2005-05-04
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May 4,
2005, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Kenneth 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,
Director of Planning, V. Wayne Cilimberg, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Debi Moyers.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:04 a.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Rooker.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public.
Ms. Sarah Lee Barnes, Chair of the Albemarle County Historic Preservation Committee, addressed
the Board. Ms. Barnes noted that May is National Preservation Month, and indicated that there would be a
th
meeting May 24 at 6:00 p.m., at the Senior Center for her group to present an update on their “Country
Stores Project.” She explained that there is important historic significance about these stores in America,
and that would be part of the program; the other part of the program would feature the Poplar Forest
archeologist Barbara Heath, who would speak on slave consumerism in Piedmont, Virginia. Ms. Barnes
said that there are eight local co-sponsoring organizations for the program, adding that the Albemarle
County Historical Society is a partner.
__________
Mr. Jeff Werner addressed the Board, noting that he lives in the “winemakers house,” and was
recently granted permission to erect a historic marker celebrating the Monticello Wine Company, which
used the property. Mr. Werner said that Stone Mountain Vineyard (Neil Williamson) would be sponsoring
the casting of the sign, with the Piedmont Environmental Council providing research. He reminded the
Board that they had previously passed an ordinance making Charlottesville and Albemarle the “wine-
making capital of Virginia,” noting that in the 1860’s and 1870’s formed the Monticello Wine Company,
which became the second largest winery in Virginia, winning many awards around the world. Mr. Werner
stated that when the sign is ready, he would invite the Board to a ceremony hosted by Stone Mountain.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5a. Presentation: Certificate of Appreciation.
Mr. Rooker presented Mr. Kirk Train an award for his dedicated service as a member of the
Architectural Review Board from June 6, 2001 to March 1, 2005. Mr. Rooker said that Mr. Train honorably
served the Board and the citizens of the county by applying the guidelines of the Architectural Review Board
with wisdom, honesty, and integrity, by using his sound reasoning and providing judicious advice on
numerous design issues. He also vigorously promoted and protected the beauty of Albemarle County’s
Entrance Corridors by his work. Mr. Rooker presented him with a certificate of appreciation, and thanked
him for his years of service to the county.
Mr. Train said he appreciated the opportunity to serve and enjoyed it very much, and mentioned
that he feels that other voices need to rotate through so that the Board reflects the community at large and
not just a series of individuals with a corporate memory.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5b. Presentation: Resolution by Delegate Mitch Van Yahres.
Deferred until June 1, 2005.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr.
Dorrier, to approve Items 6.1 through 6.6 and Items 6.8 through 6.11, and to accept the remaining items for
information. Item 6.7 was removed from the consent agenda for discussion. (Discussions are included with
individual agenda items.) Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None
__________
Item 6.1. Approval of Minutes: June 9, 2004.
Ms. Thomas read her portion of the minutes of June 9, 2004, (pages 1-15 (end at Item 8), and
found them to be in order with some typographical corrections.
By the recorded vote set out above, the minutes were approved as read.
__________
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Item 6.2. Set public hearing for June 1, 2005 on an Ordinance to amend the County Code,
Chapter 15, Taxation, Article XIV, Enhanced Emergency Telephone Service Tax – E911.
At a recent budget work session, the Board of Supervisors requested that staff prepare an
ordinance that would increase the monthly Emergency-911 fee from two dollars ($2) to three dollars ($3)
for each access line. § 58.1-3813.1 authorizes localities to impose a fee on telephone
Virginia Code
service to pay for an Emergency-911 system and caps this monthly fee at three dollars ($3.00) for each
access line. Albemarle County currently imposes a tax of two dollars ($2.00) per month.
The proposed ordinance would increase the Emergency-911 fee to three dollars ($3.00) for each
access line. The increased rate would become effective 120 days after the subject telephone companies
are given written notice of the new rate.
The draft ordinance includes an amendment to Section 15-1400(B) to make this section consistent
with § 58.1-3813.1(F) so that it authorizes the County to use the fee to pay for all allowable
Virginia Code
expenses. Currently the ordinance does not specify that the fee can be used to pay for costs incurred in
training dispatchers and direct call-takers.
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors set the proposed ordinance for public hearing on
June 1, 2005.
(Mr. Boyd said that he did not see in the proposal related to 911 costs how much the budget
amount is. Mr. Tucker pointed out that every dollar increase would provide $568,000 in new money, noting
that the county is currently subsidizing about $400,000. Mr. Tucker explained that when the new 800 MHz
system comes online next fiscal year, it would be significantly more than the extra dollar will cover.
Mr. Davis pointed out that the increase would not take effect until next fiscal year, because of a
120-day implementation delay, noting that it is dedicated revenue.
Mr. Wyant said that his understanding is that the GIS system is not covered with this.
Mr. Davis clarified that it can provide for road signage to clarify addresses, but not with the GIS
system.
Mr. Tucker noted that GIS is not exclusively for emergency services.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the public hearing was set for June 1, 2005.
.
__________
Item 6.3. Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Preliminary Ranking Order for FY 2004-05.
The Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Program received ten (10) applications for its
October 31st, 2004 deadline. Since then, staff has evaluated each of the properties according to the
ranking evaluation criteria identified in the ACE ordinance. These objective criteria include: open space
resources; threat of conversion to developed use; natural, scenic and cultural resources; and County fund
leveraging from outside sources. Based on the results of the evaluation, staff has determined eligibility and
a preliminary “final” ranking order for applicants from Round 5 of the ACE program. These results were
presented to the ACE Committee at the April 6th, 2005 meeting. In general, this is the best class of
applicants the ACE Program has ever received by almost any measure including diversity, quality and size.
This is clearly reflected in the individual point totals, particularly among the highest ranked properties.
The evaluation of ten (10) applications from Round 5 shows that all ten properties are currently
eligible for ACE funding. Though some minor adjustments of the points may be needed on a few of the
properties, this will have a minimal impact on the ranking order and no impact on the eligibility status. Most
of the adjustments will affect ranking criterion C.9, whose primary purpose is to establish or maintain forest
buffers along rivers and perennial streams. The width of the buffer will affect the number of points awarded
for this criterion. In addition, points may be awarded for criterion D.1 (“County fund leveraging”) if the
County receives leveraged funding from the Virginia Land Conservation Fund Grant Program. In March,
staff submitted an application for approximately $800,000 worth of grant funding. The VLCF board will
meet in early June to make the awards.
The ACE budget has sufficient funds to purchase easements on the entire Round 5 class due to
carryovers from previous classes and the withdrawal of the Mehring Family application (ACE Class of 2003-
04) at the Mehrings’ request. As a result, the ACE Committee has recommended that the Board of
Supervisors approve proceeding with appraisals for all ten (10) eligible properties (Ripper, Davey, Vieille,
Metcalf-South, Rives, Boyle, Rushia, Donnelly, Rock Mills Farm and Jensen-Barnett). With regards to the
Ripper application, staff is currently evaluating the applicant’s request to restrict vehicular access (while
maintaining pedestrian/recreational access) to an old public right of way (Brown’s Gap Turnpike) as part of
that property’s participation in the ACE Program. While this property scored the highest among all of the
applicant pool, staff will not proceed with its appraisal until this matter has been resolved.
A general description of the individual properties and a summary of the vital statistics for this class
of applicants are on file.
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
Approve the recommendation of staff and the ACE Committee to have the ten (10) properties from
FY 2004-05 ACE applicant pool - Ripper, Davey, Metcalf-South, Vieille, Rives, Boyle, Rushia, Donnelly,
Rock Mills Farm and Jensen-Barnett properties - appraised.
ACE Applications for Year 2004-05 (deadline of October 31st, 2004)
(15 points are needed to qualify for ACE Funding)
Applicant Tax Map (Acreage) Points Travel/Tourism Value*
Ripper TM 5, Parcel 4 (307.959 acres) 65.57 points yes
(Brown’s Cove) TM 5, Parcel 4A (453.893 acres)
Total (761.852 acres)
Davey TM 112, Parcel 15 (271.740 acres) 61.38 points yes
(Carters Bridge) TM 112, Parcel 15B ( 22.490 acres)
Total (294.230 acres)
Vieille TM 56, Parcel 113 (269.200 acres) 34.81 points no
(Crozet)
Metcalf/South TM 97, Parcel 24A (145.710 acres) 30.95 points yes
(Covesville)
Boyle, Marilyn TM 95, Parcel 1 ( 93.540 acres) 29.89 points yes
(Keswick) TM 95, Parcel 18 ( 14.180 acres)
Total (107.720 acres)
Rock Mills Farm TM 74, Parcel 19 (122.750 acres) 25.05 points no
(Ivy) TM 74, Parcel 20 ( 9.000 acres)
Total (131.750 acres)
Donnelly TM 120, Parcel 17 (161.590 acres) 24.23 points no
(Esmont)
Rives, Barclay TM 65, Parcel 93A1 ( 3.811 acres) 23.51 points yes
(Cismont) TM 65, Parcel 94 ( 20.200 acres)
TM 65, Parcel 95 ( 4.872 acres)
TM 65, Parcel 95A ( 3.978 acres)
TM 65, Parcel 121 ( 38.840 acres)
Total ( 71.701 acres)
Rushia, Ed & Chris TM 39, Parcel 27 ( 86.700 acres) 23.00 points yes
(Crozet)
Jensen/Barnett TM 40, Parcel 8 ( 91.070 acres) 15.80 points no
(White Hall)
__________________________________________________________________________
Totals 10 Applications 2,121.081 acres
* Travel/tourism value is determined by the presence of specific elements from the ranking
evaluation criteria making certain properties eligible for funding from the transient lodging tax. The specific
criteria include the following: contains historic resources or lies in a historic district; lies in the primary
Monticello viewshed; adjoins a Virginia scenic highway, byway or entrance corridor; lies on a state scenic
river; provides mountaintop protection.
(Mr. Boyd asked when the easement costs would be available.
Mr. Davis responded that today the Board is approving having the appraisals done, and when they
come back, the ACE Committee will review them and bring them to the Board as a request for authorization
to invite the owners to sell the easements.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the county does estimates of value, but not appraised values. He
clarified that the amount is projected to be within budget.
Mr. Rooker said that sometimes appraisals come back too high, and an agreement is not reached
with the property owner, and the properties are ranked.
Mr. Wyant noted that the property that is number one on the list has a long history, with a court
case related to the property. He added that VDOT and ACE need to be made aware of that history.
Mr. Davis stated that he was aware of the legal history of the property.
Ms. Thomas asked staff if the state had indicated there would be any supplements for what the
county has put aside.
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
Mr. Tucker and Mr. Cilimberg replied that they had not heard anything yet, although the request has
been submitted.
Mr. Rooker said that these 10 applications include 2,121 acres with 121 development rights.)
By the recorded vote set out above, approved recommendation from staff and ACE Committee
to have the ten (10) properties from the FY 2004-05 ACE applicant pool appraised.
__________
Item 6.4. Proclamation recognizing May 15 through May 21, 2005 as Emergency Medical
Services Week.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following proclamation was approved and
presented to Steve Elliott of the Fire/Rescue Department:
Emergency Medical Services Week
WHEREAS
, emergency medical services is a vital public service; and
WHEREAS
, the members of emergency medical services teams are ready to provide lifesaving
care to those in need 24 hours a day, seven days a week; and
WHEREAS
, access to quality emergency care dramatically improves the survival and recovery
rate of those who experience sudden illness or injury; and
WHEREAS
, the emergency medical services system consists of emergency physicians,
emergency nurses, emergency medical technicians, police officers, firefighters,
educators, administrators, communications personnel, and others; and
WHEREAS
, the members of emergency medical services teams, career and volunteer, engage in
thousands of hours of specialized training and continuing education to enhance their
lifesaving skills; and
WHEREAS
, it is appropriate to recognize the value and the accomplishments of emergency
medical services providers by designating Emergency Medical Services Week;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
that I, Dennis S. Rooker, Chairman on behalf of the
Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim May 15-21, 2005as
Emergency Medical Services Week
in Albemarle County, Virginia, and encourage
the community to observe this week with appropriate programs, ceremonies and
activities.
__________
Item 6.5. Proclamation recognizing May 12, 2005 as Police Memorial Day.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following proclamation was approved and
presented to Captain Limerick of the Police Department:
NATIONAL POLICE MEMORIAL WEEK
WHEREAS,"Police Officer's Memorial Day"
May 15 of each year was proclaimed by
President John F. Kennedy on October 1, 1962, in honor of those peace officers
who, through their courageous deeds, have lost their lives or become disabled in
the performance of duty; and
WHEREAS,
Albemarle County is faithfully served by a professional and committed Police
Department whose men and women are dedicated to providing outstanding service
to the community; and
WHEREAS,
these days of increasing fear, rising crime, reckless acts of violence, recall to our
"truly men and
minds President Kennedy's words of praise for these officers as
women of courage, judgment and dedication;"
and
WHEREAS,
we share his sentiments and agree that it is time to remind the public of the day-by-
day heroism of our officers, both those on active duty and those who have given
their lives in the line of duty; and
WHEREAS
, we will be recognizing Police Memorial Day in Albemarle County with a special
ceremony to be held on May 12, 2005;
NOW, THEREFORE,
I, Dennis S. Rooker, Chairman on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County
Supervisors, do hereby declare and set aside the week of May 9-15, 2005 as
NATIONAL POLICE MEMORIAL WEEK
and call upon all citizens to recognize the
significant efforts and accomplishments of these officers.
__________
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
Item 6.6. Authorize County Executive to execute Howardsville River Access Lease Agreement.
Howardsville has been a popular access to the James River since 1964. The original river access
site was purchased and maintained by the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Hurricanes in the
early 1970’s washed away much of the DGIF land and the concrete ramp. When the ramp was replaced in
early 1980 it was incorrectly sited and infringed on an adjacent private property. Due to the lack of DGIF
land at the site and deteriorating relations with that property owner, DGIF closed the access site in the
winter of 2000. In order to reopen the site, the County entered into lease agreements with DGIF and the
adjacent property owner in 2001. The current lease agreement with the private property owner expires on
May 31, 2005. The original lease agreement was for 1 year from June 1, 2001 until May 31, 2002 at an
annual rent of $3,000 with the option of extending the lease for multiple 1 year terms by mutual agreement.
The original lease was extended for three additional terms. The landowner is now requesting an increase
in the annual rent which will require a new lease agreement approved by the Board.
The property owner originally requested a one year agreement with an increase in the annual rent
from $3,000 to $5,000. The Parks and Recreation Director has negotiated, subject to board approval, a
five year agreement with a total annual rent of $4000 in the initial year and an annual increase of $250 for
each of the subsequent years. The County may terminate this lease at any time, upon giving written notice
st
to the Landlord. The Landlord may terminate the lease at the end of each year (May 31) with 90 days
written notice to the County. All other terms of the lease remain the same.
This action will increase the expense of operating the Howardsville river access by $1,000 in the
first year and by $250 for each subsequent year through the five year term of the lease.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to execute the attached lease
agreement.
By the recorded vote set out above, authorized the County Executive to execute the
following lease agreement:
LEASE AGREEMENT
THIS LEASE AGREEMENT made by and between JAMES E. CREWS (“Landlord”), whose address is
P.O. Box 187, Buckingham, Virginia 23921, and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (“Tenant”).
SECTION 1
1.1 Date of Lease. June 1, 2005.
1.2 Property. That certain lot or parcel of land located in Howardsville, Virginia and described as a 15-
foot strip of land to the river consisting of .049 acres, and additional property to be used for parking
(collectively the "Property").
1.3 Commencement Date. June 1, 2005.
1.4 Term. June 1, 2005 to May 31, 2010. Tenant may terminate this Lease Agreement for
convenience at any time, upon giving written notice to the Landlord. Landlord may terminate the
st
lease at end of each year (May 31) with 90 days written notice to Tenant. In the event of
termination by either party, any obligations provided for hereunder, including but not limited to the
payment of rent, shall cease, with no further liability to either party.
1.5 Rent. Tenant shall pay a total annual rent of $4,000.00 during the initial term and agrees to an
annual increase of $250.00 for each of the subsequent years (two through five) of the term of this
st
Agreement. Rent shall be due on or before June 1 of each year of the lease period.
1.6 Permitted Uses. The County intends to use the Property in order to provide public river access for
fishing and related recreational uses, and parking for cars and trailers using the boat ramp.
SECTION 2
Maintenance and Upkeep of Property
2.1 Maintenance and Upkeep. During the term of this Agreement, Tenant shall:
(a) Establish a parking area for cars and trailers on landlord’s TMP 139A-16 as near as
possible to the railroad property. The limit of the eastern boundary line of the parking area
is approximately 167 feet from the nearest rail and the limit of the western boundary line of
the parking area is approximately 136 feet from the nearest rail;
(b) Provide fencing with access gates outside of VDOT’s right of way from parking area to boat
ramp on all property owned totally or in part by Landlord;
(c) Post and enforce “No Parking” between parking area and boat launch;
(d) Fence off and post closed VDGIF river front property with the exception of that area
necessary to maneuver vehicles and trailers loading and unloading at ramp;
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
(e) Post signs at limits of Property stating: “No Trespassing. Persons proceeding beyond this
point without the written permission of the owner will be treated as trespassers”;
(f) As authorized by the Chief of Police and Sheriff for the County of Albemarle, Tenant will
instruct Police and Sheriff department personnel to enforce Property rules as well as
trespassing on Landlord’s property from Property;
(g) Maintain all fencing and signage placed by the County on the Property and provide
additional fencing and/or signage if Landlord and Tenant jointly agree;
(h) Provide a minimum of twice-weekly trash pick-up of the Property and to adjacent
Landlord’s property if trash is related to use of the Property;
(i) Provide regular mowing and trimming services of the Property as needed; this will include
trimming on both sides of all fence installed by the Tenant including fencing around
Landlord’s garden area;
(j) Provide 270 hours of annual on-site Police or Sheriff Department supervision. Tenant
intends that direct police supervision will be targeted during peak use hours or other times
as may be needed. Costs of such supervision will be the responsibility of Tenant.
Additional on-site police or sheriff department services will be provided for security reasons
if Landlord and Tenant mutually agree;
(k) Provide portable toilet service for the site; and
(l) Tenant will provide protective fencing around Landlord’s garden area on adjacent TMP
139A-17.
2.2 Condition of Property upon Surrender. Tenant accepts the Property “as is” and will, at the
expiration or other termination of the term thereof, surrender and deliver the Property in the same
order and condition as the Property shall be at the Commencement Date of the term of this
Agreement, ordinary wear and tear excepted.
SECTION 3
Liability
3.1 Loss or Damage to Property or Persons. Neither Landlord nor Tenant, nor their respective
officers, employees, agents or representatives shall be liable for any loss, damage or injury to
property or persons caused by the negligent or intentional acts or omissions of third parties in
connection with the uses contemplated by this Agreement.
3.2 Waiver of Liability. Landlord assumes no liability or duty to third parties because of Tenant's
occupation or use of the Property, and Landlord assumes no liability or responsibility for Tenant’s
conduct and operation of Tenant’s business on the Property during the term of this Agreement,
except as otherwise specified herein. Landlord and Tenant are separate entities with separate
duties; they are not engaging in any joint venture, partnership or concerted action. Neither party
assumes any liability for the wrongful acts or omissions of the other.
SECTION 4
Damage or Destruction by Casualty
4.1 Damage. If during the term of this Agreement, all or any portion of the Property shall be damaged
or destroyed by fire, flood, windstorm, strikes, riots, acts of public enemy, acts of God, or other
casualty, this Agreement shall terminate at the option of Tenant in accordance with Section 1.4.
4.2 Partial Invalidity. If any term, covenant or condition of this Agreement, or the application thereof,
to any person or circumstance shall to any extent be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this
Agreement, or the application of such term, covenant or condition to persons or circumstances
other than those as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby and
each term, covenant or condition of this Agreement shall be valid and be enforced to the fullest
extent permitted by law.
4.3 Approvals. This Agreement is subject to and contingent upon approval of its terms by
the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia.
4.4 Annual Appropriations. This Agreement is subject to annual funding by the Board of Supervisors
of the County of Albemarle, Virginia. In the event the Board of Supervisors fails to appropriate
funds necessary to fulfill Tenant’s obligations specified in this Agreement, this Agreement shall be
deemed cancelled, with no penalty of further liability to the County, and of no effect.
