2005-06-01
June 1, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 1,
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., Ms. Sally H.
Thomas and Mr. David C. Wyant.
ABSENT: Mr. Dennis S. Rooker.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Director of Community Development, Mark Graham, Director of Planning, V. Wayne Cilimberg, and Senior
Deputy Clerk, Debi Moyers.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:03 a.m., by the Vice-Chairman, Mr. Boyd.
_______________
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.
th
Mr. Gary Grant addressed the Board, inviting members to have a cup of coffee on Sunday, June 5
at 2:00 a.m. at the Waffle House on Premiere Circle on 29 North. He explained that there are some
residents there that have made noise complaints about activities at the restaurant. Mr. Grant emphasized
that the complaints are directed to noisy patrons, not the restaurant itself.
__________
Ms. Marcia Joseph addressed the Board, noting that a year ago they were asked to mitigate a
violation by a resident (Tom Sullivan), who was performing his own road repairs on Route 795 without a
permit or plan. She said that Mr. Sullivan’s website – murcilagofarms.com – indicates that the home he
said he would occupy on Mount Pleasant is now being rented for $3,000 per week and he offers activities
on that site.
__________
Ms. Debbie Donnelly, a resident of the portion of Blenheim Road that is not paved, stated that she
is opposed to the paving, and stated that the Board was “misled as to what Mr. Sullivan’s true reasons for
paving were.” She said that he has put all of his property up for sale, and has put a pigpen 80 feet from her
well. Ms. Donnelly emphasized that the road is extremely steep, and there are no guardrails, and traffic has
increased. He has changed the road and ruined it for those of them who plan to stay.
__________
Mr. Bill Puzo addressed the Board to thank them for their support for paving Allen Road under the
Rural Rustic Roads program, especially David Wyant, David Benish, Juan Wade, and Chuck Proctor of
VDOT.
__________
Ms. Laura Dollard of Route 795 addressed the Board, emphasizing that she does not want Mr.
Sullivan to continue paving that road. She reported that Angela Tucker had responded to reports of
unauthorized tree cutting, and now that she is gone from VDOT, nothing is being done. Ms. Dollard said
that there were 150 signatures on a petition against the road last year. She said she does not want her
property paved by a private citizen. If it ever has to be done, VDOT can do it to standard. Mr. Sullivan has
not done it to standard.
__________
Mr. Peter Kleiman, a City of Charlottesville resident, addressed the Board to express his opposition
to the Route 795 paving project. He attended a forum on the Places 29 project, where the mission is to
include citizens in transportation decision-making, the Comprehensive Plan, and evaluation of alternatives.
VDOT has been unwilling to discuss concerns of the public, and the citizens are not even notified in any
timely fashion of activities coming ahead and what is actually being proposed. Mr. Kleiman strongly
encouraged the Board to oppose the project until citizens have had an opportunity to respond.
Mr. Boyd indicated that this item would be brought up after the school portion of the Board agenda,
and encouraged attendees to remain.
Mr. Dorrier explained that he had had a conversation with Mr. Sullivan a few weeks ago, who at that
time indicated he would not pave the road if residents were against it.
Mr. Tucker noted that this item is not on the agenda for action at this meeting.
_______________
June 1, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Agenda Item No. 5a. Proclamation recognizing June as Homeownership Month.
Mr. Boyd presented the following proclamation to Paul Harper of the Housing Office:
HOMEOWNERSHIP MONTH
WHEREASNational Homeownership Month
, the month of June has been proclaimed as in an effort to
focus on benefits of homeownership and to increase homeownership; and
WHEREAS
, the County of Albemarle recognizes homeownership as an important part of strong
communities; and
WHEREAS
, owning a home allows people the best opportunity to build wealth through asset appreciation
and provide a stable living environment for their families; and
WHEREAS
, the County of Albemarle is supporting homeownership for those working families desiring to
purchase their first home by providing homebuyer counseling, supporting HOMEBUYER
CLUBS, and providing direct financial homebuyer assistance; and
th
WHEREAS
, the County’s HOMEBUYER CLUBS reached a milestone in 2004 with the 100 family
purchasing their first home;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
that I, Kenneth C. Boyd, Vice-Chairman on behalf of the Albemarle
June,
Board of County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim and recognize the significance of
2005 as HOMEOWNERSHIP MONTH
in Albemarle County, Virginia.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5b. Recognition of Crozet Master Plan by the Council on New Urbanism (CNU).
Mr. Boyd reported that the Crozet Master Plan has been one of 15 studies selected nationwide by
the Congress for New Urbanism for a 2005 charter award, the organizations highest accolade for
exemplary design and implementation. The CNU is the nation’s leading organization for promoting sound
urban design and walkable mixed-use cities and towns as alternatives to sprawl.
Mr. Boyd noted that the plan was developed by the Albemarle County Department of Planning and
Community Development, with assistance from a team of nationally recognized Charlottesville-based
planners and designers led by Ken Schwartz of the Renaissance Planning Group in partnership with
Warren Byrd, Thomas Wholtz, Wholtz Landscaping Architects, and Bruce Dotson. Christensen Associates
of Richmond provided the facilitation support.
The Crozet Master Plan is the first in a series of developments that will incorporate the county’s
award-winning neighborhood model principles, required new development to be organized around compact
walkable communities featuring a variety of activities and protected natural areas. The alternatives offered
by this approach have allowed the county to take the by-right development in Crozet and preserve 35 to 50
percent of the land in recreational open space.
In acknowledging this award, Mr. Boyd said, the Board of Supervisors would like to offer special
appreciation to the citizens of Crozet, who gave thousands of volunteer hours and continue to show their
support for ensuring that Crozet will grow up in the best possible way, encouraging new businesses and
residents to honor and celebrate their unique historic character. Mr. Boyd asked Ken Schwartz, Warren
Byrd, and Wayne Cilimberg to come forward and be recognized for this honor.
Mr. Schwartz commented that it was an honor to be involved in developing and implementing the
county’s vision for the Neighborhood Model with the first master planned portion of the development areas,
and a privilege to work and collaborate with so many people in Albemarle County along the way. He
thanked Sally Thomas, Dennis Rooker, Will Rieley, Bill Edgerton, David Wyant, and the late Walter
Perkins, who “were instrumental in supporting the work of the Crozet citizens” and the team who worked on
the plan. Mr. Schwartz also thanked Albemarle County planning staff – Susan Thomas (project manager),
Elaine Echols, Wayne Cilimberg, David Benish, and Lee Catlin. He also recognized from his office Kathy
Galvin, Noel Murphy, Thomas Wholtz and Sophie Johnston. He also honored his partner Chris Sinclair,
Jennie Cox, Kevin Tillbury, Hannah Twaddell, Carol Strickland, and Lee Osgood. Mr. Schwartz mentioned
the involvement of Becky Clay Christensen and Bruce Dotson, and the citizens, local developers, and
businesses of Crozet. It was truly a collaborative effort.
Mr. Cilimberg added thanks to the consultants, his staff and other county departments.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr.
Wyant, to approve Items 6.1 (as noted) through 6.9, and to accept the remaining items for information.
(Discussions are included with the individual items.) Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Rooker.
__________
June 1, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
Item 6.1. Approval of Minutes: July 7, 2004; January 5, January 12(A), January 19(A), March 3(A),
March 14(A), March 16(A), and March 16(N), 2005.
Mr. Bowerman had read July 7, 2004, Pages 1-23 (ending at Item #12) and found them to be in
order as presented.
Mr. Boyd had read July 7, 2004, Pages 23 (begin Item #12) – end and found them to be in order
but wanted to make sure on page 23, Melvin Breeden’s statement “four positions mandated by the State”
was transcribed correctly.
Mr. Dorrier had read January 5, 2005, Pages 1-20 (end at Item #20) and found them to be in order
as presented.
Mr. Wyant had read January 12A, 2005 and March 16N, 2005 and found them to be in order as
presented with an editorial change.
By the recorded vote set out above, the minutes which had been read were approved. The
remaining minutes will be placed on the next agenda.
__________
Item 6.2. Lake Albemarle Child At Plan sign (Westover Drive).
The residents of Westover Drive in the Lake Albemarle subdivision have requested a child-at-play
sign. There are approximately 30 homes on Westover Drive with 34 children. Westover Drive is
approximately three-quarters of a mile long. VDOT requires a resolution of support from the Board of
Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors approved the placement of a child at play sign for Lake Albemarle
Road in 2004.
The County has developed criteria for reviewing a “Child at Play” request. The criteria and staff
comments are provided below.
1. “Child At Play” signs shall only be considered on secondary roads.
Westover Drive is in the Secondary Road System (Route 1701).
2. The request must come from a Homeowner’s Association where applicable.
Please find attached a letter from the residents of Westover Drive.
3. There must be child activity attraction nearby for the sign to be considered.
Westover Drive is a cul-de-sac. There is no established tot lot, playground or sidewalk on Westover
Drive. Due to these absences, the children that live on this road often have to walk and/or pedal in
the street to other homes that may have a swing or court. Due to absence of sidewalks, children
have to walk in the street. According to the request letter, 34 children live on this road. Staff
believes that “Child at Play” signs will give notice to the traveling public that children may be in the
area and using the road to get from one home to another. The average cost to install a sign is
approximately $125.
4. The installation of the sign shall not conflict with any existing traffic control devices. The
proposed location of the signs will not conflict with any existing traffic control devices.
This request meets three of the four criteria. There are no central child activity attraction areas
along the road (criteria 3). However, given the number of children in the neighborhood and the lack of
sidewalks, it is staff’s opinion that this request for a “Child at Play” sign has merit.
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors adopt the resolution supporting the installation of
“Child at Play” signs on Westover Drive.
(
Ms. Thomas commented that there were children at play signs on Owensville Road that have
been removed.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TO INSTALL CHILD AT PLAY SIGN ON
WESTOVER DRIVE
WHEREAS, the residents of Westover Drive in the Lake Albemarle subdivision are concerned about
traffic in their neighborhood and the potential hazard it creates for the numerous children that live and play in
the subdivision; and
WHEREAS, there are numerous children that live and play on Westover Drive and the residents believe
that a “Child at Play” sign would help alleviate some of the concerns.
June 1, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
supports the community’s requests for VDOT to install the necessary “Child at Play” signs on Westover Drive
(Route 1701).
__________
Item 6.3. Resolution supporting rail service in Virginia.
(Mr. Wyant said the terms inter-city and intra-city in the resolution are confusing. Mr. Cilimberg
noted that the intent is for the rail to run between cities – inter-city.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, support the appeals of
Virginia citizens, Governor Mark Warner, and his predecessor Governor Jim Gilmore, with overwhelming
support from the Virginia General Assembly during the 2005 and 2000 Sessions, respectively, have clearly and
decisively placed the Commonwealth of Virginia in a leadership position, with meaningful funding support, in
pursuit of a more fully-developed intercity rail network for the movement of both people and goods; and
WHEREAS, Virginia and other states, notably neighboring North Carolina, recognize that a national rail
network is essential to the ultimate success of rail development to augment and relieve other modes of
transportation currently under stress. No single state can do it alone; and
WHEREAS, Virginia lacks a Federal partner, without which the intercity rail development hopes and
aspirations of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved; and
WHEREAS, the current Amtrak restructuring initiative of the Bush Administration, as articulated by U.S.
Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta, represents both an opportunity as well as a serious risk to the
interests and long-term objectives of the Commonwealth of Virginia, its business and commercial interests, and
our citizens; and
WHEREAS, the risk is that much of what we have in place today might be lost in an overly-simplistic
approach to the “purging” of Amtrak. The National Railroad Passenger Corp. (Amtrak) represents but a very
thin veneer concealing much deeper and more fundamental problems that adversely affect the viability and
handling capacity of the U.S. rail network – both freight and passenger; and
WHEREAS, the deteriorating rail situation in the U.S. has spiraled downward for more than fifty years. It
would be unrealistic to expect to correct it overnight. It cannot be fixed without MORE, rather than less, public
funding at the Federal level; and
WHEREAS, a goal of the United Jefferson Area Mobility Plan (UnJam 2025), which combines the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Transportation (CHART) Plan for the Metropolitan Planning Organization
area with the Rural Area Transportation Long Range Plan, is to improve regional rail service and support the
movement of passenger service where possible; and
WHEREAS, the UnJam recommends increased passenger rail service for both local and regional
commuter and intra/interstate travel options; and
WHERAS, the UnJam recommends improved headways for freight to clear up time for passenger
service, regular and consistent time slots for passenger service and improved technology so that freight and
people can better coexist on the same railway;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
hereby seek your leadership in formulating a multi-year, phased solution; a solution that is transformative rather
than one that is precipitous and punitive. We urge you to protect the passenger rail infrastructure and services
that we now have in place in Virginia, and to complement such transitional efforts with a well-conceived Federal
program that, like Federal support for highways, ports and aviation, enhances and promotes rail transportation
in partnership with the Commonwealth of Virginia and its privately-owned railroads.
__________
Item 6.4. Revisions to Personnel Policies: P-05 “Criminal Convictions/Motor Vehicle Violations”.
The Human Resources Department, assisted by the County Attorney’s Office, has been reviewing
the County’s Personnel Policy Manual in order to update existing policies in a number of areas. The staff is
proposing revisions to the following specific policy: Criminal Convictions/Motor Vehicle Violations (P-05)
The proposed policy contains a number of changes. First, the policy adds the requirement that all
employees must promptly report an arrest for a criminal violation of any kind to their supervisor or
department head. Second, the policy clarifies that the County may take appropriate disciplinary action
when an employee has been arrested. Third, the policy clarifies the conditions under which the County may
collect and maintain employee criminal history record background information, and provides that the
County may consider a criminal conviction on an employee's suitability for continued County employment.
These changes are deemed necessary in order to eliminate ambiguities in the present policy and provide
clear direction to both employees and their supervisors as to necessary or appropriate actions to take in
June 1, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
situations involving the arrest of a County employee.
Staff recommends adoption of the a Resolution, which will approve the proposed changes to
personnel policy P-05.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy Manual has been adopted by the Board of
Supervisors; and
WHEREAS, current provisions in the Personnel Policy Manual addressing the effect of an applicant's or
employee's arrest or criminal conviction are outdated and in need of revision to permit Human Resources and
other departments to take appropriate action in such cases in the best interests of the County, its employees
and citizens; and
WHEREAS, the proposed provisions reflect the need of the County to properly consider the effect of an
arrest or criminal conviction on an applicant's or employee's continued suitability for County employment.
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors desires to adopt these Personnel Policy revisions;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
hereby amends the following sections of the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy Manual:
By Amending:
Section P-05 Criminal Convictions/Motor Vehicle Violations Policy
Section P-05 Effect of Criminal Conviction or Arrest
It is the policy of the Board not to employ or to continue the employment of classified, professional or
administrative personnel who may be deemed unsuited for service by reason of arrest and/or criminal
conviction. While an arrest or conviction of a crime, in and of itself, may not be an automatic bar to employment
if an arrest or conviction relates to suitability of the individual to perform duties in a particular position, such
person may be denied employment or may face disciplinary action, up to and including termination. Individuals
applying for employment with Albemarle County for any position shall be required to disclose prior convictions
of law other than minor traffic violations or juvenile offenses. Information provided by applicants may be verified
by work history, personal reference or criminal record inquiries to determine the applicant’s acceptability for
employment. Where a prior conviction is ascertained, the County will consider the nature of the offense, the
date of the offense, and the relationship between the offense and the position for which application is sought. If
an applicant makes any misrepresentation or willful omissions of fact regarding prior criminal history, such
misrepresentation or omission shall be sufficient cause for disqualification of the applicant or termination of
employment.
