sense to buy more easements today, and fund that over a longer period of
time.
Ms. Thomas said that idea was looked at extensively when ACE was first formed because that
is the way Virginia Beach did it. There were lots of difficulties with that idea, some of them because
this is a county and there was also the issue of paying interest on the bonds. There has been a lot of
research on that idea.
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 57)
Mr. Boyd asked what type of bonds Mr. Rooker was talking about. Would this come about
through a referendum? Mr. Davis said that would probably be one of the requirements. Because
Albemarle is a county instead of a city, it cannot incur debt for this type of project without a
referendum.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board decided to see how the program worked before making that
determination.
Mr. Rooker said for a dedicated source of funds, the Board could allocate a cent on the real
estate tax to the ACE Program. The advantage is that it would grow with the value of property. The
amount funded would increase to meet the inflationary trends in properties the County was trying to
buy.
Mr. Boyd said he would be more inclined to look at a formula rather than a cent. Something
similar to the ad hoc thing the Board has with the School System. Take some dollars off the top to
deal with public safety and education and some other things that need to be funded. He would not be
opposed to looking at some percentage of what might be called “discretionary funds” if there is such a
thing.
Mr. Wyant said he had asked the ACE Committee to look at the process to see if there is
someway it could be streamlined. Then, if there were the funds, more could be acquired earlier, rather
than taking 18 months.
Ms. Catlin said the recommendation before the Board now is whether it wants to look at
increasing possibilities for a dedicated revenue stream. As a strategy, is the Board willing to allow that
to move forward?
Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Dorrier said they are interested.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to look at the potential for issuing bonds. He would not want to do
it without a referendum. Mr. Tucker said if a referendum did not pass, the Board would have put itself
in an awkward position. It would not be able to go back and fund anything because the public would
have basically said, “We do not want that.”
Ms. Catlin said for the purposes of what staff is to do, everybody is in agreement with this as a
general direction, with the specifics to be looked at, but as a strategy the Board is not saying to take
this off of the table.
Mr. Tucker said if a penny where given to this program, it could be taken off the top just like
the funds which pay for debt service and the CIP.
Ms. Thomas said a penny is not a million dollars. Mr. Tucker said that is true at this time.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks the Board needs to think of this expense relative to other things it is
doing. He is not in favor of sacrificing emergency services so ACE can continue to be funded.
Ms. Catlin asked how much time the Board wants to spend on this item. There is one more
item staff thinks needs to be discussed today.
Mr. Tucker said the Board has one more agenda item which will probably take considerable
time to go through. It is 4:30 p.m. now.
Mr. Dorrier said there are three more items to go through for the rural areas. He said
discussion of Crossroads communities could take a whole hour.
Ms. Thomas said she has a question. On Page 15 all the Board discussed was Item No. 4.
She feels fairly strongly about something that is in the body of the report on that same page. When
will the Board get to make comments on that sort of thing?
Ms. Catlin said the idea was to go through the critical issues first. Then, staff would ask the
Board which other items they wished to discuss.
Mr. Dorrier said No. 4 in the Executive Summary (Crossroads Communities) and No. 5
(Alternative Uses) can be put off until next week.
Ms. Catlin said there was some interest in discussing alternative uses today.
Mr. Benish said the Commission asked for some discussion and directions on alternative
uses. They have pending before them one zoning text amendment to allow for historic interpretive
type centers in a rural areas zoning district. As they proceed forward with that text amendment while
the rural areas process is going forward they would like an indication from the Board as to its
sentiment for alternative uses in the rural areas. There is a second proposal which has been on hold
for about four years which would allow for special events in the rural areas. Staff has been holding
one applicant at bay while trying to get through the rural areas process. The Commission brought that
up at their last discussion of the ZTA. They feel it is important to move forward on that amendment
and not continue to have it held up or for them to work forward with it without any clarity from the
Board as to how they feel about alternative uses in the rural areas.
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 58)
Ms. Catlin suggested going ahead with discussion of “Alternative Uses” at this time. It is on
Page 24 in the report.
Ms. McDowell said residential development does the most harm in the rural areas.
Subdivision of land followed by building houses is the biggest threat. Alternative land uses would
allow some types of uses in the rural areas which would be reversible. A lot of these uses come
through for a Home Occupation-Class B use, things such as woodworking. The Board may remember
Panorama Farms which wanted to have a running and a bicycle tract. Those are reversible uses, and
the Board agreed with staff’s recommendation for approval. There was an application for weddings
about five years ago, special events. The kinds of things which would be guarded against have been
listed in the report. It would also allow supplemental income for people who want to hold onto their
land and not subdivide.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the question is whether anyone has any recommendations that are
not contained in the text before the Board today. Is everybody comfortable with this alternative use
language in the Comprehensive Plan? The Board is not at the point of going into specifics of how it
would be accomplished. There would need to be zoning text amendment later to accomplish this
objective.
Ms. Catlin said this just sets up the framework at this time.
Mr. Boyd asked if this is meant to eliminate restraints on events, such as those at wineries.
Ms. McDowell said it does not specifically place further restrictions on events at wineries. But
it would look at the way land is used in the rural areas now, which is extremely restrictive. There have
been requests at different times from people who said they cannot make it as a farmer and would like
to do something to supplement their income. For instance, in the years since she has been on staff no
one has looked at the applications for woodworking as anything other than approvable.
Mr. Rooker said the language in Paragraph 3 says: “The cost and time required for approval
of such uses should be minimized. Uses without significant impacts on the rural areas should be
permitted by right.” He said if the issues in the rural area are not great, the County should allow
people to do things in a much easier way.
Mr. Boyd asked if temporary traffic congestion would be considered an impact on the rural
area.
Mr. Rooker said significant traffic would be an impact and is something that would be
considered. Ultimately, the Board will have to get into the specifics of what uses meet these
requirements.
Mr. Wyant said a lot of people in the rural areas want to do stuff, but by the time they go
through the County’s process, it is over. He thinks the County needs to lessen the restrictions to help
a farm person selling products. The County is losing crafts people and those people need to be
encouraged. He thinks more things should be by right.
Mr. Rooker said low impact uses are okay. He is fine with the language the way it is written.
Mr. Davis said Mr. Benish was asking for guidance because there is a zoning text amendment
before the Planning Commission to allow museums (the Lewis & Clark museum) by special use
permit. The Commission may want to hold that off unless they get direction from the Board saying that
is an appropriate use which is consistent with this Rural Areas plan.
Ms. McDowell referred the Board to Page 25 where it talks about historic sites and public
tours. This section would set the policy to allow those. Also, there are some bullets shown to clarify
that.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks it is well-worded, and is comfortable with the language as written.
Mr. Boyd said he is in favor of it.
Ms. Thomas said if the Board agrees with this language where does that leave the example
given above?
Mr. Davis said he is not sure.
Mr. Benish said he did not think the Commission is expecting more from the Board than it can
do since it does not have the text amendment to refer to. The Commission said the ZTA is an
amendment that affects mainly the rural areas, and they wanted some indication that this particular
issue is not inconsistent with the Board’s thinking. If the Board agrees that it is appropriate to consider
alternative uses, then he thinks the Commission will move forward with the ZTA. They will probably
request that the other ZTA be activated so the staff can begin work on it.
Ms. Thomas said the Lewis & Clark Museum is proposed to be built on public land. Usually,
when talking about alternative uses, she thinks about ways to help people keep their land, keep it
rural, and keep it from being turned into a subdivision.
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 59)
Mr. Benish said he would not focus on that particular use because it is not only on public land
which lies in the urban area, but it just happens to be zoned rural area. The ZTA they are looking at
will predominantly affect the rural area because of the proposal to modify the Rural Areas Zoning
District.