SECTION 5
Governing Law
This Agreement shall be in all respects governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of
the Commonwealth of Virginia. Exclusive venue for any dispute arising under this Agreement shall
be in the Circuit Court for the County of Albemarle, Virginia. In the event of any material breach of
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
this Agreement by either party, the nonbreaching party shall have the right to obtain an immediate
injunction or other equitable or legal relief.
SECTION 6
Entire Agreement
This Agreement sets forth all the covenants, promises, agreements, conditions and understandings
between the parties concerning the Property and there are no other such covenants, promises,
agreements, conditions and understandings, either oral or written, between them other than herein
set forth. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, no subsequent modification, alteration,
amendment, change or addition to this Agreement shall be binding upon Landlord or Tenant unless
reduced to writing and signed by them.
This Agreement may be executed, acknowledged and delivered in counterparts and each such
counterpart shall constitute an original, but together such counterparts shall constitute only one
instrument.
SECTION 7
Notices
7.l Addresses for Notices. All notices required or desired to be given hereunder by either party to the
other shall be personally delivered and addressed as follows:
Landlord: Tenant:
Mr. James E. Crews Mr. Pat Mullaney,
P.O. Box 187 Director of Parks and Recreation
Buckingham, VA 23921 County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
7.2 Effective Date of Notices. Notice shall be deemed to be effective when personally mailed via first
class mail, postage prepaid, unless otherwise stipulated herein.
WITNESS the following signatures.
LANDLORD: ______________________________
JAMES E. CREWS
TENANT: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By: ______________________________
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
County Executive
_________
Item 6.7. Formation of Natural Heritage Committee.
On March 2, 2005, the Board authorized the creation of the standing Natural Heritage Committee,
a technical advisory group on biodiversity issues, as recommended by the Natural Resources and Cultural
Assets chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is now presenting the documents necessary for
establishing the Committee for the Board’s approval.
Staff has prepared the necessary documents for the establishment of the Committee. The Fact
Sheet (Attachment A) and the Charge and Outline of Tasks (Attachment B) are based on the Biodiversity
Work Group report accepted by the Board on February 2, 2005.
The fact sheet states that the committee should include ten to twelve members. Although this
would make for a fairly large committee, staff and the Work Group felt that a smaller committee would not
accommodate the necessary range of experience.
The fact sheet also lists the qualifications and backgrounds needed for the Committee. These
qualifications are intended to support the Committee’s role as a technical advisory group. The list includes
several fields that are important to the Committee’s success. However, it also suggests inclusion of
landowners and citizens who have an interest in biodiversity conservation.
Staff recommends that membership not be limited to County residents. Given the relatively small
number of potential members with the necessary expertise, staff hoped to avoid preventing the participation
of any interested and capable people. However, the guidelines in the fact sheet do indicate that the total
committee membership should consist of some County residents. If the Board finds it preferable, the
guidelines could specify that the general citizen member(s) mentioned above shall be County residents (it
currently states that “if possible” these representatives should be County residents). The fact sheet also
recommends staggering the terms of the initial appointments (four, three, and two years), with four-year
appointments thereafter and no term limits.
A copy of the proposed Rules of Procedure for the Committee is also attached (see Attachment C).
Given the Board's interest in streamlining development review processes, which will be discussed in
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
a work session next month, staff recommends that the Board defer implementation of Task F of the
committee's charge until the impacts on review processes are better understood. The Board can then
advise both staff and the committee regarding any protocol it may feel is necessary in the development
review process.
NATURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
FACT SHEET
Duties/Function: As listed in the attached Charge and Outline of Tasks.
Length of Term: Initial appointments will include four four-year appointments, four
three-year appointments, and four two-year appointments.
Thereafter, appointments will be for four years.
Frequency/Meeting Times: Monthly
Membership/Qualifications: The Board of Supervisors shall appoint ten to twelve members.
Applicants need not be County residents. However, total
committee membership should consist of some County residents.
The Committee should include members with expertise or
background in one or more of the following fields, to support the
Committee’s role as a technical advisory group:
• natural history (including those with detailed knowledge
of local wildlife, plants, and other resources);
• terrestrial, aquatic, and landscape ecology;
• biological conservation and conservation planning;
• population genetics;
• forestry;
• geology and soils;
• geographic information systems for conservation;
• science education (adult and youth).
The group should also include local landowners and citizens with
interests in biodiversity conservation, farming and forestry, and
conservation-oriented rural and urban development. If possible,
these general citizen representatives should be residents of the
County.
NATURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
CHARGE and OUTLINE OF TASKS
CHARGE
The Natural Heritage Committee is an advisory committee that maintains the County’s
Biodiversity Assessment; advises the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission, and
County staff on applying biodiversity information to land-use decision-making; and supports
biodiversity education in the County.
OUTLINE OF TASKS
A. Input on and oversight of the maintenance, expansion, updating, and evaluation of
the ongoing Biodiversity Assessment begun by the Biodiversity Work Group, and
development of a protocol for assessing changes in the state of biodiversity (with
reference to planning goals).
B. Assistance in staff development of an action plan that specifies detailed steps for
achieving protection of biodiversity as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan.
C. Development of policy recommendations to the Board in response to biodiversity
issues and information gathered from the Biodiversity Assessment. The
Committee should be consulted on programs, regulations, and Comprehensive
Plan changes that may affect biodiversity protection.
D. Development of educational materials and programs on biodiversity.
E. Provision of periodic reports to the Board of Supervisors on the state of biodiversity
in the County.
F. At the request of the staff, Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors, review
selected development proposals for biodiversity impacts, and provide comment
regarding the impacts, potential mitigation measures, and/or alternative
approaches to the development.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY NATURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
RULES OF PROCEDURE
1. Officers
A.At its annual meeting, the Committee shall elect a Chairman who, if
Chairman.
present, shall preside at the meeting and at all other meetings during the year for
which elected.
B.At its annual meeting, the Committee shall elect a Vice-
Vice-Chairman.
Chairman, who, if present, shall preside at meetings in the absence of the
Chairman and shall discharge the duties of the Chairman during his absence or
disability.
C.At its annual meeting, the Committee shall elect a Secretary, who, if
Secretary.
present, shall record the proceedings of the meeting.
D. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall be elected for one-year
Term of Office.
terms; but either or both may be re-elected for one or more additional terms.
E. If the Chairman and Vice-Chairman
Absence of Chairman and Vice-Chairman.
are absent from any meeting, a present member shall be chosen to act as
Chairman.
2. Meetings
A. The first meeting in January of each year shall be known as the
Annual Meeting.
annual meeting. At the annual meeting, the Committee shall establish the day,
time, and place for regular meetings of the Committee for that year, and shall
elect the chairman, vice-chairman, and secretary.
B. The Committee shall meet in regular session at the time and
Regular Meetings.
place and on the day or days established for regular meetings. The Committee
may subsequently establish a different day, time, or place to conduct its regular
meetings by passing a resolution to that effect.
If the Chairman, or the Vice-Chairman if the Chairman is unable to act, finds and
declares that weather or other conditions are such that it is hazardous for
Committee members to attend a regular meeting, the meeting shall be continued
to the next regular meeting date. This finding shall be communicated to the
members of the Committee and to the press as promptly as possible.
Without further public notice, a regular meeting may be adjourned from day to day
or from time to time or from place to place, not beyond the time fixed for the next
regular meeting, until the business of the Committee is complete.
C. Two unreported absences from regular meetings shall be
Attendance.
considered grounds for dismissal from the Committee.
3. Order of Business
A. The agenda for each regular meeting shall be
Establishment of Agenda.
established by staff in consultation with the Chairman.
B. . The agenda of each regular meeting shall be
Organization of the Agenda
organized in substantially the following order, subject to change at the request of
the Chairman and with the consensus of the other members of the Committee:
(1) Call to order
(2) Announcements
(3) Scheduled presentations
(4) Discussion Items
(5) Subcommittee Updates
(6) Other business
(7) Adjourn
C. . The Committee may defer any matter at the request of a member of
Deferrals
the Committee or County staff. The request may be either oral or in writing, and
may be made at any time prior to the vote on the matter. The person making the
request shall state the reasons therefor. A motion to defer shall either specify the
date to which the matter is deferred or defer the matter indefinitely.
4. Quorum
A simple majority of the appointed members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum
for any meeting of the Committee. If, during a meeting, less than a majority of the
members of the Committee remains present, no action can be taken except to adjourn the
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
meeting. If, prior to adjournment, a quorum is again established, the meeting shall
continue.
5. Voting Procedures
A. Except for a decision on a motion of the previous
Approval of Motion by Majority.
question, each decision of the Committee shall be made by approval of a majority
of the members present and voting on a motion properly made by a member and
properly seconded by another member. Any motion that is not seconded shall
not be further considered.
B. . The vote on a motion pertaining may be either by roll call vote or
Manner of Vote
voice vote, in the discretion of the Chairman; provided that a roll call vote on such
a motion shall be required if requested by a member of the Committee. For each
roll call vote, staff shall record the name of each member voting and how the
member voted on the motion. For each voice vote, staff shall record the result of
the vote.
C. . A tie vote shall defeat the motion voted upon.
Tie Vote
D. . If any member abstains from voting on any motion, he shall state his
Abstention
abstention. The abstention shall be announced by the Chairman and recorded by
staff.
E. . A motion to amend a motion before the Committee shall be
Motion to Amend
discussed and voted by the Committee before any vote is taken on the original
motion unless the motion to amend is accepted by both the members making and
seconding the original motion. If the motion to amend is approved, the amended
motion is then before the Committee for its consideration. If the motion to amend
is not approved, the original motion is again before the Committee for its
consideration.
6. Amendment of Rules of Procedure
These Rules of Procedure may be amended by a majority vote of the Committee at the
next regular meeting following a regular meeting at which notice of the motion to amend is
given.
7. Suspension of Rules of Procedure
These Rules of Procedure may be suspended by the majority vote of the members of the
Committee present and voting. The motion to suspend a rule may be made by any
member of the Committee. Upon a proper second, the motion may be discussed and
voted. The effect of the motion to suspend a rule, if approved, is to make that rule
inapplicable to the matter before the Committee; provided, however, approval of a motion
to suspend the rule shall not permit the Committee to act in violation of a requirement
mandated by the Code of Virginia, the Constitution of Virginia, or any other applicable law.
8. Rules of Procedure not Covered by These Rules of Procedure
Any rules of procedure not covered by these Rules of Procedure shall be governed by the
current Robert’s Rules of Order.
(Mr. Boyd asked that this item be pulled from the consent agenda for separate discussion.)
__________
Item 6.8. Resolution to accept road(s) in Beckoning Ridge Subdivision into the State Secondary
System of Highways.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution, at the
request of the Engineering Department:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Beckoning Ridge Subdivision described on the attached Additions Form
SR-5(A) dated May 4, 2005, 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 Beckoning Ridge Subdivision as described
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated May 4, 2005, 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:
1) Beckoning Ridge Road (State Route 1609) from Route 677 (Old Ballard Road) to the cul-
de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 12/2/2003 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 2650, pages 338-343, with a 50-foot variable right-of-way
width, for a length of 0.19 mile.
Total Mileage - 0.19 mile.
__________
Item No. 6.9. Historic Preservation Committee requests pertaining to current legislation, re: changes
to Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act and tax incentives for conservation easements.
In a memorandum dated April 27, 2005, Margaret Maliszewski, Design Planner, said the Historic
Preservation Committee recently sent letters of concern to various legislators regarding two current
legislative issues:
1. Changes to Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act
2. Tax incentives for conservation easements
Proposed changes to these pieces of legislation could have significant negative impacts on our
historic and cultural resources, and on conservation easements. The Committee has asked that the Board
of Supervisors express its commitment to preservation and conservation by sending similar letters of
concern regarding the proposed changes.
(Ms. Thomas asked that the letter also go to Congressman Cantor since he serves on a committee
that deals with conservation easements.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the request to send the following
letters from the Board to legislative representatives regarding their commitment to preservation and
conservation.
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors is strongly opposed to the recommendations of the Joint
Committee on Taxation addressing Charitable Deductions for Contributions of Conservation and
Façade Easements (sec.170).
Albemarle County has benefited greatly from tax incentives that are currently available for placing land
in conservation. Tax incentives have been instrumental in acquiring the 49,000 acres of land that we
now have under easement in Albemarle. Tax incentives are the most cost effective way of preserving
land. They allow the land to continue in private ownership, and the land can continue to be used for
farming and other productive uses.
We believe that the organizations that hold our conservation easements must be held to the highest
standards to ensure that land is fairly valued when put under easement. Although we would support
changes in the law that would ensure that these high standards are met, we know from experience that
crippling the program would have unwanted side-effects.
You know the value of conserving land in Virginia; it generates and strengthens tourism, which is a
strong factor in our economy. Conservation easements can benefit all our citizens.
We ask for your support in opposing these recommendations. Thank you for considering this important
issue and for your continued leadership.
__________
We have learned that the U. S. House of Representatives, Committee on Resources, Subcommittee
on National Parks is considering changes to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. We
urge you to reject the changes to Section 106 as proposed and support the reauthorization of the
National Historic Preservation Act.
While the proposed changes may appear to be minor, their ramifications would actually be extremely
significant. In particular, we are concerned about removing the process of identifying and evaluating
historic sites from professionals at both the local and state level. This would have a significant negative
impact on Albemarle County’s cultural resources because it could lead to the loss of many historic
sites that are known at the local level but not yet documented or evaluated. Survey is one of the
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
primary means of identifying and evaluating our region’s cultural resources. In Virginia, as elsewhere
across our nation, less visible historic resources such as African American, Native American and
battlefield sites, and all types of archaeological resources, are under-represented. To discontinue
identification and evaluation efforts at the local level would be to place the future of these types of sites
in jeopardy.
The National Historic Preservation Act has served Virginia and its citizens well. It is a sound federal
policy of accountability that provides reasonable guidance and structure to historic preservation efforts
at the state and local levels. Please support the reauthorization of the National Historic
Preservation Act without changes to Section 106.
__________
Item No. 6.10. Timetable for FY06/07-FY10/11 Strategic Plan.
The Board initiated the County’s FY 2003/04 – FY 2005/06 strategic plan in April, 2002. The initial
plan included four strategic directions and seven goals. At their 2003 strategic planning retreat, the Board
added a goal that addresses the County’s growth and urbanization. In April 2004, the Board approved the
addition of four Life Long Learning Goals. At their October 2004 strategic planning retreat, the Board
reviewed the results of the 2004 citizen survey and other data and added a goal to address the County’s
growing transportation concerns.
The current strategic plan will end June 06. A new strategic plan will be established for FY 06/07 –
FY 10/11. The current strategic planning cycle will end June 06. A new four-year strategic plan will be
initiated at the next Board Retreat, which is scheduled for September 2005. After the fall retreat, staff will
continue to complete the activities of the current plan, while developing action plans and establishing
outcome measures for the FY 06/07 – FY 10/11 plan’s goals. This will ensure that the new plan will be off
to a good start in July 06. A timetable for the development of the FY 06/07 – FY 10/11 strategic planning
schedule is provided for your review.
Staff recommends the Board review and approve the time table for the FY 06/07 – FY10-11
Strategic Plan Development Cycle. If there are no objections, staff will proceed with planning the activities
for the development of the FY 06/07 – FY 10-11 Strategic Plan as described.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the timetable for the FY 06/07
Strategic Plan Development Cycle and to proceed with planning the activities to the development of
the FY 06/07 – FY 10-11 Strategic Plan.
__________
Item 6.11. Park View Senior Apartments at South Pantops Subsidy Request.
The Jefferson Area Board for Aging has partnered with Shelter Development, LLC to build Park
View at South Pantops, a 90 unit senior rental community. This development presently is in the construction
phase and has experienced a dramatic increase in development expenses – specifically $763,000 – that
JABA attributes to unexpected site improvements and construction cost inflation. The unexpected site
improvements, according to JABA, include three retaining walls, an extension of cement footings, and
VDOT-mandated sidewalk improvements. JABA claims that the $763,000 increase in construction costs
will severely limit the number of amenities that can be provided in the facility and contends that the lack of
these amenities could detract from the potential success of the project. JABA requests, therefore, an
annual County subsidy of $400 per unit for a period of ten years. The total amount of this request comes to
$360,000.
The proposed development will be owned by a private, for-profit entity with JABA having an option
to purchase the facility after fifteen years.
Albemarle County Office of Housing has worked with JABA and Shelter Group for almost two years
on the proposed development. The Board of Supervisors passed a resolution supporting the
development’s application for Low-Income Housing Tax Credits and to commit 12 rental vouchers to
subsidize rents for households below 40 percent of the area median income. These vouchers, with an
annual value of approximately $54,000, are committed for ten years provided that HUD continues to provide
sufficient funding. In addition to supporting the application for tax credits, County staff provided a written
appeal on behalf of the applicant and made this appeal in person to the Virginia Housing Development
Authority’s Board of Commissioners when the applicant did not initially receive tax credits. After hearing the
appeal, the Board of Commissioners agreed to extend tax credits to the project.
Unlike Woods Edge Elderly Apartments, in which JABA was also a partner with a similar purchase
option, Park View does not propose that the requested annual subsidy will result in reduced rents. At
Woods Edge approximately 40 apartments are subsidized using $40,000 in annual contributions for eight
years. The apparent use of the requested funds for Park View will be to support debt service on additional
funds borrowed to cover the additional development costs identified above. There will be no direct impact
on rents paid by the tenants. It should be noted that Park View will have rent restrictions on all 90 units as a
result of using tax credits, density bonus provisions, and housing vouchers. The most restrictive rents will
be using housing vouchers ($623 for one-bedroom and $745 for two-bedroom)
Based on the above information, staff cannot support the requested subsidy for the following
reasons:
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
?
There are questions on how annual subsidies will overcome the immediate need for cash to
cover unanticipated development costs.
?
Funding the request will not have a direct impact on rents paid by future tenants.
?
Staff is concerned about setting a precedent of providing development subsidies for the
construction of a private, for-profit facility.
However, if the Board desires to fund this request, it should direct staff to develop a legal approach
to implement the funding. This will require adoption of an ordinance and/or development of agreements to
insure that the funding will be used for the intended purpose. It is likely funding for this in FY 06 would have
to be from the Board’s contingency reserve.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board did not support the subsidy request for Park
View Senior Apartments.
__________
Item 6.12. 2004 Quarterly and Year End Albemarle County Building reports as prepared by the
Department of Community Development, was received for information.
__________
Item 6.13. Draft copy of Planning Commission minutes for March 15, 2005, was received for
information.
__________
Item 6.14. VDOT monthly report for May, 2005, was received as information.
__________
Item 6.15. Comparative Report of Local Government Revenues and Expenditures for the Fiscal
Year Ended June 30, 2004 as provided by the Auditor of Public Accounts, was received for information.
_______________
Item No. 6.7. Formation of Natural Heritage Committee.
Mr. Boyd stated that he was concerned about the makeup of the committee that stemmed from the
report from the ad-hoc committee and how it played in the process of Board decision-making. He said
understood that the committee was to be advisory, but language in the outline of tasks such as “oversight”
and “establishing protocol” related to biodiversity seems to indicate the committee would have more control.
The community should have more opportunity to comment on this Biodiversity Committee, adding that the
majority of the members should be from Albemarle County. His concern is not with the committee, but
instead the outline of the charge. He thinks the Board should seek a little more public input.
Mr. Rooker said that the committee is clearly advisory, as it does not have the power to pass any
ordinance or approve any action the Board may take, but it does have the power to give advice. The Board
spent a long time when it went through the Comprehensive Plan several years ago on the Biodiversity
section. A group of people worked over a long period of time to make recommendations to the Board. The
group made a presentation several months ago with a rather long report and discussed how a committee
might provide assistance to the county. He added that any action or advice the committee provided would
be a public hearing item, and, in his opinion, they would serve much like the Historic Preservation
Committee. Mr. Rooker said the Board adopted the Biodiversity section of the Comp Plan several years
ago, and he feels they should go forward with the establishment of the committee.
Mr. Boyd said that he doesn’t see the problem with delaying it long enough to give the community
time to provide input, adding that he is not aware of any committee formed with slots over geographic
representation.
Ms. Thomas said that DISC had categories and skills that the county wanted represented, and the
Board has a precedent for focusing on the slots as opposed to where people live.
Mr. Rooker stated that the entire process of the Comprehensive Plan and the Biodiversity
Committee has always been on the agenda, and no one has ever come in to specifically object to its
establishment.
Mr. Tucker added that this has not been created just for this meeting, but was basically pulled from
the report submitted to the Board, which they reviewed and spent some time on. He noted that “F” needs
some further work.
