2000-09-06September 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
September 6, 2000, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr.
Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Clerk, Ella W. Carey, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:05 a.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Martin.
_______________
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. There were none.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Presentation: Certificates of Appreciation.
At this time, Mr. Martin presented a plaque and a coffee mug to the members of the PDR
(Purchase of Development Rights) Committee; Joseph Jones, Bill Finley, Babette Thorpe, Daniel Jordan,
Stephen Crane, Joseph Samuels, Ed Bain, Wayne Elliott, Gregory Edwards and Sherry Buttrick. He said
this committee worked with staff and other interested parties to shape and bring to life what began as the
development rights program and is now being called the (ACE) Acquisition of Conservation Easements
program. He said this group crafted a program that will allow the County to purchase easements on
selected properties to protect valuable assets such as open space, forest lands, clean water, airsheds and
scenic vistas. The program began recently with the hiring of a part-time program coordinator and
appointment of an ACE Committee to help promote the program, rank applications for parcels to be
considered for inclusion, and make recommendations to the Board as to which conservation easements
should be purchased. On behalf of the Board, he thanked the members for their time and dedication while
serving on the PDR Committee.
__________
Mr. Martin then presented a certificate to Ms. Meredith Gunter from the Commission on Children
and Families. She served the Commission in a variety of positions including: a member of the Executive
Committee, Commission Vice-Chairman, and the Agency Budget Review work groups. Ms. Gunter served
on the Commission from its inception to the present and developed an ability to see the big picture on
issues affecting the Commission. She also stressed the value of community participation and support of
the Commission’s initiatives. On behalf of the Board, Mr. Martin extended sincere appreciation to Ms.
Gunter.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Ms.
Thomas, to approve Items 6.1 through 6.8 on the Consent Agenda, and to accept the remaining items for
information (Note: conversation regarding any item will be shown as part of that item). Roll was called, and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item 6.1. Set public hearing to amend the County Code, Business, Professional and Occupation
License (BPOL) Tax, to redefine amusement activities as a service business and change the license rate.
It was noted in the staff’s report that the Albemarle County Business, Professional and Occupation
License ordinance has always placed amusement activities in a separate classification with a tax rate of
$0.20 per hundred, equal to the retail tax rate. Changes in State legislation relating to the license tax over
the last several years have redefined amusement activities as a service business which has a maximum tax
rate of $0.36 per hundred. This rate was not increased when the County ordinance was amended to bring
it in compliance with the comprehensive revision of the BPOL enabling authority.
The major intent of State legislation has been to establish uniformity in tax rates and classifications
statewide. The proposed amendment to the County ordinance is consistent with that intent and would
impose a $0.36 tax rate on amusement activities similar to surrounding localities and other service
businesses within the County. It would impact approximately 25 businesses. The County would recognize
increased revenue of approximately $27,000. In order to establish uniformity in tax rates and classifications
with both surrounding localities and the State as a whole, staff recommended adoption of the proposed
ordinance, and recommended that it be set for public hearing on October 11, 2000.
By the recorded vote set out above, an Ordinance to Amend Chapter 8, License, Article VI,
Schedule of Taxes, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, repealing Sec. 8-608,
September 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Amusement occupations, business or trades, and amending Sec, 8-616, Repair, personal, business
and other services, was set for public hearing on October 11, 2000.
__________
Item 6.2. Set public hearing to amend the County Code to establish a Daily Rental Tax.
It was noted in the staff’s report that the Virginia Code provides that a locality may impose a daily
rental tax at the rate of one percent of the gross rental proceeds. This tax is similar to the sales tax in that it
is collected from the user by the merchant and remitted to the locality on a quarterly basis. This tax would
be applicable to those businesses that rent items such as movies or music videos, uniforms or costumes,
lawn or construction equipment, and household appliances, etc. on a daily basis. Imposition of this tax
would exempt this equipment from the business personal property tax currently imposed. Review of the
major businesses indicates that annual revenue would be approximately $83,000 compared to $22,000
currently collected as Business Personal Property. The City of Charlottesville and most of the more urban
localities statewide impose this tax. Staff recommends that a public hearing on an ordinance be set for
October 11, 2000.
By the recorded vote set out above, an Ordinance to Amend Chapter 15, Taxation, of the
Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by adding Article XV, Short-Term Rental Tax, was set for
public hearing on October 11, 2000.
__________
Item 6.3. Set public hearing to amend County Code to change local taxes required by Utility
Deregulation.