Ms. Thomas said one of the ten listed items is “hospice”. Since it says, consider allowing
hospice, the Board has plenty of time to think more about that use.
Mr. Wyant asked how this fits in to things like old stores. What is defined as a store, the
structure or the business inside of that structure? Some people approached him who wanted to do a
different type of business inside of an old structure. He wants to preserve the historic structures, but if
something is not allowed in the structure, it will just sit and then fall down. This has happened all over
the County already. Something should be done to encourage people to maintain the structures.
Mr. Benish said that is the intent. However, to something like the Batesville Store (he likes to
use real examples), there are a limited number of uses that would allow the building to continue to be
used so as to preserve it as a historic property, and still be used in a manner that has the scale and
the integrity to fit the rural character.
Mr. Cilimberg said that will also be a big emphasis in the Crossroads Communities section.
That was listed as No. 4 in the today’s Executive Summary. It has a particular target of historic
structures that are typically in old villages.
Mr. Rooker said that section and this section combined give the latitude to allow multiple uses
in those areas that are still consistent with a crossroads community in the rural areas.
Ms. Catlin said no one seems to have any real objection to the language before the Board and
staff can pass on to the Commission that there is nothing here that is causing the Board a problem
with proceeding forward.
Ms. Thomas said to remember that the objective is to permit rural landowners to have income-
producing land uses that will offset financial pressures to subdivide their land.
Mr. Rooker and Mr. Boyd agreed.
__________
Ms. McDowell said in reference to “Agricultural Support” there was an attachment to the
Executive Summary. In March of 2004, the Board and Commission held a joint work session and
discussed this item and agreed that it would be a necessary tool to protect the rural areas and would
help agricultural and forestal uses. At that time, the Rural Areas Focus Group was meeting, and two
of the members, divided off, discussed and brought back the report in the attachment. During the
earlier discussion the Board was concerned about how this would interconnect with the services that
are available now. This one and one-half page document talks about that. The recommendation is
that Albemarle County promptly set up an Agricultural Development Office. Other counties have
similar offices, Loudoun and Fauquier in particular.
Ms. McDowell said the section on Agricultural Support starts on Page 14. As early as 1994
the Agricultural and Forestal Industries Support Committee talked about agricultural support for direct
marketing operations and requested that the County’s policies support farmers in such things as
nuisance conflicts. She offered to answer questions.
Mr. Dorrier asked how that differs from the work by the old County Extension Agent’s office.
Ms. McDowell said there is still an Extension Agent, but that office covers a wide area, not just
Albemarle. It would work in concert with the extension agent. That office is so understaffed that they
do not have the time to do the things they want to do. They have listed many things this agricultural
support person could do. It goes into talking with farmers and the burgeoning wineries in the County.
Fauquier County is very proud that an old firehouse located in the downtown area has been turned
into a cold storage facility.
Ms. Thomas said she supports this. It is something she has been pushing in a low key way
for quite a while. She thinks it is something that could be looked at regionally. The neighboring
counties in the Planning District Commission have expressed interest in this too. That might be a way
to get someone on the budget sooner rather than later. There is a new secretariat for agriculture at
the State level, but she does not know the date when that person will begin work. She thinks there
may be state interest and support in this. She thinks it is a shame that the State has let funding for the
extension agents decrease the way it has because it has been a very useful program. She recently
talked with someone who helped set up what are called “heritage apples” all around the United States.
He said the first thing to do is to study the market. She said that is something farmers seldom think of
or have a talent in. She wants to be sure that forestry products are not exempted when talking about
agricultural education.
Mr. Rooker said it comes down to the strategy which is No. 5 on Page 15. There is a lot of
background information before that page, but when you get to the concrete recommendation, that is it.
Mr. Wyant said there are a lot of small acreage farmers in the County. In Virginia, there are
actually more of them than the larger acreage farmers.
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 60)
Ms. Catlin asked if in terms of leaving it as a strategy under No. 5 the Board is in support of
leaving that in.
__________
Ms. Catlin said the last item pertains to “Crossroads Communities.”
Mr. Dorrier asked how many communities there are.
Ms. McDowell said she did not know the number. The survey done by staff is contained in the
report. Staff looked at Advance Mills, Batesville, Covesville, Free Union, Greenwood, Proffit, and
White Hall. What is contained in the report does not specifically give the boundaries of the
communities staff is asking the Board to look at, but the historical boundaries are shown. The
boundaries and the specifics would be determined with implementation. Contained in the
Comprehensive Plan would be the general document supporting crossroads communities. Staff has
heard at the public meetings held that people want to have close-by services, but not the kind that
would need a wide marketing area. It would be the traditional type of stores that are found everywhere
in rural areas. This would support reconstruction and rehabilitation of some of these existing
structures. Staff can see a doctor’s office, or a dentist’s office.
Mr. Rooker said on Page 24, Item 6, is a strategy which encourages the adaptive reuse of
historic structures, and should encourage their maintenance and preservation. He asked if that was
what Mr. Wyant was talking about.
Mr. Wyant said “yes.”
Mr. Dorrier said that in Keene there is the Payne’s Country Store which has been put into an
old structure. It is a nice facility.
Mr. Wyant said one of the oldest structures in that area is not being used for anything at this
time. It causes him concern. There is a use that wants to go in there. Most people did not know it
was the original store in the County, other than Wyant’s Store, and putting a use back in there would
keep it from falling down. He thinks the Board needs to encourage these kinds of things.
Ms. Catlin asked if any Board member had a suggestion for a change in language in the
crossroads communities section.
Ms. Thomas said she would like to thank the Historic Preservation Committee member who
went around and located most of these structures.
Mr. Wyant said little stores are great places to stop off and have a cup of coffee. He hated to
see the store that closed in Nortonsville; the little stores are vital to the County.
Mr. Rooker said they create a sense of community.
Ms. Catlin said the only thing she has heard as a change was brought up when the Board was
discussing the Guiding Principles, Page 11, No. 6, to end that sentence with “rural area
characteristics.” She asked if there is any other direction to staff on these five issues.
Mr. Boyd said he thought the Board asked for some alternatives for permanent funding for the
ACE Program.
Mr. Cilimberg said that would be a follow-up to Plan adoption.
Ms. Catlin said she thinks several nodded in agreement when Ms. Thomas said the balance
issue with accommodation and not encouragement needs to be looked at.
Ms. Thomas said at the beginning of this discussion she said the Guiding Principles are not a
hierarchy. She has picked out some places in the wording where there was clearly a choice and
farming tends to take a back seat. At some point, she will want to discuss that.
Mr. Dorrier thanked staff for the report.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 26. North Pointe Rezoning.
Note
(: The Executive Summary is set out in full below for purposes of clarity.)
“At the Board’s meeting on September 1, staff sought direction on a proposed County policy
for the use of Community Development Authorities (CDAs) created for the purpose of financing
development costs, which staff has referred to as a “Development CDA.” Staff recommended that the
use of these CDAs be limited to: (1) projects implementing an approved master plan that is part of the
County’s Comprehensive Plan or, (2) exceptional projects that are only considered after all zoning is in
place and which demonstrate that a CDA is necessary to accomplish the infrastructure improvements
for that area that are consistent and necessary to implement the Comprehensive Plan. Staff believes
that based on current land use and economic development policy, CDAs should be reserved for
circumstances where projects require CDAs to accomplish infrastructure improvements consistent and
necessary to the Comprehensive Plan and are beyond what would typically be expected.