Mr. Wyant said that he agrees with Mr. Boyd that how it fits into the development process should be
considered.
Mr. Boyd stated that the wording seems to allow more and more control for the committee.
Mr. Dorrier said that the action plan reference is not clear, stating that it needs to be determined
what their mission is.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that staff is developing the action plan along with the committee. It’s not
something that will just be created and be used outside of your decision that is going to come to the Board.
That is something that was called for in the Comprehensive Plan.
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
Mr. Rooker commented that the specifics are not before the Board today, just the establishment of
the committee.
Mr. Boyd asked that the agribusiness community be given more of an opportunity to provide input.
Mr. Wyant commented that there is not sufficient database information available, and he
understood the action plan as covering this aspect. He asked if projects would be delayed because of
information needed from this committee.
Ms. Thomas responded that projects would absolutely not be delayed. We are pulling “F,” which is
the place where we will say to what extent are they going to be asked to participate in development
proposals.
Mr. Rooker said that he is in favor of getting the committee going, noting that the Comp Plan
provides for its creation. He emphasized that the committee is “clearly advisory,” adding that the Historic
Preservation Committee has never held up an application process. He believes the more information
received, the more intelligent the Board’s decisions are. He asked that any suggested wording changes be
circulated among Board members prior to next month’s meeting, since the item would be delayed until that
time.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7a. Discussion: Meadow Creek Parkway/CATEC Impacts.
Mr. Jack Kelsey, County Engineer summarized the executive summary. On May 5, 2004 the Board
of Supervisors adopted a Resolution of Intent to endorse the design of the Meadow Creek Parkway, as
presented in the design public hearing. Condition #3 of the resolution stated that a 3 meter [9.8 feet]
planting strip will be provided between the curb and sidewalk on both sides of the four-lane divided portion
of Rio Road to provide a visual transition into the Parkway.
On September 21, 2004 VDOT gave an informational presentation on the Meadow Creek Parkway
project to the CATEC Board of Directors, who expressed concern regarding the impact to their parking lot
and bus routing. Following this meeting VDOT requested the County Engineer to consider reducing the
planting strip to the minimum 3 foot wide utility or grass strip. In response, the County Engineer provided
VDOT with two alternatives demonstrating that the planting strip recommended by Jones & Jones could be
maintained by reconfiguring the parking lot and bus circulation.
The CATEC Board has recently expressed their concerns for this design issue and provided
recommendations to the County Board of Supervisors in their letter dated March 15, 2005.
The concerns expressed by the CATEC Board include 1) loss of a safety buffer between the
roadway and parking/bus circulation; 2) loss of parking spaces and impacts to the bus circulation route; and
3) disruptions to school operations and student safety during construction. Their recommendations include,
1) use of only a 2 foot wide grass strip; 2) use of a guardrail or earth mound to create a physical buffer
between the sidewalk and the parking/bus routing; and 3) creating a reduced speed school safety zone
around CATEC.
These items are discussed in detail in the memo prepared by the County Engineer and included in
the attachments. In brief, the County Engineer’s alternatives address the concerns raised by CATEC, but
the additional site improvements will increase the cost of the Meadow Creek Parkway construction.
However, the improvements will allow for a transition from the urban 4-lane divided Rio Road to the
Meadow Creek Parkway that is true in form to both the Jones & Jones design recommendations and
condition #3 of the Resolution of Intent.
Staff needs to instruct VDOT on how to proceed with the final design plans for the Parkway. This
issue is complicated by the County’s vision for this portion of the parkway and the related cost implications
of adhering to that vision.
Staff requests direction from the Board of Supervisors on how to respond with this design issue.
Mr. Kelsey then referred the Board to the sketches of the plan provided for the Board’s review. Ms.
Thomas asked for clarification as to which sketches were Mr. Kelsey’s, and which were CATEC’s.
Mr. Kelsey said that none of the sketches are from CATEC; he provided the sketches. He added
that the sketches attempt to show the VDOT designers that the planting strip could be provided and bus
circulation could be replaced onsite, although it would involve some additional expense.
Mr. Tucker noted that Mr. Kelsey’s sketches show that you can meet CATEC’s needs for circulation
and still maintain Jones and Jones’ proposal for alignment with the wider planting strip.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Kelsey to point out the differences in alternatives 1 and 2. Mr. Kelsey
responded that the parking relocation is the main difference.
Ms. Thomas asked if either alternative is compatible with the Meadow Creek Parkway. Mr. Kelsey
replied that they both work, and CATEC has not chosen an alternative yet.
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
Mr. Wyant asked how many entrances there would be to CATEC. Mr. Kelsey responded that there
is one entrance on the east side of CATEC, and a new entrance made on the south side, which would align
with the relocated section of the old Rio Road/Park Street, with a traffic signal there. In response to Mr.
Boyd’s question about increased cost, Mr. Kelsey clarified that the parking lot improvements could add
$75,000 to $100,000, but there are no detailed plans at this time.
Mr. Boyd said that CATEC’s Board wished that the facility be compensated for the widening. Mr.
Kelsey stated that the value for the improvements and right of way should be factors in determining
acquisition, and should be part of the project cost.
Mr. Wyant emphasized the need for adequate bus circulation and parking. Mr. Kelsey commented
that being able to enter the site from a traffic light will improve the accessibility.
Ms. Thomas said that either of Mr. Kelsey’s alternatives would work, and perhaps CATEC should
choose. Mr. Kelsey noted that he was trying to show with his sketches that the planting strip and onsite
improvements would still be possible under the Jones & Jones plan.
Mr. Tucker suggested that Mr. Kelsey meet with CATEC to decide which approach is the best fit.
Mr. Rooker agreed, adding that the county spent a great deal of money making Meadow Creek
look like a Parkway, and the entrance is important.
It was the consensuses of the Board that Mr. Kelsey meet with CATEC to review the two
alternatives.
Mr. Tucker stated that the relocation of parking and circulation should be considered in the project
costs, and VDOT and/or the county should pay for them, not CATEC.
Mr. Kelsey said that he would contact the VDOT project manager first, and then proceed with
CATEC.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7b. Reclassification of East Rio Road as Arterial Highway/Establish Rio East as
Entrance Corridor Overlay District.
Mr. Tucker explained that the Architectural Review Board would like the Board to request that
VDOT look at the reclassification of Rio East to an arterial highway so it could then be considered as an
Entrance Corridor Overlay District. He stated that Rio West and Hydraulic are in the EC Overlay, and staff
would submit to VDOT reasons why Rio East should also be an arterial highway.
Mr. Boyd asked why this is done, and what the logic is behind this being an Entrance Corridor. Mr.
Tucker responded that the ARB sees this as a corridor because it is across the street from an Entrance
Corridor (Rio West).
Mr. Bowerman explained that roads that access Charlottesville are considered Entrance Corridors.
Ms. Thomas added that Entrance Corridors are just that, an entrance to a historic district.
Mr. Davis stated that it is a determination that the roads are “significant routes of tourist access” or
leading “to designated historic landmarks, buildings, or structures or districts.” He added that staff found
Rio to meet these criteria, even more so anticipating Meadow Creek Parkway. In order to be an Entrance
Corridor, the road has to be an arterial road.
Mr. Wyant added that arterial roads are a VDOT classification.
Mr. Cilimberg commented that the last update of Entrance Corridors done in the 1990’s, Rio East
was on a consideration but couldn’t be designated because the road wasn’t classified as arterial. He think it
is almost a given that once Meadow Creek Parkway is built this will be an arterial.
Mr. Boyd asked if Hillsdale Drive Extended would be an arterial road. Mr. Cilimberg replied that
that is unlikely. Mr. Tucker said that the classification is based on several factors, with traffic being the
major one, and with trips per day considered.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that Hydraulic Road is classified as arterial, and that has uplifted the
aesthetics of the area because of the Entrance Corridor status.
It was the consensus of the Board to support the request. Mr. Tucker said staff will develop the
basis and start the process with VDOT
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7c. Transportation Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Jim Utterback, Resident Administrator, addressed the Board.
He noted that VDOT planners in Richmond were involved in the Rio reclassification decision.
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
He explained that the guardrail would be installed this week on Dry Bridge Road.
Mr. Utterback reported that VDOT traffic engineering is not currently supporting a traffic light on Rio
Road at Dunlora, as a 12-hour analysis revealed “opportunity for safe movement” of vehicles in and out of
the subdivision, and no significant accident histories exist at the site. He added that there are two right-turn
lanes that exist from Dunlora and CATEC, and a signal does not help those situations. Mr. Utterback
concluded that VDOT does not view the movement at Dunlora as being much different from other points
along Rio Road. Mr. Bowerman agreed to share that information with the constituents.
Mr. Utterback said that Route 250 will get raised pavement markers/reflectors near Brownsville
School, and traffic engineers have agreed to install a new eastbound sign at no cost to the county, but any
additional lighting is outside of their scope. He reported that improvements to Via Lane would take a formal
addition to the state road system.
Ms. Thomas asked if it could be a rural addition. Mr. Utterback responded that it could be, and said
that Richmond has come out recently with guidance on rural addition authorities, which relates closely to
county subdivision design standards. He indicated that he is planning to meet with Mark Graham in the
near future to discuss this matter.
In response to Mr. Boyd’s questions, Mr. Davis clarified that the county allows private roads to be
developed to mountainous terrain standards not accepted in the VDOT system under the subdivision
ordinance. Mr. Davis said that in other parts of the state there has been an interpretation that if you allow
that, you are not eligible for rural addition funding at all.
Ms. Thomas noted that Albemarle has not typically used rural addition.
Mr. Davis added that the opinion has been quite controversial in rural counties, and may be applied
statewide soon.
Mr. Boyd said that the Rustic Rural Road policy seems to contradict this finding. Mr. Utterback
pointed out that the difference is those roads have already been accepted in the state system, and were
grandfathered under the Byrd Act.
Mr. Davis noted that the county does allow roads to be built to mountainous terrain standards and
remain private for small lot subdivisions, and VDOT is saying that counties cannot do that and still be
eligible for rural addition funding. He explained that the problem is that in the future, neighbors ask the
county to upgrade the roads to bring them into the state system, and VDOT feels that developers “get off
the hook” because they could have been required to build them to state standards up front, which is more
expensive.
Mr. Utterback continued his report, explaining that the Mosby and Old Trail Bridge projects are
awaiting central office approval, but have moved forward on the local/regional level. He added that there is
a site distance easement at the Meadows, and VDOT is going to reevaluate that in the next few weeks.
Regarding the dangerous curve signage on Buck Mountain Road, Mr. Utterback reported that
VDOT has placed an additional sign and is looking into end pavement markings to try to alleviate the
situation.
Mr. Utterback stated that on the Route 22/250 intersection improvements, the buildings impacted
would be the convenience store/gas station, and that structure has a site plan that is contingent on the new
road project. He said that field inspection is scheduled for next week for that site.
Mr. Utterback reported that VDOT has been working on paving county-wide – with Route 29
northbound lane as a priority. He noted that there are two contracts in process now, with S.L. Williamson
doing most of the work, and B & S doing another job. He said that plant mix has just started up, and
surface treatment is in process. Mr. Utterback stated that the district is happy this year with the spending in
the county.
Ms. Thomas said that one of her constituents has expressed concern about signs appearing in the
right-of-way. Mr. Utterback mentioned that this is a problem across the state, and VDOT crews remove
those signs as they see them. If there are a number of signs, he said, then VDOT notifies the involved
parties.
Mr. Rooker said that it is a fineable offense, and he receives many complaints in his district.
Mr. Wyant asked what the process is for new signs, including traffic signs.
Mr. Utterback explained that signage has been used to improve safety along certain stretches.
Mr. Wyant said that signs are requested and go through traffic engineering, and if they are justified,
VDOT moves forward with speed reduction and appropriate related signage.
Ms. Thomas noted that there are concerns on Route 250 East that the lights are not coordinated in
any way, especially in the Pantops area. She said that commuters feel there is no way to go along there
without being stopped, and that disrupts traffic flow.
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
Mr. Rooker mentioned that the city is undertaking a $500,000 project to coordinate city lights, noting
that one of the major lights at Pantops is in the city.
Mr. Tucker added that the further lights are apart, the more difficult they are to synchronize.
Mr. Rooker said that there was an article in either “The Hook” or “C’ville Weekly” about an accident
on a stretch of Old Ballard Road where cars can become airborne if they are going fast, and asked Mr.
Utterback to look into that. He also asked him about the paving on Old Garth Road.
Mr. Utterback agreed to look into the Old Ballard Road matter, and responded that there has been
some coal patch mix put onto Old Garth, with additional work slated for the coming weeks.
Mr. Boyd asked about Gilbert Station improvements.
Mr. Utterback responded that there is a triple-pipe there, and they have ordered the pipe. He said
that once the pipe is resolved, paving will begin. Mr. Utterback said that the traffic engineer is going to look
at the Hollymead Town Centre light, which Mr. Boyd mentioned as having a very short sequence.
Mr. Boyd asked about a 25 MPH sign for Rocky Hollow Road, off of Route 20, noting that the road
is slated for the Rural Rustic Road project.
Mr. Boyd asked if the Board wants to wait for the fall to consider the six-year plan in conjunction
with the Rural Rustic Roads.
Mr. Cilimberg commented that there is a priority list for Rural Rustic and regular unpaved, and the
next road on those lists could be built or improved. He added that the six-year plan would come back to the
Board in the fall/early winter. Mr. Cilimberg emphasized that the decisions made at that time would go into
effect July 1, 2006, and the plan just reviewed would go into effect July 1, 2005. He added that staff will go
back and look at the funding and bring it back to the Board.
st
Mr. Tucker agreed to bring that back on June 1.
Mr. Utterback acknowledged that the state has been behind, but emphasized that there is
additional funding available for rustic roads. He said that he wants to revisit why some roads were
considered rural versus rustic rural, noting that the biggest concern has been safety.
Mr. Boyd commented that if there is funding available, he would like for the next project to be
undertaken.
Mr. Dorrier asked about improvements to Blenheim Road. Mr. Utterback said that he does not
believe anything has been done since last fall, and plans indicated that work should begin this summer.
Mr. Rooker commented that it is a private improvement, and there is no way to force them to go
forward with the improvements. Mr. Utterback noted that the developer has done improvements down to
the bridge. Mr. Dorrier said that the neighbors are pretty upset about it.
Mr. Rooker asked about the Colthurst Drive speed study, and Mr. Utterback agreed to provide him
with a copy.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Presentation: Hazard Mitigation Plan, Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission.
Mr. Bill Wanner, Senior Regional Planner with the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission,
addressed the Board. He stated that the Hazard Mitigation Plan is regional because of new requirements
from FEMA regarding disaster funding assistance and the state has designated the planning districts as the
bodies to prepare the plan. Mr. Wanner explained that the plan looks at ways to eliminate or reduce the
effects of natural disasters to human life and property, adding that applications will be made to receive
more funds to achieve this. He pointed out that mitigation strategies begin on Page 37 of the document in
the Board packet, noting that there is a working group that includes Mr. Cilimberg and Kaye Hardin – the
county’s emergency services coordinator. Mr. Wanner said that the plan includes a ranking of levels of
threat of different natural disasters, and looks at the potential loss of life as a result of that priority listing, as
well as the capabilities of counties to deal with the threats that have been identified.
Mr. Wanner said the key part for the Board is the mitigation strategies, and those were ones that
were generated by citizens and Albemarle County staff in particular for ways to address these issues that
have come up. He added that the process for approving the plan is much like the Comprehensive Plan,
whereby it goes before the Planning Commission and then to public hearing [set for the Planning
th
Commission on May 10]; the Commission would make a recommendation to the Board with a public
st
hearing slated for June 1. Mr. Wanner added that a final plan would then go to the state and FEMA for
approval. He reported that the Planning Commission suggested that a mitigation strategy be added for a
possible dam failure at the Ragged Mountain Reservoir.
Mr. Rooker noted that the plan does not deal with manmade disasters. Mr. Wanner confirmed that
it deals with natural disasters such as flooding.
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
Mr. Boyd commented that the price tag on these items is very high, and asked if the county is
essentially committing to doing these things. Mr. Wanner responded that the obligation is to recognize
these are mitigation strategies that are important to the county with an understanding that these strategies
may need to be altered.
Mr. Rooker said that at some point, the county may need to go through and prioritize the strategies.
Mr. Dorrier suggested looking at the Scottsville plan for dealing with flooding.
Ms. Thomas commented that she is the liaison to the Mountain Overlay District Committee, and
she is interested in the wildfire management plan. She asked if the mountainous terrain factors into the
calculations for mitigation costs and plans. Mr. Wanner replied that his feeling is that the risk of wildfires is
probably greater on mountainous terrain. Ms. Nicole Gilkeson said that they do have maps dependent on
the type of trees and landscape features, but they can look more in-depth at including additional information
on the impact of terrain.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that the county does have maps on GIS overlay that could be used.
Mr. Wanner said that Nelson County had the same concerns, particularly the problems with
emergency vehicles accessing remote homes. He reported that Nelson is providing clear house numbers
so that in front of the driveway a home is identified.
_______________
(Note: At 10:47 a.m., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 10:58 a.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Presentation of the Assets for Youth Report, Saphira Baker.
Speaking on behalf of the Commission for Children and Families, Ms. Winx Lawrence recognized
other workgroup members Saphira Baker, Gretchen Ellis, Charles Martin, and Nell Downing. Ms.
Lawrence reported that in 2003 the Commission conducted a community needs assessment and found a
significant discrepancy in after-school and extra-curricular activities for youth based on income and race.
She indicated that middle and high school youth of low-income and African American families were much
less involved in after-school activities. Ms. Lawrence explained that national research indicates that it is very
important for youth this age to be involved in safe and enriching activities, which has a high correlation with
academic performance and healthy development. She noted that there are approximately 7,000 middle
and high school county youth, and only 1,400 elementary to high school youth being served in after-school
activities. There is a huge void.
Ms. Lawrence explained that the Commission created an Assets for Youth workgroup, which
included 25 community members and 23 youth leaders. She noted that they created focus groups
involving over 270 youth from Albemarle and Charlottesville middle and high schools. Ms. Lawrence said
that they identified reasons why they believed their peers were not more involved with out-of-school
activities, mentioning that the process was supported by the Foundation of St. John the Baptist in the
Woods.
Ms. Lawrence said that the adult community members evaluated the youth findings and came up
with strategies for improving access to out-of-school activities as well as brochures explaining available
activities, adding that many youth did not know what was offered. She stated that the brochures were sent
home in student backpacks, as well as being distributed in doctor’s offices, etc. around town.
Ms. Lawrence said that while 69 percent of the students interviewed said they participated in one or
more structured activities, the majority desired more opportunities. She explained that the youth surveyed
were involved in sports programs, followed by fine arts and school-based activities. Ms. Lawrence stated
that the group identified four barriers as having a significant impact on youth involvement: concern that they
won’t know anyone in the activities; financial cost of activities such as participation fees; entrance fees to
school events such as games, plays and dances; and transportation especially for county youth.
Youth surveyed indicated that they would like to be involved in a teen club, establish a coffee
house, or music hall, according to Ms. Lawrence. She said that the youth suggested neighborhood clubs,
instead of the large-scale school based teen clubs that features social, recreational, and educational
activities. Ms. Lawrence said they want those facilities to be comfortable and safe, located nearby, with
programs there led by adults who are respectful and caring, and not too controlling. She added that the
youth expressed an interest in having the clubs open at weekends and night, with many of them indicating
that their current activity of choice was partying. Ms. Lawrence pointed out that youth revealed a lack of
opportunity for them in the community during the summer, including employment.
Ms. Lawrence shared a summary of the Commission’s recommendations:
Improving using youth in the design, governance, and operation of out-of-school programs,
?
facilitated by offering incentives to school and community youth programs that demonstrate youth
engagement and leadership.
Assets for Youth Implementation Team will guide the development and implementation of
?
the recommendations, using the youth group along with others in the community.
Make information about financial assistance more available to youth and parents and in a
?
way that’s understandable to all.
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
Increasing onsite, year-round, extra-curricular activities at county middle schools,
?
particularly Walton and Henley. Youth at those schools indicated a lack of options for participation in
after-school activities. The Commission has already begun discussions with the principal and staff at
Walton enhancement of programming, and the workgroup has created a subcommittee to meet with
staff to begin to talk about that possibility.