It was noted in the staff’s report that legislation deregulating electric and gas industries passed the
1999 and 2000 Sessions of the General Assembly. This legislation affects several local taxes - the local
consumer utility tax, the utility license (or gross receipts) tax, and real and personal property taxes. The
changes are effective January 1, 2001. With one exception, local ordinances and revised tax rates are
required to generate revenue neutral receipts. The legislation exempts Federal, state, and local
governments from paying the tax. Many agencies such as the University of Virginia were formerly subject to
taxation. At this time, staff has not been able to quantify the revenue loss from the exemption. However, it
believes it to be immaterial relative to total utility revenues and will not have a significant impact on the FY
2000-01 budget.
There are five electric providers serving the County: Appalachian Power, Central Virginia Electric
Cooperative, Potomac Edison Company, Rappahannock Electric Cooperative and Virginia Power. There
are two gas providers serving the County: the City of Charlottesville and Columbia Gas.
Consumer Utility Tax: Localities must convert their electric and gas consumer utility taxes from a
tax based on the amount of the bill to one that is based on the amount of energy consumed. The County of
Albemarle Consumer Utility Tax Ordinance must be amended by October 31, 2000, to comply with the
State statutory requirement that the tax not be effective until the utility provider has received sixty days
written notice. The utility providers were required to analyze 1999 transactions and provide revenue neutral
rates by August 1, 2000. Once adopted, localities will be not be able to change rates until the year 2004.
Utility License Tax: Utility License Tax revisions were adopted at the state level. Local revenues
would be affected only if localities were not imposing the maximum tax rate on December 31, 1999. The
County was imposing the maximum rate and should receive revenue neutral receipts in the future. The
2001 license tax will be paid by providers directly to localities. Beginning in January, 2001, the license tax
will be collected by the State and remitted monthly to localities. This will result in approximately $144,000
additional one-time revenues for the 2000-01 fiscal year which will more than offset the slight reduction for
the Federal, State and local exemption.
Property Tax: Property tax for regulated providers has been assessed by the State Corporation
Commission (SCC). Unregulated providers have been assessed by local governments. The law now
requires that all providers, regulated and unregulated, be assessed by the SCC. At this time, there are no
unregulated providers sited in the County; therefore, there should be no tax effect.
Staff recommends that the revised Utility Tax Ordinance be advertised and a public hearing be held
on October 4, 2000.
(Ms. Humphris said under the “Utility License Tax” section, she did not understand what is meant by
the language “The 2001 license tax will be paid by providers directly to localities. Beginning in January,
2001, the license tax will be collected by the State and remitted monthly to localities.” Mr. Melvin Breeden
was present and said he wanted to be sure Ms. Humphris was referring to the business license tax. He said
the business tax is based on prior year receipts and due in June. The license fee that utility companies owe
for the year 2000 will not be paid to the County until June, 2001. The County will collect the business
license as usual in this fiscal year. The State fee starts January 1 so the County will start getting checks in
February. For a six-month period, there will be “double” revenue. Mr. Breeden said that in the past, the
business license tax was not shown on the consumer’s utility bill. However, recently the companies have
started to show the local license tax on the utility bill.)
By the recorded vote set out above, a public hearing on a revised Utility Tax Ordinance was
ordered set for October 4, 2000.
__________
September 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
Item 6.4. Set public hearing to allow County to grant City of Charlottesville Gas Division Brookway
Drive Gas Line Easement.
It was noted in the staff’s report that the City of Charlottesville Gas Division has requested from the
County an easement for natural gas lines to be installed upon and across the public right-of-way known as
Brookway Drive in Albemarle County, Virginia. The City is requesting a fifteen-foot wide easement for a
two-inch P.E. gas line. Virginia Code Section 15.1-262 requires that the Board hold a public hearing prior to
conveyance of any interest in County-owned property. Staff recommends that the Board set this matter for
public hearing on October 4, 2000.
(Mr. Perkins asked if this is a County-owned street, and if so, why is it not in the State System. Mr.
Davis said the street has not been accepted into the system at this time. The County still has control over
what goes in the right-of-way.)
By the recorded vote shown above, a public hearing on a request to grant the City of
Charlottesville’s Gas Division a gas line easement on Brookway Drive, was set for October 4, 2000.
__________
Item 6.5. Adopt resolution to accept Graemont Lane in Graemont Subdivision, into the State
Secondary System.
At the request of the County’s Engineering Department, the following resolution requesting
acceptance of Graemont Lane into the State Secondary System, was adopted by the recorded vote
set out above:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the street in Graemont Subdivision described on the attached
Additions Form SR-5(A) dated August 30, 2000, fully incorporated herein by reference,
is shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County,
Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation
has advised the Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the
Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County
Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the road in
Graemont, as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated August 30,
2000, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to § 33.1-229, Code of
Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and
unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and
drainage as described on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to
the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is:
1)Graemont Lane from the intersection of Route 661 (Station 10+00) to
the cul-de-sac (Station 22+18, end of cul-de-sac) as shown on plat
recorded 4/29/88 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 990, pages 203-207, and plat recorded
on 7/17/00 in Deed Book 1944, pages 313-316, with a 50-foot
right-of-way width, for a length of 0.23 mile.