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 61)
While the Board did not take action on the proposed policy, staff was asked to complete an
evaluation of two different approaches to the applicant’s plan, one with a development CDA and one
without. The primary objective of this analysis was to clarify what additional benefits were being
offered to the County by considering the approval of a CDA. This would be done through an
evaluation and comparison of the proffers being offered by the applicant. In addition to considering
the difference in the applicant’s proffers with and without a development CDA, determining how North
Pointe’s proffers compare with those provided with other recently approved major rezonings is also
important in considering North Pointe’s application.
In the narrative and table attached to this Executive Summary, staff has provided its
comparison of the applicant’s proffers with those provided with other approved rezonings, both with
and without the use of a development CDA. While the applicant does not necessarily agree with staff’s
analysis, it feels that it represents a reasonable comparison given the differences between the various
rezonings. In staff’s opinion, due to the significantly higher percentage of residential units in the North
Pointe development, it believes the impacts are actually greater than those with the other rezonings.
The purpose of this work session is to determine if the Board is willing to support the use of a
development CDA to finance North Pointe’s proposed plan and proffers. This plan has been
compared to both North Pointe’s plan without a development CDA and other recently approved
rezonings. While the Board has yet to approve a policy regarding the use of development CDAs, staff
believes that since this project has not been done through the master planning process, to qualify for
the use of a development CDA, at a minimum it should: (1) be considered exceptional and at least
compare favorably with other recently approved rezonings, and, (2) adequately address the impacts of
the development. In the case of both the North Pointe plan with a CDA and the plan without one, staff
does not believe that these criteria have been met. The basis for this conclusion is included in the
table and narrative.
Finally, while not the primary topic of this work session, a number of design issues have
previously been expressed as concerns and have actually resulted in a recommendation for denial by
staff and the Planning Commission. While considerable work over a number of months has addressed
some of these concerns, staff and the applicant have agreed to disagree on a number of issues the
committee of the Board asked to be worked out. However, staff does not believe that further effort
would be beneficial in these areas without Board direction on the use of a development CDA. A
decision regarding the use of a CDA may significantly affect any further work on the plan and,
therefore, is necessary prior to additional staff time being spent in the review of this application.
It must be noted that staff anticipates that significant work remains to have a final plan and
proffers ready for a public hearing. The proffers attached to this Executive Summary, along with staff
comments, illustrate the complexity of that task. While a November public hearing is considered
desirable by everyone working on this project, staff believes this would require a flawless process
using the existing plan and proffers, with the final submissions to be made within one week of this
work session. If the owner proceeds using the alternative plan (without the Northwest Passage
property), staff and the applicant are effectively starting over. The Application Plan would need to be
revised, the proffers would need to be revised, and the special use permit conditions would need to be
revised. Assuming the Board would want a final work session on that plan; staff believes it would be
difficult to have the plan ready for public hearing before January.
Finally, it must be noted there is some question as to whether the alternate proposal (without
the Northwest Passage property) should go back to the Planning Commission for a public hearing.
This plan is a significant change from what the Commission originally considered. The County
Attorney has opined this is not a legal requirement, but the Board has previously shown reluctance to
proceed without the Commission’s recommendation when there is a significant change to a plan.
Staff does not believe that the use of a development CDA is appropriate for consideration with
this rezoning for the reasons outlined above. If the Board determines it is appropriate for this project
to proceed with a development CDA, a schedule for consideration of the CDA needs to be developed
and coordinated with the rezoning application. In addition, staff will need Board guidance regarding
changes that may be needed to the proposed plan and proffers and whether the alternate proposal
(without the Northwest Passage area) should be referred back to the Planning Commission.”
Mr. Mark Graham, County Engineer, was present to make the staff’s presentation. He
summarized the Executive Summary set out above. He referred the Board to Attachment D entitled
“Proffer Comparison Narrative and Summary Tables.” He said a significant piece of property would be
eliminated under the alternate plan for North Pointe without a CDA. He pointed out the area on a map
calling it Northwest Passage and said there would be a connection opposite Lewis & Clark Drive on
Route 29. It is staff’s position that the road connection is still reasonable and appropriate for the
development. Staff prefers that it be in the plan, but regardless of whether it is part of the plan,
transportation improvements still need to be phased in order to get good internal circulation for the
development. The entrances from Route 29 should be completed with the initial site plan.
Mr. Graham said no new proffers have been made by the developer since staff made these
comments a week or more ago. The developer has not offered anything in the way of other
transportation improvements. Staff is looking at what Albemarle Place and Hollymead Town Center
did as far as offering additional off-site frontage improvements beyond those required as a minimum
by VDOT to get the entrances. The applicant proposes a CDA for infrastructure demands with the
commercial, the same type as that proposed by the other two developments. The last issue for staff
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 62)
had to do with the regional transportation study. Staff believes that $100,000 is an appropriate proffer
and comparable to others.
Mr. Graham said staff looked at the original plan and the one proposed by the applicant if
there is a CDA. Under the transportation phasing, it would be the same recommendations with the
addition of Northwest Passage which staff would like to have done as part of the initial improvements.
Staff would find it acceptable to allow up to five years for that work. As to the improvements on Route
29 being comparable with others, staff believes it is appropriate to do all of those with the first site
plan. As to other transportation improvements, staff thinks it is appropriate to construct all the third
lanes northbound between Airport Road and Lewis & Clark, and also southbound between the
Northside Drive entrance (which is the middle entrance on this property) and Airport Road.
Mr. Graham said as to infrastructure demands for the residential, the applicant has provided a
school site. Staff agrees and believes it is a comparable proffer in value and offsets the impacts to the
$3000 per unit offered in other places. As to infrastructure demands for commercial, staff has taken
off the commercial CDA. Staff did estimates last spring showing that the Albemarle Place CDA has a
present estimated value of $3.0 million and Hollymead Town Center’s would have a present estimated
value of $2.0 million. The development CDA has “come off of the table.” The same recommendation
remains for the regional transportation study with or without the CDA.
Mr. Graham said concerning the policy recommendations for CDAs, staff is looking for a
project that would be considered exceptional or at least it should compare favorable with other recently
approved rezonings or it should address the impacts of the development. Staff did not feel the
applicant had enough of “that on the table” with the proposed library site and the affordable housing.
Staff is still working on that with the applicant. To show how that is comparable to the other two
rezonings, staff must first address the loss in value associated with the County CDA. That is why on
the second table entitled “North Pointe Proffers with Development CDA”, at the bottom of the page
staff provided some suggestions as to how this development would be of such a quality that it would
be appropriate for the CDA.
Mr. Graham summarized by saying that staff does not think this application has met the
criteria recommended in the CDA policy. Staff asks for directions from the Board as to how to
proceed.
Mr. Boyd asked Mr. Graham to clarify his statement that this application does not meet the
requirements for a CDA.
Mr. Graham said when applying the CDA policy brought to the Board in September
(Attachment A to the Executive Summary), to this development as proposed with a CDA, staff says it
does not meet that threshold.
Mr. Boyd said the Board has not accepted that recommendation as a policy. Mr. Graham said
that is true, but staff has no other basis on which to evaluate the appropriateness of a CDA.
Mr. Boyd said he understands the CDA involved the commercial development but not the
residential. Mr. Davis said it does involve residential.
Mr. Boyd asked if that means the residential would be assessed an additional amount. Mr.
Davis said that is correct.
Mr. Boyd said he did not realize that. Anyway, people are agreeing to self-tax themselves so
there can be more infrastructure built upfront of the project as opposed to putting in a provision that a
few years into the future there might be some amount of dollars that might be used for infrastructure.