Investigate the possibility of neighborhood teen clubs, and how to adapt existing programs
?
to respond to youth descriptions of activities and accessible places, especially in the western and
southern parts of the county. The Commission has applied for a research grant to look into this, and
should hear within a week or so.
Expand hours of community and school-based programs to include evenings, weekends
?
and summers, particularly computer labs, gyms, and public swimming pools. These will be presented
to the city and county school boards and parks & recreation department.
Increase financial assistance for low-income youth to participate in fee-based extra-
?
curricular and out of school programs. Eliminate entrance fees to school recreational activities.
Launch a marketing campaign to increase youth involvement in after-school activities.
?
Increase opportunities for youth employment in the summer, especially for those ages 14
?
to 16. There have been significant federal funding cuts in this area, and the workgroup will seek
research grants and staff support to investigate funding sources and identify quality programs.
Conduct a market-study for an after-school bus line to community based programs and
?
increase bus ridership among youth in the county, especially those in the urban ring. This will be
presented to the Charlottesville Transit Service and the school boards, and expansion of the youth free
bus pass system is being considered.
Mr. Rooker asked if the local Boys & Girls Club has a strong presence in the schools, noting that
they offer after-school and weekend opportunities. Ms. Lawrence responded that the club is in Jack Jouett,
and the programs are very popular.
Mr. Rooker suggested leveraging through the club enhanced services described in the
recommendations. Ms. Lawrence agreed that that is a real possibility.
In response to Mr. Dorrier’s questions, Ms. Lawrence explained that in the implementation phase
they would consider the use of adult volunteers at youth events.
Mr. Dorrier suggested a central clearing-house of some kind for youth employment. Ms. Lawrence
agreed, adding that there needs to be a better system in place, as it is more likely for “kids of privilege” than
low-income kids to find out about jobs.
Mr. Boyd suggested partnerships with faith-based organizations to carry out activities. Ms.
Lawrence responded that they surveyed at least 12 programs, but there are funding and capacity
limitations, as well as transportation barriers – especially in the case of Walton and Henley.
Mr. Boyd suggested using schools for the activities. Ms. Lawrence agreed, adding that youth would
need to view schools as acceptable meeting sites.
Mr. Wyant said that youth in the Crozet area do not want to have to come all the way into
Charlottesville for activities, and they are working toward formulating some plans to possibly use the old
school there.
_______________
Agenda Item No.10. Annual Real Estate Reassessment Report.
Mr. Richard Wiggans, Director of Finance, summarized the executive summary that was forwarded
to Board members. Two reports, which explored the possibility of moving the County’s real estate
reassessment process from a biennial to an annual appraisal process, have previously been brought to
the Board of Supervisors for review. Subsequent to the last report on December 2003, staff was
requested to bring this proposal back to the Board’s attention, so that both real estate staff, as well as
the public, would have sufficient time to prepare for the change, should the Board decide to move to an
annual cycle. The executive summary has been updated with current statistics and includes a
recommendation for Board action.
Current Assessment Process
The County of Albemarle consists of approximately 740 square miles and currently contains 38,015
real estate parcels. These parcels are assessed on a biennial basis by the County Assessor’s office.
Office staff consists of fourteen employees: a County Assessor, eight appraisers, a tax supervisor, and
four clerical staff.
The current assessment process takes approximately one and one-half years to complete. Each
appraiser is assigned a geographical area to assess and is responsible for assigning value to
approximately 5,000 parcels. During this eighteen-month process, all parcels are visited and reviewed
by the assigned appraiser. In addition, values are assigned for new construction that may have
occurred; if applicable, the land use status is reviewed; and values are assigned to parcels that have
been newly created by subdivision of property.
In 1999, the assessment process changed from a completely manual process to a computer
assisted mass appraisal (CAMA) process. With this system, every cost schedule associated with CAMA
is updated to accurately reflect current market conditions and costs prior to the start of the reassessment
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
process. These tables assist the appraisers in arriving at their property valuations. In addition to
increasing the efficiency of assessment operations, the CAMA software speeds mathematical
computations and allows extraction of data for reports and analyses.
Annual Assessment Process
Currently, annual assessments are being conducted in 11 of 80 counties and 16 of 35 cities in the
Commonwealth. The City of Salem is scheduled to convert to annual assessment in 2007, effective for
2008. Of the remaining counties and cities, 20 conduct their assessments on a biennial basis with the
remaining localities performing their assessments every 3-6 years. Staff conducted a survey of the
localities conducting annual assessments to determine the following: number of parcels, ratio of
developed vs. undeveloped land, appraisal staffing levels, percentage of parcels visited each year, cycle
of parcel review, and sales ratio information. This data is summarized in Exhibit A.
The annual assessment process will take approximately nine to ten months to complete. This
condensed time frame will require that the majority of the assessments be completed from sales ratio
analysis conducted in the office. It is anticipated that a physical inspection of most properties will be
limited to those parcels which have sold, have a current building permit, or whose owner has requested
a review. However, International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO) Assessment Standards
recommend every property be physically inspected at least every sixth year. The County Assessor’s
Office will meet and/or exceed this recommendation.
This limited timeframe will also require the reduction of the appeal period to the County Assessor
from 45 days to 15 days and to the Board of Equalization from 30 days to 15 days. These appeals
periods would be in line with the condensed timeframe required for an annual assessment program.
It is anticipated that the timeline for office workflow would be adjusted as follows:
Process Biennial Assessment Annual Assessment
Reassessment Notices Mid-January Mid-January
Mailed
Assessment appeal hearings Mid-January - February 28 Mid-January- January 31
Board of Equalization Appeal March 1 – March 31 February 1 – February 15
deadline
Inspection of new properties Mid-January – March 31 February 1 – March 31
applying for land use and
parcel divisions
New Construction March 1 – May 31 & October On-going
New Cost Tables April 1 – May 31 February 1 – February 28
Established
Reassessment work period June 1 (odd yr.) to March 1 – December 31
December 15 (even yr.)
Benefits of Annual Assessments
?
Provides a more current picture of the property tax basis;
?
Assessments are a more accurate reflection of current fair market value, especially in rapidly
increasing or declining markets;
?
Assessment accuracy is essential to property assessment and can have legal benefits. Taxpayers
and the courts are becoming more cognizant of the desirability of annual assessments in order to
secure a just valuation of property for taxation.
?
Annual appraisals reduce the dramatic changes in property values that a biennial schedule can
produce.
?
Vehicle-related expenses (fuel, maintenance, etc.) will be decreased due to the reduction in vehicle
usage.
Disadvantages of Annual Assessments
?
Costs associated with additional operating expense would result in an increase in on-going costs of
approximately $16,000 per year for mailing costs and reassessment notice forms.
?
Appeal process will be shortened in order to accomplish all annual workload deadlines for both
appraisal staff and Board of Equalization;
?
Market trends and sales ratio analysis, rather than a physical inspection, would be used to assess
the majority of parcels. Therefore, appraisers will be less familiar with individual parcels.
?
In a declining market, the impact on the tax base will be more immediate, possibly requiring a rate
increase to maintain revenue levels.
?
Parcels that are currently under the Land Use Taxation Program will not be subject to a physical
inspection every two years. Therefore, these parcels may not be immediately recognized should
they fail to meet or maintain the requirements of the program.
?
Increases will have a more immediate impact on the Revenue Sharing Agreement with the City.
Implementation of Annual Assessments
Prior to implementation of annual assessments, several items will need to be addressed.
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
?
Albemarle County Code Sections 15-1000, Biennial assessment of real estate, and Section 15-
1002, Time limits for appeals of real estate assessments, will have to be amended. This requires
advertisement of the proposed code changes followed by a public hearing.
?
The assessment software currently being used for the computer mass appraisal system (CAMA),
SMDA 2000, is capable of supporting the annual reassessment process without any significant
software or programming changes at this time. Manatron, the County’s software provider, is
scheduled to upgrade the County Assessor’s office to new software, Proval Plus, in May 2005. Prior
to the implementation of annual assessments, staff recommends the migration from SMDA 2000 to
Proval Plus be used once for a biennial assessment, thereby lessening the learning curve
associated with both the change in assessment process and new computer software. The software
upgrade is anticipated to cost approximately $25,000 to $30,000.
?
A review of the appraisal staff assignments and job descriptions should be conducted. In reviewing
other localities that assess annually, most localities have several positions dedicated to appraisal
review. Staff suggests two positions, Residential Review Appraiser and Rural Review Appraiser, will
be essential in order to successfully accomplish annual reassessments. The review appraisal
positions will be critical to insure the quality of appraisals required within the limited timeframe given
to complete the annual assessment process. Staff estimates the realignment costs to be
approximately $12,000.
?
Education of the public regarding the change in assessment process should also be addressed.
Staff would recommend that the change in assessment process and reasons why this change is
necessary be promoted through press releases and other media prior to implementation.
Annual assessment is feasible. CAMA Systems permit conversion to annual assessment with
some minor modifications. In conjunction with the request to realign two current positions in the
Assessor’s office, staff believes the change from biennial to annual assessments can be accomplished
without additional appraisal staff. However, with an annual growth of approximately 725 parcels per year,
additional appraisal staff may be required in the next five to six years. Staff recommends implementation
of annual assessment beginning 2007, effective for 2008.
Mr. Dorrier asked why the change is needed and recommended. Mr. Wiggins responded that it
would present a more accurate reflection of property values, as they receive complaints every two years
when property owners open up their reassessment notices and see significant increases; additionally, the
City of Charlottesville and other large jurisdictions do annual assessments.
Mr. Bowerman mentioned that Mr. Wiggins’ office has had time to evaluate the software and
assess its capabilities.
Mr. Wyant asked if a public hearing would be required. Mr. Tucker responded that it would be
necessary.
Mr. Boyd stated that he would like to see cost benefit analysis for the changeover.
Mr. Rooker commented that there would be a one-time revenue gain in the first assessment year.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the “principle” of converting to a one-year system would outweigh the
“mechanics” of it. He emphasized that a one-year system would allow the county to be more up-front with
residents.
Mr. Rooker noted that the report indicates there would not be a staff increase associated with the
changeover.
Mr. Boyd mentioned that the report calls for two new positions. Mr. Rooker and Mr. Tucker said
that those jobs would be added anyway. Mr. Wiggins commented that there may be changes in staff
responsibility.
Mr. Rooker read from the report: “costs associated with additional operating expenses would result
in increase of ongoing cost of approximately $16,000 per year for mailing costs and reassessment notices,”
adding that his calculations showed $28,000 in increased costs. Mr. Wiggins stated that the primary effect
would be on what the county contributes to the city. Mr. Rooker noted that the costs are mentioned in the
report. Mr. Wiggins added that the vehicle costs would actually be less, and the software costs would
increase for the new system transition.
Ms. Thomas commented that 15 days does not seem like enough time to appeal for many
homeowners. She suggested asking the Equalization Board appointees, and also finding out how many
appeals came in during the first 15 days.
Mr. Tucker emphasized that property assessment information is available online, which shortens
the time needed.
Mr. Wiggins said that they could come back to the Board with new information on timeframe for
assessments.
Mr. Rooker summarized that the consensus of the Board is that they would like a better format for
cost computations, along with a longer suggested time frame. He added that many citizens do not
understand that they are not assessed every year, and compare the county reassessments to
Charlottesville’s, which actually are every year.
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
Mr. Wiggins agreed to come back in July with the new information.
_______________
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
Agenda Item No. 12. Closed Session. At 11:42 a.m., motion was made by Mr. Dorrier
that the Board adjourn into closed session to consider appointments to boards, committees and
commissions; conduct an administrative evaluation; and discuss a prospective business locating in the
County.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Certify Closed Session. At 1:40 p.m., the Board reconvened into open
session.
Motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each
Board member’s knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting
requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the closed
session were heard, discussed or considered in the closed session
The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Appointments to Boards and Commissions.
Mr. Boyd then offered motion to make the following appointments:
Reappoint Waltine Eubanks and William Harvey to Advisory Council on Aging with said terms to
expire May 31, 2007.
Reappoint Gregory MacDonald to Charlottesville/Albemarle Convention and Visitors’ Bureau
Management Board with said term to expire June 30, 2007.
Appoint Wendi Wills El-Amin, M.D. to Region Ten Community Services Board with said term to
expire June 30, 2008.
Second to the motion was given by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. FY05 Third Quarter Financial Report.
Mr. Richard Wiggans, Director of Finance, said the report is a conservative look at revenues and
expenditures for the current fiscal year. He then summarized the attached executive summary forwarded to
the Board members. The attached Quarterly Financial Report provides information on the County’s
General Fund and Fund Balance as of March 31, 2005. The financial report includes a bar-chart report
that compares current fiscal year revenue and expenditure data with data from the previous fiscal year.
($ In Millions)
A. Attachment A: General Fund Quarterly Financial Report:
1. Revenues:
The Department of Finance estimates that the current fiscal year General Fund
revenues will exceed original appropriations by $2.405 million, 1.5%. This is an
approximate $1.139 million reduction from the FY05 Second Quarter Financial Report.
The reduction is due to the real estate tax rate decrease from $0.76 to $0.74 per
$100.00. Other revenue estimates have not been changed at this time. Combined
with the use of $3.728 million in fund balance, the total projected revenues, transfers,
and fund balance for the year are anticipated to be $165.981 million or $6.133 million
(3.8%) over the original budget of $159.848.
?
Real Estate Tax revenues, excluding $0.427 million of reclassified
delinquent tax collections, are estimated to exceed original appropriations by
$0.708 million, 0.9%. This is a $1.566 million reduction from previous
estimates due to the $1.139 million potential real estate tax rate reduction
and the reclassification of delinquent tax collections. A better estimate will
be available after the 2005 first half tax bills are prepared.
?
Personal Property Tax revenues, excluding $0.161 million of reclassified
delinquent tax collections as well as Personal Property Tax Relief (PPTR)
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
payments, are estimated to be $0.277 million, 2.0%, less than original
appropriations. Other than the reclassification of delinquent tax, there has
been no change in forecast. A better estimate will be available after the
2005 first half tax bills are prepared.
?
Delinquent Property Tax revenues are estimated at $0.616 million. This is a
$0.096 decrease from original appropriations. The decrease is due to a
timing difference of delinquent tax revenues budgeted for FY05 but realized
in FY04. Delinquent tax collections have not been displayed in the
attachment B bar graph due to the relative small amounts.
?
Sales and Use Tax revenues are estimated to exceed original appropriations
by $0.275 million, 2.4%. This revenue estimate has not changed. However,
there are indications that final revenues will be greater. The improvement is
due to the economic recovery underway. However, the recovery is still
somewhat fragile with significant monthly swings.
?
Business License revenues are estimated to exceed original appropriations
by $0.468 million, 6.3%. This revenue estimate has not changed. However,
there are indications that final revenues will be slightly greater. The
improvement is due to the economic recovery underway. However, the
recovery is still somewhat fragile with significant monthly swings.
?
Utility Tax revenues are estimated to exceed original appropriations by
$0.522 million, 7.7%. This revenue estimate has not changed. Anticipated
cellular and power company receipts continue to offset by the decrease in
landline receipts. Cellular increases have begun to stabilize as the market
matures.
?
Meals Tax revenues are estimated to exceed original appropriations by
$0.260 million, 6.3%. This revenue estimate has not changed. However,
there are indications that final revenues will be slightly greater. The increase
is attributed to the continued shift from home to convenience food
preparation.
?
Other Local Tax revenues are estimated to exceed original appropriations by
$0.186 million, 2.3%. This is a $0.686 improvement from the last report
primarily due to the reclassification of delinquent property tax revenues. A
better estimate will be available after the 2005 first half tax bills are
prepared.
?
Other Local Revenues are estimated to be $0.074 million, 1.7%, less than
original appropriations. This revenue estimate has not changed. The
variance is primarily due to decreased court revenues.
?
State revenues, including PPTR payments, are estimated to exceed original
appropriations by $0.013 million, 0.1%. This estimate has not changed
although there are indications that final revenues will exceed this amount.
The improvement is primarily due to increased PPTR payments, rental
vehicle receipts, and social service expenditure reimbursements.
?
Federal revenues are estimated to exceed original appropriations by $0.421
million, 10.3%. This estimate has not changed although there are
indications that final revenues will be less due to decreased grant
collections. The reduction may be offset by additional social service
expenditure reimbursements.
?
Fund Balance appropriations are detailed on Attachment C.
2. Expenditures:
Total expenditures, including transfers, are within suitable levels at 74.2% of the original
appropriated budget.
?
Departmental expenditures are at 66.2% of original appropriations.
?
The contingency reserve has been reduced to $0.152 million.
?
No attempt has been made to revise expenditure estimates for the third
quarter except for supplemental appropriations.
3. Revised Revenues less Revised Expenditure Appropriations (yellow boxes in right hand
corner):
?
Revised revenues less expenditures show a projected $2.351 million savings
by the end of this fiscal year (June 30, 2005) based on the February revenue
update adjusted for the real estate tax rate reduction.
?
June 30, 2004 Fund Balance available May 4, 2005 is $0.373 million, after
the $3.000 million FY04 surplus transfer to the CIP.
?
Projected End-of-Year Available Funds are $2.724 million, which reflects the
updated FY05 revenue estimates and the FY04 carryover reduced by
supplemental appropriations approved for FY05. Of this projected $2.724
million, the Board during FY06 budget work sessions authorized the
expenditure of $1.595 million of these Available Funds to be spent in
FY2006. This will leave an Available Funds balance of $1.129 million.
B. Attachment B: General Fund Budget Comparison Report:
The bar-chart report tracts changes in revenue and expenditure changes over time.
1. Revenues:
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
?
Revenues from real estate tax, sales tax, business license fees, utility tax,
meals tax, state receipts, and federal receipts are anticipated to increase
over last year and current year appropriated.
?
Revenues from personal property tax and other local revenues are
anticipated to be slightly less than the current appropriated budget.
?
Use of fund balance is anticipated to exceed the original appropriated
budget and transfers are anticipated to equal the appropriated budget.
2. Expenditures:
?
This report displays minor increases for FY05 over FY04 in most functional
areas.
C. Attachment C: Fund Balance Report:
This report indicates that the County:
?
Has an audited FY04 Fund Balance of $20.101 million;
?
Appropriated $6.728 million from the fund balance for budgeted FY05
projects and the FY04 surplus transfer to CIP which reduces the fund
balance to $13.373 million as of May 4, 2005;
?
Has committed to maintain a minimum fund balance of $13.000 million for
cash liquidity purposes. The $13.000 million remains within the County’s
financial policy of maintaining a fund balance equal to or no less than 8.0%
of the County’s General Fund plus School Fund; and
?
Has a remaining fund balance of $0.373 million as of May 4, 2005.
D. Fiscal Impact Discussion:
Revenues reported are based on actual collections realized for the nine months ended
March 31, 2005. The revenue estimate is based on the FY05 Second Quarter Financial
Report projection adjusted for the real estate tax rate decrease from $0.76 to $0.74 per
$100.00.There are indications that revenues will exceed current projections. More
information will be available after the first half 2005 tax bills are processed subsequent to
the preparation of this report.
Mr. Wiggins said, as part of the FY 2005 budget amendment, is the recommended
expenditure of $50,000 in FY 04 available funds, taking the fund down by that amount leaving $1.1 million.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that with a $200+ million budget, the amount of $1.1 million is not much at
all, and asked Mr. Wiggins if he felt this buffer was sufficient. Mr. Wiggins replied that the $13 million
reserve is also set aside.
Mr. Wiggans said staff recommends acceptance of the FY05 Third Quarter Financial Report.
Motion was offered by Mr. Boyd, seconded by Mr. Dorrier to accept the FY05 Third Quarter
Financial Report. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Presentation: League of Women Voters’ Report on Rivanna Authorities.
Ms. Liz Palmer of the League of Women Voters (LWV) addressed the Board, and thanked them for
the opportunity to make a presentation. Ms. Palmer reported that the League has studied water resource
management in the community for years, and has closely followed the activities of RWSA and its board,
and have noted problems in its functioning, which LWV believes are inherent in the actual structure of the
quasi-governmental organization. She noted that the RWSA is a 30-year-old institution that has never been
reevaluated in spite of “massive community change.” Ms. Palmer said that they feel members of the
RWSA Board are “exceptionally competent, hard-working public servants,” and “deserving our respect.”
However, she said that a lack of formal communication and integration between all involved government
entities that inhibits policy development and control, and that deficiency is inherent in the structure of the
authority.