Total Mileage - 0.23 mile.
__________
Item 6.6. Approve donation of $4000 from the Neighborhood Grant Program fund to the Esmont
Odd Fellows and authorize County Executive to execute agreement to purchase 0.44 acre adjacent to W.
D. Ward Center.
It was noted in the staff’s report that in 1996, the Albemarle County Neighborhood Team began
working with the Esmont community to help determine the needs and improve the level of County services.
One of the major needs identified by the community was the need for an increased police presence. This
need has been addressed by the creation of a police substation at the W.D. Ward Community Center. The
Community Center is owned by the Esmont Lodge No. 7444 of the Grand United Order of Odd Fellows. As
part of the agreement between the Odd Fellows and the County on the use of the Center, the County
agreed to make improvements to the Center and grounds to enhance its function as a community center.
Currently the Center is used regularly for meetings by four different benevolent fraternal organizations, the
Greencroft Garden Club and the Southern Albemarle Organization. Future plans are for the Center to also
serve as a JABA meal site.
September 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
The Center has very limited space for parking. There is a small adjacent property of 0.44 acre.
The owner of that property is willing to sell to the Odd Fellows to allow for the expansion of the parking area
in the future. The Odd Fellows are willing to accept the property, but have no money for the purchase. The
owner of the property has agreed to sell and absorb all costs associated with the property transaction for
the $4000 County appraised value. The County Attorney's Office has determined that the County can
legally donate funds to the Odd Fellows for this purpose and has drawn up an agreement governing this
donation. The Odd Fellows have verbally agreed to the contract, but will officially meet with their board for
approval in mid-September.
The Board's Building Committee composed of Walter Perkins and Lindsay Dorrier met with Pat
Mullaney and Roxanne White on August 31 to discuss the County's donation for the expanded parking
needs of the center. The Committee approved the County's donation to the Odd Fellows using end-
of-the-year funds from the Neighborhood Grant Program, and recommends that the Board approve the
donation of $4000 from the Neighborhood Grant Program fund to the Odd Fellows and also authorize the
County Executive to execute an agreement. The actual request for appropriation will come to the Board
after the agreement has been signed by both parties.
By the recorded vote shown above, the Board approved the donation of $4000 from the
Neighborhood Grant Program fund to the Esmont Odd Fellows and authorizes the County Executive
to execute the following agreement to purchase 0.44 acres adjacent to the W. D. Ward Center.
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made and executed this 6th day of September, 2000
by and between the ESMONT LODGE NO. 7444 OF THE GRAND UNITED ORDER OF
ODD FELLOWS, a benevolent fraternal nonprofit organization (hereinafter the "Odd
Fellows") and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (hereinafter the "County").
WITNESSETH THAT:
The Odd Fellows and the County do hereby mutually covenant, promise and
agree as follows:
1. Donation. The County agrees to donate to the Odd Fellows the sum of Four
Thousand Dollars ($4000.00) as a charitable contribution pursuant to Va. Code §
15.2-953(A), to be used by the Odd Fellows to purchase in fee simple the property
adjacent to the WD Ward Community Center (the "Center') owned by Charles B. Brown,
Jr. and Phyllis Brown Rogers, described as 0.44 acres, more or less, located on the west
side of State Route 627 in the County of Albemarle, Virginia, and identified further as Tax
Map Parcel 128A1-32 (the "Property"). As consideration for the County's donation, the
receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Odd Fellows agree to assume full
ownership of and responsibility for the Property once acquired and permit the use of the
Property for parking and related purposes by authorized users of the Center.
2. Use. In addition to the uses set forth in section 1 above, the Odd Fellows
agree that the County may use the Property for any law enforcement or public
safety-related purpose without any additional consideration, including but not limited to
use by the County Police Department in connection with the satellite office maintained at
the Center.
3. Liability and Indemnification. The Odd Fellows shall at all times indemnify
and hold harmless the County, its employees, officers and agents from any and all
claims whatsoever arising from the use or condition of the Property by the Odd Fellows,
users of the Center or any other person(s) or organization(s). The Odd Fellows shall at
all times assume full responsibility and liability for the ownership and maintenance of the
Property, including but not limited to title and property insurance, real estate and personal
property taxes, and specifically agrees that the County is relieved of any responsibility or
liability arising from the ownership or use of the Property by the Odd Fellows or for any
activities occurring on the Property at any time. Furthermore, the Odd Fellows
acknowledge that, as further consideration for the County's donation, nothing in this
Agreement shall constitute a waiver of the County's sovereign immunity nor subject the
County to liability, exposure or obligation to third parties under Federal, state and/or local
laws, ordinances, rules or regulations.