Mr. Graham said that is correct, but staff is saying that it would look for this application to exceed what
the expectation would be for the development without a CDA. Staff does not believe it has met that
threshold. If he looked at some other recent rezonings, he does not think this application is equal to
the proffers they offered to address their impacts. If they have not reached that comparable level, it is
hard to say they are providing additional value, or that some benefit of the CDA is being realized by
the County.
Mr. Boyd said the impasse comes as to what the assessed value of those are, such as the
linear square feet of road frontage that Albemarle Square is doing compared to the linear square feet
of road frontage for North Pointe. Mr. Graham said that is correct.
Mr. Bowerman said he talked with Mr. Rotgin yesterday, and one thing he reinforced the fact
that years ago it was suggested that Mr. Rotgin apply for a special use permit to do this; the Board can
apply conditions to a special use permit. The Board is not requiring him to do more than it required at
Albemarle Place or Hollymead Town Center. The Board is saying they are conditions and not proffers.
Mr. Graham said he disagrees. What staff has proposed as special use permit conditions do
not address the additional impacts of the development. They are things related to the protection of
critical natural resources on the property. There are things regarding the residential mix on the
property. The special use permit conditions do not deal with the additional infrastructure impact being
created by the development.
Mr. Dorrier said there are a number of public facilities on the site - a library site, a school site,
roads, and a park. He asked if staff estimated a dollar amount based on per capita or residences in
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 63)
that area. Mr. Graham said the comparable rezonings addressed their impacts by offering the
equivalent of $3000 per residential unit. If that same basis were applied in North Pointe it would come
out with the school site being valued somewhere between $2.0 and $2.5 million. Staff concurs and
agrees that is inequitable.
Mr. Dorrier said there is a gap between staff’s evaluation of the proffers of the public uses and
Mr. Rotgin’s. Mr. Graham said staff’s comparison has been based on what it sees as infrastructure
being proposed to offset the impacts of the development. What are in Mr. Rotgin’s spreadsheet are
project costs for developing the project. Those development costs may or may not address the
impacts being created by that project. For example, internal roads are required by all three of the
developments. They are all building the roads to the same standard.
Mr. Rooker said looking at the chart (Attachment D), he sees two different analyses. One is
for the North Pointe development without a development CDA to help fund Mr. Rotgin’s infrastructure,
and the second is his proffers with a CDA. Personally, having reviewed these charts, he basically
agrees with staff’s position. He would not vote in favor of this development with the current proposed
proffers without the CDA, those which have been laid in front of the Board by the developer. Mr.
Rooker said early in this process he said he was interested in looking at this development with a
package of proffers which addressed all of its impacts in a way that was comparable to Albemarle
Place, etc, without a CDA. He understands this Board cannot commit to a CDA as a part of a rezoning
where there is the “chicken and egg problem” going on. He thinks the Board must look at this
development without a CDA, and then if the developer wants to come back immediately after a
rezoning, if it is accomplished, and propose a CDA and propose some additional things with that CDA
package, he thinks that is a reasonable way to approach this. He said the Board just keeps getting
packages of information that are jumbled and it gets last minute pieces of information e-mailed to
them, and that makes it virtually impossible to have a productive work session. He said as the Board
sat down they were handed an e-mail from Mr. Graham to Mr. Rotgin which was a response to Mr.
Rotgin’s e-mail late yesterday which is an analysis, but he thinks staff has done a good job of
analyzing this and addressing the issues that are necessary for approval either way the Board looks at
this.
Mr. Boyd said Mr. Rooker said earlier that the applicant is asking the Board to use CDAs to
finance his infrastructure. He thought it was the County’s infrastructure in the way of a school site, a
library site and off-site road improvements to Route 29.
Ms. Thomas said internal roads and protecting the natural area are things that would be asked
of any applicant.
Mr. Rooker said he disagrees with Mr. Boyd. Hollymead Town Center has to do the Route 29
improvements without respect to a CDA. They provided $3000 per residential unit. Albemarle Place
has proposed basically $3000 per residential unit. What Mr. Rotgin is proposing is a school site in lieu
of that. Staff agrees with him; that is not a point of disagreement. But, he thinks Mr. Rotgin is only
proposing it if he gets the CDA. Mr. Graham said the school site has not been tied to the CDA.
Mr. Rooker said that is not tied to the CDA so staff is in agreement on that. Mr. Davis said it is
tied to the CDA plan. Mr. Graham said there is the assumption that the CDA will be approved. Mr.
Davis said without the CDA, Mr. Rotgin offers the site after rezoning at fair market value. Mr. Rooker
said he offers to sell the site to the County. That is the point. Without the CDA he is not proposing a
comparable per unit contribution and not proposing the school site.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks that is a matter of opinion.
Mr. Rooker said it is on the chart in the Board’s packet.
Mr. Boyd said he has seen other charts that may not agree with the assessment the Board
has.
Mr. Rooker said he will be happy to bring this thing to a vote.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks the applicant should be allowed to speak.
Mr. Bowerman said he would like to know why there is such a dichotomy between the two
positions. Both are looking at the same thing, but yet you are not even close to talking to one another.
Mr. Rotgin said he would like to address the issue of the residential that Mr. Boyd mentioned.
He said other mixed-use communities have been financed with tax exempt financing. The bond issue
does finance some of the internal infrastructure such as roads, sewer, etc. But, the portion applicable
to the residential is not going to remain in force except during the construction period. As lots are sold
the pro rata portion of the improvements assigned to those residential lots are paid off upfront. If a lot
were going to sell for $100,000 and $10,000 is representative of the special assessment, that lot will
sell for $90,000 and the other $10,000 would go to pay off the assessment. There will be no
continuing assessment on the residential lots. The continuing assessment would be on the
commercial properties. Mr. Davis said in practice that may be true, but legally that cannot be required.
If the landowner purchases the land and chooses not to pay it off upfront, there is no legal way to
require him to do that. It would be prorated over a twenty-year period like the commercial properties.
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 64)
Mr. Rotgin said Mr. Davis is right, but in the CDAs that have been successful, and where there
were bond issues, the residential lots were paid off, so the only thing remaining would be the
commercial. He would like to answer Mr. Bowerman’s question. Both his organization and the County
have their own share of challenges. He has also talked to Mr. Graham about his e-mail; he wishes he
had gotten that e-mail a long time ago. He found it to be very useful because it put together the
County’s position on the various proffer issues. From a timing standpoint, they turned in their
Application Plan on July 30 and their proffers on August 20. They got a staff report on September 22
and staff invited them to meet the next morning; he did come. He thought it was a productive meeting.
They agreed to do a number of things that were in the staff’s comments. When Mr. Graham sent out
his “grid”, it did not include what had been agreed to on September 23. They worked over the
weekend to revise Mr. Graham’s proffer grid and submitted it to the County on Tuesday afternoon.
Staff has to give information to the Clerk for this meeting of the Board on Wednesday, so all the
comments Mr. Graham just made are based on information that is stale. When they provided “this” to
the Board members by e-mail, the red marks are what they agreed to do at the Thursday meeting.
Ms. Thomas said her printer does not print in red.
Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. Graham’s October 5 e-mail responded to this red-line version that Mr.
Rotgin sent out the day before.
Mr. Rotgin said he responded to it today but it was not in the Board’s materials for this
meeting, so the Board’s materials are not current as to what they agreed to do in those proffers.