She stated that many examples of problems created by organizational structure can be given, and
the most near example is the water supply planning process, which suffers primarily because of the lack of
clear policy direction. Ms. Palmer said that when the RWSA evaluates a water supply alternative, they ask
“does it meet demand and how much does it cost,” and superimposed on their process are requirements of
state and federal regulators to choose the “least environmentally damaging, most practicable alternative.”
Ms. Palmer commented that this covers most of the bases, but not all. She said that issues not considered
by this standard are “do we want to stay in our own watershed,” “do we want the cleanest possible water or
do we want the cheapest water.” She noted that RWSA has no comprehensive plan to direct the
community on these matters, and compared it to the county Comprehensive Plan which articulates what
citizens deem important and defines what should be emphasized in community planning.
Ms. Palmer said that the approved 2002 Water Supply Plan was not only a plan to meet future
water demands, but also an attempt at joint city-county comprehensive plan for water resource
management. She reported that it stated commitments to protect the watershed, establish science-based
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
instream flow values, and address sediment control; the methods chosen to meet demand were to
incorporate progressive land and water resource management, a plan consistent with our county
comprehensive plan, and it was a plan to stay in our own watershed. Ms. Palmer noted that the plan was
not followed, and to proceed or not proceed with it was never addressed by local elected officials or any
other board. Lack of formal integration with local governing bodies created a decision-making void, and
these kinds of observations led our natural resources committee to ask the question ‘how can we make it
better.’”
She added that that group did not feel they had the background or expertise to evaluate the
structure and compare it to other like institutions, so in 2003 they approached the Darden Graduate
Business School for help in analyzing the organizational structure of RWSA. In the fall of 2003, she said,
Dr. John Colley, who teaches corporate governance at Darden, established a three-credit hour course to
study the governmental corporate board structure of the RWSA and look at other comparable authorities
Best Management Practices; they presented their findings before graduating in May 2004. Ms. Palmer said
that the League did not present the study at that time because Rivanna had just hired new consultants who
were busy reevaluating a previously approved water supply plan, and Rivanna was in the process of
bringing on a new executive director.
Ms. Palmer said that they “decided to wait till the dust settled,” and believes the final product is an
organized analysis of the critical issues concerning the authority with an equally organized approach to
improving it. She noted that there are League comments in bold, along with suggested changes to the
Board.
Ms. Palmer reviewed some of the highlights, noting that the students broke the issues down into
three categories: organizational, environmental, and financial.
Organizational Concerns
Accountability – Best Management Practices require us to maximize efforts to represent all
?
stakeholders interests in a governing structure.
Competing interests – Retailers, the City Department of Public Works and Albemarle
?
County Service Authority, control the wholesaler (the RWSA). Efforts must be made to reduce duality
of interests.
Lack of formal integration with local governing bodies – Best Management Practices would
?
include providing a formal mechanism to achieve integration.
Environmental Concerns
Absence of a strong, independent Board advocate – In industry, it is considered Best
?
Management Practice to have an environmental advocate well-versed in the impacts associated with
the operations of that specific industry (such as mining).
Lack of integrated resource management – Watershed management and land use policies
?
cannot be separated from each other, nor can they be separated from water resource management.
Financial Concerns
No consensus on how to fund and how to allocate costs between the city and the county.
?
In late 2003, the RWSA, Albemarle County Service Authority, and the City signed a cost-allocation
agreement. At present, it is unclear what the status of this is, and it is uncertain whether it will be
followed in the future.
Is this agreement in the overall best interest of the community – if stakeholders include all
?
county residents, because the entire community benefits from progressive water resource
management, how would that change the cost allocation agreement in the county’s mind.
Ms. Palmer stated that after long discussions with the Darden students and among themselves,
the LWV came up with its own set of recommendations:
Put elected officials on the RWSA Board – the object of this is not to gain watershed or
?
water resource management skills, but is to provide accountability and better inform and involve all
elected officials in RWSA operations.
Mr. Rooker asked if she had presented this to the city. Ms. Palmer responded that she had
spoken with Mayor Brown, and he said they are willing to consider and discuss that idea.
Remove duality of interest – Make the city director of public works and the director of
?
Albemarle County Service Authority non-voting members because they are the retailers buying water
from RWSA, the wholesaler. They are needed very much on this board as technical advisors.
Provide integration of watershed management, land use policy, and water resource
?
management by putting the Senior County Engineer back on the board. The County Engineer was
stated as a board member in the original articles of incorporation.
Create a position for an environmental advocate.
?
Ms. Palmer concluded that these changes would give the RWSA a seven-member board, which
students identified as the most practical board size. She added that this would also mean additional
responsibilities for individuals who are frequently overburdened, and all those on the RWSA Board should
receive adequate compensation over and above income from other positions held. Ms. Palmer said that
the LWV is encouraged that they are considering changes, and hopes their comments will aid in their
discussions. She thanked the Darden School for their work as well.
Mr. Wyant asked for clarification on the seven members to serve on the RWSA Board.
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
Ms. Palmer clarified that there would be two elected officials, Mr. Tucker, the City Manager, an
environmental advocate, the Senior County Engineer, and the joint appointee.
Mr. Rooker commented that the structure of the RWSA Board has been in place for a while, and
the report is a helpful addition to the conversations the Supervisors have been having. He added that the
county has requested from the city an appointment of a Board member and City Councilor to the RWSA
Board. Mr. Rooker noted that there have been discussions about eliminating the Albemarle County Service
Authority and the City Public Works as separate bodies and merging them.
Ms. Palmer noted that making those kinds of Board changes could make the combination at a
latter date easier.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that the Albemarle County Service Authority has indicated that if Beaver
Creek was included in the service area, the city should pay something for that because that water supply
was paid for by the county long ago.
Mr. Boyd pointed out that the city uses their water dollars differently than the county.
Mr. Rooker said that this factors into the water supply option, as it raises the question “who pays for
what.” He noted that the city views their required investment as the loss of capacity due to the segmentation
at South Fork, and their projections do not include a significant increase of urban users. They are not very
interested in acquiring additional supply beyond what we have today; they do recognize they would have to
participate in the cost of replacing sedimentation loss.
Mr. Boyd noted that the report mentions 75 percent of the capital expenditures would be on the
county. Mr. Tucker confirmed that two-thirds to three-fourths would be.
Mr. Rooker said that in the past, hook-up fees have gone to capital expenditures.
Mr. Tucker mentioned that when Lickinghole Creek was built as a sedimentation basin for Crozet, it
was primarily to protect South Fork, the city would not participate.
Mr. Boyd asked for an update on discussions with the city, and Board members agreed to move
that to the end of the meeting.
Mr. Rooker thanked the League and Darden School for their work on the report.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. FY 2005 Budget Amendment. (Advertised in Daily Progress on April 24,
2005).
Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Office of Management and Budget, said the Code of Virginia § 15.2-
2507 stipulates that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated
during the current fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget. However, any such amendment
which exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget or the sum of
$500,000, whichever is lesser, must be accomplished by first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a
public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies to all County funds, i.e., General
Fund, Capital Fund, E-911, School Self-Sustaining, etc. Staff recommends approval of the FY 2005
Budget Amendment in the amount of $1,091,434.24, after the public hearing, and then approval of
Appropriations #2005048, #2005052, #2005053, #2005054, #2005055, #2005056, #2005057, and
#2005058.
The proposed increase of this FY 2005 Budget Amendment totals $1,091,434.24. The estimated
expenses and revenues included in the proposed amendment are shown below:
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
General Fund $ 49,780.00
Local Government Programs/Grants $ 475,449.35
Education Fund $ 257,464.55
Education Programs/Grants $ 307,730.63
ECC $ 1,009.71
TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES – All Funds $ 1,091,434.24
ESTIMATED REVENUES
Local Revenues $ 185,125.19
State Revenues $ 1,324.75
Federal Revenues $ 585,243.88
General Fund Balance $ 55,502.82
Other Fund Balance $ 264,237.60
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES – All Funds $ 1,091,434.24
The budget amendment is comprised of eight (8) separate appropriations, as indicated below:
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
?
One (1) appropriation (#2005048) in the amount of $430,484.00 for a Department of
Homeland Security Firefighter Grant;
?
One (1) appropriation (#2005052) in the amount of $1,940.00 to purchase traffic vests
for firefighters;
?
Three (3) appropriations (#2005053, #2005055, and #2005056) in the amounts of
$44,162.82, $264,167.81, and $256,864.55 respectively for various school programs
and donations;
?
One (1) appropriation (#2005054) in the amount of $1,009.71 for the Emergency
Communications Center CERT grant;
?
One (1) appropriation (#2005057) in the amount of $44,965.35 for AHIP home
rehabilitations; and
?
One (1) appropriation (#2005058) in the amount of $47,840.00 for costs associated
with the June 14, 2005 dual primary election.
Appropriation #2005048 $430,484.00
The Department of Homeland Security awarded the Albemarle County Department of Fire and Rescue a
2004 Office of Domestic Preparedness federal grant in the amount of $301,339.00. The grant is offered
through the Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) Program and requires a local match of $129,145.00, for
a total program cost of $430,484.00
The purpose of the AFG Program is to award one-year grants directly to fire departments to enhance their
abilities with respect to fire and fire-related hazards. The grant will allow the implementation of a continuing
proactive wellness and fitness program for the department’s volunteer and career personnel. This program
will be mandatory for all career personnel. It will be optional, but strongly promoted and encouraged, for
volunteer personnel. The grant and local match will enable the placement of fitness and exercise
equipment at all fire rescue stations, including the administrative headquarters. The program will also
provide annual nutrition, diet, back care, abdominal health, injury prevention, and stress management
education for career and volunteer personnel at each station.
Appropriation #2005052 $1,940.00
Albemarle County has received a grant from the First Responder Institute (a not-for-profit organization) in
the amount of $1,940.00 to assist in the purchase of new traffic vests for firefighters. There is no local
match.
Appropriation #2005053 $44,162.82
The Wal-Mart Foundation awarded Broadus Wood Elementary School a grant in the amount of $500.00.
rdthth
This grant will be used to purchase trade books for 3, 4, and 5 grade language arts programs.
The Frederick S. Upton Foundation made a matching grant donation in the amount of $1,000.00 to Henley
Middle School. This donation will support Henley’s Cultural Enrichment Program in funding three artists-in-
residence programs: Sculpture, Writer, and Dramatic Interpretation. The projects will involve interactive
activities to include hands on learning experiences for students with performing, visual, and musical arts.
The Albemarle County Public Schools will act as fiscal agent for the Virginia Department of Education in the
design and implementation of a statewide one day institute on instruction in student character education for
school personnel. Albemarle County will be reimbursed for expenses accrued not to exceed $35,000.00
and will receive free registration at the institute for up to six participants.
The Partnership in Character Education Grant has a fund balance of $7,662.82 from FY 03/04. It is
requested that these funds be appropriated for FY 04/05 to help support K-12 character education
programs.
Appropriation #2005054 $1,009.71
This appropriation provides $1,009.71 for the Citizen Emergency Response Team (CERT) grant. The
monies through this grant cover training volunteers to respond to emergency situations. Some of the
monies are also used for equipment for this same purpose.
Appropriation #2005055 $264,167.81
Murray Elementary School received an anonymous donation in the amount of $600.00. This donation will
be used to support the miscellaneous classroom needs at the school.
The 2002 General Assembly appropriated funds to support the Teacher Mentor Program for participating
school divisions. This program is for beginning and experienced teachers new to Albemarle County Public
Schools to conduct mentor workshops and work with principals so that mentors can provide teachers with
meaningful and individualized induction into the teaching profession. Albemarle County Public Schools has
received an additional $1,324.75 from the State for FY 04/05.
“Families in Crisis” is a federally funded grant designed to create lasting and effective structure needs to
homeless students living in the Albemarle County school district, or being forced to move out of the district
because of circumstances beyond their control. Albemarle County Public Schools received an additional
$500.00 for FY 04/05 to be used for staff development.
Title III, No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, was passed to improve student learning by states and districts as
part of a comprehensive approach to close the achievement gap, especially between disadvantaged and
minority students and their peers. To comply with the law, states and districts must now make decisions that
have enormous consequences for students, including those with limited English proficiency. This grant is
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
provided to assist in implementing the law to maximize the success of Limited English Proficient and
Immigrant Students. There is a fund balance retained by the State from FY 03/04 of $23,960.17 which may
be used for FY 04/05.
The Albemarle County Public Schools received an additional grant award, Grant B, under Section 619
Early Childhood Special Education Program for FY 04/05 in the amount of $68,900.00. In the fall of 2004, a
new preschool classroom was opened at Agnor Hurt Elementary School due to the move from
Westminster Child Care Center. This grant is to help promote early intervention strategies and accurate
assessment of students by funding the purchase of furniture, teaching materials, manipulative, permanent
and consumable supplies, positioning and fine motor equipment, testing material, and protocols.
The Albemarle County Public Schools received a Refugee School Impact Grant award from the Office of
Refugee Resettlement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in the amount of $9,535.00.
These funds will be used to provide additional services for Albemarle County’s growing multicultural
population, which includes refugees. The grant program will run in conjunction with the evening Adult ESL
program, targeting K-12 “Limited English Proficient” (LEP) refugee students with special emphasis on
reading, writing, and mathematical concepts.
The Learn and Serve grant has an unexpended fund balance of $223.12 from FY 03/04. The coordinator
of this program is in the process of spending these funds. It is requested that these funds be re-
appropriated for FY 04/05.
Various miscellaneous grants have unexpended fund balances from FY 03/04, totalling $14,124.77.
Holders of these grants have been encouraged to expend these small balances. It is requested that these
funds be re-appropriated for FY 04/05.
Albemarle County Public Schools was awarded a 21st Century Community Learning Centers Grant for
Yancey Elementary School in the amount of $145,000.00. The funds will be used for the Club Yancey
After-School Program which will provide academic, civic, cultural, and fitness/wellness enrichment to
students enrolled in the program. Club Yancey is a jointly operated program through The Saint John the
Baptist in the Woods Foundation and Albemarle County Public Schools.
Appropriation #2005056 $256,864.55
Broadus Wood Elementary School received an honorarium in the amount of $150.00 from the Montgomery
County School Board. Nancy Markos, P.E. teacher at Broadus Wood presented a half-day workshop for
the Montgomery County Schools’ K-5 Physical Education staff on January 25, 2005. These funds will be
used to purchase P.E. equipment for the school.
Woodbrook Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $2,500.00 from the Woodbrook
Elementary PTO. This donation will be used to pay a teaching assistant to work one additional hour per
day. Woodbrook Elementary also received a donation in the amount of $100.00 from Charles Crenshaw.
This donation will be used by the School Community Group to fund activities for the students at the school.
Scottsville Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $1,200.00 from Scottsville Elementary
PTO. This donation will be used to purchase a Smart Board for use by the teachers at the school for
presentations and lessons.
Albemarle High School received a donation in the amount of $1,000.00 from Frontline Test Equipment, Inc.
This donation will be used to purchase instructional materials for the German Club.
Murray Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $40.84 from Target and the Take Charge
of Education Program. Target donates up to 1% of purchases made to eligible schools designated by their
guests. This donation will be used to purchase instructional supplies for the school. Murray Elementary
School also received a donation in the amount of $1,984.00 from Albemarle Family 2005 Education
Counts. This donation was a result of the proceeds of the Fun Day held at Murray Elementary School. The
donation will be used to purchase miscellaneous supplies for the school.
Policy DB-E allows schools to carry forward up to 10% of their budgets from year to year. Policy KG-R
returns 40% of the base fees collected for building rental to each school. It is requested the re-
appropriation of school carry over funds in the amount of $237,723.21 and building rental fees in the
amount of $12,166.50 be returned to the schools for FY 04/05.
Appropriation #2005057 $44,965.35
This revenue represents program income (loan repayments) in CDBG-funded projects. The County is
required to use such income for activities eligible under CDBG that served low- to moderate-income
families. AHIP has two current clients that require substantial rehabilitation to their homes. One job
estimated at $53,923.00 will use $23,423.22 in program income matched with $30,500.00 from other
sources. The second job estimated at $44,559.00 will use $21,542.13 in program income matched with
$23,013.00 from other sources.
Appropriation #2005058 $47,840.00
This appropriation of $47,840.00 provides funding for costs associated with the June 14, 2005 dual primary
election to be held in all County precincts. Because this primary is treated as two elections being held
simultaneously, there are additional expenses that will be incurred.
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
Ms. Thomas asked if there was any funding for evaluating the effects of the wellness program for
volunteer and career fighters.
Mr. Tucker responded that the health risk assessments previously discussed would be a useful tool
in that, and it would require a period of time before the data could be calculated.
Mr. Wyant asked if there would be assessments of just employees. Mr. Tucker replied that they
haven’t decided that yet, and they are meeting with ACAC to work out the details.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is an ongoing expense as a result of putting this program in place that is
not covered by the grant. Mr. Breeden responded that there is some funding in the fire & rescue budget for
physicals, etc. that will be coordinated with this, and is budgeted every year, along with new minimal costs
for equipment maintenance.
Ms. Thomas commented that she has been trying to get information about the Homeland Security
expenditures and grants.
Mr. Breeden and Mr. Tucker mentioned that they do have some of that from OMB, and would share
it with the Board.
At this time, the Chairman opened the public hearing. No one came forward to speak and the
public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas to approve the FY 2005 Budget Amendment in the amount of
$1,091,434.24 and to approve FY 2005 Appropriations #2005048, #2005052, #2005053, #2005055,
#2005056, #2005057, and #2005058. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wyant. Roll was called, and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2005048
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Funding for Dept. Homeland Security Firefighter Grant
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1567 32015 392000 Contractual Services J 1 144,980.00
1 1567 32015 800100 Equipment J 1 285,504.00
2 1567 18110 181109 Contribution from Vol. F/R J 2 6,000.00
2 1567 33000 300001 Fed'l Grant Revenue J 2 301,339.00
2 1567 51000 512001 Trs. From School Fund J 2 10,000.00
2 1567 51000 512031 Trs. From CIP-5th Street J 2 20,000.00
2 1567 51000 512031 Trs. From CIP-COB Renov J 2 20,000.00
2 1567 51000 512031 Trs. From CIP-Station 12 J 2 20,000.00
2 1567 51000 512031 Trs. From CIP-Station 13 J 2 20,000.00
2 1567 51000 512004 Trs. From G/F-FY05 Police J 2 5,000.00
2 1567 51000 512004 Trs. From G/F-FY06 F/R J 2 28,145.00
1 9010 11200 800901 5th Street Renovations J 1 (20,000.00)
1 9010 32018 800750 Pantops Station 13 J 1 (20,000.00)
1 9010 32017 800605 Hollymead Station 12 J 1 (20,000.00)
1 9010 43100 950168 COB-Mcintire J 1 (20,000.00)
1 9010 32010 930200 Trs. To H/S Grant J 1 80,000.00
1 1000 31013 390000 Police-Purchased Services J 1 (5,000.00)
1 1000 93010 930200 Trs. To H/S Grant J 1 5,000.00
1 2420 62140 311005 H/R-Emp. Inoculations J 1 (10,000.00)
1 2420 62140 930200 Trs. To H/S Grant J 1 10,000.00
1567 0501 Est. Revenue 430,484.00
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
1567 0701 Appropriation 430,484.00
TOTAL 860,968.00 430,484.00 430,484.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2005052
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: First Responder Institute grant to assist in the purchase of traffic vests.