4. Approval by Board of Supervisors. This Agreement is subject to approval by
the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
5. Entire Agreement. This Agreement shall constitute the entire agreement
between the parties hereto. This Agreement may be modified only by mutual consent
evidenced in writing.
6. Notices. All notices and other communications which may or are required to
be given by one party to the other shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been
properly given if and when delivered personally or sent by registered or certified mail,
postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
September 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
(a) If to the County:
Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks & Recreation
Albemarle County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
(b)If to Odd Fellows:
Lloyd Feggans
6924 Porter's Road
Esmont, VA 22937
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the day and
year first written above.
__________
Item 6.7. Appropriation: Education, $11,540.11 (Form #99084) and $30,849.90 (Form #20010).
It was noted in the staff’s report that the Albemarle County School Board approved the following
appropriations at its meeting held on June 26, 2000:
For Fiscal Year 1999 - 2000:
Murray Elementary School received anonymous donations in the amount of $70.00. These
donations will be used to purchase music stands for the After-School Band Program and to purchase books
for the literacy program.
The Adult Education Program, which provides educational opportunities to adults and assists them
in preparing for the General Equivalency Diploma exam has received revenue in the amount of $1046.00
from book sales to their students.
The Project Return II Program, which provides instruction at home for students who require
alternative education, has collected tuition fees from these students in the amount of $2002.50. This tuition
helps to cover the expense of this alternative education.
State funding for the Individualized Student Alternative Education Program (ISAEP) was increased
by $3164.00 from the original budget amount of $23,576.00. It is requested that these funds be
appropriated in the 1999-00 fiscal year to cover expenses.
The Miscellaneous Grants Fund Balance includes funds which were not fully expended in the
1998-99 fiscal year. There are two People-Who-Read-Achieve Southland Corporation grants: $1000.00
for Woodbrook Elementary School and $2000.00 for Cale Elementary School. Also, there is an
International Reading Association grant in the amount of $2257.61 for Murray Elementary School. These
funds will help motivate students to read more and help improve their reading comprehension.
For Fiscal Year 2000-2001:
Agnor Hurt Elementary School Grant: State Farm Insurance Company awarded Agnor-Hurt a
grant in the amount of $25,000.00 to help implement the mobile classroom project, Do Drop In. The Do
Drop In is a bus equipped as if it were a classroom. The goals of the program are to improve the academic
performance of students by extending the time available to learn into the community and to provide parents
another means to support their children academically.
The Yancey Elementary School's PTO has donated funds in the amount of $1400.00. These funds
are to maintain the services of a school nurse at Yancey for the Extended Learning Time Program this
summer.
Miscellaneous Donations were received from Carolyn T. Kelly, $25.00; L. J. and Margaretta
Bourgeois, $40.00; Lawrence and Kristina Lawwill, $20.00; and Larry and Maria Williams, $15.00. These
funds are for the Strings for Students Program.
Albemarle County Adult Basic Education, which provides tuition classes tailored to the
individualized needs of the clients of private companies, institutions and agencies when needed to
supplement existing classes, received donations in the amount of $213.00 from International Cold Storage
Company and $1636.90 from Farmington Country Club for the English as a Second Language class.
Agnor Hurt Elementary School received a grant award in the amount of $2500.00 from 7-Eleven,
Inc. The grant, entitled People-Who-Read-Achieve, will fund programs that help motivate students to read
more and help improve their reading comprehension skills.
Staff recommended that the Board approve the appropriations totaling $11,540.11 and $30,849.90,
respectively as detailed on Appropriation Forms #99084 and #20010.