In the event that any employee, whether full-time or part-time, probationary or nonprobationary, is
arrested for a criminal violation of any kind, whether misdemeanor or felony, he is required to report such arrest
promptly to the employee’s supervisor or department head within one (1) business day unless mitigating
circumstances exist. This reporting requirement applies regardless of whether such arrest has occurred on-
duty or off-duty. Failure to comply with this reporting requirement shall be grounds for disciplinary action, up to
and including termination. In addition, all employees shall have the continuing duty to notify the County of any
arrest or criminal conviction that occurs subsequent to being hired by the County.
Supervisors or department heads shall contact the Human Resources Director or designee upon
receiving notification that an employee has been arrested. The County reserves the right to determine
appropriate disciplinary action in such cases, up to and including termination, depending upon the facts and
circumstances surrounding the arrest.
Applicants for all County positions shall be informed that they will be required, as a condition of
employment, to sign a statement authorizing Albemarle County to have both a criminal history background
check and a motor vehicle violation investigation performed. As permitted by law, the County is authorized to
consider any criminal conviction history or motor vehicle violations in determining whether to make an offer of
employment to the applicant, and shall retain sole discretion to determine whether prior criminal history or
motor vehicle violations shall disqualify an applicant from further consideration for County employment.
The information collected shall be privileged, confidential and used only in determining the candidate’s
qualifications for employment and assignment.
If an applicant for employment with Albemarle County should refuse to permit a criminal history record
search, that applicant will be removed from further employment consideration and informed accordingly.
Applicants who omit criminal convictions from their application may be denied employment for falsification of
the application, and, if hired, may be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including immediate dismissal for
withholding such information on the application. A new application may be filed after three (3) calendar years
provided the person at that time lists his convictions. An authorization for Albemarle County to conduct a
criminal conviction/motor vehicle violation investigation and its satisfactory outcome are conditions of
employment. Once the County has reviewed an applicant’s criminal history record and has made an
administrative determination concerning employment suitability, the record will be retained in a file separate
June 1, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
from the official personnel file. If a criminal record is obtained that would prohibit employment under Albemarle
County policy, the applicant/employee will be so informed and his application for employment removed from
consideration and/or the employee will be subject to termination. If the response indicates a conviction(s), the
Director of Human Resources will review the response. The County shall have the sole discretion to determine
whether any convictions or violations are related to the duties of the position for which application is made or
whether they affect the fitness of the applicant to work for the County. Except as directed by court order or as
otherwise required or permitted by law, conviction information received by Albemarle County as part of the
employment process will not be disseminated to any third party not directly involved in the hiring process.
Amended: August 4, 1993
Legal Reference: Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, Chapter 23, Sec. 19.2-389 (7)
__________
Item 6.5. Revisions to Personnel Policies: P-90 “Family and Medical Leave Act”.
The Human Resources Department, assisted by the County Attorney's Office, has been
reviewing the County's Personnel Policy Manual in order to update existing policies in a number of
areas. At this point, staff is proposing revisions to the following specific policy: Family and Medical
Leave Act (P-90).
The proposed policy contains a number of changes. First, the definitions section has been revised
to reflect legal requirements set forth in the federal Family and Medical Leave Act. Second, language has
been added to clarify eligibility requirements for employees, including situations where both parents are
employed by the County. Third, the policy clarifies that eligible employees may take up to 12 weeks of
leave during a 12-month period, that employees may take intermittent leave or work a reduced schedule in
order to take FMLA leave to care for a seriously ill family member or for the employee's own serious health
condition. Fourth, the policy clarifies the requirements pertaining to medical certification. Fifth, the policy
requires the substitution of accrued paid sick and/or annual leave as part of the total 12 weeks of FMLA
leave. Other changes to the policy include clarification of the notification requirements for employees who
desire to take FMLA leave and requirements pertaining to return to work once FMLA leave is completed.
Staff recommends adoption of a Resolution, which will approve the proposed changes to personnel
policy P-90.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy Manual has been adopted by the Board of
Supervisors; and
WHEREAS, the Board finds that an amendment to Personnel Policy P-90 is necessary to clarify
policies relating to paid leave and the Family and Medical Leave;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
hereby amends the following sections of the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy Manual:
By Amending:
Section P-90 Family and Medical Leave Act, Supplemental Leave
Section P-90 FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT - Supplemental Leave
A. Purpose of Policy
This policy is written to assist the Albemarle County Local Government in complying with the federal Family and
Medical Leave Act of 1993. This policy seeks to balance the needs of the employer with the needs of its
employees and their families.
B. Definitions
Child: Includes biological, adopted, foster, step, or legal ward child for
whom the employee acts in a parental role, providing care and
financial support. The child must be under age 18, unless he/she is
incapable of self-care due to mental or physical disability.
Eligible Employee: An eligible employee: 1) Has been employed at least one year; 2)
Has worked at least 1250 hours during the 12 months immediately
preceding the proposed leave; 3) Has not used all available Family
Medical Leave (FML) in the previous rolling year; and 4) Meets the
conditions of the FMLA.
Family: Family is defined as the employee’s spouse, children, and parents.
June 1, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
Health Care Provider: A licensed doctor of medicine or osteopathy or any other person
determined by the U.S. Secretary of Labor to be capable of providing
health care service.
Parent: Biological parents as well as any others who have acted in the place
of a parent to the employee.
Serious Health Condition: A physical or mental illness or an injury requiring inpatient care at a medical
facility or continued treatment by a health-care provider that causes
the employee to be absent from work on a recurring basis or for
more than three full days.
Job-Protected: The employee is guaranteed the right to return to his former position
or to an equivalent position.
Week: A week is defined as the annual authorized regular hours of the
employee’s position, divided by 52.
C. Conditions of Leave
1. General Information
The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) provides up to 12 workweeks of unpaid job-protected leave
per year to eligible employees for one or more of the following qualifying events:
1) The birth and first-year care of the employee’s newborn child;
2) Placement of a child with the employee for adoption, or by the State for foster care;
3) To care for the employee’s spouse, child or parent with a serious health condition (this does not include
in-laws); and
4) The employee’s own serious health condition.
2. Notification Requirements
When the need for leave under FMLA is foreseeable, as in the case of the expected birth, adoption or
foster care placement of a child or planned medical treatment for a serious health condition of the employee or
a family member, the employee is required to provide at least 30 days advance notice to his supervisor either
verbally or in writing. In the event that it is not practicable to give such advance notice, due to a lack of
knowledge of approximately when leave will be required to begin, a change in circumstances, or a medical
emergency, the employee should give as much advance notice as is practicable, ordinarily within one or two
business days of when he learns of the need for the leave.
The administrative process will be initiated by the employee submitting an FMLA Request Form, which is
available from the Human Resources Department. If the reason for leave involves a serious health condition of
either the employee or the employee’s family member, the employee will be given a Certification of Health Care
Provider form that must be completed by the patient’s physician and returned to HR within 15 calendar days.
Employees granted leave under FMLA will receive a Notice of Employee Obligations under FMLA outlining
conditions governing the leave.
If an employee does not notify his supervisor that he requests FML, but the supervisor has reason to
believe that a leave request would meet the guidelines covered under the Act, the supervisor should contact
Human Resources, which will then provide the employee with information regarding the FMLA. If an employee
is eligible for FML, then the leave time will be counted against FML.
3. Both Parents Working for the County
In cases where both parents are County employees, they may take a combined total of 12 weeks of FML
for birth, adoption, and foster care placement. They may each take 12 weeks for their own illness or that of
their spouse, child or parent.
4. Covered Time Period
Eligible employees may take up to 12 weeks of leave during a rolling 12-month period. This is defined as
the 12-month period measured forward from the date an employee’s first FML begins.
June 1, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
5. Intermittent or Reduced Leave
While most family and medical leave occurrences will necessitate leave to be taken in a single block of
several weeks, the employee may request “intermittent” leave or “reduced leave schedule” to care for a
seriously ill family member or for the employee’s own serious health condition where the need for leave is
foreseeable and based on planned medical treatment. In the case of the need for a reduced leave schedule or
intermittent use of leave, a certification of medical necessity is required from the health care provider and an
appropriate work schedule should be planned in advance with the supervisor, when possible. An employee may
take reduced leave for the birth, adoption or foster care placement of a son or daughter only if the employee
and employer agree to such an arrangement.
If the employee requests intermittent leave or reduced leave schedule, the County may temporarily
transfer the employee to an available alternative position with equivalent pay and benefits, if the employee is
qualified for the position and it better accommodates recurring periods of leave than the employee’s regular job.
D. Medical Certification Requirements
When the necessity for FML exists due to the employee’s own serious health condition or the serious
health condition of a spouse, parent, or child, certification of the condition and a statement of the need for leave
are required from the health care provider(s), using the Certification of Health Care Provider form provided by
Human Resources. If the employee fails to provide the requested information to the designated HR Specialist
within 15 calendar days of receipt of the form, the leave may not be job-protected under the FMLA.
The County may require a second opinion by a health care provider of its choice, and at its expense. If
the two opinions differ, a third opinion may be requested from a provider selected jointly by the employee and
the County. This third opinion, to be paid for by the County, is final and binding. It is the employee’s
responsibility to maintain up-to-date medical status while on FML.
The County may also require periodic reports from the employee as to the employee’s status and intent
to return to work.
E. Substitution of Paid Leave
The FMLA provides for a maximum of 12 weeks of unpaid leave. If the FML is due to the employee’s own
medical condition, the employee will first be compensated using any accrued sick leave and sick bank benefits,
as applicable. Time will be charged concurrently against these paid types of leave and FML for a period of up
to 12 weeks.
If the FML is due to the illness of an employee’s spouse, parent, or child, the employee will first be
compensated using accrued sick leave. (Employees are not eligible for sick bank benefits in these
circumstances.) Time will be charged concurrently against the available accrued sick leave and FML for a
period of up to 12 weeks.
The remainder, if any, of the leave requested will be charged against accrued annual leave and
compensatory leave prior to the employee going on unpaid leave, except that the employee may save one (1)
week of annual leave for use at a later time. Employees should check with HR to determine what types of leave
will run concurrently with their FML. The type of leave taken must be in compliance with the provisions of the
applicable leave policy found in this manual.
Time missed during worker’s compensation related injuries, which otherwise meet the requirements of
the FMLA, may run concurrently with FML.
F. Benefits
1. Insurance Continuation Privileges
Employees on unpaid leave that is designated as FML will continue to receive their employer portion of
the medical and dental insurance benefits up to the maximum 12 workweeks allowed. These benefits will
continue on the same basis as an active employee during this 12-week period. Employees must remit the
necessary premium for the employee portion to cover themselves and eligible dependents. As in the case of
any unpaid leave of absence, the employee must make arrangements to pay applicable medical, dental, and
life insurance premiums.
2. Other Employee Benefits
In all cases where an employee is using some form of approved, accrued leave such as annual leave,
compensatory leave, sick leave, or sick bank, all employee benefits continue as long as the employee remains
on the payroll through the use of such leave time. If unpaid leave is taken, employee benefits other than health,
dental and life insurance are discontinued for the duration of the unpaid leave status as follows:
a) The accrual of annual or sick leave is discontinued after ten (10) days of unpaid leave and for the
duration of the unpaid leave status.
b) The Virginia Retirement System (VRS) contribution is based on a percent of the employee’s income.
No contribution is made for periods of unpaid leave. Upon returning to work, the employee may be
June 1, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
eligible to purchase the lost service with VRS, if the leave is necessitated by birth or adoption, as
defined by VRS policies.
G. Returning from FML
1. Medical form
An employee returning from FML due to his own serious health condition must submit a statement on the
required form to Human Resources, from his attending physician, indicating the employee is physically and
mentally capable of returning to work.
2. Restoration to Position
When an eligible employee is released to return to work following FML, he will be restored to the position
held at the time the leave began or to an equivalent position with equivalent benefits, compensation and other
terms and conditions of employment. Any issues regarding equivalency should be reviewed with Human
Resources. In order to be guaranteed restoration, the employee must return to work at or before the end of the
12-week family leave period. If an employee would have been laid off had he not been on FML, any right to
reinstatement would be whatever it would have been had the employee not been on FML.
Certain “key” employees may be denied job restoration. A “key” employee is defined as a salaried FMLA-
eligible employee who is among the highest paid 10 percent of all County employees. A key employee will be
notified as soon as practicable after receipt of a request for FML that he is considered to be a key employee
Employees on unpaid FML are not eligible for any unemployment benefits.
H. Record Keeping and Anti-Retaliation
The Director of Human Resources shall maintain records necessary to demonstrate compliance with the
Act. The Act requires also that no employee be subject to any penalty for seeking rights under the Act or for
testifying for or otherwise helping other employees seek rights under the Act.
I. Adoption of Policy
This Section P-90 of the Personnel Manual was adopted and is intended to fully implement the Act,
subject to the penalties prescribed in the Act.
Any variation between this policy and the Family and Medical Leave Act will be determined in favor of
the Act.
Adopted: September 1, 1993
Legal Ref.: Family and Medical Leave Act – Public Law 103-3, 1993
__________
Item 6.6. Thomas Jefferson HOME Consortium Allocation of FY 2005 Funds.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) annually provides funding
under the HOME Investment Partnership Program to units of state and local government through
formula allocations. While larger jurisdictions individually receive funding under established formulas,
those that do not may form a consortium in order to receive an allocation of HOME funds.
Albemarle County has participated as a member of the Thomas Jefferson HOME Consortium
(six jurisdictions of the Planning District) since 1992 sharing in over $10 million in HOME funds to support
affordable housing initiatives in the region. HUD requires that an Action Plan be developed annually
prior to receipt of HOME funds to provide a summary of current year activities and a proposal on how
funds will be used for the coming year. A detailed annual performance plan is prepared for HUD after
the end of the fiscal year. This report is provided to each jurisdiction represented in the Consortium.
Each locality receives an equal annual appropriation estimated this year at $121,114. In
addition, HUD has established an additional set-aside for the American Dream Downpayment
Assistance Initiative (ADDI) that will bring Albemarle County $6,753 to assist first-time homebuyers.
HOME will also provide $5,652 in administrative funds.
In prior years, the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) has been designated the
subrecipient for the County with the funding allocated for rehabilitation of owner-occupied homes. In 2004-
05, AHIP used approximately $117,000 in HOME funds to rehab seven homes, which AHIP matched with
$160,000 from other sources to complete these jobs. Also in 2004-05, Albemarle County allocated
$50,000 in HOME funds for homebuyer assistance. These funds were included in an administrative
agreement executed with PHA in April 2005 to be administered as part of the County’s Homebuyer
Assistance Program. Although there have been no loans closed using these funds since the agreement
was executed, these funds will be carried over into FY’06, since HUD allows us three years to expend the
funds
For FY06, the proposed allocation of HOME funds to PHA should provide assistance to 12 to 15
first-time homebuyers with incomes below 60 percent of the area median income. Along with Albemarle’s
June 1, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
annual contribution of $250,000 to the Affordable Housing Fund, this $30,000 in HOME funds to PHA will
provide a total of $280,000 to address affordable housing needs with a down payment assistance program
administered by PHA.
Staff recommends designating AHIP and PHA as subrecipients for the administration of HOME
funds with allocations as follows. The rehab allocation is based on past performance by AHIP and
available funding. The homebuyer assistance allocation is based on expected activity and available
matching funds from the County:
AHIP (Rehab of 6 Owner-occupied homes – matching funds approx. $150,000)
Housing Rehab $97,867
Admin $ 4,352
PHA (Downpayment assistance to 8 – 10 families – County match $250,000 leveraging approx. $1.5 million
in mortgages)
Homebuyer Assistance $30,000
Admin $ 1,300
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the following allocations of HOME
funds for fiscal year beginning July 1, 2005:
AHIP (Rehab of 6 Owner-occupied homes – matching funds approx. $150,000)
Housing Rehab $97,867
Admin $ 4,352
PHA (Down payment assistance to 8 – 10 families – County match $250,000 leveraging approx.