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 32015 601100 Uniforms/Apparel J 1 1,940.00
2 1000 18120 181271 Grant J 2 1,940.00
1000 0501 Est. Revenue 1,940.00
1000 0701 Appropriation 1,940.00
TOTAL 3,880.00 1,940.00 1,940.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2005053
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Education Programs and Donations
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 3104 60201 601200 Books/Subscriptions J 1 500.00
2 3104 18000 189900 Wal-Mart Grant J 2 500.00
1 3104 60252 312500 Prof Svc - Inst J 1 1,000.00
2 3104 18000 181221 Upton Grant J 2 1,000.00
1 3146 61101 312700 Prof Svc - Consultant J 1 35,000.00
1 3146 33000 330133 Character Ed J 2 35,000.00
1 3146 61101 550100 Travel-Mileage J 1 2,000.00
1 3146 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 5,662.82
1 3146 51000 510100 Approp Fund Balance J 2 7,662.82
3104 0501 Est. Revenue 1,500.00
3104 0701 Appropriation 1,500.00
3146 0501 Est. Revenue 42,662.82
3146 0701 Appropriation 42,662.82
TOTAL 88,325.64 44,162.82 44,162.82
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2005054
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: CERT Grant Funds
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 4100 31045 301210 Contract Services J 1 154.71
1 4100 31045 800100 Machinery & Equipment J 1 855.00
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
2 4100 33000 330213 Federal CERT Grant J 2 1,009.71
4100 0501 Est. Revenue 1,009.71
4100 0701 Appropriation 1,009.71
TOTAL
2,019.42 1,009.71 1,009.71
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2005055
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Various Education Programs and Donations
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 2215 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 600.00
2 2000 18100 181109 Donations J 2 600.00
1 3151 61311 160300 Stipends J 1 1,230.61
1 3151 61311 210000 FICA J 1 94.14
2 3151 24000 240380 Teacher Mentor Pgm J 2 1,324.75
1 3304 61101 580500 Staff Development J 1 500.00
2 3304 33000 330001 Families in Crisis Grant J 2 500.00
1 3215 61101 112100 Salaries-Teacher J 1 11,314.17
1 3215 61101 210000 FICA J 1 926.22
1 3215 61101 221000 VRS J 1 717.69
1 3215 61101 222100 Annuity-PT J 1 901.92
1 3215 61101 231000 Health Insurance J 1 784.80
1 3215 61101 232000 Dental Insurance J 1 45.90
1 3215 61101 242000 Group Life/PT J 1 48.00
1 3215 61101 301210 Contract Svcs J 1 1,850.00
1 3215 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 825.32
1 3215 61311 115000 Salaries-Office Clerical J 1 5,489.91
1 3215 61311 210000 FICA J 1 420.54
1 3215 61311 221000 VRS J 1 635.70
2 3215 33000 330119 Title III Funds J 2 23,960.17
1 3205 61108 112100 Salaries-Teacher J 1 6,000.00
1 3205 61108 210000 FICA J 1 460.00
1 3205 61108 580500 Staff Development J 1 8,000.00
1 3205 61108 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 54,440.00
2 3205 33000 330111 Preschool Grant B J 2 68,900.00
1 3123 61101 132100 PT Wages-Teacher J 1 7,861.00
1 3123 61101 210000 FICA J 1 601.00
1 3123 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 1,073.00
2 3123 33000 330123 Refugee Impact Grant J 2 9,535.00
1 3126 63328 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 223.12
2 3126 51000 510100 Fund Balance J 2 223.12
1 3104 60201 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 1,075.00
1 3104 60202 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 332.22
1 3104 60203 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 500.00
1 3104 60205 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 316.43
1 3104 60207 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 200.00
1 3104 60209 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 105.29
1 3104 60212 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 392.08
1 3104 60215 132100 PT Wages-Teacher J 1 2,875.00
1 3104 60215 210000 FICA J 1 225.12
1 3104 60216 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 1,106.74
1 3104 60217 312500 Prof Svc Inst J 1 2,173.31
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
1 3104 60251 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 810.89
1 3104 61311 580500 Staff Development J 1 4,012.69
2 3104 51000 510100 Fund Balance J 2 14,124.77
1 3219 60213 111400 Salaries-Other Mang J 1 22,094.04
1 3219 60213 119401 Salaries-TA J 1 43,200.00
1 3219 60213 119402 Salaries-Site Facilitator J 1 24,604.00
1 3219 60213 221000 VRS J 1 1,930.00
1 3219 60213 231000 Health Insurance J 1 2,180.00
1 3219 60213 232000 Dental Insurance J 1 60.00
1 3219 60213 312700 Prov Svc - Consultants J 1 23,914.96
1 3219 60213 420110 Transportation J 1 5,000.00
1 3219 60213 580500 Staff Development J 1 3,450.00
1 3219 60213 600100 Office Supplies J 1 200.00
1 3219 60213 600200 Food Services J 1 8,000.00
1 3219 60213 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 3,500.00
1 3219 60213 210000 FICA J 1 6,867.00
2 3219 33000 330001 21st Century Grant J 2 145,000.00
2000 0501 Est. Revenue 600.00
2000 0701 Appropriation 600.00
3151 0501 Est. Revenue 1,324.75
3151 0701 Appropriation 1,324.75
3304 0501 Est. Revenue 500.00
3304 0701 Appropriation 500.00
3215 0501 Est. Revenue 23,960.17
3215 0701 Appropriation 23,960.17
3205 0501 Est. Revenue 68,900.00
3205 0701 Appropriation 68,900.00
.
3123 0501 Est. Revenue 9,535.00
3123 0701 Appropriation 9,535.00
3126 0501 Est. Revenue 223.12
3126 0701 Appropriation 223.12
3104 0501 Est. Revenue 14,124.77
3104 0701 Appropriation 14,124.77
3104 0501 Est. Revenue 145,000.00
3104 0701 Appropriation 145,000.00
TOTAL 528,335.62 264,167.81 264,167.81
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2005056
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Various Education Programs and Donations
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 2201 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 150.00
2 2000 18000 189900 Miscellaneous Revenue J 2 150.00
1 2212 61101 114100 Salary-Teacher Aide J 1 2,308.75
1 2212 61101 210000 FICA J 1 191.25
1 2212 61411 580500 Staff Development J 1 100.00
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
1 2209 61101 800700 Data Process Equip-New J 1 1,200.00
1 2301 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 1,000.00
1 2215 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 40.84
1 2215 61411 580000 Misc Supplies J 1 1,984.00
2 2000 18100 181109 Donations J 2 6,824.84
1 2301 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 13,509.93
1 2217 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 7,383.64
1 2201 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 17,036.61
1 2251 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 8,669.39
1 2204 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 11,394.50
1 2252 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 3,891.44
1 2205 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 4,269.24
1 2253 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 14,604.41
1 2206 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 13,305.26
1 2304 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 18,043.10
1 2215 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 8,949.40
1 2303 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 3,397.73
1 2207 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 70.94
1 2209 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 7,309.10
1 2210 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 13,478.10
1 2211 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 13,364.59
1 2255 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 37,084.72
1 2254 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 13,030.27
1 2302 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 30,611.84
1 2212 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 10,485.50
2 2000 51000 510100 Approp-Fund Balance J 2 249,889.71
2000 0501 Est. Revenue 256,864.55
2000 0701 Appropriation 256,864.55
TOTAL 513,729.10 256,864.55 256,864.55
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2005058
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Funding for Dual Primary Election
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 13020 120000 Overtime J 1 1,300.00
1 1000 13020 210000 FICA J 1 110.00
1 1000 13020 312510 Election Officials J 1 28,230.00
1 1000 13020 360000 Advertising J 1 500.00
1 1000 13020 390000 Other Purchased Svcs J 1 8,000.00
1 1000 13020 520100 Postage J 1 500.00
1 1000 13020 520300 Telecommunications J 1 5,500.00
1 1000 13020 540200 Lease/Rent Buildings J 1 600.00
1 1000 13020 550100 Mileage J 1 250.00
1 1000 13020 600100 Ofice Supplies J 1 2,350.00
1 1000 13020 601700 Copy Center J 1 500.00
2 1000 51000 510100 Fund Balance J 2 47,840.00
1000 0501 Est. Revenue 47,840.00
1000 0701 Appropriation 47,840.00
TOTAL 95,680.00 47,840.00 47,840.00
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Ordinance to add Article V, Private Ground Water Well Testing to require that
new private ground water wells proposed to serve as the primary potable water supply for a structure be
tested for four petroleum-related pollutants as a condition precedent to the issuance of a building permit;
wells whose contamination levels exceed the applicable standards could not serve as the primary potable
water supply for the structure. The proposed ordinance would apply only in those areas of the county
where the release or discharge of petroleum from leaking underground storage tanks has been confirmed
by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and such an area remains an active contamination
area, as that term is defined in the ordinance. The proposed ordinance also would identify the
contaminants to be tested, the applicable standards for those contaminants, sampling and testing methods
and services, and reporting requirements. (Advertised in Daily Progress on April 18 and April 25, 2005)
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, reported that this measure serves to make
permanent what was adopted as an emergency ordinance in March, noting that staff has been able to
accurately track the properties affected by this ordinance. He stated that staff believes it can be
implemented relatively easily, and there is an expectation for applicants to have to pay for the cost of the
testing. Mr. Graham noted that this has not been well advertised with the public, but should be if it is
adopted as a permanent ordinance. He mentioned that this only applies to people who are in a
contaminated area.
Mr. Rooker commented that anyone drilling in a contaminated area should be notified of the
additional testing.
Mr. Davis added that there is now a requirement that the wells be approved prior to the issuance of
a building permit, so it should be an easy process to let them know this is in place.
Mr. Graham mentioned that the Health Department is not keeping a list of which properties are
affected, but the county is. He emphasized that he would like to get “the word out on the street” with the
builders to try to make sure people are aware of the issue.
Ms. Thomas noted that the initial test will probably come up clean, but after pumping for a while,
the problem arises.
Mr. Davis confirmed that the testing can only be required prior to the building permit, and no
authority exists for ongoing testing after the permit is issued.
Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas asked about notice to buyers and renters. Mr. Davis responded that
there is a requirement under state law that requires disclosure that a property is in a contamination area for
purchasers, but that it is more difficult to guarantee for rental properties.
Mr. Boyd asked how many contaminated sites exist. Mr. Graham replied that there are 48 separate
contaminated sites in the county, and introduced David Swailes, the Groundwater Program Manager for the
county.
Mr. Swailes explained that every month the DEQ identifies and publishes on their website a list of all
contamination sites, and the number fluctuates but remains near 50 each month.
Mr. Wyant asked how one would drop off of the list. Mr. Swailes replied that the DEQ will put in
monitoring wells, and they have an internal standard that says “whether it poses an imminent threat to
health and the environment,” and after some time monitoring wells are checked again and the
determination is made regarding the hazard. He added that the DEQ can label a site “closed” once it
checks out.
Ms. Thomas asked if this ordinance could apply to substances other than petroleum. Mr. Davis
responded that petroleum is the major contaminant the DEQ deals with, and the cost for checking other
contaminants probably increases dramatically. He added that staff would need to identify other substances
that need monitoring in the same way.
Mr. Graham explained that there is a “priority pollutant scan” that can be done, but he does not feel
it would be appropriate unless there is cause to look into other substances.
Mr. Rooker suggested acting on the measure before them, and asked staff to make a
recommendation to the Board at a later time concerning how other potential pollutants are identified.
At this time the Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Ann Messina addressed the Board, noting that her family’s safety, well-being, and financial
security were “greatly affected” by petroleum in the county over 15 years ago, adding that it is just wonderful
to hear. She stated that Albemarle is taking the lead in the state, noting that there is a development within a
mile of an old dump in Ivy. Regarding disclosure and disclaimer, Ms. Messina said a person can just use
the disclaimer when selling a home and not have to mention problems on the site – which is currently being
handled at the state level.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Board.
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
Ms. Thomas stated that Ms. Messina has made very effective presentations on this issue, as her
home was affected by contamination.
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas to adopt the ordinance to add Article V, Private Ground Water
Well Testing. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wyant. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Rooker reiterated that the lingering issues are what other pollutants are a concern and the
disclaimer issue as raised by Ms. Messina. He suggested putting on the website a link to contaminated
sites.
Mr. Graham suggested publishing the map, including on the website, showing contaminated areas.
ORDINANCE NO. 05-5(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 5, BUILDING REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 5, Building
Regulations, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Adding:
Article V. Private Ground Water Well Testing
Sec. 5-500 Purpose and intent.
Sec. 5-501 Applicability.
Sec. 5-502 Well testing and reporting.
Sec. 5-503 Building permit; withholding
Chapter 5. Building Regulations
Article V. Private Ground Water Well Testing
Sec. 5-500 Purpose and intent.
The board of supervisors finds that the release or discharge of petroleum from leaking
underground storage tanks may pollute ground water and, at high enough levels, these pollutants may
render water unsuitable for drinking and may cause adverse effects on the public health, safety and
welfare. The board also finds that establishing new private ground water wells in the immediate area of a
contamination plume could alter the conditions of existing contamination plumes and draw contaminants
into areas that are currently free from contamination.
The purpose and intent of this article is to protect the public health, safety and welfare in areas
where there has been a petroleum release or discharge within the county confirmed by the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality. Therefore, new private ground water wells in such areas shall be
tested for petroleum contamination as provided herein to determine the extent of the contamination, if any,
and to assure that the wells satisfy existing federal or state drinking water quality standards for the
contaminants.
State law reference: Va. Code § 32-176.5.
Sec. 5-501 Applicability.
This article shall apply to those areas of the county where the release or discharge of petroleum
from leaking underground storage tanks has been confirmed by the Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality and such an area remains an active contamination area.
For the purposes of this article, the term “active contamination area” means those lands within the
area identified by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality to be contaminated such that, in its
judgment, the contamination poses a risk to human health and the environment and warrants corrective
action or remediation, and those lands within two thousand (2,000) feet of the contaminated area
determined by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality to be at risk for contamination.
Sec. 5-502. Well testing and reporting.
Each applicant for a building permit for a structure to be located within an active contamination
area and to be served by a private ground water well as the primary potable water supply shall have the
well tested as provided herein prior to the issuance of a building permit for the structure:
A. . The tests shall determine whether the following volatile
Contaminants to be tested
organic compounds are present in the water: Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylenes.
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
B. . Each contaminant identified in section 5-502(A) shall be tested for
Applicable standards
compliance with the maximum contaminant level established for that contaminant under the federal Safe
Drinking Water Act, as follows:
1. Benzene: 0.005 MCL (mg/L).
2. Toluene: 1 MCL (mg/L).
3. Ethylbenzene: 0.7 MCL (mg/L).
4. Xylenes (total): 10 MCL (mg/L).
For the purposes of this article, the term “MCL” means the maximum contaminant level, which is
the highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. The units are expressed in milligrams
per liter (mg/L); milligrams per liter are equivalent to parts per million.
C. . Samples shall be taken and tests shall be
Sampling and testing methods and services
performed using appropriate testing methods by either the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality or
by a laboratory certified by the Commonwealth of Virginia to perform such services. No such tests shall be
conducted by Consolidated Laboratories. The cost of such tests shall be paid by the landowner.
D. . The testing laboratory shall notify the landowner of the test
Reporting of test results
results in a written report.
Sec. 5-503. Building permit; withholding.
Each applicant for a building permit for a structure to be served by a private ground water well as
the primary potable water supply within an active contamination area shall present the report containing the
test results required by section 5-502 prior to issuance of the building permit.
A. . If there are no tested contaminants detected, then the building
No contaminants detected
permit shall be issued provided that all other applicable requirements are satisfied.
B. . No building permit shall be issued if
Contaminants detected; exceed applicable standards
one or more contaminants are detected and they exceed the federal Safe Drinking Water Act standards
identified in section 5-502(B), unless and until the applicant has identified and provided an approved
alternative primary potable water supply.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. SP-2004-002. Charlottesville Kingdom Hall (Sign #34). Request to allow
Church in accord w/Secs 14.2.2.12 & 15.2.2.12 of the Zoning Ord which allow for Churches. TM 76, Ps 51
& 52A3, contain 3.685 acs. Znd R-2 & R-4 respectively. Loc on Old Lynchburg Rd (Rt 631), at intersec of
Old Lynchburg Rd & Sunset Avd Extd. Scottsville Dist. (Advertised in Daily Progress on April 18 and April
25, 2005)
Mr. Cilimberg reported that the request is to allow the church and one apartment, to replace an
existing building, which serves three congregations, with halls that will serve four congregations. He said
that staff has noted favorable factors to the application, including appropriate site design, accommodations
for future road; an unfavorable factor is the site would not initially be served by public sewer. Mr. Cilimberg
said staff recommends approval with conditions. There were five conditions proposed to the Planning
Commission, and at their hearing they were considered along with the third condition regarding grading for
a sidewalk along Old Lynchburg Road. He reported that the Commission recommended approval of the
request with the expectation that Condition #3 would be modified before the Board’s public hearing to
reflect that necessary right-of-way and easements be provided to accommodate grading and an ultimate
sidewalk on Old Lynchburg Road should be constructed.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that at this time there is not any capital project for construction of a
sidewalk on this side of Old Lynchburg Road, and this provides for that option.
Ms. Thomas asked how far away this site is from public sewer. Mr. Cilimberg replied that under the
subdivision ordinance, onsite septic is allowable should that cost be less than hooking into public sewer, but
he does not have definitive information on that yet.
Mr. Rooker asked what percentage of the site would be paved. Mr. Cilimberg responded that
judging from the drawing, it looks like approximately 50 percent.
Mr. Rooker noted that it would be highly preferable for the applicant to hook up to public sewer
prior to paving.
Ms. Thomas commented that she didn’t think a septic field could go under paved parking. Mr.
Cilimberg replied that with proper design, the Health Department would approve that. Mr. Wyant said that
he did not think you could pave where a septic field is.
The Chairman asked the applicant for comments.
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
The project architect, Hardy Johnston, representing the applicant, addressed the Board. He stated
that the property has been in use for over 20 years, but the site is inadequate for the applicant’s use and
expansion. Mr. Johnston noted that the property is on public water, but has a private septic system, and a
cost estimate to hook up to the public sewer was $75,000; a septic system could be installed for
significantly less as the soil was very good and deep upon testing. He confirmed that the parking lots would
be expanded and paved.
Ms. Thomas said that about half of Southwood Mobile Homes are now on public sewer, and that is
closer to this site.
Mr. Johnston stated that the county indicated the Kingdom Hall site was 2,500 feet from the Biscuit
Run site, and they were concerned about cables as well.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier to approve SP-2004-002, subject to the five conditions
recommended with the Commission’s modification of condition #3. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Wyant. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. The development of the site shall be in general accord with the concept plan entitled Proposed
Addition Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses Charlottesville, Virginia prepared by Hardee
Johnston, A.I.A., and A.S.L.A. and dated December 28, 2004;
2. The area of assembly shall be limited to a maximum of two (2) auditoriums with one hundred
seventy-five (175) seats in each;
3. The final site plan shall show an area to be graded across the front of the site to allow the future
installation of a sidewalk by others (the "sidewalk area"). The final site plan shall include a note
reserving the sidewalk area for future dedication. The sidewalk area shall be graded in conjunction
with the installation of other improvements on the site required by the site plan. The sidewalk area
shall be graded in compliance with the grading standards imposed by the agent. Upon request by
the County, the sidewalk area shall be dedicated for public use. The owner shall grant all
necessary temporary construction easements to allow the sidewalk to be installed;
4. The building shall not have more than one (1) apartment; and
5. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate special
use permit.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. SP-2004-057. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Sign #59).
Request to allow church construction in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.35 of the Zoning Ord which allows for
churches in RA. TM 32, P 17 contains portion of 5.14 acs. Znd RA. (It is this portion that will be reviewed for
this SUP.) Loc at 1651 Airport Rd. Rio Dist. (Advertised in Daily Progress on April 18 and April 25, 2005)
Mr. Cilimberg reported that this church would be built on Airport Road, with 24,000 square feet and
270 parking spaces; a road to serve the remainder of the parcel zoned Light Industrial will line the eastern
side of the site, and that road will create an opportunity to connect on the southern side of Airport Road to
the public road being built as part of the Hollymead Town Center project. Mr. Cilimberg explained that this
part of the property zoned RA currently contains an aging farmhouse that is not an historic resource, and
this area is designated in the Comp. Plan as Industrial Service. Despite that designation, however, he said
staff does believe that development in the area would be augmented by a church in this location. Mr.
Cilimberg indicated that staff finds favorable factors in that the church supports nearby residential and
commercial uses, include those developed in the Hollymead Town Center.
Mr. Cilimberg reported that the Planning Commission suggested changes to Condition #4. The
church is designed with modular partitions to create a large area for assembly, as noted in the sketch
presented. Mr. Cilimberg said that when the church uses the full area of assembly, the parking provided is
24 spaces short of what’s required by the Zoning Ordinance, and the revisions to the condition would allow
the church to function as it needs to for normal activities, and would not facilitate overbuilding of parking.
He noted that the church’s assembly and configuration may be exceeded four times a year, as
recommended by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Boyd asked about the agreement with the adjacent property owner regarding additional
parking.
Ms. Thomas asked if there would be bike paths on Airport Road, as well as sidewalks, and asked if
this parking lot would allow bus transportation such as public transit.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the applicant would speak to both issues.
Staff confirmed that the facility would be on public water and sewer.
Mr. Rooker asked the applicant for comments.