(Ms. Humphris said a lot of members of the public are making contributions to the public school
system, but she wanted to point out the gift made by State Farm Insurance Company.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolutions of
September 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
Appropriation approving this request:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1999-00
NUMBER: 99084
FUND: SCHOOL/GRANTS
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: EDUCATION DONATIONS AND GRANTS
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 2215 61101 601200 Books/Subscriptions$10.00
1 2215 61101 800200 Furniture/Fixtures60.00
1 3115 63322 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies1,046.00
1 3122 63349 112100 Wages/Teacher1,849.31
1 3122 63349 210000 FICA153.19
1 3142 60410 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies1,704.00
1 3142 60410 800100 Equipment1,460.00
1 3104 60212 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies1,000.00
1 3104 60214 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies2,000.00
1 3104 60216 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies2,257.61
TOTAL$11,540.11
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 2000 18100 181109 Donations$70.00
2 3115 16000 161233 Misc Revenues1,046.00
2 3122 18000 189900 Misc Revenues2,002.50
2 3142 24000 240360 ISAEP Grant3,164.00
2 3104 51000 510100 Approp Fund Balance5,257.61
TOTAL$11,540.11
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000/01
NUMBER: 20010
FUND: VARIOUS
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: VARIOUS SCHOOL PROGRAMS, DONATIONS
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 3104 60215 132100 P/T Wages-Teacher$7,200.00
1 3104 60215 133900 P/T Wages-Other Prof6,600.00
1 3104 60215 210000 FICA1,055.70
1 3104 60215 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies1,623.50
1 3104 60215 800100 Mach/Equip8,520.80
1 3310 60213 133100 P/T Wages-Nurse1,292.90
1 3310 60213 210000 FICA107.10
1 3143 61101 540410 Rental-Instruments100.00
1 3116 63348 132100 Teacher Wages1,708.38
1 3116 63348 210000 FICA141.52
1 3104 60215 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies2,500.00
TOTAL$30,849.90
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 3104 51000 510100 State Farm Grant/Fund Balance$25,000.00
2 3310 51000 510100 Yancey PTO/Fund Balance1,400.00
2 3143 51000 510100 Strings Program/Fund Balance100.00
2 3116 51000 510100 Tuition-Adult Ed/Fund Balance1,849.90
2 3104 51000 510100 7-Eleven Inc/Fund Balance2,500.00
TOTAL$30,849.90
__________
Item 6.8. CPA-00-04. Historic Preservation Plan: proposed text revisions to address Board
concerns regarding ordinance and related issues referenced in the proposed plan.
It was noted in the staff’s report that the Board held a work session on the proposed Historic
Preservation Plan on August 2, 2000. Comments focused on two sections of the plan: 1) A discussion of
Historic Overlay District ordinances, and, 2) discussion of voluntary historic preservation programs. The
Board voted to schedule the plan for public hearing on October 18, 2000, and directed staff to revise the
plan to 1) more clearly distinguish between the general discussion of historic preservation ordinances and
the Committee's recommendations regarding a historic overlay district ordinance for the County, and, 2) to
move the Committee's commentary on voluntary measures to a footnote. Comment was also made
regarding the Committee's recommendation on civil penalties. It was suggested that the recommendation
was no longer required because changes had been recently made to the penalties section of the Zoning
September 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
Ordinance. In addition, questions were raised regarding the plan's proposed incentive programs.
Staff has revised the text to address concerns regarding the ordinance and voluntary program
sections of the proposed plan. The section on civil penalties has not been deleted from the plan. The most
recent change to the Zoning Ordinance regarding penalties is already reflected in the plan. The
committee's recommendation is that a more meaningful penalty should be established (i.e., $100 is not a
meaningful fine for unapproved demolition of an irreplaceable historic resource), and that corresponding
enabling legislation be requested.
The recommendations of the Historic Preservation Committee form a balanced program of
regulation, incentives, education and voluntary action. Once the plan is adopted, the details of each of the
plan elements will be refined as the items are scheduled on the County's work program. In accord with the
Board's direction, staff recommends that the revised text be approved as part of the proposed Historic
Preservation Plan which is scheduled for public hearing on October 18, 2000.
(Mr. Dorrier said he knows this is not a public hearing, but he talked with Mr. Ed Scharer of the
Farm Bureau last night, and he would like to have Mr. Scharer come forward and state what his objections
are to the proposed plan.
Mr. Martin said he talked with Mr. Shackleford last night and he suggested that the Board simply
pass this plan on for public hearing and then allow everyone an opportunity to talk in person as well as
provide comments in written form. Then when the Board gets to the public hearing, it will have background
information which has been provided between now and the time of the public hearing. He also suggested
that after the public hearing the Board should take no vote, but decide at that point whether or not to
schedule another work session.
Ms. Humphris said that is the Board’s usual process. She noted a typographical error on page 29,
second paragraph, second line, third word should be “the”. She noted Attachment A, Page 38, at the
bottom, and said she thought the words the Board had decided to use in the footnote were “voluntary
program” instead of “ordinance”. She said that wherever the word “voluntary” is used it was to be “program”
and not “ordinance”. She also believes that the way Mr. Martin set out the procedure is the way to go.
Mr. Dorrier said he disagrees a little. He wanted to find out what the major objections are. He read
the plan and does not share the same concerns as Mr. Scharer.
Mr. Martin said he thinks that all of the Board members could be efficient by meeting with whatever
parties want to meet and discuss issues between now and the public hearing, ask for written comments,
and then sit down and study and compare those comments and concerns. Then, the public hearing will not
be just a three-minute opportunity for any one individual. The Board members concurred.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the revised text as part of the
proposed Historic Preservation Plan which is scheduled for public hearing on October 18, 2000.