Those things need to be reviewed by staff and they need to be reflected in the third column which is
the staff’s recommendation. What is shown in red is what the applicant agreed to do when they met
with staff on the 23rd. It also reflects things they agreed to do but they may not have talked to staff
about. Staff cannot assume that these are absolute because they have to go back and revise the
proffers to reflect what the North Pointe column proffers say. He said the staff’s recommendation in
the right-hand column of what was just handed out is reflective of the August 20th proffers and not the
proffers as they exist today. He mentioned the large 11” x 17” grid underneath that grid which was put
together by Ron Keeney trying to figure out a way to make this easier to understand. Mr. Keeney’s
grid combines the “with” and “without” proffers on one sheet of paper and is an easier format to review.
He said this is a format that can be used to present the differences in the proffers, so the Board can
consider the merits and determine if a CDA might be appropriate.
Mr. Rotgin said there are two issues which are outstanding. One is the area around the library
where staff is concerned about parking and access to small businesses. The second has to do with
the ARB recommendations that staff suggested should be responded to at the last work session.
They have responded to those. He thinks they will have to meet with the ARB’s staff person.
Mr. Rotgin said the plan is better now so the process has been productive. He said North
Pointe is a mixed-use, intergenerational, pedestrian-oriented community where people can live, work,
play, shop, go to school, walk, bicycle, or get into a car without having to go to Route 29. It has a lot of
redeeming characteristics. He said there is no negative transportation impact at North Pointe. VDOT
has reviewed the traffic impact analysis report put together by Wilbur Smith. That was a year-long
process. They have agreed to do everything that VDOT has asked them to do in terms of mitigating
the impact of North Pointe. They also agreed to make improvements under the CDA arrangement
from Airport Road up to Lewis & Clark. The idea is to get all that construction work done early so it
does not impact North Pointe after North Pointe starts to be developed.
Mr. Rooker said on the red-line grid, it says “completion of all northbound U.S. 29
improvements, etc. prior to first commercial CO” and then it says “the balance of VDOT-required
southbound lane and southern entrance improvements prior to CO for more than 290,000 square feet
of commercial space.” He said they are not proposing to do all of those improvements at the same
time.
Mr. Rotgin said they will do all of the northbound and all of the required southbound
improvements at the same time. He said the University proffered to complete the 29 improvements
southbound all the way from Lewis & Clark to Airport Road. As a result of the way their proffers are
written, North Pointe will actually be doing a good part of the work that the University is “on the hook”
for.
Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. Rotgin has talked to the University to see if they will hook into this
thing at the same time that this work is done.
Mr. Rotgin said they have talked with them and made the case that it is best to do all of this
work at one time with one contractor, under tax-exempt bonds that they can issue, and they will
probably take one-half of the cost they would have to incur.
Mr. Rotgin said he had another comment about the red grid. The 11” x 17” grid which Mr.
Keeney did is word for word exactly the same as the red version. It includes their comments, but it
does not include changes to staff recommendations to reflect the changes they made in the proffers.
They will be closer, but probably will not satisfy staff. There are some red marks in the second column
which deal with comparable rezonings which he made while looking at Albemarle Place and
Hollymead Town Center and comparing those to North Pointe. The second box shows the difference
in the linear footage of what they are doing at North Pointe versus what other communities do.
Hollymead proffered 6700 linear feet of highway improvements along Route 29. For North Pointe,
they have proffered 11,600 linear feet of highway improvements; a difference of 5000 linear feet.
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 65)
They are happy to do that but think they should be getting credit when the two developments are
compared.
Mr. Rooker asked if the improvements would just basically run along the property, except for
the one hole. Mr. Rotgin said “no.” That is a 2000 foot hole.
Mr. Rooker said the property is somewhat bifurcated by that hole, but other than that what he
will be doing is improving Route 29 along his property. Mr. Rotgin said that is not true. He said they
do not own any of that property.
Mr. Rooker asked if that is the hole in the property. Mr. Rotgin said they have agreed to do it
under the CDA, but they do not own that property. He said this Board complimented Hollymead on the
fact that they brought disparate landowners together. There were four or five owners who joined in a
unified plan. Over the years, he said they (Mr. Rotgin) have brought 20 landowners together. They
were able to convince “this” owner to let them include the land in the rezoning because the County
wanted to have “this” connection. The challenge with the connection is that it is 40 acres of land and it
is terrible land. Almost everything shown in green will be dedicated to the County or reserved for
preservation areas because it is not developable land. They have to build not only “this” road, but
when you build “this” road you also have to build Route 29 from “this” point to “this” point. They do not
need that for North Pointe but think it is something that would be good for the community. They have
offered to do that under the scenario that involves CDA funds.
Mr. Rotgin referred the Board to a different rendering. He said if it were compared to
Hollymead Town Center, it is no different than the piece of property the developer of the Hollymead
Town Center pulled out of the rezoning at the end of the process. The County did get improvements
on Route 29 over that property. What he is suggesting is that “this” piece of property will be included
even though the development of it could be 15 to 20 years into the future. They will put in the road
improvements now. It is not a question of whether the County will get the improvements. If they do
not put them in now, when “this” individual comes back in the future to develop “this” property, the
County will ask him to do the improvements. They are offering to do them now.
Mr. Rotgin said they could talk about this until late tonight and still not be in good shape. He
would suggest that the Board instruct them, like it instructed them when they worked with the ad-hoc
committee on the design, to work on the proffers over the next month. He pointed to a drawing on the
wall and pointed out the New Hope Community Church which was sold a number of years ago. He
said that church is in the process of expanding and staff has suggested it might be a good idea to try
to integrate that into North Pointe. They are willing to do that. Their respective architects are working
on it, but it will take several weeks to decide if or how it can be done. That is important to them
because it is like a dagger through the property. They would like to work that out, and he suggests
that the Board defer the public hearing until the second week in December. He said the Board may
want to set up another ad hoc committee to organize and synthesize the proffers and put them into a
form so they can be readily understood. He said they want the school site, the library site, all the
internal roads, curb and gutter, street trees, they want to treat the stormwater coming off of adjacent
properties, provide preservation areas, provide conservation areas, provide dedicated access (not
easements) to adjacent properties to give an interconnected road network, the Route 29 North
improvements, the Proffit Road improvements, improvements to Leake Road, and the Northside Drive
connection. They want to do all of those things but have “to see the light at the end of the tunnel and
not a freight train” in terms of economics.
Mr. Bowerman said Hollymead Town Center and staff agreed when the proposal came before
this Board. Albemarle Place and staff agreed when their proposal came to this Board. That should be
the state of the submittal the next time the Board sees it. Both of you should be finished correcting
what the other one just said. Also, the Board needs the information at least a week in advance of that
meeting so it will know what is going on.
Mr. Rotgin said he would like to talk about Hollymead Town Center. He was not in the room,
but that was worked out at the last minute. How did it get worked out? Who was involved? A couple
of Board members were involved.
Mr. Davis said no Board members were involved. Those negotiations were done between
staff and the developers.
Mr. Rotgin asked if the Board members ever met with the developers. Mr. Rooker said he met
with the developer. He has met with Mr. Rotgin and virtually every developer of a large project.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks this is important. It seems that Mr. Rotgin is about to suggest that
there be another small committee, and she thinks Mr. Dorrier is about to suggest that. She said Mr.
Davis said that is not the way it worked for the Hollymead project.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks reasonable people can differ, but in good faith they can reach an
agreement. If they cannot reach an agreement, then they can agree to disagree.
Mr. Davis said as the Board’s attorney he would strongly recommend against that process.
He said the Board would be in a posture where it would be very vulnerable to an argument later on, if
the rezoning were denied, that the Board had acted improperly. He strongly recommends that the
Board not get involved in that process.
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 66)
Mr. Rotgin said that would be the case if they were negotiating proffers. Mr. Davis said he
thinks that is what is being suggested.