$1.5 million in mortgages)
Homebuyer Assistance $30,000
Admin $ 1,300
_________
Item 6.7. Deferral program for real estate taxes.
Virginia Code Section 58.1- 3219, enacted by the General Assembly in 1990, enables localities
to adopt an ordinance to create a real estate tax deferral program for a taxpayer. It allows the deferral of
taxes that exceed 105 percent of the real estate tax on the property owned by the taxpayer in the
previous tax year. Such a program is subject to limitations and requirements set forth in the enabling
legislation. The Board asked staff to research this program and provide information regarding it. To
date, no locality has adopted this type of tax deferral program.
A deferral program may defer a portion of the real estate tax if the amount of tax on a property
exceeds 105 percent of the tax in the previous year. A program may apply to all property or only
property owned and occupied as the sole dwelling of the taxpayer. The enabling authority does not
authorize the deferral program to be based on the value of the property or the wealth of the taxpayer.
The program can require a higher minimum percentage than 105 percent to qualify for a deferral.
Property in the real estate tax relief program for the elderly or disabled or in land use is not eligible for a
deferral program. Taxpayers who are delinquent in the payment of taxes on property for which a
deferral is sought are not eligible for a deferral.
A deferral program must allow taxpayers, at their option, to defer all or any portion of the real
estate tax that exceeds 105 percent (or such greater amount as determined in the ordinance) of the real
estate tax on such property owned by the taxpayer in the previous tax year. The accumulated amount of
taxes deferred and interest must be paid to the locality by the owner upon the sale or transfer of the
property, or from the estate of the decedent within one year after the death of the owner. The interest on
the deferred tax is computed at the rate established pursuant to § 6621 of the Internal Revenue Code or
(effective July 1, 2005) at any lesser rate determined by the locality. The discretion to grant a lower
interest rate is the result of the 2005 General Assembly’s adoption of Senate Bill 1087. The IRS interest
rate is determined quarterly based on the federal short-term interest rate plus three percentage points.
For the quarter beginning April 2005, the interest rate is six percent. However, the interest rate over the
last fifteen years has been as high as 11 percent and as low as four percent. As recently as calendar
year 2000 the rate was nine percent. This is a daily compound interest rate. Because interest rates can
change quarterly and the deferral can be subject to significant interest charges, it would be difficult for a
taxpayer to calculate the effective “savings” of participating in the deferral program. Under the new
legislation that allows a locality to set a lower interest rate, the interest rate difficulties for the taxpayer
may be able to be addressed. However, even a locally-set interest rate would need to be adjusted
periodically to fairly reflect market interest rates, adding another layer of administrative complexity.
Staff has attempted to analyze who could utilize this program. Because the deferred tax
constitutes a lien upon the real estate and a requirement of most mortgages is that taxes must be paid
from an escrow account and be paid in full, properties subject to mortgages may not be able to
participate in a deferral program. This may significantly limit the applicability of the program to a wide
segment of taxpayers.
Although this program has been enabled since 1990, no localities have established a deferral
program. Although the Weldon Cooper Center’s 2004 survey of local tax rates reported that
Chesapeake, Virginia Beach, and Waynesboro are offering a deferral program and that Loudoun County
previously had a deferral program, staff contacts in each of these four jurisdictions indicated that this
June 1, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
information was incorrect and that none of them have or had adopted such a program. The Weldon
Cooper Center’s 2004 survey of local tax rates further reported:
“The cities of Alexandria, Falls Church, and Fairfax and the counties of Fairfax and Henrico
have considered deferral but have not adopted it. Administrative problems appear to be
the major reason deferral has not been adopted. According to Henrico staff, ‘The
administrative procedures for tracing the properties and recovering the relevant taxes upon
either the death of the owner or transfer of the property itself would be both cumbersome
and time consuming and could not be accomplished with existing staffing levels or existing
computer systems.’”
Although the cost of administering a program in Albemarle County has not been fully analyzed,
it is believed that the program would be difficult to implement in a fair and cost effective manner. It could
make revenue projections more difficult and, if widely utilized, require tax rate increases to generate the
same amount of revenue that would be collected without a deferral program.
Although staff appreciates the appeal of a general real estate tax deferral program,
compounded interest rate costs to the taxpayer, conflicts with mortgage requirements, the administrative
burden, and costs to the County appear to outweigh the benefits of a tax deferral program. Staff does
not recommend its adoption locally at this time.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board supported staff’s recommendation to not
adopt the program locally at this time.
__________
Item 6.8. Resolution of Intent to amend Comp Plan and Zoning Ordinance, re: Affordable Housing.
After the adoption (February 2004) of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to include an
Affordable Housing Policy, an Affordable Housing Policy Advisory Committee was formed to make
recommendations for implementation of the policy. The Advisory Committee completed its initial task of
identifying priority strategies and recommendations and presented a report to the Board in December 2004.
The report was also presented on behalf of the Albemarle County Housing Committee. A number of
recommendations were considered feasible to implement as they involved mostly administrative actions
using current available resources. These included data collection and reporting, revising homebuyer
counseling programs, and creating a homebuyer assistance program. Other recommendations required
more inter-departmental staff work to formulate actions for implementation which was completed in April
th
and presented to the Board at a work session in May. At the May 4 work session, the Board instructed
staff to proceed with the process for adopting three recommendations, one as an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance and two as amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.
th
Pursuant to the Board’s direction at the May 4 work session, staff has prepared the attached
Resolution of Intent to Amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance and Resolution of Intent to Amend
Albemarle County’s Comprehensive Plan. Adoption of these resolutions will start the process to:
?
Amend the zoning ordinance to encourage affordable housing by providing revised density bonuses
when affordable housing is proposed;
?
Amend the Comprehensive Plan to establish the basis for calculating the amount/percentage of
affordable units to be proffered based on additional units allowed after the rezoning.
?
Amend the Comprehensive Plan to provide a formula for calculating cash or cash-equivalent
proffers in lieu of proffering the recommended number of affordable dwelling units
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the resolutions. Staff further recommends that the
amendment process begin with a work session with the Planning Commission prior to a public hearing.
Although the usual process includes one or more focus groups to review proposed amendments prior to
the PC’s work session, staff recommends that the work from the Affordable Housing Policy Advisory
Committee be considered in lieu of additional focus group meetings.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board supported staff’s recommendation that the
amendment process begin with a work session with the Planning Commission prior to a public
hearing and that the work from the Affordable Housing Policy Advisory Committee be considered in
lieu of additional focus group meetings. In addition, the Board adopted the following resolutions:
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, there is a shortage of affordable housing in Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS, in order to establish meaningful strategies to address the shortage of affordable housing,
the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan (the “Comprehensive Plan”) recommends that the existing density
bonus program available in the residential zoning districts be examined to determine why the program has not
been significantly used; and
WHEREAS, a County study found that the existing density bonus program has not been significantly
used because few, if any, development proposals seek more residential density than would be allowed by right,
a developer seeking the 30% density bonus under the program would have to provide all of the bonus dwelling
units as affordable housing, and the current regulations do not preserve the affordability of the units; and
June 1, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
WHEREAS, it is desired to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to encourage affordable
housing by providing revised density bonuses when affordable housing is proposed, and to make other changes
that would encourage developers to participate in the density bonus program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience, general
welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of
intent to amend section 2.4, entitled “Intent of the Bonus Factor Provisions,” sections 12.4.3,
June 1, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
13.4.3, 14.4.3, 15.4.3, 16.4.3, 17.4.3 and 18.4.3, each entitled “Low and Moderate Cost Housing,” and any other
regulations of the Zoning Ordinance deemed appropriate to achieve the purposes described herein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the
zoning text amendment proposed by this resolution of intent, and make its recommendation to the Board of
Supervisors, at the earliest possible date.
* * * * *
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, there is a shortage of affordable housing in Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS, setting specific targets for the development of affordable dwelling units is one of the
strategies identified in the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan (the “Comprehensive Plan”) to provide
affordable housing in Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan currently states that, at a minimum, 15% of all dwelling units
developed under a rezoning or a special use permit should be affordable, or a comparable contribution should
be made to achieve the County’s affordable housing goals; and
WHEREAS, it is desired to amend the Comprehensive Plan to establish the basis for calculating the
number of affordable dwelling units to be proffered based on the additional dwelling units allowed after the
rezoning; and
WHEREAS, it is also desired to amend the Comprehensive Plan to establish a formula for calculating
the cash or cash-equivalent proffers for a rezoning in lieu of proffering the recommended number of affordable
dwelling units.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience, general
welfare, good planning and land use practices and, in particular, to achieve Albemarle County’s affordable
housing goals, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend the
Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan as described herein, and to make any other changes to the
Comprehensive Plan deemed to be necessary in order to achieve the purposes described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the
Comprehensive Plan amendment proposed pursuant to this resolution of intent, and make its
recommendations to the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date.
__________
Item No. 6.9. Set public hearing on an ordinance to amend Chapter 10, Offenses-Miscellaneous, of
the Albemarle County Code, to prohibit certain activities on public roadways and medians.
The General Assembly adopted enabling legislation during the 2005 session authorizing Albemarle
County to adopt a local ordinance to prohibit solicitations and other related activities on public roadways and
medians. The enabling authority is effective July 1, 2005. The ordinance, if adopted, would be codified in
the Albemarle County Code.
The draft ordinance provides that it shall be unlawful for any person while standing on any public
roadway or median therein to: (1) distribute handbills, leaflets, bulletins, literature, advertisements or similar
material to the occupants of motor vehicles; (2) solicit contributions of any nature from the occupants of
motor vehicles; or (3) sell or attempt to sell merchandise to the occupants of motor vehicles.
A violation of the ordinance would be punishable as a traffic infraction as required by the state
enabling authority. Enforcement would be the responsibility of the Police Department.
The Police Department is requesting this ordinance for public safety reasons. The Department has
received a growing number of complaints from citizens who have been approached while in their vehicles by
solicitors at various times. Due to the ever-increasing amount of traffic in the County, the number of
complaints and the potential for injury to drivers and their passengers, as well as the solicitors, the Police
Department believes the ability to issue citations and collect fines will help deter this activity.
The Police Department has determined that there would be no significant budget impacts
associated with the adoption of this ordinance.
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors set the attached proposed ordinance for public
hearing on July 6, 2005.
By the recorded vote set out above, the public hearing was set for July 6, 2005.
__________
Item No. 6.10. Copy of letter dated April 26, 2005 from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning
Administration, to Agnes Shiflett, re: Official Determination of Development Rights and Parcels – Tax
Map 56, Parcel 1 and Tax Map 55, Parcel 47 (property of Agnes Shiflett and Chester C. Shiflett) –
Section 10.3.1, was received for information.
__________
June 1, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
Item 6.11. VDOT monthly report for June, 2005, was received as information.
__________
Item 6.12. Copy of draft Planning Commission minutes for April 26 and May 10, 2005, received
for information.
_______________
Item 7. Board to Board Presentation – School Board Chairman.
Mr. Gordon Walker, Chairman of the School Board, reported on recent activities that have occurred
with county schools. He stated that the School Board has approved a strategic plan for the fourth time, a
process that engaged representatives from major stakeholder groups, including students, parents, and
employers. Mr. Walker noted that they worked to ensure their plan was in line with the county’s plan,
adding that a team of 23 school, community, and business leaders created the new strategic plan. He said
the team used statistical data and information gleaned from focus group sessions to develop the goals and
strategies contained in the plan.
Mr. Walker stated that the five key goals within the plan for the next four years are: prepare all
students to succeed as members of a global community and in a global economy; eliminate the
achievement gap; recruit, retain, and develop a diverse cadre of highest quality teaching personnel, staff,
and administrators; achieve recognition as a world class educational system; and establish efficient systems
for the development, allocation, and realignment of resources to support the division, mission and goals.
He added that the school division is currently forming a steering committee for the plan to concentrate on
implementation and outcome review. Mr. Walker added that a copy of the division mission and goals of the
strategic plan are included in policy A-E.
Mr. Walker said that redistricting has been split up into two phases: the School Board approved on
April 14, 2005, the transfer of students from the Camelot subdivision from Hollymead to Baker Butler
Elementary, affecting 44 students; assigning students at Old Trail and Foothill Crossing subdivisions to
Brownsville rather than Crozet Elementary; transferring 25 students from Milton Road, Auburn Hills, and
th
Milton Hills subdivision from Walton to Burley; and allow all incoming 5 grade students to complete that
th
year at their current school, as well as 8 graders. Mr. Walker reported that phase two is the 14-member
redistricting committee, which reconvened in April to begin developing recommendations for the September
th
2006 school year and beyond. He noted that on May 10 the committee approved a plan for public review
and comment, and there were several public meetings to present that information, and a public hearing last
night. Mr. Walker indicated that comments will be taken from those meetings and a plan will be developed
for the superintendent, who will in turn provide a redistricting plan to the School Board on July 14, 2005. He
added that the plan should be adjudicated in Fall 2005.
Administrative Changes – Mr. Walker stated that Karen Marcus will become the principal at Crozet
Elementary School, and Michelle DelGallo will move to Agnor Hurt Elementary, replacing Linda Ferguson
who has resigned. He reported that Art Stowe will become principal of Red Hill, and Lavelle Brown will
become principal at Woodbrook Elementary, coming from Henrico County and formerly Vice-Principal of
Walker Elementary in Charlottesville. Mr. Walker said that Allison Dwyer-Seldon will become Assistant
Principal at Walton, replacing Jeff Crawford who is relocating. He added that Shannon Smith will become
Assistant Principal at Sutherland, coming from Richmond and replacing Jessie Turner who is moving to
Albemarle High School as Assistant Principal replacing Steve Wright who is retiring. Mr. Walker noted that
Timothy Driver will become an Assistant Principal at Albemarle High, currently Assistant Principal at Nelson
County Middle School and replacing Chris Dyer who is Director of Community Engagement.
Mr. Walker noted that salary adjustments have helped recruitment efforts.
In the Central Office, Charmaine White will become Deputy Director of Transportation – currently
Transportation Supervisor for Fluvanna County. He said that the School Board received a report last week
on a new teacher performance appraisal process that will be implemented, and over the last few years a
committee of teachers, administrators, and human resource representatives worked to revise the current
appraisal process. He reported that meetings with all teachers and their principals will have occurred to
provide a level of awareness prior to this September, when all teachers will begin being evaluated under the
revised system. Mr. Walker said that the new system is grounded in three core beliefs about teaching and
learning: teachers have a profound affect on student achievement; professional growth is essential to
developing and maintaining both content knowledge and pedagogical skills, and professional relationships
enhance continuous improvement and professional growth.
Mr. Walker concluded by inviting Board members to high school graduations, and read a statement
from Mr. Rooker giving their best wishes to graduates and their parents.
Mr. Dorrier asked about plans with the sister school in El Salvador.
Mr. Walker replied that he is unsure, but would report back to the Board at another time.
Mr. Boyd asked about the testing of teachers.
Dr. Castner stated that this “practice” test might help the county give more flexibility than the current
testing methods by providing alternative evaluation in subject areas that are not related to a teacher’s field
of study.
_______________
June 1, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
Agenda Item No. 8a. Update on status of Rural Rustic Roads projects.
th
Mr. Jim Utterback addressed the Board, noting that Allen Road paving was completed May 13 as
mentioned earlier in the meeting. He reminded Board members that there are two projects in Albemarle
County taking place with state forces over the summer, including Gilbert Station Road, which will probably
start in the next week. Mr. Utterback mentioned that the Allen Road project cost about $75,000 versus the
original cost estimate of $130,000.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Heards Mountain Road would be next.
Mr. Utterback replied that he has asked staff to contact the residency in Nelson to see where the
project stands in their schedule as the road traverses both counties.
Mr. Wyant commented that he road around with Mr. Utterback one day, and the surface treatment
done on some roads is some of the best work he has seen done in all his years working with VDOT. He
added that the Allen Road paving is excellent.