__________
Item 6.9. Juvenile Detention Facility Project Status Report.
The staff’s report contained the following information:
1. Project Background: Based on a 1995 Needs Assessment, a 40-bed Juvenile Detention Facility
for Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville was approved by both localities. The Blue Ridge
Juvenile Detention Commission (BRJDC) was formed in 1998, which includes Charlottesville and
Albemarle, Fluvanna and Greene counties.
2. Current Status: A six-acre parcel adjacent to the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail has
been purchased and design of the facility has been completed. The design includes a small assessment
center component added by the BRJDC and provides for a future expansion of 40 additional beds. Due to
the extensive site work involved with the selected site and the tight project time frame, an initial site work
project was issued early. Site work began in July and is scheduled for completion in late October. The
main building project is currently being bid, with bids due September 13. The scheduled completion date
for the facility is January, 2002 with a superintendent expected to be hired in January, 2001.
With cost updates, including first year operational costs, the total cost of the project is
approximately $8.4 million with a State share of $3.2 million and a local share of $5.1 million.
This item was received for information only.
__________
Item 6.10. Letter dated August 11, 2000, addressed to the Honorable Charles S. Martin,
Chairman, from Mr. Marc Christian Wagner, National Register Manager, Virginia Department of Historic
Resources, stating that the Department has been requested to consider Mount Walla, Albemarle County,
for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places and the Virginia Landmarks Register, was
received for information. The property will be considered for nomination at a meeting of the State Review
Board on September 13, 2000.
__________
Item 6.11. 1999 Annual Report of the Albemarle County Planning Commission was received as
September 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
information.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Approval of Minutes: March 1, April 12, April 18(A), June 7, July 5, July 12 and
August 9, 2000.
Ms. Thomas had read July 12, 2000, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Bowerman had read April 18 (A), 2000, and found them to be in order. He had also read July
5, 2000, pages 1 to 22 ending at Item 7.18, and found them to be in order, with the exception of clarification
of a comment by Ms. Thomas.
Ms. Thomas said she cannot believe she said the County does not do well in public involvement.
She may have said the County still had things to learn. (Note: The sentence should read: “She was
impressed that the County and VDOT do not work as well as they do in that area.)
Ms. Humphris said she had read June 7, page 34 (beginning at Item 8) to the end and gave some
corrections to the clerk.
Mr. Perkins had read June 7, 2000, from page 1 to Item 7.21 on page 34, and said the location of
the District Home is Waynesboro, not Staunton.
Motion was then offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve those minutes
which had been read, with any corrections noted. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8a. Transportation Matters: Route 29 South Corridor Study Presentation.
Mr. Cilimberg introduced Mr. Bill Guiher from VDOT and Mr. Joe Springer from the consultant’s
office, who were present to make the presentation. He said they have a recommendation for the public’s
consideration. There will need to be comments made to VDOT by the Board about this study.
Mr. Guiher from the Richmond office of VDOT thanked the Board for allowing them to make the
presentation today. He said the study has been underway for over two years. The part of the study to be
presented today covers the section of Route 29 from I-64 to the North Carolina state line. This is the third
part of a study initiated in ISTEA in 1991. The Phase I study which covered the portion of Route 29 from
Warrenton to Charlottesville was presented to the CTB in 1996, but it took no action. From Washington,
D.C. to Warrenton was studied as part of the I-66 MIS and was completed some time ago. They are now at
the recommendation part of the current study.
Mr. Springer with the Parsons Transportation Group thanked the Board for hearing this report. He
said the study was begun with no preconceptions of what should be done. This part of the study covers 135
miles beginning at the North Carolina line up to I-64 in Charlottesville. The purpose of the study was to
develop a long-range transportation plan for the corridor, and provide a comprehensive approach to
transportation within the corridor. It is a multi-modal study involving roadways, rail, air, transit, bicycle,
pedestrian, all modes of travel. The study was initially begun out of Federal ISTEA legislation. He then
listed the quite extensive process used for this study.
Mr. Springer said the public was asked what they liked or did not like about the corridor. There was
a significant difference between those using the northern part of the corridor, and those using the southern
part of the corridor in terms of the improvements desired. On the southern part of the corridor, there are
more economic issues. In most cases, they wanted improvements in the way of limited-access, and
ultimately a freeway status. In the northern part of the corridor, economic development was not high on the
agenda, but there was a desire to maintain the corridor’s status so that the existing quality of life is
maintained, and the existing quality of Route 29 is maintained.