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
Mr. Dwayne Silverstein, attorney for the church, addressed the Board. He stated that they are
pleased to be before the county today, and introduced Wendell Wood as the seller of the property, as well
as the architect – John Seese, and the engineer – Ed Blackwell, and landscape architect Joan Albaston.
Mr. Silverstein commented that Airport Road will look lovely compared to how it appears today, and said
that the church has outgrown their small facility on Hydraulic Road.
Ms. Thomas asked him about the bus service.
Mr. Silverstein replied that there is adequate space for buses, and the church uses 150 spaces for
weekly services. He confirmed that the Hydraulic Road church would still operate.
Mr. Rooker said that the church on Hydraulic has been an excellent neighbor.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman to approve SP-2004-057, subject to the five conditions
recommended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wyant. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. The church’s improvements and the scale and location of the improvements shall be developed in
general accord with the concept plan entitled “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints,
Rivanna Ward Waynesboro Va. Stake, Conceptual Site Layout and Utility Plan” dated January 13,
2005;
2. The proposed road or access way shall conform to public street standards for an urban section
including a curb, gutter, six (6)-foot planting strip, street trees, and five (5)-foot sidewalk along the
LDS site;
3. The area of assembly shall be limited to a maximum eight thousand eight hundred (8,800) square
feet;
4. Conference meetings using an assembly area exceeding six thousand two hundred (6,200) square
feet, which is an area comprised of the chapel, overflow, and half of the cultural center as identified
on Attachment D, shall be limited to four (4) times per year; and
5. Day care use shall be prohibited unless approved through a special use permit amendment.
(Note: At 2:50 p.m., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 3:00 p.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. Cate Wyatt, Journey Through Hallowed Ground.
Ms. Cate Wyatt addressed the Board, noting that this initiative was begun in 1996 as a collaborative
union of public and private groups, both non-profit and for-profit, to raise awareness about American History
in the section of land from Gettysburg to Monticello. She stated that this is the opportunity to enhance the
heritage and cultural treasures by celebrating what is unique about the history, and leave a legacy “that is
worthy of our founding fathers.”
Ms. Wyatt explained that the journey travels from Gettysburg along the Old Carolina Road – which
is largely Route 15 down to Route 20 – the 175 miles that traverse Adams County, PA, Frederick County,
MD, through Albemarle County. She noted that within this swath of land there are six presidential homes –
Jefferson’s Monticello, Madison’s Montpelier, Monroe’s Oak Hill, Ash Lawn Highland, Zachary Taylor’s
Eisenhower’s Cottage, adding that one-third of U.S. Presidents have housed themselves within this corridor.
In addition, she said, John Marshall and George Marshall had homes here, and Teddy Roosevelt had a
hunting cabin. Ms. Wyatt noted that there are thousands of years of Native American history, hundreds of
years of European and African-American history, and many verified underground railroad sites. Ms. Wyatt
mentioned that Albemarle hosts two World Heritage sites, and there are 13 historic national landmarks in
the region. She said that there are 47 historic districts, and 1 million acres of land already on the National
Register of Historic Places.
Ms. Wyatt reported that within this corridor, there is the largest collection of Civil War battlefield
sites in the country, as well as sites from colonial times and the War of 1812 and scenic rivers and parks
also. She referred to the area as “the trip to Mecca that everyone should take,” as it is the road that ties
together the chapters of our American story. Ms. Wyatt mentioned quotes from Jefferson and other historic
figures regarding this area.
Ms. Wyatt indicated that the Virginia General Assembly passed a resolution in 2001 in support of
the “Journey Through Hallowed Ground” initiative, and she asked the Board to consider passing a similar
resolution to those passed by Leesburg, Purcellville, Adams County, etc. She emphasized that this initiative
supports our Main Street communities, and encourages celebrating and preserving what is unique about
each community. Ms. Wyatt stated that the effort also supports agricultural interests such as vineyards, and
heritage tourism, equestrian events, historic hotels, and bed & breakfasts.
Ms. Wyatt reported that the partners have now convened four times and have come up with
objectives for 2008:
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
Launch a national awareness campaign. The partners have published a book entitled
?
“Hallowed Ground,” on the cover featuring James Madison’s home, which is a private home along
Route 15 in Loudoun County.
She emphasized that their main focus is education and awareness, not forced preservation, and
the group has nominated the entire 175 as one of the most endangered sites in the country as part of the
National Trust for Historic Preservation’s annual list.
Mr. Rooker asked if the designation had any legal significance.
Ms. Wyatt replied that it would not, but they do know that they are finalists, and their project is well-
received because it provides solutions. She reported that the group is pursuing national scenic byway
designation for the entire corridor, an existing federal program, and the roads must first be state scenic
byways within each state; Ms. Wyatt added that the portions within Albemarle already are, and portions in
Faquier and Prince William are not.
Ms. Wyatt reported that the group has made application to the Federal Highway Administration to
do a corridor management plan, the second requisite to get a national designation. She added that Senator
Warner, Congressman Wolf, and Senator Allen all personally wrote to Secretary Mineta to support that.
She indicated that that would provide money for community workshops and to work with VDOT to make
sure that safety is accommodated but doesn’t have to be done at 65 mile per hour design standards – a
parkway rather than a superhighway.
Ms. Wyatt noted that they are also applying National Heritage Area designation, which comes with
federal funding to help continue the collaborative effort of the tri-state initiative and money to purchase land.
She indicated that the group is creating a real estate investment trust, as the land along the corridor is all
privately owned, and landowners have the right to sell their land. The partnership is committed to being
realistic to this and raising funds as a real estate investment vehicle that will pay market value for lands.
Ms. Wyatt explained that the historic national road is a combination of six different states working
collaboratively to create this journey along the Route 40/Route 70 corridor, celebrating the industrialization
of America. She noted that Maryland has been very aggressive about seeking all available federal
programs, and cited the example of Arkansas’ 130-mile “yard sale” as what is possible for a long stretch of
road. Ms. Wyatt noted that they have many private supporters, including an anonymous challenge grant of
$200,000 to match $300,000 in other funds raised.
She emphasized that the Hallowed Ground is working with vineyards and local farmers, and
Maryland has a program called “Buy Local, Buy Fresh.” Ms. Wyatt noted that there is a program in England
called “Eat the View,” where visitors take a bucolic drive and stop along to eat fresh food along the way.
Ms. Wyatt emphasized that heritage tourism is important, although declining because people have
very little time to plan holidays. She noted that the fastest growing segment of tourism is the cruise ship
line. Ms. Wyatt said that her group is working with destination marketing experts to make it easy for people
to visit the area, with everyone working collaboratively. She added that the next steps are continuing to hold
community workshops, continuing to work with Main Street programs to “flesh out” authenticity guidelines,
conducting a three-state poll to determine citizen awareness along the corridor. Ms. Wyatt mentioned that
they are moving ahead with the campaign whether or not they are selected as a national historic site, with a
nd
kick-off of June 2.
Ms. Thomas said that she feels they are ready to adopt the resolution, adding that a local Monacan
Indian tribe should also be recognized.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the effort could be extended further south.
Ms. Wyatt replied that the money they have requested from federal sources is for workshops to ask
the public for input. She emphasized that the “Gettysburg to Monticello” phrase allows “everyone to get it,”
but the “width and breadth” of the effort is must greater.
Mr. Tucker noted that once people get to Monticello, they can go beyond and explore additional
historic sites and drives.
Ms. Wyatt said that the “corridor” term is meant to be inclusive.
Ms. Wyatt suggested designating one Board representative for correspondence, along with
members of the planning department. Mr. Tucker suggested communicating through the Chairman.
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas to adopt the proposed resolution with the following addition,
“and is the Albemarle County home of the Monacan Indian Tribe,” in the sixth paragraph. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
RESOLUTION
Journey Through Hallowed Ground
WHEREAS, the Journey Through Hallowed Ground project, the Route 15 corridor stretching from Gettysburg
to Orange, and generally following Route 231/Route 22 from Orange to Monticello, was created
through a partnership among the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Scenic America, the
Conservation Fund, the Piedmont Environmental Council, and has since expanded to include the Civil
War Preservation Trust, the National Register of Historic Places, Scenic Virginia, the Virginia/Maryland
and Pennsylvania Departments of Historic Resources, the Pennsylvania Environmental Council, the
Adams County (Pennsylvania) Board of Commissioners, the Adams County (Pennsylvania) Planning
Department, the Center for Rural Pennsylvania, the Frederick (Maryland) County Planning
Department, Main Street Gettysburg, Main Street Frederick, the Town of Leesburg, the Town of
Purcellville, Scenic Maryland, Preservation Pennsylvania, the Virginia Land Trust, and the Virginia
Outdoors Foundation, among others; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia portion of the Journey Through Hallowed Ground is a scenic and historically rich
landscape that encompasses 75 miles and nine counties of Virginia hillside along US Route 15 and
generally following Route 231/Route 22 from Orange to Monticello; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia portion of the Journey Through Hallowed Ground will contribute to the economic
development potential of the localities that border the Routes 15/231/22 corridor; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia portion of the Journey Through Hallowed Ground includes sites of great historical
significance that evoke the lives and actions of the soldiers, statesmen, farmers, and slaves who lived
in, worked in, fought for, and governed the region; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia portion of the Journey Through Hallowed Ground features sites of African-American
historical significance, including Madden’s Tavern, Aldie Mill, and Douglass High School; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia portion of the Journey Through Hallowed Ground was first used as a hunting and
trading route for the Susquehannock and Iroquois Indians, and is the Albemarle County home of the
Monacan Indian Tribe, and is therefore important to Native American heritage; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle portion of the Journey Through Hallowed Ground was home to America’s founding
fathers and features presidential sites such as Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello, and James Monroe’s
Ashlawn Highland; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle portion of the Journey Through Hallowed Ground is home to two World Heritage
Sites, Monticello and The University of Virginia Rotunda; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle portion of the Journey Through Hallowed Ground features three Historic Districts
listed on the National Register of Historic Places including, the Charlottesville and Albemarle County
Courthouse Historic District, the University of Virginia Historic District and the Southwest Mountains
Rural Historic District; and
WHEREAS, the Journey Through Hallowed Ground project allows Virginia a valuable opportunity to form a
partnership with and learn from groups in Maryland and Pennsylvania;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Albemarle Board of Supervisors, that this Board hereby
acknowledge the intrinsic importance to Virginia of the Journey Through Hallowed Ground project and
recognize this historic corridor as a gateway to some of the most important locations in both American
and Virginia history, encompassing centuries of historic sites in scenic settings; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Clerk send a copy of this resolution to the Executive Director of the
Journey Through Hallowed Ground to share with all partners in order that they may be apprised of the
sense of this Board of Supervisors in this matter.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. Work Session: Affordable Housing Implementation Recommendations.
Mr. Ron White, Director of Housing addressed the Board, noting that his information comes out of
the Affordable Housing Policy the Board did in February 2004, with work done by the Housing Committee
and Affordable Housing Policy Advisory Committee over the last several months. He added that in
December, they presented priority recommendations and strategies that came out of that work, which
entailed some additional work at the staff level. Mr. White said today he would be presenting results and
recommendations from that staff work over the past few months, and it has been presented to a joint
meeting of the Housing Committee and the Housing Advisory Committee. He noted that there is general
support for staff recommendations, with one area of difference that he will mention as they go through.
Mr. White recognized Jamie Spence of the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee and Josh
Goldschmidt, who is the current chairman of the Affordable Housing Committee. He also recognized Leigh
Middleditch, who chaired the Affordable Housing Policy Advisory Committee but was unable to attend this
meeting. Mr. White said that there are five strategies they set forth when they came to the Board with the
policy, including regulatory and administrative functions – data collection and reporting, which is already in
place; eliminate barriers – Mark Graham has been working on this and will bring it to the Board in June;
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
proffers and proffer systems. Regarding density bonuses, Mr. White said that he would also cover this in
his report, along with setting targets for affordable housing and the Housing Trust Fund. He reported that
they have entered into an agreement with Piedmont Housing Alliance to cooperate on a down-payment
assistance program.
He reported that there are five areas staff has focused on: density bonuses, how to calculate the
number of affordable units, cash proffers or equivalent contributions, housing trust fund, and partnerships.
Mr. White noted that the density bonus adopted by the county in the mid-1980’s has not been used, and if
the developer used the current density bonus, all of the additional units would have to be affordable; there
is no requirement that those units be sold to persons of a certain income.
Ms. Thomas commented that while they are two separate considerations, they fit together.
Mr. White replied that the density bonus has an impact on the developer, and the lack of income
requirement goes against the county’s policy to focus resources at or below 80 percent of the area median
income. He said that staff is recommending as a revision to the Zoning Ordinance to provide a density
bonus when affordable housing is included, and that provision is that someone could request a bonus of up
to 100 percent of the lesser of what’s allowed under the Zoning District, or the upper limit specified in the
Comprehensive Plan not to exceed 18 dwelling units per acre. He said that they there are likely to be other
infrastructure needs with more units that won’t be handled in a by-right situation and would be better
handled in a rezoning situation.
Mr. White said that of the units developed under the density bonus, 50 percent of them would be
affordable. For example, he explained, a developer with ten by-right units on an existing parcel could
request up to 20 units under this if five additional units were affordable. Mr. White mentioned that the
Zoning Ordinance would need to be changed to accommodate the bonus. He added that the idea is to look
at the Zoning District numbers as well as the upper limit of the Comprehensive Plan and making the
determination of what’s applicable.
Mr. White reported that staff had proposed phasing based on development size, with a small
development of 1 to 11 units not having to provide affordable housing, and over 50 units expected to
generate 15 percent in affordable. He noted that discussion in the joint meeting on this was related to
equity, and whether it is reasonable to ask for affordable units when a developer is doing a rezoning that’s
not necessarily increasing density, so the proposal from the committee was to base the number of
affordable units expected on the additional units created as a result of the rezoning. Mr. White added that
those additional units would be those over and above what the Zoning District currently allows.
Mr. White cited an example of using a 10-acre site that could do up to 40 units but requesting a
rezoning of six units per acre would make a total of 60, which is over the 50 limit, so the developer would be
expected to do 15 percent, or nine affordable units. However, he explained, the committee proposal –
using the additional units as a basis and using a different set of percentages – would mean six units in that
same situation. Mr. White added that if a developer was submitting to do a rezoning for something other
than residential, and there were no additional units, then they would not be expected to provide any
affordable housing under that proposal. He emphasized that these two proposals get at the same thing,
and the committee proposal would probably have less impact on producing affordable housing, and further
discussions might necessitate policy guidance from the Board. Mr. White noted that the committee
proposal was based on the additional, so they adjusted percentages upward because they are only looking
at additional units.
In response to Mr. Boyd’s questions, Mr. White acknowledged that the density bonus may be in
conflict with the Neighborhood Model, as commercial units might force a limitation on how much additional
residential is put in, if there is a mechanism for looking at only the land that is used for residential, and if we
are looking at the parcel as a whole and there is no increase in density on the parcel as a whole.
Mr. Davis said it can be designed however you want to look at it. He thinks they would anticipate
with these Neighborhood Model developments that there would be a Planned District that would come in as
a single rezoning of acreage which would have mixed use in it. It may be hard to carve out the percentage
that is residential and the percentage that is commercial in some instances. He added that that could be
analyzed, and a net density increase could be recommended.
Ms. Thomas asked if the committee feels there is no market for affordable unit and/or the builder
“takes a bath” every time they build them.
Mr. White replied that it is not clear what the market demand is, particularly for the product that
would likely be built – attached housing.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that apartments and townhomes are selling well in the county.
Mr. Goldschmidt commented that they are trying not to make this punitive. He added that each
property is different, and the risk is perhaps committing to a large development.
Ms. Thomas used Montgomery County, Maryland as an example of mixing affordable and “regular”
housing.
Mr. Goldschmidt emphasized that in the case of Belvedere, they are trying to meet Neighborhood
Model objectives and it may be difficult to incorporate all of those principles and affordable housing.
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
Mr. White reported that regarding cash and cash equivalent contributions, staff and the committee
agreed that if the county is going to move towards a proffer type system, there should be a comprehensive
proffer system developed, not piecemeal. He said that developers want to know up front what the rules
are, so they can build it into their budget.
Mr. Thomas asked if Albemarle is enabled by the state to have a cash proffer system.
Mr. Davis replied that the county is enabled to have a voluntary cash proffer system, which exists in
urban areas throughout Virginia. He explained that is designed through an analysis as part of the
Comprehensive Plan to determine the financial impact to the locality for each residential unit, and the
studies usually break down the different public infrastructures that are impacted by residential development,
such as fire, rescue, schools, roads, libraries, recreation etc. He noted that affordable housing is new to
that list, but once the impact is analyzed, when a rezoning comes forward there is an existing standard that
developers have to look at to see that they need to address that impact in order to successfully rezone a
property, and typically they will do a cash proffer to address that impact – although roads and other
infrastructure might be offered to offset it.
Mr. Boyd commented that he thought there were issues with “impact fees” because it was a set
amount of dollars and cents.
Mr. Davis responded that the proffers are voluntary, and each rezoning is still analyzed as to what
the impact of the proposed rezoning is on the county. He added that one way to approach it is a cash
proffer.
Mr. Tucker noted that you cannot use the cash proffer as the only basis for evaluation.
Mr. White emphasized that in lieu of having a comprehensive cash proffer system, they tried to
come up with some calculation as to a suggested proffer for affordable housing. He explained that the
calculation was garnered by taking the 2004 median sales price of new homes - $290,000 and the
$175,000 affordable figure, with the difference being $115,000; the formula would mean $11,500 would be
the proffer amount on nine units for a 60-unit development divided by the total number of units. Mr. White
said that if the Comprehensive Plan were amended, a formula rather than an amount would be used. He
added that developers have expressed concern over a policy based on what people can afford, as interest
rates are unpredictable. Mr. White said that if there is a significant change in one number or another, the
formula could be reevaluated quarterly.
Mr. White reported that the county appropriated $250,000 for the housing trust fund in 2005 for the
“Community Development Fund,” and a like amount is proposed for 2006. He noted that there is $50,000
in federal home funds through the consortium through this year, and $30,000 for next year, and the current
proposed use for those funds is a homebuyer assistance program to be announced within the next two
weeks. He added that there is $148,000 in cash in the Crozet Crossing Trust Fund, and $528,000 in
receivables [second deed due on sale, forgivable after 30 years] that go up because of equity-sharing
agreements. Mr. White noted that PHA has strengthened their staffing around their lending activities and is
looking at sources to leverage and match the funds placed with them.
Regarding future funding, Mr. White said that he would like to prepare a case based on demand,
which they have not yet been able to do. He said that the recommendations put forth today do set some
parameters that can work in by-right and establish standards for making calculations as a result of rezoning
– whether producing affordable units or making cash contributions. Mr. White stated that whatever they do,
it will need to be revisited as markets change. He noted that the advisory committee has concluded most of
their work at this point.
Mr. Davis clarified that the intent at this point is to amend the Zoning Ordinance regarding the
density bonus provision for by-right development, and then amend the Comprehensive Plan to provide
additional guidance for rezoning applications to generate additional affordable units or cash proffers. The
next step, he said, would be to request staff to bring back a resolution of intent to amend the Zoning
Ordinance and/or Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Davis emphasized that the difficult part of this issue is in the
details.
Mr. Rooker asked if there was consensus among Board members to amend the Zoning Ordinance
to provide for density bonuses when affordable housing is proposed, so that staff can draft a resolution for
Board consideration.
Mr. Dorrier asked what the zoning would be where there could be up to 18 units.
Mr. White responded that there would need to be at least nine zoning units per acre under by-right
zoning.
Mr. Davis answered that you could have a piece of property zoned R-15, and under this proposal, a
developer could propose a density greater than that, but half would have to be affordable. He added that
they could do that by-right by using what would be proposed as a density bonus provision, and the cap
would be the Comprehensive Plan designation for that area or 18, whichever is lower.
Mr. Dorrier commented that there are not that many pieces of land zoned R-15.
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
Mr. Tucker and Mr. Davis indicated that requests would come in to increase the density from
existing densities of R-4, etc. to more dense zonings like R-15.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that the details are not to be ironed out now, but the proposal is just whether
the matter should move forward by means of a resolution directing staff.
Mr. Davis noted that there may be impediments to denser development, but in the meantime the
sense is to come up with a formula for instances when the density bonuses are used.
Mr. Boyd expressed concern about how this would fit in with the Neighborhood Model.