Mr. Boyd pointed out that Gilbert Station is intended to be paved under the Rural Rustic Road
program up to Doctors Crossing Road, and another four-tenths of a mile would take it up to Ash Leigh.
Mr. Utterback said that he is looking into that possibility, and they want to make sure they meet
financial and code limitations under the program.
Mr. Boyd asked if there was additional money available because some of the projects are a year
behind.
Mr. Utterback suggested that the Board see how the first two projects go over the summer, and
then look at how much money is available to readdress projects in the six-year plan, then go through the
environmental process over the winter so the program can begin again in the spring.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8b. Update on Route 795 (Blenheim Road) Improvements.
Mr. Utterback reported that VDOT has an inspector on Route 795, and there have not been
significant improvements, and his understanding is that Mr. Sullivan intends to complete the part of the
permit project.
Mr. Wyant asked what his permit allows him to do. Mr. Utterback responded that the paving
permitted area goes from the Scottsville side of the bridge right up to Mr. Sullivan’s property line.
Mr. Dorrier said that there is an area of road where his neighbors are located that will remain rustic.
Ms. Thomas noted that Mr. Sullivan is requesting that he be allowed to pave that portion.
Mr. Tucker confirmed this, adding that VDOT indicated a resolution would have to be approved by
the county.
Mr. Utterback said that this piece of road is not a priority for VDOT.
Mr. Graham stated that from the county’s perspective, staff was informed that Mr. Sullivan wanted
to pave the last 200 yards, and staff would like to know if they should bring back a resolution for next week’s
meeting to pave the additional 200 yards.
Mr. Boyd suggested hearing from residents next week, as no one seems to want to do it.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that a resolution would include a requirement for agreements with
adjacent owners for any work that has to take place out of the prescriptive easement along that section. It
doesn’t sound like it is going to happen.
Mr. Dorrier commented that the rustic part of the road has a “rainforest” feel to it. Ms. Thomas
responded that is what the whole road used to be like.
Mr. Wyant emphasized that there are many roads that do not get approved because of lack of
right-of-way.
At this time the Board consensus was to leave the situation as it is, with careful monitoring but no
resolution brought back to them.
Mr. Wyant asked Mr. Utterback to make sure the Board and VDOT know their roles and do their
parts in enforcing the proper regulations on the road sections.
_______________
June 1, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
Agenda Item No. 8c. Transportation Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Utterback reported that the Route 743/606 intersection study recommended a temporary signal
be installed, but it needs FAA approval before any construction can be done as it lies in the flight path. He
emphasized that the light would be temporary.
Mr. Tucker said that the Airport Authority is looking at the possibility of a roundabout in place of a
permanent traffic signal where Dickerson comes into Earlysville Road.
Mr. Bowerman said that the last time this issue came up, a light was not required, and asked why it
is now.
Mr. Utterback replied that police, residents, etc., had noted the possible need, but he needs to find
out more about why a signal is being requested now.
Mr. Bowerman noted that a signal there might just increase traffic on Route 743, adding that it is
costly to get a temporary signal.
Mr. Utterback responded that it would not require a structure, which tends to be the most costly
part, and some costs would be recovered.
__________
Mr. Utterback reported that there is a movement to federalize the maintenance program, and a
number of bridges have been identified across the state that would be eligible for Federal Highway Bridge
Rehabilitation Replacement program dollars. He reported that there are three bridges that have been
identified in Albemarle - Route 743 (Advance Mills), Route 708 (Dry Bridge), and Route 649 (Proffit Road).
Mr. Utterback said that these would be plugged into the 2010 year.
Ms. Thomas said that fire trucks cannot currently use the bridge on Proffit Road because it does
not support that size vehicle, adding that the community is a designated historic district.
Mr. Boyd suggested that plans for bridge improvements there should be taken off the table right
away.
Mr. Utterback responded that it should be dealt with through the six-year plan process, as there is
liability associated with insufficient bridges. He emphasized that is possible the bridge might have to be
closed, noting that railroad bridges become VDOT bridges once they are replaced. Currently VDOT’s
hands are tied; just getting the railroad to come in and make emergency repairs tends to be a struggle in
itself.”
__________
He mentioned the maintenance work completed portion of his report – a guard rail, slope repairs
on Route 250, mowing operations, tree trimming at the Meadows and elsewhere, and seeding of
embankments along Route 250.
__________
Mr. Utterback reported that the dangerous curves sign request for Buck Mountain Road was
reviewed by traffic engineering and they have recommend a change in the sign scheme as well as a
dashed edge line.
__________
He added that VDOT completed the review on the Old Trail Bridge, and they are trying to schedule
it next week for the Mosby Mountain Bridge.
Mr. Wyant asked about possible overspending.
Mr. Utterback responded that the maintenance budget is district and statewide, and other
residencies have not spent close to their budgeted amounts, so the Charlottesville district has the “green
light” to spend over to address issues.
__________
Mr. Wyant noted that a sewer line had been put in on McCauley Street, a private road, and it is not
functioning well, which he has mentioned to the service authority.
Mr. Utterback said he would follow up. He also reported that there is some uncertainty as to
whether the sign has been moved on Via Lane, and staff is looking into the matter.
__________
Ms. Thomas reported that her “rideabout” with Mr. Utterback was really valuable, and on her trip
she talked about Tillman Road intersection with Route 250. She said that the Glenaire Neighborhood
Association has tentatively accepted the watering job, adding that people do not feel that the blinking light
and the larger yellow signs have made their lives much safer, as it is still difficult to get on Route 250 from
Tillman in either direction.
Mr. Utterback agreed to follow up with traffic engineers on that matter.
__________
June 1, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
Mr. Dorrier thanked him for the ride around the Scottsville District.
__________
Mr. Boyd said that he has been requested by a Board member at the Senior Center to place a
directional sign for that facility on Route 29 and Greenbrier Drive. The Senior Center Board have offered to
pay for the sign.
Mr. Utterback responded that he would update him soon, after following up with the ARB.
__________
Mr. Wyant stated that he really appreciates the timely responses of the residence staff.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Overview of Sheriff’s Department, Sheriff Robb.
Sheriff Ed Robb addressed the Board, emphasizing that the ordinance states the County Sheriff
shares law enforcement responsibilities with county police, which was agreed upon by the Board in 1983 to
provide more efficient police services. He believes that the county deputies should be used to complement
the police department, as they have the same training. However, manpower shortages and increased calls
for services in traditional law enforcement agencies is always behind and trying to catch up, and reacting to
crimes rather then preventing them. He added that the Sheriff’s office is regularly complementing the
services of local, federal, and state enforcers, and he has a great relationship with Chief John Miller.
Sheriff Robb continued, stating that his office provides mandated courthouse and courtroom
security, transporting of prisoners, mental patients, and services over 35,000 civil processes a year. He
thanked the Board for their financial support, noting that unlike the other constitutional officers in the county,
the Sheriff’s role was redefined in 1983, and no other officer is sharing the same powers and responsibilities
with the Commonwealth’s Attorney or Clerk of Court. He reported that in 1999, he sought the office of
sheriff because he saw the opportunity to create a “law enforcement agency of the future.” Sheriff Robb
said that he envisioned using volunteers, but in order to do so needed to get 18 deputies on track first. He
stated that with the Board’s financial support, they were able to create a completely modern day operation
and procedure manual with a CD.
He emphasized that the Albemarle County Sheriff’s Office became one of only 36 law enforcement
agencies in the state to be accredited by meeting 218 standards and said, the Albemarle County Sheriff’s
Office is in great shape. He distributed a brochure about his “Crime Prevention Through Education” 501 (c)
3 foundation formed in 2002 that supports a Crime Prevention Academy. Sheriff Robb explained that the
academy goes into the community and provides crime prevention training and services to the community so
that members are better able to protect themselves and defend themselves from being victims of crimes.
He said that his safety and security division is made up of 50 to 70 fully trained volunteer deputies who
provide service to the community on an as needed basis. Sheriff Robb reported that the Project Lifesaver
program puts transmitting devices on people with diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Autism, Down’s Syndrome,
etc. so that they can be tracked when wandering, done in cooperation with other law enforcement agencies.
He added that his office also implements a regular search and rescue program that employs over 50
volunteers with ATVs, horses, dogs, etc. to find missing people. Sheriff Robb added that the pipe and
drum band has also been incredibly popular. Sheriff Robb said that they have 14 defibrillators which they
keep in case of citizens who might experience cardiac arrest. He concluded that his office is ready, willing
and able to serve the community. Sheriff Robb said that 9/11 changed the responsibilities of his office,
noting that they have to handle transportation to and from shelters in the event of manmade and natural
disasters. He noted that his office is prepared to handle terrorist attacks in conjunction with the city police
department. Sheriff Robb thanked the Board for their support and invited them to come visit the office any
time.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the 70 volunteers were the Sheriff’s “auxiliary.” Sheriff Robb replied that he
refers to them as “reserves,” made up of search and rescue people and trained, sworn deputy. He said that
about 10 of them are certified police officers.
Mr. Boyd thanked Sheriff Robb for what he and his staff do for the community.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Update by PEC, Rex Linville.
Mr. Linville presented a PowerPoint presentation to the Board to update them on the Covesville
Rural Historic District, Land Conservation successes in Albemarle County in 2004, and legislative issues
related to conservation. Mr. Linville thanked the Board for passing a resolution of support in March for the
nomination of the Covesville district, and showed the district boundary noting that the state review board
th
approved it March 16; the National Register approval is anticipated within the next few weeks. He reported
that the district is over 1,300 acres with over 100 different contributing structures and focuses on the history
of the apple industry in the area. Mr. Linville said that they are proposing a highway marker along Route 29,
and Covesville residents are being asked to give input as to what they’d like on the sign and where it should
be placed; those suggestions will be submitted to the Virginia Department of Historic Resources in mid-
June. He noted that PEC would cover the cost of this sign at approximately $1,300.
June 1, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
Mr. Linville reported that 2004 was the most successful land conservation year in Albemarle County
history, with just over 6,700 acres of land going into permanent conservation easements – held by the
county, the Virginia Outdoors Foundation, or by the Nature Conservancy. He noted that the total county
acreage under easement is approximately 49,000, or 11 percent of county land. Mr. Linville pointed out
that the easements protect agricultural land, agricultural/forestal land, timberland available for those uses,
land and within the Rivanna Watershed and along the Moorman’s River. He added that Monticello and
Plain Dealing had easements go on those properties this year, protecting both natural and historic
resources. Mr. Linville noted that significant scenic views from county roads and byways, streams and
rivers, and from Shenandoah National Park into Albemarle have also been protected by the easements,
benefiting visitors as well as local residents.
Mr. Linville explained that there are state and federal initiatives that could impact this conservation
easement increase. He pointed out a article regarding a series of transactions the Nature
Washington Post
Conservancy had done in other parts of the country that resulted in Senate Finance Committee
investigations, which in turn resulted in closer scrutiny of conservation transactions in general. Mr. Linville
mentioned that there are recommendations from the Joint Committee on Taxation to change tax benefits
for donated conservation easements at the federal level, noting that there is concern over how to value
easements. He stated that this plan would severely cut the deductibility of easements from 100 percent to
one-third of adjusted gross income and would completely eliminate the deductibility of easements where
landowners reserved the right to maintain a residence on the property. These are some pretty Draconian
proposals that have come out of this [committee], and the land trust community has been fighting these
proposals and hopefully we’re going to see a win there. He noted that there would be hearings in June to
review these issues, and it is likely that there will be changes, adding that he is hopeful lobbying by PEC and
others will result in more proactive reforms. Mr. Linville added that Virginia has the best state incentive for
preserving private property with a conservation easement – in the form of a state tax credit, and no other
state has a tax credit that touches the quality and benefit given to a private donor for donating an easement
as Virginia does. He noted that legislation was introduced in 2004-05 that would have put a cap on the
state tax credit and reduce the benefit to private donors, but it was defeated at the state level and there
were reforms instituted to ensure appraisals and deductions and credits people were taking were more in
line with reality.
Mr. Linville reported that a commission that contains members from both the house and senate has
been created to study proposals for the state tax credit, and they have a meeting scheduled for June 21,
2005. He hopes they will adopt reforms that would increase the penalties or restrictions for over-valuation
of easement donations, adding that the Department of Taxation has audited and revalued some easement
donations across the state. Mr. Linville said that the credit requests for the state Department of Taxation in
2004 total over $100 million.
He explained that VOF holds 90-95 percent of easements across the state and they have protected
as many acres in the last five years as they have in their 35+ year existence, because of the state tax credit
issued in 2000 and made transferable in 2002. That has been a very powerful tool for land conservation in
the state. In response to Mr. Dorrier’s question, Mr. Linville replied that PEC has numerous materials such
as brochures, etc., to help educate people on the easement program.
Mr. Linville said that he has discussed with ACE Program Administrator Ches Goodall tax code
section 170-H, and the statement by the IRS Commissioner Mark Eberson last summer said that promoters
of easements, holders of conservation easements, and donors of conservation easements will be held to
high standards of ethics in transactions and resulting tax benefits. He agreed to speak with Mr. Wyant
about Crozet and Greenwood as Historic Districts.
_______________
(Note: At 10:45 a.m., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 10:58 a.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No.11a. Emergency Medical Services to the Southern Rural Area.
Mr. Foley commented that Board members had wanted further information on several items from
budget discussions. At today’s meeting four of those items would be discussed.
Mr. Dan Eggleston, Director of Fire and Rescue, summarized the following executive summary
which forwarded to the Board members. During the FY05/06 budget work sessions, the Board considered
a budget request from Scottsville Volunteer Rescue Squad for 5 additional Fire Fighter/Advanced Life
Support (FF/ALS) personnel in order to provide 24/7 coverage out of the Scottsville Volunteer Rescue
Squad building. As an alternative to the 5 additional FF/ALS staff for Scottsville Rescue, Fire/Rescue staff
presented a proposal for 3 FF/ALS personnel to provide 24/7 advanced life support (ALS) response
services out of the Monticello Fire/Rescue station. Staff demonstrated that the new personnel placed at
Monticello Fire Rescue station would meet the service needs in the southern rural area of the County.
The Board approved three additional FF/ALS positions, but chose to defer the decision on the
placement of personnel at either Scottsville Rescue station or Monticello Fire Rescue station.
Based on actual response data, Fire Rescue staff believes that the combined efforts of the three
additional personnel placed at the Monticello station, the existing two FF/ALS daytime career staff at
Scottsville Volunteer Rescue, and the existing Scottsville Rescue evening and weekend volunteer staff
would provide an appropriate level of emergency medical services to the southern rural area of the County.
June 1, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
An analysis of the Scottsville Volunteer Rescue response time data (evening and weekends) shows
an average of 28:45 minutes between the dispatch of a medical emergency call and the time the
ambulance marks en-route to the hospital from the scene. Furthermore, the average response time from
the Monticello station to the southern area of the County is 16:36. Therefore, the data shows that in the
event a call is dispatched and both units leave their respective stations at the same time, the unit from
Monticello will, on average, meet the Scottsville ambulance on scene and be able to provide ALS care en-
route to the hospital.
In addition to addressing the southern rural area EMS needs, there are additional advantages to
placing the FF/ALS first response personnel at the Monticello station rather than at the Scottsville Volunteer
Rescue station:
1. The personnel stationed at the Monticello station would be available if needed in the southern
urban planned development area (PDA) as well as the entire County.
2. The resources are placed in a more central location and thus benefit a larger portion of County
citizen’s verses placing resources in the lower portion of the County near the Fluvanna and
Buckingham County lines.
3. The decision to place the resources in the PDA (i.e. - Monticello station) is in line with the
Community Facilities section of the Comprehensive plan.
In order for the quick response vehicle at the Monticello station to be effective, a change to the
existing EMS response policy is also required. The current EMS dispatch policy states that a rescue squad
is given four minutes from time of dispatch to respond to high priority calls and 6 minutes to respond to mid
and lower priority calls. If the squad is unable to respond within the time defined, the next closest response
agency is dispatched.