Mr. Springer said the consultants took several alternative plans to the general public at their last
meeting. Basically, they came up with three concepts. The first is an upgrade concept. In all cases, they
were not looking at adding capacity to Route 29. Their analyses showed that other than in certain spot
locations and spot intersections (basically in Campbell County south of Lynchburg), travel congestion will
not be an issue through the horizon year of 2020. Safety and maintaining travel flow are important to the
corridor.
Mr. Springer said the upgrade to the four-lane section is where a paved shoulder is provided. It can
serve as a multi-modal lane, or provide accel/decel for safety, it can serve as a bus pull-off, for bicycle
travel, and possibly, pedestrian travel. He said that from southern Albemarle County into northern Nelson
County, basically between Charlottesville and Lovingston, is the most beautiful part of Route 29. The public
had three issues related to that section, one being safety due to narrow lanes and sight distance issues.
The second was a lack of being able to accommodate only automobile. Occasionally, there are bicycles
on Route 29, but it is not a safe route for such travel. The corridor provides only a single mode of
transportation at this time. Third, there is the issue of maintaining what exists now. He said the upgrade
concept was developed to address most of those things. Part of the concept is to purchase access along
September 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
the corridor in order to consolidate access and reduce access points.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Lovingston was specifically discussed since there is limited-access there
now, and there is a very limited corridor through that area. Mr. Springer said one of the issues was the
importance of maintaining what is already there by controlling access because there are no choices there
for the future. If that road is allowed to degrade, the options for building a bypass or putting that road on a
new alignment are slim. Anything of that sort would be expensive and have a big impact on the
environment. Since it is such a tight corridor in that area, in terms of putting in limited access, there would
have to be frontage roads, and that would also be a tight fit.
Mr. Springer said the second concept is being called a parkway. The idea would be for a four-lane
section, and there would be two options, either limited-access, or a parkway with basically controlled access
between intersections. There would be no access points between existing intersections. A parkway would
carry a slower speed than a freeway. It provides for bicycle travel through a bike lane separated by a
rumble strip. Where there are interchanges, there would be a smaller footprint than a freeway. The idea is
that you are looking for a roadway that provides limited access, or controlled access, but one that is
sensitive to the environmental aspects of the surrounding area.
The last concept looked at was for a full-scale freeway. This type of roadway would be similar to I-
64, built to interstate standards with full shoulders and interchanges at appropriate access points. Both the
parkway and the freeway would require service roads to provide for local access along the corridor.
Mr. Springer than went over some of the items listed in the “Route 29 Corridor Development Study
- Combined Phases II/III, Draft Recommendations” dated July 10, 2000 (on file in the Clerk’s Office). He
S
said that once the consultants had identified the need for improvements in the corridor, they then developed
guidelines for any improvements to be recommended. He said this will be a transportation planning
document. It is conceptual at this stage for review purposes. The final recommendations will contain some
level of detail, but all recommendations will require follow-along studies by VDOT. Funds for
implementation of these projects have not been identified. The General Assembly passed legislation to set
up a Route 29 Trust Fund, but no funds are associated with that at this time.
Mr. Springer said the recommendations he is mentioning today are: A freeway should be built from
the North Carolina line to north of Colleen in Nelson County either on the existing alignment or a new
alignment. For purposes of this study, they picked an alignment based on the condition of the existing road.
Where there will be substantial development, they recommended building on a new alignment, otherwise
the road would stay with the existing alignment. Between Colleen and southern Albemarle County, they
recommend the parkway concept. From southern Albemarle County to I-64, they have recommended the
upgrade concept. He said the southern part of the corridor currently has bypasses around a number of
towns, and that played into the recommendation for having a freeway. In most of those sections, the
bypasses are built to limited-access standards. Upgrading the Danville bypass to four lanes from its
present two-lanes on a four-lane right-of-way, a new alignment freeway between Blairs and Chatham,
upgrading the bypass, and a new alignment between Chatham and Gretna, upgrading the Gretna bypass,
putting the freeway between Gretna and Hurt on the existing alignment, upgrade the Hurt/Altavista bypass,
and put a new alignment freeway from Altavista to Route 24.
Mr. Springer said the Madison Heights bypass which extends from Sweet Briar to across the James
River on Route 460, has been designed and is programmed to be constructed. The south Lynchburg
bypass is currently part of a location study. Between Route 460 to Route 24 that section is currently part of
a location study by VDOT. The consultants are not involved in that but are suggesting that whatever they
come up with would tie in with that project. That bypass will be a limited-access facility, as will the Madison
Heights bypass. Upgrade the Amherst bypass, with basically a four-mile section to just north of Amherst.