Mr. Rotgin asked about just organizing the proffers. Mr. Davis said he does not understand
what “organize” means; they appear to be well organized now.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks that at any point a Board member could say he would support the
request with “these” proffers or not support it with these proffers. Mr. Rotgin said that is not what he is
talking about.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks that is what was done with the Hollymead Town Center and with
Albemarle Place. He could go through these and say, based on staff’s recommendations, what he
thinks should be in the proffers. He cannot speak for any other member of the Board.
Mr. Bowerman said if the developer wants to listen to what individuals feel about the request,
it would be up to them with staff to see if they could accommodate that suggestion.
Ms. Thomas said the Board needs to be careful and not undercut staff, or enter into individual
negotiations on proffers. Mr. Rooker and Mr. Bowerman agreed.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks there is a difference of opinion about the proffers.
Mr. Bowerman said there is a lot of difference.
Mr. Rooker agreed. He thinks it would be helpful for staff to look at the large chart and say
whether it agrees with the presentation or if staff has comments about it. There has to be some chart
that is a working chart that everybody agrees upon as a comparison. At this time, the Board has about
five different charts.
Mr. Bowerman said some of them are new today, so it makes it impossible to work with them.
Mr. Rooker said he pretty much agrees with staff’s analysis of the proffers made to this point.
Mr. Rotgin asked if that is the August 20th memo that Mr. Graham sent out, but not on the red-line
presented today. Mr. Rooker said he has not done an analysis of the red-line. He looked at it last
night but has not had a chance to go back and compare it, and has not had a chance to study Mr.
Graham’s e-mail of today in which, he thinks, Mr. Graham commented on it. Mr. Rotgin said that in
some respects he is, but he is not talking as much about the economic values as they would like. For
instance, when there is a 5000 linear foot difference of improvements on Route 29 that is a lot of
money. If the Board is going to base its decision on whether a CDA for a public infrastructure authority
is appropriate for North Pointe, Mr. Rooker said he wants to see that the value of the proffers being
offered by North Pointe are equal to or greater than the proffers that were offered by Hollymead Town
Center and Albemarle Place. If you look at the “comparable rezoning” column with the red line, you
will see things in there that suggest we need to sit down with staff and get one more iteration. Then, if
they agree to disagree, they will come to a work session and let the Board decide.
Mr. Tucker said he thinks that is where this matter stands. He wanted staff to make a
presentation and Mr. Rotgin to also make a presentation. He thinks it is going to come down to the
Board deciding on “A” or “B” of the two proposals.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the Board needs to see a development which is approvable without
a CDA. The decision to create a CDA is a subsequent action by the Board, so it would create a high
degree of difficulty if the Board approved a development that in some way incorporated all the CDA
proffers.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Rooker’s point.
Mr. Rooker said he does not think the developer will be willing to proffer all the things he
would proffer with a CDA as he would without a CDA. How does the Board ever get to the point where
it could ever do a rezoning that includes the proffers that he is making in the CDA proposal.
Mr. Davis said what he has suggested and discussed with bond counsel is that the proffers
should be offered and not even mention a CDA. That zoning application with those proffers could go
to public hearing by this Board. The Board could then defer a decision if it found there was
concurrence that the plan was acceptable with those proffers. Then there would be a commitment to
developing a CDA petition with applicable agreements that would have to be advertised and go to a
public hearing. This Board could then consider whether or not it wanted to create that public entity,
the CDA, with a list of specific improvements that CDA would be committed to fund once created. At
that time, the Board would make a decision on that CDA. The zoning application could then follow the
CDA. If the CDA was not adopted by the Board, the developer has the right under Virginia law to
simply withdraw his application. If the CDA was approved, then he would have the assurance that a
CDA would exist to fund the improvements he is talking about. That is not consistent with the policy
guidance staff recommended for the use of a CDA. Staff recommended that the Board not apply a
CDA to current rezonings in the pipeline, but only to approve zonings that are already in existence in
the master plan. That is not binding on this Board. The Board has not even adopted that policy. But,
the process he outlined is how the Board could do it.
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 67)
Mr. Rotgin said when we were talking about that in Richmond, there were two other
alternatives, and one of them is slightly different than what Mr. Davis just described. They would
consider it and work it out with staff. One thing they could do is come in with a plan they thought had a
chance of being approved without a CDA. Then, they would make a petition to the Board for a CDA
and attach to that petition all the other proffers that were conditioned on a CDA. The other way he
understands it has been done is that the applicant comes in with the full CDA proffers and the petition
at the same time, but the petition is considered before the rezoning and the Board creates the CDA on
North Pointe with a sunset provision that if the rezoning is subsequently not approved, the CDA goes
away. He said they had that conservation with Bonnie and John.
Mr. Tucker said that is what Mr. Davis just said.
Mr. Davis said Option No. 2 is something he would not recommend.
Mr. Boyd said the way this is coming forward in terms of CDAs, there is a CDA, or a cash
proffer for affordable housing or education or a school site. If the Board went the route of not having a
CDA and there were cash proffers, how would a cash proffer be reverted to a school site? Can the
cash proffers be taken away and instead of that there be the school site? How would the Board bring
this forward with the type of proffers it has before it now? Mr. Davis said the Board should have a
single plan to consider.
Mr. Boyd said there are other things like the school site where they can proffer the site or an
“x” amount of dollars per unit. If the Board approved it for the dollars, how do they get off the hook for
the dollars in lieu of putting the school site in?
Mr. Tucker said that is not what Mr. Davis has proposed. He has proposed the CDA
approach, then the Board will know what it is getting. The rezoning or the application follows that. It
will not be either, or. If the Board likes what it sees in the CDA and approves it with a sunset clause,
the Board will not be negotiating beyond that on the actual application.
Mr. Rooker said there is one set of proffers and it is for the CDA, and then if the CDA is not
approved the rezoning never goes into effect.
Mr. Davis said the alternative plan would be to eliminate the CDA and do what Mr. Rotgin has
proposed as his alternative plan. That does not propose a development CDA, it does not give the
County the full proffer package that was originally submitted. It pulls back and does the alternative
submittal which is a school site reserved for the County to purchase at fair market value after the
rezoning. In addition, there would be a dollar per unit cash proffer which might offset some portion of
that purchase price. That would be a cash proffer coming to the County and the County negotiating a
purchase at fair market value for a school site in an exchange of money for property. Staff has
reservations about that. For that proposal there would be no development CDA on the table.
Mr. Boyd asked if Mr. Davis was saying this request could be conditioned on a CDA, but the
Board would not vote on the rezoning until it had voted on the CDA first.
Mr. Rooker said Mr. Davis recommended that there be a public hearing on the rezoning with
the proffers, the Board members could give an indication of whether they would ultimately support it,
the CDA petition would need to be filed and the Board would need to make a decision on whether or
not to go forward with the CDA given all the information the Board would get about the CDA at that
time. If the Board approved the CDA it could come back and approve the rezoning later. If the CDA
were not approved, the developer could withdraw his rezoning petition and not be bound.
Mr. Boyd asked if the developer could submit the zoning application again without waiting
another year. Mr. Davis said he could not bring back substantially the same zoning application. The
reason it is important to have the public hearing in advance of the CDA is that everybody who deals in
these things will say that you have to know what you want to build before you form the CDA to make it
binding and to protect the County’s interests. The Board would want to hold a public hearing on the
rezoning, make sure it has addressed all the impacts it feels are important that may not even be
identified until that public hearing, and take those things into account as the Board goes into what is a
fairly significant process of developing an ordinance to create this entity. It is not a simple task.