Fire Rescue staff proposes a change in the dispatch policy above. The proposed policy would
eliminate the wait time based on the actual staffing of the Scottsville Volunteer Rescue building and would
immediately send the first response ALS staff from Monticello, if needed. The proposed policy would
require that Scottsville Volunteer Rescue notify the Emergency Communication Center (ECC) of their daily
staffing so that the dispatch algorithm could be setup to dispatch the appropriate level of resources. Based
on the staffing report, ECC would eliminate the wait time and send the appropriate level of care based on
the following criteria:
1) An EMS call is received for Scottsville Volunteer Rescue and the building is not staffed.
2) An advanced level call is received for Scottsville Volunteer Rescue, the building is staffed,
but the squad does not have ALS personnel available as noted on the staffing report
The policy above will better ensure that assistance is immediately sent to a call and ALS services
are sent to high priority calls.
Staff recommends that the Board approve placing the three additional fire fighter/ALS first
response personnel at Monticello Fire/Rescue station and approve the change in the dispatch protocol.
Ms. Thomas asked what emergency vehicle would be sent out from Monticello station. Mr.
Eggleston responded that it would be a vehicle with a car or truck with one person on it, with advanced life
support equipment on board, and they would “rendezvous” with the ambulance on the scene and treat the
patient en route to the hospital.
Mr. Dorrier said that he is concerned about the 30 percent calls from Buckingham and Fluvanna.
Mr. Eggleston responded that if the personnel were placed in Scottsville it is likely they would get more calls
from these localities, adding that they have met with Fluvanna fire and rescue officials to discuss the issue.
Mr. Dorrier asked if most calls from Buckingham and Fluvanna are being serviced by Albemarle.
Mr. Eggleston responded that the southwestern part of Fluvanna is being served by Scottsville, and he is
not sure about Buckingham. He added that Fluvanna has agreed that they would like to either reduce the
number of calls involving Albemarle, or help with staffing/funding.
Mr. Bowerman asked if they had discussed the situation with Buckingham. Mr. Dorrier said that he
and Mr. Foley had tried to meet with the Buckingham Board of Supervisors, but that was never finalized.
Mr. Eggleston confirmed that Buckingham just has individual volunteer fire departments, not a
major organization. He added that the Fluvanna matter was deferred down to the fire and rescue
department, and said that regardless of staff placement he would continue to meet with both localities.
Mr. Dorrier commented that he liked the idea of integrating the squads in the area into a more
unified whole that works.
Motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier to approve placing the three additional fire fighter/ALS first
response personnel at Monticello Fire/Rescue station and to change the dispatch protocol policy. The
motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Rooker.
June 1, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
Ms. Thomas commented that she appreciates what staff is doing to help people in the Ivy area,
who find that they are just beyond five miles from the Charlottesville area and insurers have raised rates
“through the roof.”
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11b. Outstanding Budget Issues.
Mr. Foley summarized the following executive summary which was forwarded to Board members.
During the budget development process for FY 05/06, the following items were identified for further
research:
?
Funding for Save the Fireworks
?
East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Department Loan Repayment
?
Public Safety Compensation Study
?
Sheriff’s Department Staff
?
Stony Point Volunteer Fire Department Building Improvements
?
Fire Inspector Position
?
Retiree Health Insurance
The first three items on the above list will be addressed in this executive summary. The last four
items will be presented to the Board in a July executive summary.
Funding for Save the Fireworks
In March 2005, the County received a request to provide funding of $10,000 to the Save the
Fireworks organization. This issue was discussed during the budget development process at which time
the Board indicated it would consider some contribution, but requested additional information on the City’s
funding.
The City of Charlottesville does not make a cash contribution to this organization, but estimates an
in-kind contribution of $10,500 for services provided by their Police, Parks and Recreation and Transit
Departments. We understand that the organization has discussed some cash contribution with the City, but
we have not received any indication of the City’s decision on this. The organization requested this to be an
ongoing annual commitment by the County.
East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Department Loan Repayment
In FY 04/05, the Board approved an appropriation of $41,930 to the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire
Department (VFD) for forgiveness of a loan used to purchase a piece of apparatus for the VFD. The
amount of $41,930 represented approximately one-half of the outstanding balance owed on this piece of
apparatus. In FY 05/06, the East Rivanna VFD has requested the Board appropriate additional funds to pay
off the remaining one-half of this loan, which is $41,930. This is the only remaining debt of any volunteer
agency in the County due to the Board’s policy to forgive the loans associated with the purchase of
apparatus for volunteer fire and rescue squads.
Public Safety Reclassification
The Board approved implementation of the pay study for our public safety providers effective
January 1, 2006 through adoption of the budget for the coming fiscal year. This approval will implement
pay changes that ensure that our public safety staffs in the Police Department, Fire Rescue Department
and Emergency Communications Center are paid in line with the market and that there is appropriate equity
between the agencies. Police Officers, in particular, have fallen behind the market and this fact has been a
concern regarding recruitment efforts. Implementation of the study will greatly improve both our
competitiveness and our internal equity.
As the study has shown, the pay for a number of positions is currently behind the market. Staff
would like to propose that the Board approve the use of one-time projected year end savings from FY05 to
implement the pay study effective July 1, 2005 rather than waiting until January 1, 2006. Because of the
difficulty the public safety departments have had in filling vacancies, enough funding is currently available
from projected year end savings in those departments to fund the additional six months of expense.
Because this change had already been planned beginning in January, the increased cost would only be a
one-time expense. Staff feels that this change in timing is appropriate given the final results of the study
and would also be a significant benefit to both our recruitment efforts and the morale of our employees.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Funding for Save the Fireworks
The Board will need to decide if this will become an ongoing or a one-time contribution and the
amount of that funding. Funding can be provided from the Board reserve or from year-end fund
balance.
East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Department Loan Repayment
One-time funding in the amount of $41,930 will be needed for the loan repayment. Funding
can be provided from the Board reserve or from year-end fund balance.
Public Safety Reclassification
Due to vacancies in the public safety departments over the past year, staff anticipates a year
end savings of approximately $270,000. The one-time cost to implement the results of the pay study in
July rather than January is estimated at $220,000. The budget impact of changes in pay for the
June 1, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
Emergency Communication Center is estimated at approximately $7,000 and will be covered through
regional funding currently available. Therefore, no additional funding will be needed for the ECC.
?
Funding for Save the Fireworks:
County Executive staff has no recommendation regarding funding for Save the Fireworks at this
time.
?
East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Department Loan Repayment:
Staff recommends the Board approve funding to the East Rivanna VFD to pay the balance of the
loan for apparatus based on previous Board policy.
?
Public Safety Reclassification:
Staff recommends funding for early implementation of the public safety salary study effective July
1, 2005.
The necessary budget amendment and appropriation request will be submitted to the Board in
July, 2005.
__________
Mr. Tucker introduced Dave Phillips, head of CAAR and Save the Fireworks.
Mr. Phillips reported that there are no plans to move the fireworks out of McIntire Park, as that
location works very well.
Mr. Dorrier said that there are different places in the county that would be possible locations also.
Mr. Phillips responded that the infrastructure is best at McIntire, as 20,000 people normally attend.
Mr. Dorrier agreed that the Board should support the fireworks.
Mr. Wyant asked about the city contributing cash as well as in-kind.
Mr. Foley replied that SAVE asked both the county and the city for funds, but the city did not
respond to that request.
Ms. Thomas said that the county used to use the lodging tax for items that were tourism related and
those decisions were made by the Board. She asked if there might be unallocated money in the lodging tax
fund available.
Mr. Tucker replied that the budget for the tourism bureau has already been set for this year, but in
the future some of those funds could be used.
Mr. Tucker noted that Mr. Phillips had requested $10,000 but the county had set aside $5,000. He
added that the additional $5,000 could still be taken from the Board reserve.
Mr. Boyd said that he would like to support the request, but not as a permanent funding item yet.
Mr. Dorrier asked about the Save the Fireworks committee.
Mr. Phillips replied that it is a 100 percent volunteer committee, except for city transportation, police,
fire, etc. He said that there are children’s events and bands that are donated, but the fireworks cost
$15,000. Mr. Phillips noted that there is a lot of support from the community for the fireworks, and there is
an online auction fundraiser used to garner support also.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Jaycees were still involved.
Mr. Phillips replied that the Jaycees dropped out of it five years ago, and the Downtown Foundation
could not make it a go either. He said that the fundraising takes a great deal of effort.
Mr. Wyant said that he would be in favor of supporting the effort.
Ms. Thomas asked where the additional $5,000 would come from. Mr. Tucker responded that it
would come from Board reserves.
Mr. Davis said that the appropriate motion would be to approve the funding and request that staff
bring back an appropriation, to be prepared by Mr. Breeden for the next meeting.
Motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier to approve a one time funding allocation of $10,000 to Save the
Fireworks organization for FY 05/06. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Rooker.
__________
June 1, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
Motion was offered by Mr. Boyd to forgive the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Department loan debt.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Wyant. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Rooker.
__________
Mr. Foley reported that there are about eight positions currently unfilled, with possibly five of them
being filled. He mentioned that recruitment of police officers has been difficult throughout the country, and
the salary increases would help fill positions and provide a morale boost.
Mr. Boyd referenced Mr. Foley’s comment that he has “an excellent recruitment class right now,”
and asked him if he thinks it’s based on the upcoming January salary increases.
Mr. Foley replied that he thinks the recruitment strategies have been improved, including more
college recruitment. He added that a lot of applicants get weeded out before they make it to the end of the
process.
Ms. Thomas asked if it would be fair to double the figure and say that the increase would be
$440,000 for next year.
Mr. Foley responded that that is accurate to cover salary and benefits, as the initial approval was for
$220,000. He explained that the initial approval was $170,000 but his office was able to use some salary
lapse to meet the total amount.
Mr. Foley noted that they would have seen the other half come in next year’s budget process, and
this is just a one-time thing to bring salaries up sooner.
Mr. Wyant asked what the fire, rescue and police department impacts were individually.
Mr. Foley replied that the total in fire and rescue is $70,000 and the remainder of the $220,000 is
the police department.
Motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier to implement the Public Safety Reclassification study July 1,
2005. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Rooker.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Strategic Plan Quarterly Progress Report.
Ms. Lori Allshouse, Strategic Planning Coordinator, summarized the following executive summary
forwarded to Board members. 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. (Attachment A) A new strategic plan will be
established for FY 06/07 – FY 10/11.
January – March 05 Progress:
Following are highlights of strategic plan progress during the January – March 05 time period:
1. Transportation: The Transportation Funding Options Work Group, appointed by the MPO
Policy Board, has been meeting over the past several months and has identified priority projects.
During the recently completed budget process, the Board recognized transportation funding will
be needed at both the local and regional level and increased the funding in the CIP to address
transportation projects by $1.5 million. Additional details are included in Attachment B.
2. Water Supply: The current focus for the County of Albemarle, after several different
meetings, has been to coordinate a joint strategy with the City of Charlottesville, the Albemarle
County Service Authority and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority by developing common
water supply alternatives/plan for submittal in a Pre-Application Proposal for review and
consideration by Federal and State Regulators.
3. Affordable Housing: Albemarle County introduced a new Homebuyer Assistance Program to
promote first-time homeownership opportunities for low- to moderate-income families who meet
program eligibility requirements. The program will be administered in partnership with the
June 1, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
Piedmont Housing Alliance. Program details are available on the Albemarle County website.
Per the Board’s instruction, the Housing Division will move forward with three additional
recommendations which will include amendments to zoning ordinances and the comprehensive
plan. Additional details regarding this are provided to the Board in a separate June 1 report.
4. Strategic Plan Outcome Management System:The County’s leadership will begin managing
the strategic plan with an outcome-oriented management system. While the Leadership
Council will still monitor the progress related to the County’s on-going activities, staff will also
monitor outcome measures that will inform them whether these activities are achieving the
results outlined in the strategic plan, and whether adjustments need to be made. This outcome
measurement system will be in place for the last year of the current strategic plan and will be
utilized in the next strategic planning cycle. Attachment C includes outcome measures that
have been identified for 8 of the County’s strategic goals.
5. Progress on specific Strategic Plan Objectives: A report providing additional details outlining
staff’s efforts to achieve specific objectives by stated timelines is attached. As of March 05, 7
objectives have been completed. Attachment B provides details for the remaining objectives that
are currently underway.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Eleven strategic initiatives were approved in the FY 05/06 operating budget at $1.8 million. $1.5 million in
CIP. These initiatives include:
Safe and Healthy Community
Sheriff Deputy & Office Associate
3 Police Officers
Police Civilian Patrol Support Assistant
2 Captains and 1 Firefighter ALS for EMS Response in the Southern Rural Area
Quality of Life
Increased local funding for Family Support
increased funding for Tax Relief for the Elderly and Disabled
Trail Development Maintenance & Supplies
Protect and Preserve Natural Resources
Stormwater Management Program
Efficient and Effective Government
Director of General Services
Retiree Health Insurance
Custodians for COB-South
Transportation
Additional $1.5 million in CIP funding
Staff recommends the Board review this quarterly strategic plan progress report and continue to
provide direction for the County’s Strategic Plan.
Mr. Boyd asked what the total amount is allocated for transportation funds. Mr. Tucker replied that
the total is $1.5 million.
Mr. Foley noted that there was already $500,000 in revenue-sharing, so that makes the total $2
million, and there are some other monies that might be used for transportation. He reminded the Board
that their commitment was to $1 million in revenue-sharing dollars that would bring down another million
from the state.
Ms. Allshouse reported that they are meeting the timelines set out by the Strategic Plan, and are on
target to complete the five objectives scheduled by June 2005, and one scheduled for December 2005.
She said that they are preparing recommendations from the community lifelong learning team on next
steps for the county in July, and the regional transportation working group will make recommendations to
the MPO policy board in July. Ms. Allshouse stated that the strategic plan group would like to have further
discussions with the Board on several topics in a work session or at the Board’s retreat – resolution of
growth and urbanization infrastructure questions; addressing transportation in the urban areas and
determine use of CIP transportation funds.
Ms. Allshouse said that the Leadership Council is launching an outcome-based performance
management system, which indicates whether things are being done in the right way, and focuses on
results while assisting in managing strategies and guide resource allocation as well as improving quality and
efficiency in meeting goals. She emphasized that the new system focuses on results rather than process,
and local governments, state and federal governments are moving in that direction for planning and
operations.
Ms. Allshouse explained that the county’s outcome-based measurement system starts with 19
measures for eight goals, and they have developed their baseline data for most of those. She reported that
most of the outcome measures are annual or bi-annual, and the bi-annual citizen survey is being used for
seven of them. Ms. Allshouse said that the Leadership Council will be reviewing and discussing data along
June 1, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
the way, every quarter based on either proxy or annual end-of-year data. She mentioned that she would
present to the Board an outcome-based performance report that will be more data focused at or before the
retreat each year.
She continued with her presentation explaining upcoming summer initiatives, including updated
data and a year-end performance report focusing on outcomes, summaries of citizen input information
from the Community Development Department, and analysis of citizen survey data. Ms. Allshouse said that
they would also be speaking with employees on the leadership council to see if they see changes in how
they do their jobs. She concluded that the strategic plan progress is on target and they plan to have future
discussions with the Board on the growth & urbanization and transportation issues. She added that the
outcome-based performance system is well underway.
Mr. Dorrier asked if they were essentially starting with a “blank slate.” Ms. Allshouse replied that it
is really a new way of looking at data, as a continuous process.
Ms. Thomas commented that she is pleased they are moving to outcome-based measures, as the
county requires agencies to do so.
Mr. Wyant mentioned that they may want to consider examples in outlying county areas, such as
Crozet, not just what takes place in the county building.