Mr. Davis replied that this would apply primarily to already zoned property that wants to develop at
a greater density currently allowed by-right, and the incentive would be for half of the units to be affordable.
Mr. Rooker noted that what is recommended is more permissive than the current Zoning
Ordinance. He pointed out that you could double by-right density simply by making half of the additional
units affordable. Mr. Rooker said that the question is whether staff should come back with an ordinance
proposal to make the existing bonus system contain more of an incentive to act on it.
Ms. Thomas commented that she wants some bonus system that will work, and said she needed
time for additional thought on whether the 18 figure was useable.
Mr. Rooker said that it is a better incentive than what exists today.
Mr. Tucker noted that it is trial and error at this point.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the trust fund is a big part of making this work.
Mr. Davis asked if the Board wants staff to bring back a draft ordinance and language.
Mr. Rooker said that the Comprehensive Plan changes must go through the Commission, and
those channels would need to be followed.
Mr. Davis clarified that either the Board or Commission would need to initiate the process through a
Resolution of Intent.
Mr. Rooker said that all three should be brought back with a Resolution of Intent.
Mr. Boyd asked which formula should be used.
Mr. Tucker and Mr. Davis suggested having that considered as part of the public hearing process at
the Planning Commission level first.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman to bring back to the Board, a Resolution of Intent to amend
st
the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance on the June 1 agenda. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Wyant. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None
_______________
Agenda Item No. 22. Discussion: Northern Development Areas Master Plan Project Status
Report.
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development, referred to the following executive summary
that was forwarded to the Board members. In September 2003, the Board of Supervisors endorsed
Development Areas 1 and 2, Hollymead and Piney Mountain, as the next areas for which a master plan
would be prepared. The formal title for the plan will be the Northern Development Areas Master Plan (the
“Master Plan”).
In January 2005, following an RFP process, the County selected a team of consultants led by
Community Design + Architecture Inc. to prepare the master plan. The master plan will be coordinated with
the US 29 North Corridor Transportation Study (the “Transportation Study”) now being prepared by the
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission. Staff expects this coordination to result in a master plan
that addresses both existing and future land uses along with the transportation needs of residents and
businesses in the development areas. The same consultant team is working on both the master plan and
the transportation study. The contract for preparation of the master plan has been signed.
A major component of the master planning process will be a public participation program, led by
Lee Catlin, Community Relations Manager. Two to three weeks prior to the first public workshop in the
planning process, the County will host a Citizens Planning Academy. A letter will be sent out to all residents
and property owners in the development areas inviting them to the academy and giving them basic
information about the master planning process. Other public meetings as outlined in Attachment A will be
held during the project process.
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
A project Advisory Committee will also be utilized in the process to provide initial review and
comment on tasks and products throughout the master plan process. Staff is working with the Planning
Commission to select members of this committee.
The draft master plan will have three principal components: 1) a framework plan showing
neighborhood centers and land uses, 2) unified design guidelines, and 3) implementation strategies.
The draft plan is expected to be ready in 18 to 21 months. County staff expects to update the Board
several times during this period, generally following each of the three major public participation events.
When the draft master plan is complete, County staff will shepherd it through the public review and
adoption process, in a manner similar to that used for the Crozet Master Plan. We estimate that the
adoption process will take six to nine months.
This is provided for the Board’s information and to provide an opportunity to answer any questions
the Board might have. In addition, staff would appreciate receiving the names of any stakeholders in the
Northern Development Areas that you would like to be certain are included in the planning process.
Ms. Judy Wiegand addressed the Board noting that staff now refers to the plan as “Places 29 –
Creating and Connecting Communities in Northern Albemarle.” She reported that it is a combined plan
incorporating the master plan and 29 North transportation study, as it allows for coordination of land uses
with transportation with US 29 and other roads in the area. Ms. Wiegand said that each of the studies would
inform the other, and would proceed on parallel tracks that will be perceived primarily as a single process.
She noted that the goal of the master plan is to encourage development and redevelopment in the
development areas while protecting the county’s rural areas, providing a good quality of life in the
communities that will make the corridor an attractive place to live, work, and shop.
Ms. Wiegand said that staff is using the goals of the Neighborhood Model in the study, and process
participants are county staff, the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, a team of nationally
known consultants, the Department of Transportation, the City of Charlottesville and the University of
Virginia. She noted that the master plan will cover the four development areas that the Board asked be the
subject of the next master plan – development areas one and two. Ms. Wiegand said that the master plan
process looks at the assets, needs, and opportunities in the study area – and the results of that review will
be used to set up a framework plan that identifies neighborhood centers, transportation routes, employment
centers, and other amenities for redevelopment. She noted that the final draft of the master plan will be in
three parts – a framework plan, a set of unified design principles, and a set of implementation strategies.
Regarding the schedule for the master plan, Ms. Wiegand reported that there will be interim work
products throughout the process with the final draft expected in August 2006 and the consultants and staff
have already begun work on it. After 2006, she said, public review and adoption over a six to nine-month
period is anticipated. Ms. Wiegand noted that one of the major features of the planning process is a public
participation and information program to be led by Lee Catlin.
Ms. Lee Catlin distributed an outline of the charrette schedule, and said staff is moving ahead
quickly on this project for better coordination with the 29 North transportation study. She emphasized that
they are committed to maximum public participation in this process, and they are trying to do as much
contingency planning as possible. Ms. Catlin said that the consultants would remain in the area for several
days and participate in a cluster of meetings – larger public forums and smaller focus groups – during their
th
visits. She noted that the important dates to know are May 12 – the Citizens Planning Academy [as done
in Crozet and Pantops] – to provide basic information on planning, hosted by county planning staff. The first
th
public meeting, she indicated, would be May 25 at the Doubletree Hotel, and staff will regroup after that to
see if future large-scale meetings are needed in the near future. Ms. Catlin indicated that the consultant will
next return to town in October.
Ms. Catlin explained that information regarding the Places 29 project will be included with the
property tax mailings, and a direct mail piece was also sent to all available home and business addresses
for all four plan areas – approximately 7,000. In response to Mr. Rooker’s question about apartment
inhabitants receiving the mailing, Ms. Catlin explained that they will be doing a separate flyer campaign to
reach those residents. She noted that various e-newsgroups have been formed, and thanked Mr. Boyd for
encouraging sign ups at a recent public hearing. Ms. Catlin noted that staff has met with the
Daily Progress
editorial staff, and plans to meet with Channel 29 also to ensure media coverage.
Ms. Catlin reported that the “Advisory Council” was initially envisioned as being a low-key group that
the Planning Commission would recommend members for. She said that the group would be a sounding
board and feedback group for staff and the consultant at a process level, for things like getting the right
people engaged in the project, whether neighborhoods are hearing about plans, accessibility to information,
etc. Ms. Catlin mentioned that after speaking with the Planning Commission, it became more complicated
and the Commission felt that they could assume that responsibility.
Board members asked about the status of planning for Pantops.
Mr. Benish responded that staff is short staffed, but is trying to move forward with the planning for
Pantops in interim fashion until all hires have been made.
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
Mr. Rooker said that the county did not envision doing the full-blown process as with 29 and Crozet
at the time the master planning for Pantops began.
Mr. Boyd asked if there was a new timeframe for the plan.
Mr. Benish said that staff would continue to work on a draft of the plan, but it would likely be later
than March or April as originally scheduled.
Mr. Wyant commented that he would like to see the contract with the consultant so that the scope
of their work remains on track.
Mr. Harrison Rue of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District addressed the Board, and reported
that he presented a copy of the “Journey Through Hallowed Ground” book to Governor Christine Todd
Whitman at the Virginia Conservation Network, and commented that “it’s a great project.” He added that he
would be glad to work with the group, especially regarding VDOT.
At the transportation commission and MPO level, Mr. Rue said, the transportation part of the Places
29 project has been evaluated over time, and it is “a complicated structure.” He stated that they are trying
to get the work done with the consultants and community partnerships. They are not really doing anything
differently than what they have already proven is workable in the 29/250 in terms of pulling together VDOT,
county, city, U.Va., business groups, individual developers, to come up with buildable solutions. Mr. Rue
added that the process tries to involve as many people as possible from a variety of interests. He said that
VDOT is pleased that the TJPDC is working with the county on a “no excuses” plan whereby the county and
VDOT are not “blaming one another” when problems arise.
Mr. Rooker said that the buildout analysis may need to be overlayed with plans along with
expectations of what the state might provide for implementation purposes.
Mr. Rue commented that VDOT is very interested in the access management piece, noting that the
TJPDC has met individually with developers and staff on city projects with positive results.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that with sites such as the Hollymead Town Center, the transportation plans
have been approved regarding “what’s going to be where in that development,” including the transportation
component. He said it would be helpful if the transportation component included plans with respect to the
connections of that development to other developments.
Mr. Boyd cited Berkmar Drive extended as an example.
Mr. Rue explained that Berkmar is in the MPO long-range plan, and the location and size of a road
like that will be modeled and looked at, and will be in at least one if not all of the three scenarios. He said
that the October workshops will lay out to the community the “deck of cards” that will yield three rough
scenarios to then be fully modeled.
Ms. Thomas noted that the map that shows boundaries specifically does not include the Berkmar
Drive extension.
Mr. Rooker said that one piece that will be included in the study will be what the area in between
two development areas should look like.
Mr. Rue stated that that is the “land use side,” and in the long-range plan outlines differences of
opinion about how the road should be developed – more rural or urban in style. He said that transportation-
wise, it could be modeled either way, but it’s ultimately a county decision in land use what actually happens.
Mr. Rooker said that whether a road is built with private funds, it should be considered whether or
not a route is in the growth area.
Mr. Rue commented that we get our biggest bang for the buck by showing private investments so
that public funds connect the dots.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that the Planning Commission passed a resolution to “not let analysis of
the general through traffic requirements open up the issue of the western bypass as a feasible alternative.”
Mr. Rue responded that their resolution is perfectly in conformance with the TJPDC scope. He
emphasized that there is a difference between forecast modeling and considering alternatives, adding that
there’s already been a tremendous amount of design effort put into location and ideas for the existing
western bypass proposal. Mr. Rue added that there will be forecasting modeling that defines or projects
future traffic with or without certain facilities, as well as simulation modeling that simulates traffic on the
preferred three scenarios, emphasizing that those scenarios won’t be clear until after the October
workshops. He noted that in the forecast modeling, the Route 29 Western Bypass would be included in at
least some of the projections to show whether or not if that facility were built it would influence future traffic
volumes. Mr. Rue commented that it appears to him that the direction that seems to be considered is
getting large amounts of local and business traffic off on the local network, off of Route 29.
Mr. Rooker asked if the city has spent the ITS money to go all the way down Emmet Street.
Mr. Rue replied that it is not up to the project area yet, but will eventually be linked.
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
Mr. Rooker noted that the signal synchronization seems to work well up to Hydraulic Road, and the
city does have $500,000 available for these improvements.
Mr. Rue said that $1 million or more will be used for signal improvements up and down 29.
Mr. Benish pointed out that the maps show a fringe area, and the consultant is aware of strategic
locations adjacent to development area boundaries.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 23. Cancel May 11, 2005 Board meeting.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman to cancel the May 11, 2005 Board meeting. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Wyant. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None
_______________
Agenda Item No. 24. From the Board: Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Wyant expressed concern about the temporary sign problem, and non-profits having to pay a
fee for that.
Mr. Tucker replied that it is difficult to pick and choose who has to pay, as the purpose of the fee is
to ensure that they follow regulations for signage.
Ms. Thomas said that it raises the question of whether the responsibilities should fall more on the
real estate tax or individual or user taxes.
Mr. Wyant pointed out that these groups are non-profits.
Mr. Davis noted that the difficulty is identifying who the non-profits are, as there are many not
affiliated with churches and fire departments. He said that the staff approach would probably be to do away
with the sign fees altogether, and that loss of revenue would have to be made up elsewhere.
Mr. Tucker stated that it is not significant.
Mr. Wyant said that there is not sufficient staff to cover the enforcement.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that his concern is that the county restrict temporary signs, and said that if
the process for application and fee payment is discontinued, there will be no control over the signs.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she emailed Board members regarding a cell tower placement on a property that
has a conservation easement, but the holders of that property need for the Board to put in writing that this is
the best location.
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, that the Chairman write a
letter to Nature Conservancy requesting they allow a second wooden communications monopole to be co-
located with the one currently installed on Verulam Farm.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None
Mr. Davis noted that it is a Tier Two tower that would not have to come back before the Board
again.
__________
Ms. Thomas said that the Rivanna River Basin Commission has raised one-third of funds needed,
and the fundraising continues.
__________
She reported that the Virginia Workforce Council meeting takes place Thursday, and found that no
one else was planning to attend.
__________
She also asked about carpooling to the VaCo annual meeting in November. Mr. Tucker suggested
she contact Ron White.
__________
Ms. Thomas said that the Virginia Railway Express is looking into expanding their weekday service
to the Charlottesville area.
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
Mr. Rooker said that the Express is seeking funds from the county, city, and TJPDC for a survey
costing an estimated $50,000 to $60,000, and they may be able to get matching funds if one-half is raised.
He explained that the Express runs 84 trains in Northern Virginia at a 95 percent on-time schedule, coming
down as far as Manassas and Orange County. Mr. Rooker said that they would like to run two demo trains
daily to Washington over a period of time, with an estimated two hour and twenty minute travel time each
way. He mentioned that local supporters would likely come before the Board seeking funding for the study.
Mr. Tucker said that he met with the group and initially assumed the business community would
provide support, then he realized they were looking for county support.
__________
Ms. Thomas reported that she met with relevant officials at DEQ yesterday, who indicated that the
local community defines what the project purpose is, including length of time, not the DEQ. She said that a
long-range plan is a separate issue related to what is needed to put a permit application together, and DEQ
is not getting into that planning process. Ms. Thomas added that perceived changes in regulations that
shifted opinion toward the South Fork option are not reality, and DEQ is now going to be involved in more
things such as Sugar Hollow. She said that there are going to be more requirements with DEQ involved.
Ms. Thomas said that the most shocking revelation from the meeting was DEQ’s view on what
going to the James would entail, and what it would give to the community. She noted that since the local
community has other water sources than the James, and some communities rely exclusively on that river
for water, Albemarle/Charlottesville would be given a permit that would allow usage of maximum day
demand, with cutbacks to average during drought periods – estimated nine million gallons per day. Ms.
Thomas said that the present infrastructure would be used to store water for a drought, with the James
being used in times of plenty. She added that DEQ perceives Charlottesville and Albemarle working
together as a regional approach, and they also find the Ragged Mountain reservoir option attractive as it
would require only one round of big construction.
Mr. Tucker added that after the large meeting with the regulators, one DEQ official said the same
thing to him regarding Ragged Mountain.
Mr. Rooker said that there is a small group meeting next week in preparation for a pre-application
nd
meeting, which is now scheduled for June 22, and there will probably be a few more prior to the June
date. He explained that the goal of the group is to determine what they can present at the pre-application
meeting as a first choice option, and the Board has discussed a preference of finding a solution within the
watershed. Mr. Rooker said that City Council shares this desire, but he is not convinced that ACSA and
RWSA share that approach as they are not as “sold” on it.
Mr. Tucker commented that Rivanna has not selected any approach.
Mr. Rooker recalled that at the last Board meeting discussing this, they decided to get information
on what Beaver Creek could provide to the water system, as that water source yields approximately 2.6
million per day. He said that he has met with Coran Capshaw about water use in Crozet for the Con Agra
site, and Coran indicated that site would be used for his music industry operations, not water-intensive uses.
Mr. Rooker said that there are differences in opinion between Mark Graham and the consultant regarding
available capacity, and Mr. Graham is going to work with the RWSA engineer to come back with a
reasonable recommendation for what might be useful out of Beaver Creek. If we are going to go into the
regulators with a plan, we need to have some presentation of the amount of supply we are looking for. He
added that right now, the county is paying $12.5 million per million gallons per day additional capacity trying
to be acquired. Mr. Rooker emphasized that if it can be determined the need is less, the options may be
cheaper and more flexible.
Mr. Rooker said that the Gannett Fleming report is based on 5 percent conservation, and many
community members and DEQ feel that that could be better. He stated that the Board had reached
consensus on finding solutions in the watershed if possible, and acquire the additional supply for a
reasonable period of time considering the cost of the projects. Mr. Rooker said that they should have
information back before next Friday’s meeting regarding Beaver Creek and conservation. He noted that the
city is interested in an option that includes Rivanna.
Mr. Rooker said that Mr. Davis had recently given him a copy of the four-party agreement, and
ACSA is sensitive about their role in this and whether they are an equal partner in this.
Mr. Davis reported that he had recently spoken with Jim Boling, who indicated that the Albemarle
County Service Authority wanted to ensure that everyone was aware of the framework of the four-party
agreement. There are two provisions in the agreement that provide a role for the authority. He said that the
agreement calls for additional facilities to be built by Rivanna when those facilities are agreed upon from
time to time by the city, the ACSA, and RWSA. The service authority has a legal role in that process. Mr.
Davis added that the agreement, adopted in 1973, also states that the facility will be paid for pursuant to an
agreement between the city and the authority. The county does not have a direct funding role. He said that
in major projects, the county has a more significant role than in other projects.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that the Board has to approve facilities through Comprehensive Plan
amendments.
Mr. Tucker noted that all facilities considered are in the county, so some land use approval would
be required.
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
Ms. Thomas said that it was agreed that the county would serve as “regulator,” and what the county
says is as relevant as what state and federal regulators say.
Mr. Tucker stated that the process the county would go through would come after state and federal
regulators, and agreed that perhaps a staff person should be involved in the regulation meetings.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that he views the staff involvement differently, with the Board having the say
over what is approved or not.
Mr. Tucker said that just as DEQ has staff, the county staff represents Albemarle in meetings.
Ms. Thomas stated that she will distribute her notes to the Board once she can go through them, as
the meeting just took place yesterday.
Mr. Rooker reported that the county had a meeting with Louisa and Fluvanna engineering and
public works regarding a water plan and possible collaboration. He stated that those localities have filed an
application to go to the James jointly, and would like Albemarle to be involved. Mr. Rooker said that they
put together an application and filed it, rather than belaboring the process with a study. He said that a joint
approach with them would involve piping water from the James up along a power easement into an area in
Charlottesville, and water would be treated there then sold back to those localities from a pipeline running
down Route 250. Mr. Rooker said his question is whether that option is better than going in alone, and he
has asked Mark to work with the Fluvanna engineer and RWSA to get a cost differential estimate on the two
approaches along with other advantages and disadvantages. He added that the pipeline would be longer
with partnering, and a new treatment plan would need to be built.
Mr. Boyd said that there may be federal funds for a regional arrangement.
Mr. Rooker stated that those localities had received indication that funds would be available, but
they are unsure as to how much.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the cost would be the main criteria for considering the regional approach.
Mr. Rooker said that it would be up to the county to determine, but if it comes back as not being
financially advantageous, there is no strong reason to pursue it.
Mr. Tucker noted that there is no way to phase a James River option, all of the costs would be up
front.
Mr. Rooker said that the James could be a later option, with Ragged Mountain first. He wondered
why you would do both.
Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Thomas indicated that the James may be needed in drought times.
Mr. Rooker stated that he has not heard a definitive on whether it would be needed.
Mr. Rooker reported that their have been SAFER matching grant funds for additional firefighters.
Mr. Tucker said that staff is already looking into this.
Mr. Rooker noted that there is $250,000 available in the Virginia Tourism Authority to make grants
to local and regional tourism authorities. He also mentioned funds available for localities that have a build-
out analysis.
Mr. Boyd said that he looks forward to receiving additional information on the water supply
discussions from Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
__________
Mr. Boyd reported that he had been receiving calls about panhandlers again.
Mr. Davis responded that staff has drafted an ordinance that will be coming to the Board in July.
__________
Mr. Rooker mentioned that issues in the water study regarding population assumptions, and he
asked staff to take a look at the projected population in the urban area at 30 and 50 years. Mr. Rooker said
that Gannett Fleming seems to be using the higher estimates, which are higher than the VEC numbers.
Mr. Tucker said that VEC always low-balls population projections, so that the revenue comes in
higher.
_______________
May 4, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50)
Agenda Item No. 25. Adjourn.
With no further business to come before the Board, at 5:55 p.m., motion was offered by Mr.
Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Boyd to adjourn this meeting until May 12, 2005, 5:00 p.m. for a Tour of
Montalto.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 11/09/2005
Initials: DM