Mr. Boyd said it would be back before the Board. A lot of staff’s objections to this proposal are
that they think a lot of the items on the chart should be proffered without a CDA. If it comes back to
the Board with a CDA, it is then just an up or down decision for the Board to make. He does not think
it needs any more study.
Mr. Rooker said staff’s analysis of the proffers that should be with a CDA is somewhat
different than those the developer has proffered.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks the proffer should pay for the impact of the development; those
impacts over and above the required project costs. A CDA is an uncertain mechanism and the Board
having a hearing and setting it into place is not going to make it more certain. It depends greatly on
the financial gambles that have been made and how successful the retail spaces will be, etc. To have
that kind of funding mechanism paying for required project costs (internal roads, protecting the natural
resource areas and having a Northwest Passage connecting in) are all things that the County would
require for development of this site. To her mind, those things should not be paid for by a CDA. That
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 68)
is basically the question staff has in front of the Board. Is the Board comfortable with a CDA paying for
something the County has never had a funding mechanism pay for, costs of the required project.
Mr. Rotgin said a CDA would finance the entire public infrastructure. It is the interest savings,
one to one and one-half percent, or approximately $135-$165,000 a year that they can use to do
things over and above what is required. The Route 29 North improvements are not required by VDOT
to offset the impact of North Pointe. When you talk about the impact of North Pointe, you have to look
at the Fiscal Impact Analysis. That analysis prepared by an independent third party says that North
Pointe, when fully built out, with the school costs included along with police, fire, rescue, etc. is net
$3.0 million positive for the County before this last sales tax increase went into effect. Mr. Davis said
the sales tax increase does not affect the analysis because the County does not get any of that one-
half cent increase.
Mr. Rotgin said he thinks there is good faith on the Supervisors’ side, and he hopes the
Supervisors’ feel there is good faith on his side. They would like to have a chance to sit down with
staff, and the Board needs to tell them to do it. They will come back with a lot less red on a piece of
paper. He hopes the Board will acknowledge that the comparison grid it received in its packet is
dated; it does not reflect what they agreed to do when they met with staff after they got the comments.
They have not put those into the proffer statement. They have to take what is in red on the North
Pointe proffers column and put it into the statement.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board needs to know what staff and the applicant disagree about.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks Ms. Thomas’ point needs to be addressed before going much
farther. Her point is that she wants to make certain the funding mechanism that is put in place to do
the proffers is reasonably certain. He asked Mr. Davis if he understands the point.
Mr. Davis said under the scenario he laid out, the developer would proffer those improvements
(they are not dependent on a CDA), and as staff has suggested, all the major road improvements
would have to be in place or bonded prior to the first CO for the first site plan. Before that
development could go but so far the County would have a guarantee that they would be paid for in
some manner. If a CDA were not successful Mr. Rotgin would have to find his funding in a traditional
manner.
Mr. Rooker said the requirement to fund those improvements is pretty much the same as it
would be for any other development. Mr. Davis said that is correct. It would be the same as
Hollymead and Albemarle Place did in finding private money. Mr. Rotgin said he agrees with that.
Mr. Rooker said that helps the Board get by that hurdle.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board is still in limbo and still negotiating.
Mr. Boyd asked how the Board gets to a point so that the next time this comes to the Board
there is not this batch of last minute memos. The Board needs for the development staff to not hand
any last minute memo to it.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks the deadline is actually December 6 and not November 6. Mr.
Rotgin said he thinks the deadline is when the staff’s report has to go to the Clerk to be put into the
agenda for the first meeting in November. Then, they need to have three or four meetings before that.
Mr. Davis said he has watched the Planning staff do their analysis, and he has watched Mr.
Rotgin do his analysis, and there is still a big gap between what Mr. Rotgin offered in the red lines, and
what Mr. Graham and the planners think is equivalent. That is a good faith disagreement on both
parts, but there is a disagreement as to what is needed to address the impacts of this development;
whether or not the values being placed on this are appropriate to be in the equation for the Board to
consider. He does not think there will ever be a meeting of the minds on that between staff and Mr.
Rotgin. The second part of this is the proffers. Staff has provided comments four or five times on the
proffers. Mr. Rotgin has made the same comments four or five times. He said Mr. Rotgin does not
want to make those changes and that is his prerogative since they are voluntary proffers. But, the
proffer package, unless it is significantly different than the last four he has reviewed, is something he
probably will not recommend to the Board because Mr. Rotgin has not, in his opinion, dealt with things
in an appropriate manner. Before the Board gets a recommendation, there is a substantial amount of
work that still has to be done. He said this cannot be accomplished by November. With two plans still
on the table for discussion, it probably will not be resolved for December. If the Board wants staff to
commit more time to this, it will be happy to do that. He does not think having a November or
December deadline will be helpful. He thinks staff needs to take the time to work through it and get
everything ready and have it ready so the Board can adopt it and not have to go through another
session like this because he does not think it has been very helpful.
Mr. Rooker said the Board was talking about another work session.
Mr. Rotgin said he does not think the proffers will be put to the Board at its first meeting in
November. The grid is going to be put up for comparison. After the Board gives its sentiment, they
will revise the proffers. There are some things on the proffers that still need to be done although they
have made some progress. In those proffers there is something that was mentioned earlier, and that
is all of the special use permit conditions the Board wants taken out. They are saying they will be
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 69)
happy to take them out, but they have to be given credit for them when comparing the proffers with the
other developments.
Mr. Davis said he does not disagree, but Mr. Graham has said he has given credit for the
things which he thinks should be given credit.
Mr. Rotgin asked if Mr. Davis acknowledges that what the Board has is reflective of the August
20 proffers.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Davis and Mr. Rotgin are both trying to get a product for the Board and
there to be agreement. He does not think that is going to happen. He said the Board will, in a work
session, have to take grid “A” and grid “B” item by item and decide which one it agrees with.
Ms. Thomas said there are some overarching decisions which she thought the staff wanted
the Board to make. Without those decisions, staff will not be going square by square and this will end
up with a split vote of the members because the overarching view of what Mr. Rotgin wants to be paid
for by a CDA will be a matter of difference.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks that needs to be removed so the set of proffers does not include
that. That is important to him.
Mr. Rotgin said they will come back with “this” format which hopefully will have a little less red
on it than ”this” one so the Board can look at the “with CDA” and “without CDA”. The Board can look
at what the comparable rezonings have, and an updated staff recommendation. Staff may decide that
what they put in does not match what has been recommended. That will not be the case with
everything in red. Some of these things we have agreed to do.
Mr. Rooker said that should not take that long. That little piece “right there” should not take
that long.
Ms. Thomas said you are going to disagree with that and you will come up with a fresh one.
Mr. Rotgin said if they disagree, they will come back and give their position with respect to the
value staff has given for the 29 North improvements. There are probably going to be, at the most, six
items that they will disagree on.
Mr. Bowerman said he keeps hearing that will not be the case. Staff has some fundamental
differences of opinion with Mr. Rotgin on the value of these things.
Mr. Rotgin said the difference of opinion will be whether staff feels that as a primary impact of
North Pointe they ought to go to Airport Road and improve Route 29 all the way to Lewis & Clark.
That is not a Highway Department recommendation. That is not a requirement for the highway.
Mr. Rotgin said he has one other point to address. The only difference between the “with
CDA” and the “without CDA”, is taking out the northern parcel just like Hollymead did on its rezoning.
It is exactly the same, except we are on the north and they took out the south. There is nothing else to
review. The other things relate to the proffers and whether they are going to provide a school site and
$3000 a unit, $1000 for apartments, and we may change that a bit, or whether staff can talk us into
putting the school site back in. The library building becomes not a library but it becomes a commercial
building, but the County is given an option to buy it. Those are the only differences. Nothing changes.