Ms. Thomas said that the Commission on Children and Families came up with a list of community
needs – both met and unmet – and that study should be considered in the strategic planning process. She
added that JABA’s 2020 plan helped identify needs for the aging population.
Ms. Allshouse responded that the group does a “gap analysis,” and works in that information.
Mr. Boyd said that he would like for the group to use “cross-tabs,” breaking categories down into
demographic and socioeconomic criteria. He emphasized that he would like to see the relationship
between activities and results.
Ms. Allshouse replied that it is difficult to do, but the performance based outcome analysis moves
them closer to being able to evaluate results.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Discussion: Community Development Update and Process Improvement.
Mr. Graham said the purpose of this report is to update the Board on completion of the transition to
the Community Development Department and to seek direction on development review process
improvement strategies. He then summarized the following executive summary that was forwarded to
Board members.
In June of 2003, staff presented a proposal to the Board for the consolidation of the three
development departments (Building Inspection and Zoning Services, the engineering staff of Engineering
and Public Works, and Planning and Community Development) into a single department called Community
Development. This reorganization was proposed to provide customers a single point of contact for all
development related activities and to improve review processes. The department was reorganized by July
of 2004 and has been operating consistent with the 2003 proposal.
The major emphasis of this reorganization has been focused on business process improvements
and improvements in the development review process. The Board has recently emphasized the need to
expedite the development review process. In carrying out this goal, staff seeks direction on process
improvement strategies the Board would like to see implemented.
Department Operations:
The Department now provides a single point of contact for all development related issues with the
County. The County’s and Department’s Vision Statements are provided in Attachment A and a
Department organizational chart is provided as Attachment B. The primary function of each division shown
on the organizational chart is as follows:
?
Central Operations provides customer reception, records management, application processing,
inspection scheduling, and administrative support for the department.
?
Current Development and Zoning manages ministerial reviews under the Subdivision and Zoning
Ordinances, special use permits associated with those reviews, and all zoning functions, including
support for the Board of Zoning Appeals.
?
Inspections manages the building permit processes and all construction related activities. This
includes building inspections, inspection of subdivision improvements, and water resource
inspections (e.g. erosion and sediment control).
?
Planning manages the Comprehensive Plan and legislative review processes (e.g. rezonings and
special use permits). They also support the Architectural Review Board, ACE, and numerous
County Board appointed committees (e.g. DISC II, Mountain Overlay) involved in developing County
Policy. The area master plan efforts and recently approved Rural Area Plan are examples of their
work related to the Comprehensive Plan.
June 1, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
Development Processes:
To assist the Board in understanding County development review processes, staff has compared
Albemarle to other localities regarding the normal tasks involved in development review. That data is
shared in Attachment C. Two points should be explained with this data. First, “VAZO” refers to the Virginia
Association of Zoning Officials survey of plan review processes in localities across Virginia. The complete
VAZO survey can be found on the Internet at http://www.vazo.org/documents/survey_results 200503.pdf
(please note that this data does not provide for a standardized measurement for reporting). Second, staff
typically monitors project review times based on “90% reviews”, which is the time it takes for 90% of the
plans to be acted upon. Most other localities use average or median review times. Staff uses the 90%
review times because the average or median review time does not represent a time that applicants can
count on in scheduling their projects, given that ½ of the applicants would experience longer times. For
example, the median review time might be 10 days, but the 90% review time could be 20 days. That
difference illustrates the variation in review times. For this discussion, staff is presenting the process in four
groups, using the most common processes to illustrate the County’s performance in each area.
Building Permits and Inspections:
These functions are related to the issuance of building permits and the associated inspections.
Those processes are purely administrative. Staff reviews and approves building permits, then performs the
related inspections. This is, by far, the largest number of applications received by the department. On a
typical work day, roughly 100 building inspections are requested and 10-15 building permits or associated
“sub permits” are issued. The attached data show that the County is providing similar times to other
jurisdictions when median times are compared. In examining the data further, staff found that while the
median time for issuance of a permit is 10 days, the time for 90% of the applications was 31 days. The
difference in review times was found to be permits in the rural area that require Health Department
approval for septic systems. Excluding those building permits that require Health Department approval,
County review times are similar to those of comparable localities. While staff could report the review times
without Health Department approval, as most localities do, it does not really represent the time it is taking
the builder from application to permit.
In looking at this process, staff believes the review times are comparable to others and efforts in
this area should be focused on providing the customer better tracking information for permit applications
and clearly defining requirements for permit applications. With the former, the database used for tracking
applications, CityView, has the ability to provide access over the Internet and this upgrade to our current
software was approved with the FY 05-06 budget. Staff will begin efforts at implementation of this access in
the second half of the year and plans to have it operational by early 2006. With the latter, staff is working
to reduce problems and uncertainties experienced by applicants. In this regard, staff collects customer
service input on a continual basis to find where applicants feel improvements are needed.
Ministerial Reviews:
Ministerial reviews are those associated with “by right” development, such as site plans and
subdivision plats. Ministerial reviews are different from legislative reviews as there is no discretion in
approval. As long as the plan or plat satisfies the ordinance requirements, it must be approved. Those
plans are typically reviewed by staff, but plans and plats are subject to being reviewed by the Planning
Commission. As shown in Attachment C, the County’s approval times tend to be longer than many other
localities, but that is comparing median times to 90% review times. Further, in examining the data, County
review times, the time from submission to receiving comments, were found to be comparable or lower than
most localities. With process improvements over the last year, staff has reduced these review times from
almost 4 weeks to 2 weeks for 90% of the submissions. The longer completion times are generally a result
of a plan needing to be resubmitted with corrections before it can be approved. In considering strategies
for reducing approval times, staff has noted several factors to consider.
?
The County has a more complex ordinance than many localities. For example, when formatted
the same, Albemarle County’s subdivision ordinance is 62 pages compared to Augusta County’s
subdivision ordinance at 25 pages. Albemarle County’s subdivision ordinance is a reflection of this
community’s concern with the quality of development and the urbanizing nature of the
Development Areas, resulting in a more complex ordinance. Length and complexity of
requirements results in a longer checklist for staff review and often results in uncertainty on the
part of applicants, which in turn necessitates the need for plan changes to gain approval. Staff is
working at reducing this uncertainty by making detailed checklists available to applicants so they
can see precisely what is required for approval, but that does not alter the number of issues that
must be considered.
?
VDOT review is taking longer than staff review. While staff may review a plan in 2 weeks, VDOT is
typically taking 3-4 weeks. Put bluntly, VDOT resources are stretched. Until VDOT receives better
funding or prioritizes plan reviews over other functions, it does not appear possible to improve their
review times.
?
Planning Commission reviews require additional staff resources that could be spent on speeding
up reviews of other plans. It should be noted that Albemarle County is the only locality in
Attachment C that provides Planning Commission review for both site plans and subdivision plats.
Most localities appear to keep Planning Commission involvement limited to larger projects. Plats
and plans are called up for Planning Commission review by Planning Commission members,
concerned neighbors, and with requests for waivers or modification of ordinance requirements
(e.g. critical slopes waivers). Each time a plan or plat is called before the Planning Commission,
staff must prepare a detailed report for the meeting and present this report to the Planning
Commission. That additional work can roughly double the staff time spent on the review of a
project. It is also important to recognize that staff’s interpretation of the ordinance is not always the
June 1, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
same as the Planning Commission, including some recent well publicized projects. The same can
be said of interpretations of the County Board versus the Planning Commission, with some
Planning Commission decisions reversed. Recognizing this fact, some ordinance waiver provisions
are routine administrative decisions handled with minimal delay, while others require Planning
Commission action. Reducing the number of plans and waivers subject to Planning Commission
review would significantly reduce the approval time for many plans. In considering such a change,
it should be recognized there can be circumstances where staff’s interpretation of the ordinance
will be different than the Planning Commission’s. By reducing or eliminating plan and waiver
review by the Planning Commission, it will provide the Planning Commission additional time for
long-range planning issues and allow them to expedite major project review.
?
Notifications to adjoining property owners are not required by State law but are extensively used by
the County to assure neighbors are aware of development occurring around them. While keeping
the public informed is a benefit to the community, this does require significant time and resources.
Additionally, it can add steps to the review process. As a result of this notification, plans are often
called before the Planning Commission. While the Planning Commission meeting provides the
opportunity to address concerns, neighbors are often dismayed to find that the Planning
Commission must approve a plan if it meets the ordinance requirements regardless of their
concerns. Effectively, the notification process can create a false hope that a neighbor’s concerns
can influence the decision while the reality is plans that satisfy the ordinance requirements must be
approved. Anecdotally, staff often sees neighbors leave Planning Commission meetings angry
and confused, feeling that neither staff nor the Planning Commission seriously considered their
concerns.
As noted above, staff is currently working on preparing detailed checklists for applicants that should
reduce the uncertainty with the process. Staff believes this will provide some improvement in review times
and the number of submittals required to reach approval. Staff believes the County would need to consider
reducing requirements and/or consider eliminating Planning Commission review for many ministerial
reviews to further reduce times. Staff also believes that by expediting the ministerial reviews, the
development community will be more prone to develop in the development areas and embrace the
neighborhood model strategies and further reduce the pressure on the rural areas.
Legislative Reviews:
Legislative reviews, rezonings (ZMAs) and special use permits (SPs), are discretionary matters that
can only be approved by the Board of Supervisors. The Planning Commission and staff provide
recommendations to the Board for those decisions. Referring to Attachment C, the data shows that County
approval times for rezonings are similar to Loudoun and Fauquier, but those times are considerably longer
than many other localities. Albemarle’s SP review times were similar to most other localities. In
considering strategies for reducing action times with rezonings, staff has noted several factors to consider.
?
Complexity of review. Attachment D provides an example of typical factors considered in a
rezoning. That review is based on expectations the Planning Commission has expressed in
reviewing applications. To illustrate, it is doubtful the application plans approved with the Peter
Jefferson or North Fork rezonings would be considered acceptable if submitted today. Attachment
D shows a possible 15 reviewers considering 102 different issues before the plan is brought to the
Planning Commission. With this number of issues and reviewers, it is inevitable there will be
conflicting objectives. For example, one reviewer could seek a street connection across a small
stream valley while another reviewer sought less disturbance of the stream buffer. Typically, those
conflicts are addressed through an iterative review process that seeks to find the optimal solution.
?
Level of detail. This is anecdotal as no good measure for the level of detail was established.
Some localities, such as Albemarle, Loudoun, and Fauquier, have placed considerable importance
on the details in rezoning while others appear to only consider the conceptual aspects and assume
the details can be worked out at the site plan stage. For example, a “bubble” layout only shows
proposed land use categories for area. That might have been acceptable in the past, but the same
type of plan today is expected to show structures, roads, driveways, landscaping, and grading. The
review of that plan would consider historic resources, groundwater, trails, greeways/blueways, and
other issues as shown in Attachment D. All of these are issues that the Planning Commission has
expressed interest in seeing with the plans. Additionally, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) will
consider the architectural appearance of buildings, signs, and landscaping. While this attention to
detail assures the County is getting the type of development it expects, it also results in delays for
applicants and additional resources required by the County for reviews. Furthermore, there can be
a continuing effort to improve on the level of detail. The ARB provides a good case study in this
conflict between quality of development and expediting reviews. The ARB is often heralded as a
success story and few would argue it has made a noticeable difference in the development along
the County’s Entrance Corridors. That program started in 1990 with part-time staff support and
was basically limited to review of site plans along certain roads. Since that time, the number of
roads has expanded, signs have been included in the reviews, certain building permits are included
in the reviews, there is an expanded role in the review of rezonings and special use permits, and
staff support now requires two full time employees to keep up with the workload. The point is not to
criticize the value of the ARB, but to note that the price for that value includes additional staff
resources and more expansive reviews which add to the complexity (and time) of reviews.
?
Sensitivity to review time versus high quality plans. Based on guidance from the Planning
Commission, staff seeks to have the applicant’s plan be as close to an ideal as considered
reasonably possible. While that process emphasizes high quality plans, it also places less
emphasis on the time spent in reaching that point. When pushed by deadlines, deferrals are
commonly used to avoid bringing forward an application that may be considered as substandard.
th
To illustrate this point, all of the public hearing items scheduled for the May 11 Board meeting
June 1, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
were deferred to work on issues.
?
Lack of established proffer policy. Many urbanized localities have established proffer policies that
allow applicants to go into the process with an understanding of what will be expected with the
proffers. Albemarle County does not have this type of proffer policy. Instead, each rezoning is
individually considered and individual proffer recommendations are developed. Effectively, the
applicant enters the rezoning process with little understanding of what proffers will be considered
adequate.
To summarize, staff believes the special use permit process appears to work similarly to other
localities and process improvement should focus on better checklists. The County’s rezoning process
appears to work similar to Fauquier and Loudoun County, but takes considerably more time and effort than
many other localities. To date, the emphasis in the rezoning process has been on seeking the best
possible plan with little or no emphasis on the time it takes to gain the best possible plan.
For the County to appreciably reduce the time spent on rezonings, staff would recommend
considering a policy on deferrals. Such a policy would effectively force staff, the applicant, and Planning
Commission into limiting the time that could be spent in working on a plan before bringing it to the Board.
Once the rezoning application was before the Board, the Board could consider whether additional time with
the Planning Commission would yield an appreciably better plan. If the Board felt this time was worth the
delay, the plan could be allowed to return to the Planning Commission for further refinement. If the Board
felt the delay would not result in appreciable improvement, an action would be taken. In considering such
a strategy, staff believes the Board should weigh the likelihood that this change could simply transfer the
review complexities to the Board. Staff suspects this strategy could increase the number of split decisions
by the Board on land use decisions.
Finally, staff believes an established proffer policy would reduce the uncertainty for applicants and
reduce the time required to resolve proffer concerns. That said, staff also believes developing a proffer
policy could require an extensive effort by both staff and the Board. That effort would compete with
resources that might otherwise be used on efforts such as the Rural Area Plan implementation, Northern
Area Master Plan, and ordinance amendments currently in process. An estimate of resources required for
this effort and priority would need to be developed if the Board was interested in pursuing a proffer policy.
Comprehensive Plan and Ordinance Amendments:
As shown on Attachment E, the last year has seen a significant number of these policy issues
completed. While staff is proud of the volume completed in the last year, it should be noted some of these
were complex efforts started several years ago. Other issues generated little public concern and the public
process was relatively simple. Some issues were brought forward with unresolved public concerns, which
complicated the considerations of the County Board. As such, the volume completed last year reflects a
combination of coincidental timing and staff trying to expedite the process whenever possible. Also, it should
be noted that no staff is solely dedicated to these efforts. With each issue, staff balances their time spent on
the issue against the need for timely completion of legislative and ministerial reviews. In that regard,
recognizing that other reviews often have legal deadlines for completion, these issues are often forced to
take a lower priority.
While some Comprehensive Plan and ordinance amendments are initiated by applicants, the major
efforts are typically initiated by the County itself. Staff found little comparison data from other localities on
the time spent with these efforts. Similar to Albemarle County, controversial proposals in other localities
usually require a lengthy public process. A review of County projects shows considerable variation in both
the time and resources required for these projects. For example, recent County efforts on the Crozet
Master Plan, Rural Area Plan, Sign Ordinance, and Subdivision Text Amendment (STA) demonstrate that
considerable time and resources can be required for discussions and work sessions. Additionally, Board
appointed committees can require extended periods of time to form recommendations for these policy
issues. That is understandable given those committees members seldom share a common and detailed
understanding of the issue before them and it is difficult for committee members to commit large blocks of
time to this work. Thus, a large part of their work can be spent on reaching common understanding, only to
struggle with the recognition that solutions often require compromise. That becomes even more
complicated when the committee desires consensus with its recommendations. Staff also notes it is difficult
to accurately predict the time and resources required for the public process with controversial proposals.
The recently approved Subdivision Text Amendment process and the current Mountain Overlay District
work are examples of how difficult it can be to schedule resources when working on controversial issues.
The STA process required resources that would otherwise have worked on completing the Neighborhood
Model Zoning Ordinance amendments. Similarly, the Mountain Overlay work will be competing for the
same staff resources that might otherwise be dedicated to work on Rural Area Plan implementation.
In considering strategies for improving the process, staff believes the emphasis should be on better
defining Board expectations prior to the start of the work. Using the recently completed Rural Area Plan as
a case study, it is noted that work sessions were used at the start of this process to define expectations with
the hope this would minimize time spent with the Planning Commission and Board at the end of the
process. Staff believes that we did, in fact, reduce the time and effort required by the Planning
Commission and Board.
Staff requests the Board provide guidance as to process improvement strategies they wish to
explore. Staff will then schedule a work session for discussion of how the strategies could be implemented
and the issues where Board direction is needed.
June 1, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
With regard to building permit applications and inspections, staff has noted the County’s processes
are similar to others and little opportunity exists for additional improvement without increasing staff
resources. Staff will continue to work on improving quality control to reduce errors and implementing
CityView for customers to check on review status over the Internet.
With regard to ministerial reviews, staff has noted process improvements being developed in the
form of detailed checklists and streamlining administrative processes. If further improvements in the
process are desired, staff suggested consideration of limiting Planning Commission review of site plans
and/or subdivision plats to larger, more complex plans as was the practice in other localities. Similarly, staff
can work on reviewing current ordinances for possible opportunities to reduce requirements. If the Board is
interested in considering a reduction in the current requirements, staff will develop a list of potential
changes and bring this to the Board for consideration.
With regard to legislative reviews, staff believes improvement can best be gained in reducing the
use of deferrals and establishing a proffer policy. The change in accepting deferrals would be a Board
policy and relatively easy to implement. The proffer policy would need to be adopted into the
Comprehensive Plan and would require a detailed analysis to support the policy. A proffer policy is
anticipated to require considerable staff resources and could be controversial, depending on the guidelines
in the policy. If the Board is interested in considering either of these options, staff will develop proposals
for the Board’s consideration.
With regard to Comprehensive Plan and ordinance changes, staff believes improvement can best
be gained through improvement in the public process, primarily by defining expectations at the start of the
process, and by setting hard deadlines for completion of work. The later measures would require those
involved to set a schedule for completion of tasks and shift focus more towards completion deadlines at the
risk of not fully vetting some issues.
Mr. Graham noted that the legislative process has quite a bit of discretion with reviews, and cited
the plan approved for Hollymead and North Fork as examples of detailed rezonings. Mr. Graham
commented that the trade-off for spending time with details is that it leads to deferrals.
Mr. Graham noted that having direction up front from the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors can help speed up the staff review process.
He said that implementing deadlines for completion – such as sunsets on committees – could also
greatly assist in speeding up the review process.
Mr. Dorrier asked about rezonings said to have lasted four years. Mr. Graham replied that North
Pointe has been in front of the Board for a year and a half, and Rivanna Village from 2002 is still under
review for rezoning. The more controversial the proposal becomes, the longer it seems to take to get
through the process.
Mr. Tucker mentioned that it is not only the county that causes delays, sometimes the market might
cause the applicant to defer, noting that Rivanna Village might fall in that category.
Mr. Boyd said that he is not sure about doing away with referral, citing that market forces might be a
good reason to defer. Ms. Thomas agreed.
Mr. Graham asked if the Board would like to discuss possible changes in deferral.
Ms. Thomas wondered about having “a trigger point,” for example when a project has gotten to the
80-percentile mark, try to establish why things are taking so long.
Mr. Graham said that staff is looking at “where to raise the red flag,” and special use permits can
certainly be viewed in that way. However, it becomes more difficult with ZMAs, as they are “all over the map
as far as review time.” Mr. Graham said that they could set a trigger for rezonings – for example, six
months without Planning Commission public hearing – and take a look at the situation to see what the delay
is.
Mr. Wyant asked if rezoning in a Master Plan area should take long. Mr. Graham responded that
those applications are looked at similarly to others, and the staff does want to have an expedited review for
those in the Master Plan, that was part of the idea with the Master Plan. That gets rid of a lot of the land
use issues, a lot of the transportation issues, but as you see there are still a number of other issues that are
out there.
Mr. Tucker noted that rezonings in a development area and proffer consideration involves a lot of
back and forth between applicants and staff.
Ms. Thomas commented that there should be a discussion on the proffer policy, and the building
community feels that the county has come up with a policy of $3,000 per unit, but that is just something that
happened sometime.
Mr. Boyd said that he would like to see an in-depth discussion on a proffer policy, adding that the
size of projects should dictate expectations regarding timelines, etc.
June 1, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
Mr. Wyant asked what takes so long with the Health Department.
Mr. Graham responded that even if there are soil scientists doing the septic work, the department
must sign off on it which takes 30 days.
Mr. Wyant noted that the time drags on because each unit takes 30 days.
Mr. Graham pointed out that with the Health Department, they are talking about the building permit
process, and the county review on the building permit process is in pretty good order. He commented that
the Health Department has trouble with the workload they have and the resources available to handle that
load. Mr. Graham added that the service authority seems to be able to turn things around very quickly, and
the internal departmental review is also very efficient. Their issue is trying to make sure the applicants are
getting the comments addressed the first time.
Mr. Wyant asked about the need for approval for simple subdivisions.
Mr. Tucker replied that in by-right cases, all the county is dealing with is the granting of a building
permit.
Mr. Graham responded that the family subdivisions move through quickly, and subdivisions in the
rural area are the easiest to get through.
Ms. Thomas commented that that is a problem in itself. She asked if all parties involved know they
have a time limit in which to provide their comments.
Mr. Graham replied that they do know, but agencies like VDOT cannot always get it done in 30
days. He emphasized that often the problem is not getting comments back from everyone, but
consolidating those reviews and resolving the conflicts that exist between the comments. He added that
the Master Plans really help as the applicants anticipate what we want where. Mr. Graham said that
sometimes comments are made to the applicant, and when they come back with responses, they often
have made other changes that generate a whole new set of comments.
Ms. Thomas commented that the possibilities of public transit need to remain open, with the
provisions made even if the route does not yet exist.
Mr. Boyd suggested looking at the pros and cons of limiting Planning Commission review and
involvement.
Ms. Thomas said that the Planning Commission should be asked their opinion of that.
Mr. Graham mentioned that site plan reviews and subdivision reviews are not considered by the
Board, just the Commission.
Ms. Thomas said that with ministerial review, the public cannot do anything about it and that leads
to frustration. She thinks we do well to still err on the side of having public notification just because to have
a big project going in next door and having no chance to know that it was happening is kind of a shock is
worse than having to come to a meeting and find out that you really cannot do much about it.
Mr. Tucker said that the public is notified but as long as the applicant meets the regulations, the
county cannot deny it.
Mr. Dorrier read from Mr. Graham’s comments on a proffer policy, stating that he views proffers as
something the developer offers for county approval or rejection. He expressed concern about limiting some
proffered items, like schools or libraries.
Mr. Graham responded that the intent would not be to exclude things, but to establish a basis for
determining what the impact associated with that development is. He added that the county could look to
offset either in the form of cash or public improvements that would otherwise have to be created or
expended as a result of that development occurring. Mr. Graham noted that the first step is developing a
framework for measuring that impact and then coming through a process for how those would be
evaluated.
Mr. Tucker said that staff was not expecting to finalize anything today.
Mr. Graham clarified that the items to be revisited were: deferral timelines, status on the
implementation of CityView, considering Planning Commission involvement in ministerial reviews, defining
expectations at the start of projects, and assuring public involvement in the process, and discussion of
proffers.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Closed Session. At 12:37 p.m.., motion was made by Mr. Dorrier
that the Board adjourn into closed session go into closed session pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A) of the
Code of Virginia, under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards, committees, and commissions,
and under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding legal issues concerning an inter-
jurisdictional agreement and under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding legal
issues concerning the collection of taxes.
June 1, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
The motion was seconded by Mr. Wyant. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Rooker.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Certify Closed Session. At 2:03 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: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16a. Appointments to Boards and Commissions.
Mr. Wyant then offered motion to make the following appointments:
Reappoint Bryan Elliott to Charlottesville/Albemarle Convention & Visitors Bureau Management
Board with said term to expire June 30, 2007.
Reappoint Madison Cummings to Commission on Children and Families with said term to expire
June 30, 2008.
Reappoint Donna Plasket to Piedmont Virginia Community College Board with said term to expire
June 30, 2009.
Reappoint Roxanne White to Region Ten Community Services Board with said term to expire June
30, 2008.
Reappoint Paul Sisk to Workforce Investment Board with said term to expire June 30, 2008.
Appoint Phil James to Blue Ridge Committee for Shenandoah Park Relations.
Appoint Brian Bills as Youth Representative for Commission on Children and Families with said
term to expire June 30, 2006.
Second to the motion was given by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
__________
Agenda Item No. 16b. Proposed term limits.
No action taken.
_______________
(Mr. Boyd suggesting skipping Item 17 until Ms. Thomas returns.)
Agenda Item No. 18. An Ordinance to amend section 15-1400, Enhanced emergency
telephone service tax – Levy and rate; effective date; exemptions, of the Albemarle County Code, to
increase the monthly Emergency-911 fee from two dollars ($2.00) to three dollars ($3.00) for each
access line, as authorized by Virginia Code Section 58.1-3813.1. The ordinance would also specify
that amounts collected can be used to pay for costs incurred in training dispatchers and direct call-
takers, as authorized by Virginia Code Section 58.1-3813.1(F). (Advertised in the Daily Progress May
16 and May 23, 2005)
Mr. Tucker said the proposed ordinance would increase the monthly emergency E-911 fee from
$2.00 to $3.00. He explained that the Virginia Code permits localities to impose a fee on telephone service
to pay for emergency 911 systems but caps it at $3.00. Mr. Tucker noted that the increased rate would
become effective 120 days after the subject telephone companies are given written notice of the new rates,
June 1, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
which would mean fall for this measure. He stated that the county budget office projects $1.6+ million in E-
911 eligible expenses during fiscal year 2006, and that amount is likely to approach $1.9 million in fiscal
year 2007 as the 800 MHz system becomes fully operational. By comparison, the E-911 revenues for fiscal
year 2006 are projected to be around $1.2 million using the current $2.00 rate; at the proposed $3.00
monthly fee over the course of a full year, projected E-911 revenues would rise to $1.7 million.
He emphasized that the county would only get three-quarters of a year because of the 120-day wait
period, adding that the draft ordinance also includes an amendment to Section 15-1400.B to make this
section consistent with the Virginia Code, so that it authorizes the county to use the fee to pay for all
allowable expenses; currently the ordinance does not specify that the fee can be used for costs incurred for
training dispatchers and direct call-takers. If the Board agrees the fee should be increased to $3.00, Mr.
Tucker said, then staff is recommending that the attached proposed ordinance is adopted after conducting
the public hearing.
Mr. Boyd opened the public hearing. There was no public comment, and the matter was placed
before the Board.
Mr. Bowerman commented that the fee is appropriate, as it is a user fee that goes directly to the
cost of maintaining the E-911 center.
(Ms. Thomas returned to the meeting at 2:10 p.m.)
Motion was offered by Mr. Wyant, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to adopt an Ordinance to increase
the monthly Emergency-911 fee from two dollars ($2.00) to three dollars ($3.00) for each access line,
as authorized by Virginia Code Section 58.1-3813.1. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, and Mr. Dorrier.
ABSTAINED: Ms. Thomas
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Rooker.
ORDINANCE NO. 05-15(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 15, TAXATION, ARTICLE XIV, ENHANCED EMERGENCY
TELEPHONE SERVICE TAX--E-911, 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 15,
Taxation, Article XIV, Enhanced Emergency Telephone Service Tax—E-911, is hereby amended and
reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 15-1400 Enhanced emergency telephone service tax—Levy and rate; effective date; exemptions
CHAPTER 15. TAXATION
ARTICLE XIV. ENHANCED EMERGENCY TELEPHONE SERVICE TAX--E-911
Sec. 15-1400 Enhanced emergency telephone service tax--Levy and rate; effective date; exemptions.
A. Pursuant to Virginia Code § 58.1-3813.1, there is hereby imposed a special tax on consumers
of telephone service in the amount of three dollars ($3.00) per month for each access line.
B. Amounts collected from this tax shall be used solely to pay for reasonable, direct recurring and
nonrecurring capital costs, and operating expenses incurred by a public safety answering point in designing,
upgrading, leasing, purchasing, programming, installing, testing, administering, delivering, or maintaining all
necessary data, hardware and software required to receive and process emergency telephone calls through an
E-911 system, including salaries and fringe benefits of dispatchers and direct call-takers of an E-911 system
and costs incurred in training dispatchers and direct call-takers in receiving and dispatching emergency
telephone calls, and the salary and fringe benefits of the public safety answering point director or coordinator so
long as such person has no other duties other than the responsibility for the public safety answering point.
C. This tax shall not be imposed on federal, state or local government agencies or on consumers
of CMRS, as such term is defined in Virginia Code § 56-484.12.
D. This tax shall apply to all bills rendered on and after November 1, 2005.
(Ord. of 2-6-91; Ord. No. 95-8(1), 7-12-95; Code 1988, § 8-59; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 02-15(2), 4-17-02;
Ord. 05-15(1), 6-1-05)
This ordinance shall be effective on and after November 1, 2005.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. An Ordinance to amend Chapter 2, Administration, of the Albemarle
County Code, to amend Section 2-202, Compensation of board of supervisors, to increase the
June 1, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
compensation of board of supervisor members by 4.4% effective July 1, 2005 from $12,467.00 per
annum to $13,016.00 annum. (Advertised in the Daily Progress May 16 and May 23, 2005)
Mr. Tucker noted that in the past, the Board has supported an increase parallel to local
government and classified employee increases pay for performance, which was 4.4 percent this year
effective July 1, 2005. He said that if they approve the ordinance as proposed, it would increase the Board
member salary from $12,467 per year to $13,016 per year.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that at a budget public hearing, a member of the public said the Board
should be “paying themselves more” and she felt the Board did not really want to give themselves a raise.
She said that in line with that person’s comment, she asked Mr. Davis if it would be possible for Boards to
provide for subsequent members’ raises, but not their own.
Mr. Bowerman asked if it needed to be advertised.
st
Mr. Davis replied that there are two processes: the Board adopts an ordinance between May 1
thst
and June 30 that sets the salary effective July 1 for the sitting Board, and that has a salary cap constraint
st
of five percent annual cost of living increase; an alternative is that prior to July 1 in any year in which 40
percent of the Board members are up for election, they can set by motion the salary that will be effective
st
January 1 of the following year. Mr. Davis noted that the second option is not subject to the salary cap
limitations that the other process has.
Mr. Dorrier said that their present salaries are in line with other localities, and he would like to stay
in that range.
Mr. Bowerman noted that only larger localities such as Northern Virginia consider the Board
position more of a full-time job and compensate accordingly.
Mr. Wyant commented that there are great demands with service to the Board of Supervisors, and
it is difficult to miss work to attend meetings.
Ms. Thomas added that it is especially difficult for those who are not self-employed and have to
take leave to serve.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Gary Grant addressed the Board. He said that he took issue with the point that it is a sacrifice
to take the salary to do this job. This is public service, and he thinks you have to make that decision before
you run for this Board. But this is not a moneymaker, neither is it going to be a stipend or a salary that you
can save for four years and build a war chest for a reelection campaign. He disagrees with Mr. Dorrier’s
contention that Albemarle needs to stay “in competition” with other jurisdictions. He emphasized that this is
a stipend, not a salary because it is a public service, and encouraged them to vote against a salary
increase. Mr. Grant suggested that the Board vote for pay of $200 per year, stating they can handle this job
without this being a sacrifice. He presented each Board member with a “bag of groceries.”