The infrastructure into the roads does not change, the stormwater does not change, the preservation
areas, the conservation areas, the streetscape, nothing changes.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board will leave it to Mr. Rotgin and staff to work out the details.
Mr. Rotgin asked if the Board will ask staff to make a good faith effort to meet with them on a
regular basis.
Mr. Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive, said staff will make a good faith effort to do that.
He can assure the Board that it has made a good faith effort for quite some long time. It is not about a
good faith effort. Staff understands the confusion today, and the clarity that needs to come to the
Board. He is not sure how much agreement there will be on the principles.
Mr. Dorrier said the last set of e-mails were confusing. He hopes staff will work a couple
weeks ahead of the curve so there is not a flurry of activity the night before the meeting.
Mr. Foley said staff did as much as possible to try to avoid that situation, but some things just
did not fall into place.
Mr. Rotgin said if staff will meet with them three or four times between now and the last week
in October, they will know where they stand and can have a package ready to come to the Board.
Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Rotgin may not get the information that he needs because staff is
working on other projects too.
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 70)
Mr. Tucker said that is where there is not always an agreement. This project is not the only
thing staff is working on. They try to meet with Mr. Rotgin when they can, but when you need to meet,
they cannot just meet at that moment.
Mr. Rotgin said they turned in an Application Plan on July 30. He thinks staff can find time to
sit down with them and make their comments before September 22. When they turned in proffers on
August 20, they should be able to meet with staff after they have reviewed those proffers and before
they put their written report together to see if there are things they have come up with that we can
address before that report gets written. That did not happen. He understands that everybody is busy,
but he guarantees that staff is no busier than they are in the private sector.
Ms. Echols said she would like to correct something. A lot of things have been said today that
staff would probably take issue with, but they are not jumping into that fray. She would like to correct
the statement about the Application Plan. Staff called and offered to meet with Mr. Rotgin about the
application plan. They were told there was no need to meet about that plan. She said Mr. Graham
made the call with the offer to meet while she was on vacation in August. She said staff wants to bring
this to a closure, as does Mr. Rotgin, so staff will do everything it can to make sure that happens, but
she wants that one point to be clear.
Mr. Wyant said that is history. He suggested that things move ahead.
Mr. Rotgin asked if the second week in December is available for a public hearing.
Mr. Tucker said staff would have to plan on advertising the petition in the third or fourth week
in November for the second week in December. If that is the date he wants, then this proposal just
needs to go forward. He said everything would need to be in the hands of the Clerk by the third week
in November, and there are holidays in that month.
Mr. Rotgin said the issue is with the proffers. They will have this grid statement. If they can sit
down with staff at three or four meetings, they will have the grid in a better position for the meeting on
November 6. Once they find out if it is “with” or “without”, both plans are up there.
Mr. Tucker said he is just wondering why there even needs to be another meeting. The Board
has Mr. Rotgin’s proposal, and staff has its proposal. What he sees the Board ending up having to do
is to referee between the two. He does not like that, but does not know any other way to decide.
Mr. Rooker said that is what Mr. Rotgin is saying should occur in November. Mr. Tucker said
that can be done, but he does not know the purpose of that meeting.
Mr. Rotgin said Mr. Graham sent them today, for the first time, staff’s position on a number of
these proffers. He has asked them how they came up with the values. He said they will show him
how they came up with those values. He still may not agree with them, but the most important thing is
that he needs to go into the staff’s recommendation column and adjust that to reflect the red column.
He also needs to be satisfied that what they have put in red is correct. For instance under “with
development”, Mr. Graham said he wants Northwest Passage completed in five years. They say we
will do that so it is not an issue any longer. He says he wants certain stuff done by the first site plan,
and we said we will do it as a condition of the first commercial certificate of occupancy.
Mr. Rooker said they have made a number of changes since the comparisons were last
commented on by staff. He thinks all that is being talked about is revising the chart to reflect were the
proffers are now and what staff’s position is.
Mr. Davis said this is not the first time these staff comments have been made. They have
been made numerous times. He said he has been involved in at least three meetings where these
exact same comments were made. Maybe it is a negotiating process to get it where Mr. Rotgin wants
it to be, but he does take exception to the comments about staff. He has watched this staff provide
these comments to Mr. Rotgin.
Mr. Rotgin asked if Mr. Davis had seen Mr. Graham’s e-mail today where he asked for values.
Mr. Davis said those have been discussed. Mr. Rotgin said they have not. They have never received
anything giving staff’s position and asking how they came up with their numbers. He has offered to do
that, he has been doing so since June.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks everybody knows what is needed. There will be a work session in
November.
Mr. Tucker said a date is going to be set when everything will have to be done. Then, if staff
can find time to have some meetings that will be done. Mr. Rotgin said do not say “if” because he has
just as much trouble trying to find time as staff does. Mr. Tucker said if staff can find some time, it will
do everything possible to meet.
_______________
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 71)
Agenda Item No. 27. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
motion
Ms. Thomas offered to appoint to the Jefferson Area Disability Service Board, Mr.
Tony Alexander, and to the Workforce Investment Board, Ms. Joanne Mahanes.
seconded
The motion was by Mr. Wyant. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the Board needs to appoint a voting delegate and alternate for the annual
meeting of the Virginia Association of Counties on November 9, 2004. She said she may have to
come back early if there is a meeting of the MPO on Monday afternoon.
Mr. Rooker suggested that Mr. Dorrier be the voting delegate and Ms. Thomas be the
alternate.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the members received a note about the keelboat being launched on the
Rivanna River on October 23 at 2:00 p.m. in Darden Towe Park. The Board does not know that
representatives are coming from the U.S. Mint and will pass out the new nickels to children under the
age of 18. The new nickel has a keelboat on the back. For adults, they will exchange old nickels for
new nickels.
__________
motion
Mr. Boyd offered a to adopt a resolution authorizing the acquisition of property related
seconded
to the Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court improvements. The motion was by Mr. Rooker.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE
ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY
WHEREAS,
the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville desire to acquire
certain properties within the City for the purpose of providing public space for court house
facilities and related offices; and
WHEREAS,
agreements for the acquisition of properties have been negotiated and
presented to the Board of Supervisors for its consideration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby authorizes the County Executive to execute the following Agreements and
all other documents necessary to purchase or obtain lease hold interests in the following
properties:
1. Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Real Property between Roy Wheeler
Company, Inc. and the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle for a building and
property located at 401 East High Street in the City of Charlottesville;
2. Commercial Lease between Roy Wheeler Company, Inc. and the City of
Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle for a three month lease of a building and property
located at 401 East High Street in the City of Charlottesville;
3. Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Property between Joseph W. Richmond,
Jr., in his capacity as Executor of the Estate of Elizabeth B. Wheeler, and Mary Lou B Myrvik
and Elizabeth R. Crosby, as the sole residuary beneficiaries of the Estate of Elizabeth B.
Wheeler, and the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle for an exclusive
permanent easement over the rear portion of the property located at 407 East High Street in
the City of Charlottesville; and
4. Commercial Lease between Black Sheep Holdings and the City of
Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle for a portion of the building located at 421 Park
Street in the City of Charlottesville.
_______________
October 6, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 72)
Agenda Item No. 28. Adjourn.
motionseconded
At 6:15 p.m., was offered by Mr. Bowerman, by Mr. Rooker, to adjourn this
meting until October 13, 2004, at 3:00 p.m.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date:
10?05/2005
Initials: DM