Mr. Tom Jacobowski addressed the Board, stating that he is a candidate for Supervisor in the Rio
District. He apologized to Board members for his “bad behavior” at this same public hearing two years ago,
stating that at that time he really didn’t understand what Board members do. Mr. Jacobowski reported that
he had spoken with Tom Powell, a former Greene County Supervisor, who assured him that “this job is a
full-time job.” He is willing to do the job full time, and no one that he has spoken with in the Rio District has
a problem with Board members getting a raise, but the way they are having to vote on the raise is a “no-win
situation.” Mr. Jacobowski suggested that Board members designate their positions as full-time jobs, and
follow the federal government with an automatic annual cost of living increase like social security.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Board.
Mr. Bowerman said that what has been done almost every year is to raise compensation in line with
raises given to county employees.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman to adopt the Ordinance to increase the compensation
of board of supervisor members effective July 1, 2005 from $12,467.00 per year annum to 13,016.00
annum. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wyant. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Rooker.
ORDINANCE NO. 05-2(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION, ARTICLE II, BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
June 1, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 2,
Administration, Article II, Board of Supervisors, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby
amended and reordained by amending Section 2-202, Compensation of Board of Supervisors, as follows:
CHAPTER 2. ADMINISTRATION
ARTICLE II. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Sec. 2-202 Compensation of board of supervisors.
The salary of the board of supervisors shall be thirteen thousand sixteen dollars ($13,016.00) for each
board member effective July 1, 2005. In addition to the regular salary, the vice-chairman shall receive a stipend
of thirty-five dollars ($35.00) for each and every meeting chaired and the chairman shall receive an annual
stipend of one thousand eight hundred dollars ($1,800.00).
(6-13-84; 5-8-85; 5-14-86; 7-1-87; 7-6-88; 6-7-89; Ord. of 6-13-90; Ord. of 8-1-90; Ord. of 8-7-91; Ord. of 7-1-
92; Ord. No. 95-2(1), 6-14-95; Ord. No. 98-2(1), 6-17-98; Code 1988, § 2-2.1; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. No.
99-2(1), 5-5-99; Ord. No. 00-2(1), 6-7-00; Ord. 01-2(2), 6-6-01; Ord. 02-2(2), 5-1-02; Ord. 03-2(1), 6-4-03; Ord.
04-2(1), 6-2-04; Ord. 05-2(1), 6-1-05)
State law reference--Compensation of board of supervisors, Va. Code § 15.2-1414.3.
This ordinance shall be effective on and after July 1, 2005.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. Thomas Jefferson Planning Dist Regional Hazardous Mitigation Plan –
Request for approval of the Albemarle County portion of the region’s Hazard Mitigation Plan, developed by
the Thomas Jefferson Planning Dist Commission. The Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies actions to be
taken to reduce or eliminate the risk to human life & property from natural disasters. The Plan was
prepared w/input from the Charlottesville U.Va. Albemarle Emergency Services Center & Albemarle
County staff. Possible mitigation options are cataloged under: Education & Outreach; Policy, Planning &
Funding; Information and Data Development; & Structural Improvements. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress May 16 and May 23, 2005)
Mr. Bill Wanner with the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) addressed the
Board, stating that his presentation focuses on Albemarle’s portion of the regional plan. He said that it is a
federal requirement now that an adopted plan is in place before pre and post disaster funds are available to
the county. Mr. Wanner said that they discussed with the Emergency Services Coordinator about the
Scottsville levee, and the coordinator said the levee changed the dynamics of Scottsville from being one of
the most dangerous places into one of the safest.
Ms. Thomas asked about the rationale for an emergency action plan for failure of the lower dam at
Ragged Mountain Reservoir, when it is likely that dam would be underwater. Mr. Wanner replied that was
an instance where there was not a plan in place.
Mr. Tucker said that the county will be under a fairly strong mandate to get the lower dam replaced
soon, and suggested that some language be developed to address that.
Ms. Thomas stated that she does not want to spend $20,000 for something that will likely be
underwater, as the lower dam water level is such that there is no fall from the upper dam to the lower dam.
Mr. Wyant commented that once the lower one gets constructed it would change that.
Mr. Wanner suggested eliminating the language entirely, or stating that it would be contingent on
that being successfully accomplished.
Mr. Boyd opened the public hearing. No public comment was offered, and the matter was placed
before the Board.
Mr. Bowerman commented that TJPDC did an outstanding job, and provided mitigation strategies
for situations that he didn’t even know could be problematic. It seems to be quite extensive and quite
comprehensive. He added that he was pleased to see the Planning District did so much in terms of
research on this project.
Mr. Boyd said that the document is fascinating, and encouraged the public to read it.
Mr. Wanner thanked the Board for their positive comments.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman to approve the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Regional Hazardous Mitigation Plan (full copy of Plan is on file in the Clerk’s office and the office of the
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission). The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Roll
was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
June 1, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Rooker.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. SP-2005-003. Footnotes Dance Studio (Signs #71&72). Request to allow
private ballet school in accord w/Sec 23.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ord which allows for priv schools in the CO
Dist. This request would amend SP-96-48, which permitted a priv dance school at this location. TM 61W P
1 B-2, contains .525 acs. Znd CO. Loc on W side of Commonwealth Dr (Rt 1315) at intersec of
Commonwealth Dr & Westfield Road (Rt 1452). Rio Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress May 16
and May 23, 2005)
Mr. Cilimberg explained that this amendment would allow for the studio to continue with expanded
operating hours. Originally, there was approval in 1996 for the Terry Dean Dance Studio and there were no
issues at the time the special permit was issued; the only conditions limited the hours of operation, and the
applicant would like to make a slight change.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the use of the building has changed several times over the last nine years
since the permit was issued, and Footnotes recently applied for zoning clearance to use the building for a
variety of activities that have all been determined to fall under a private school use, which conforms to their
special use permit requirements. He said that staff reviewed definition of private school, and the only
problem they saw would be for auto mechanics or construction where activities would take place outside of
the building.
Mr. Cilimberg said that conditions were recommended regarding hours of operation as well as the
type of school activities that would not be permitted there. He stated that staff did not feel that restricting
hours of operation was essential to the special permit but did include the condition that there was one
already. Mr. Cilimberg reported that the conditions – as recommended by staff and the Planning
Commission – limit the school to no outdoor activities and restrict the hours from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
The applicant, Melissa Digrazio, addressed the Board, stating that the original special use permit
restricted the hours to Monday through Friday, and they would like to open on Saturday mornings to
accommodate working families. She said that the hours are fine as long as they cover Monday through
Saturday.
Public comment was invited. There being none, the hearing was closed and the matter was placed
before the Board.
Mr. Bowerman clarified that the change in permit restricts hours, not days.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman to approve SP-2005-003, subject to the two conditions as
recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called,
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Rooker.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. There shall be no technical or vocational schools which involve outdoor activities, such
as construction and automotive repair, without approval of a separate special use permit; and
2. The school shall not operate after 10:00 p.m.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. SP-2005-005. PetsMart (Sign #35). Request to allow 2,500 sq ft of a
23,000 sq-ft retail bldg located in Hollymead Town Center for veterinary clinic, grooming facility & periodic
pet adoption services in accord w/Sec(s) 25A.2.2-1, 22.2.2-5 & 24.2.2-4 of the Zoning Ord, which allows
for veterinary office & hospital use in a PD-MC, C-1 & HC Dist(s). TM 32 P 43, contains 2,000 sq ft. Znd
PD-MC & EC. Loc on W side of US Rt 29 N, approx 1/4 mile S of intersec w/Airport Rd & across from the
Forest Lakes Shopping Center. Rio Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress May 16 and May 23,
2005)
Mr. Cilimberg reported that this application is for PetSmart to operate a veterinary hospital within
their larger retail facility at the Hollymead Town Center. He noted that the clinic would occupy up to 2,500
square feet of the 23,000 square foot store, adding that the clinic size is closer to 2,000. Mr. Cilimberg said
that staff had originally recommended no conditions, but the Commission asked staff to include conditions
to reflect maximum square footage for the use and the specific buildings the special use permit applies to
and to make sure that no outside runs or kennels occurred.
Ms. Tara Boyd, representing Hollymead Town Center, addressed the Board. She said that she
appreciates staff’s work with them and they accept the Planning Commission’s recommended conditions.
Ms. Boyd explained that an in-store vet occupies less than 10 percent of the floor area, and there would
also be grooming services but not overnight kenneling. She noted that the staff report does not reflect the
fact that PetSmart partners with local adoption agencies like the SPCA to place stray animals, the
veterinary services are “competitively priced” and offered in a non-traditional environment, and PetSmart
June 1, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
charities have donated a good deal of money to local community adoption organizations and animal activist
groups.
The Chairman opened the public hearing. There being no comments, the hearing was closed and
the matter was placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman to approve SP-2005-005, subject to the two conditions as
recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called,
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Rooker.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. The veterinary services (as shown on the concept plan entitled Major Siteplan Amendment for
Hollymead Towncenter, Area B, Rio District, Albemarle County, Virginia prepared by Rivanna
Engineering & Surveying, PLC. and dated December 6, 2004) located at Outparcel H shall be
limited to not more than twenty-five hundred (2,500) square feet; and
2. There shall be no outside runs or kennels.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 22. SP-2004-051. Free Union Church of the Brethren (Sign #36). Request to
allow expansion of existing church, Free Union Church of the Brethren, in accord w/Sec 10.2.2(35) of the
Zoning Ord which allows for churches. TM 29, Ps 57, 58, & 59B, contains 2.5 acs. Znd RA. Loc at 4152
Free Union Rd (Rt 601), approx 1,000 ft S of its intersec w/Willington Rd (Rt 665). White Hall Dist.
Mr. Cilimberg reported that the Board needs only to act on the special use permit, not the site plan
waiver. He said the plan is to add a 1,400 square foot meeting hall to the existing Free Union Church,
which is an existing non-conforming use so a special permit is required in order to expand. Mr. Cilimberg
said that it would not increase the intensity of use on the site or create impacts with adjacent properties.
The only issue raised was that of entrance site distance and the applicants have revised their plan to show
an entrance that is acceptable to VDOT. He said that site distance is limited by vegetation on a neighboring
property, but that landowner has given consent for that land to be kept clear to maintain site distance for the
church.
Mr. Cilimberg said that staff has recommended approval with five conditions, and the Planning
Commission modified a couple of them, and then recommended approval.
Mr. Wyant asked why the use is non-conforming. Mr. Cilimberg answered that the church pre-
dated the need for permit.
Mr. Bowerman said that the ordinance made the requirement to deal with septic system, access,
and health and safety issues.
The applicant, Robin Jocelyn, addressed the Board, stating that he is the Assistant Board
Chairman of Free Union Church of the Brethren. He thanked Scott Clark and Bill Fritz of county staff for
their work on the project. Mr. Jocelyn said that the only issue is a slight “dog leg” north of the church that
makes it hard for people to see around the curve, as it gets overgrown and makes visibility difficult.
The Chairman opened the public hearing. There being no further public comment, the matter was
placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Wyant to approve SP-2004-051, subject to the five conditions as
recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called,
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Rooker.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. The site shall be developed in general accord with the conceptual plan entitled “Free Union Church
of the Brethren Concept Plan ,” revised April 22, 2005, including the note relating to combining the
parcels;
2. The area of assembly shall be limited to the existing ninety (90)-seat sanctuary;
3. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate special
use permit;
4. Construction of the proposed addition shall commence within four (4) years or this special use
permit shall expire; and
5. The applicants shall secure a VDOT construction permit for the modified entrance from Route 601.
_______________
June 1, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
Agenda Item No. 23. From the Board: Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Wyant asked if there was some way to get minutes earlier than the Friday Board packet so they
have time to read them.
Mr. Bowerman suggested voting on them at a future meeting.
__________
Mr. Wyant asked about the water issue, and wondered where the progress lies.
Ms. Thomas reported that the chair, mayor, county executive, city manager, Rivanna consultants,
and staff have been meeting in a “pre, pre-app” group to prepare for the pre-application meeting as advised
by the regulators. She said that they are working on two proposals – one to see how to get water from the
Beaver Creek Reservoir most efficiently in time of drought; and one that hopes to utilize the benign effect of
raising the Ragged Mountain Dam to get that reservoir to hold more storage capacity while using the water
that ends up in the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir, which is the best source of water as it has the largest
watershed. Ms. Thomas noted that the second option is being tried out informally on the regulators, noting
that there are many aspects of the inter-reservoir pipeline that are “very favorable,” as it seems to meet all
environmental concerns.
Mr. Graham said that he has attended the meetings, and the real emphasis is looking at a staging
of improvements, as the entire 20/50 capacity is not needed right now.
Mr. Boyd asked if there is a plan to bring the pre-meeting proposal to the Board prior to it going to
the pre-application meeting. Mr. Graham said that the Board, City Council, the Service Authority Board, and
the public would have discussions prior to it becoming a formal proposal.
Mr. Boyd asked if there would be discussions with the Board before the formal proposal. Mr.
Graham replied that Mr. Rooker is planning to talk to Board members before the pre-application meeting.
Mr. Boyd asked if maintaining the viability of the facility would be a separate issue, now that
dredging in South Fork is not being put forth. Mr. Graham replied that it is still on the table.
Ms. Thomas said that the South Fork Reservoir could be drawn down if the inter-reservoir pipeline
is established because the additional storage capacity of Ragged Mountain would be available.
Mr. Davis emphasized that the pre-application meeting is not a decision-making meeting; it seeks to
get feedback from the regulators as to what may be approvable. He thinks there will be plenty of time for
the Board members to have public discussions and input and hearings, all of which are part of the process
before any level of decision is made.
__________
Mr. Wyant asked about the Board retreat, stating that he prefers a one-day meeting.
Mr. Boyd agreed.
Mr. Foley noted that Mike Chandler might help facilitate the retreat, so it may depend on when he is
available.
__________
Ms. Thomas reported that the most recent VML newsletter mentions that JLARC Commission
members are concerned about how “Homeland Security” is being spent, and have requested an
accounting. She said that she has asked several times for a proposal for a changing of the zoning for light
industry in terms of contractor’s yard and office, as the issue has “embroiled the Ivy Community” regarding
the Faulconer contractor’s yard and office. Ms. Thomas said that if that site had been a special use permit,
it would have saved a lot of frustration. She asked for staff to write a resolution of intent and bring it back to
the Board.
Mr. Davis said that typically the planning staff does an executive summary noting the basis for the
change and attaches a resolution of intent. He suggested that staff bring it to the next meeting to expedite
the process.
Mr. Boyd commented that July would be acceptable.
__________
Ms. Thomas said that as the liaison for the Mountain Overlay District, that group is talking about
strengthening the environmental protection for the mountains, and development that takes place in the
mountain district will be only in the form of clustering, and preservation through voluntary measures should
be encouraged. She said that there are not a lot of means for encouragement, but the group is working to
foster use of the tools that do exist. Ms. Thomas noted that the Rural Preservation Developments are one
means to accomplish this, but the committee wants standards that clarify what the “one house” is, and what
is around it.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she represented the Board at a VML/VACO seminar on the impacts of the
property tax relief proposals, and what was discussed at that time would be on VML’s web-page. She said
June 1, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
that she would send an email when it goes online. Ms. Thomas mentioned that the revenues the state has
received from income tax and the local real estate tax revenues are almost identical in the amount they
have grown, but they tend to grow at different times.
Mr. Boyd asked that the county becomes a participant in the online survey system, which compares
total compensation packages of state localities.
__________
Ms. Thomas suggested giving the grocery gift received earlier to social services.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 24. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 3:05 p.m.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 01/04/2006
Initials: DM