With those improvements to the bypass, there is essentially a freeway from the North Carolina line to north
of Amherst. The rationale to bring the freeway up to the Colleen area is that southern Nelson County is the
portion of the county where they are looking at industrial development. In the northern portion of Nelson
County the typography is much rougher, so they are looking at preservation of the scenic aspects. The
concept between Colleen and southern Albemarle County, a seventeen-mile section, is the parkway
concept, and then from southern Albemarle County to I-64, a fifteen-mile section, the recommendation is
for an upgrade of that roadway.
Mr. Springer said the railroad is a major part of transportation along the Route 29 corridor.
Measured by ton miles, about 80 percent of the goods carried in the corridor are currently carried by rail.
The consultants had many discussions with the railroad and VDRPT and, for the most part, the railroad
through the corridor is in good shape. The grades and the alignment are basically set for it to be a high
speed corridor. The consultants do have some recommendations to assure that the service in the corridor
is maintained, and look for opportunities to increase passenger service. There are some recommenda-
tions to make grade separations on the primary routes in the corridor (Route 24 in Campbell County, and
Route 56 in Nelson County). There is a stretch of track between Elma and Faber where they recommend a
straightening of the track. In each of the counties, they are recommending that the industrial use of rail be
encouraged through local zoning, subsidizes, or subsidizes for construction of rail sidings. Most of the
corridor is currently single track although the right-of-way is there for double track. The recommendation is
to double track the entire line. Concerning the Trans-Dominion Rail Service from Bristol to Washington,
D.C., on which the VDRPT did a separate study, they are recommending that it be implemented within the
context of this study. In the Lynchburg area, the study recommends relocating the train station to the airport
to provide a more multi-modal facility. They picked up on something North Carolina does, and that is to
provide an AMTRAK subsidy, and they are recommending that an additional passenger rail train be
provided through the corridor, one train per day.
September 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
As to transit and ride share recommendations, they recommend that the mileage of fixed route and
para-transit services be increased as appropriate. Increasing support for ride-share services, commuter
van services from Amherst and Route 24 into Lynchburg, commuter van service in the Danville
area, and they have recommended a number of park and ride locations at Route 6 North in Nelson County,
Lovingston, and also in Amherst and Blairs at Route 24 in the southern portion of the corridor.
As to bicycle lanes, they are part of the parkway concept and the upgrade concept. They are
showing bicycle lanes along the parkway in Nelson County, and bicycle travel on the multi-modal shoulders
in Albemarle County. The Central Virginia Planning District Commission recently adopted a regional bike
plan, but their plan does not provide for bike travel on Route 29. They put most of their bike routes on
adjacent or parallel facilities.
Mr. Springer said they did make some recommendations for pedestrian travel. Although it is
difficult to think of pedestrian travel along this 135 mile corridor, it is an important mode of travel in local
areas. They are recommending that a pedestrian overpass be considered in Lovingston, and additional
sidewalks and trails be provided in the urbanized areas.
Other recommendations are shown in the report. Traveler information and services are crucial
toward efficient travel. A Welcome Center in the Danville area, comprehensive signing for traveler services,
historic attractions, and other locations of traveler interest throughout the corridor, are recommended. They
also made recommendations for Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) applications for the corridor. In
conjunction with the proposed interchange at Route 739 in Nelson County at the Tye River, they
recommend there be a new wayside which will complement the Virginia Blue Ridge Railroad Trail being
developed by others along the abandoned railroad bed along the Tye River.
Mr. Springer said throughout the process, the consultants looked at some places in terms of
interchanges based on existing and forecast traffic volumes, and in addition, particularly in Albemarle
County where they are recommending the upgrade concept with at-grade intersections, identified those
locations that are key to maintaining access at those locations. Their traffic analysis shows a number of
locations in Albemarle County as being candidates for signalization by the year 2020 based on increases in
traffic volume. In all those locations, as part of the upgrade concept, they are also recommending that
right-of-way be purchased at that time so that at some point in the future, the option be preserved for putting
in an interchange, if necessary. He then offered to answer questions.
Ms. Humphris said the report mentions things Albemarle can do to limit development in the area
south on Route 29, and comments that the County designates ag-forestal districts for reduced property
taxation. She said there is no connection between ag-forest districts and reduced property taxation.
Reduced property taxation comes through the state program for land use evaluation. Mr. Springer said the
report will be corrected.
Ms. Humphris said there were two public information meetings at Red Hill School, and there was
the usual public unhappiness at that type of meeting. She thinks the people would rather have had a
presentation such as that made to the Board today, so they could have voiced their comments to the
consultants in the presence of all the other people present.
Mr. Martin said there are recommendations for the road, and other types of significant
improvements. He asked the relationship of the two. Mr. Springer said this report is the equivalent of a
135-mile local transportation plan. It shows basically all the projects recommended to provide for adequate
transportation modes through the corridor. They hope this document will provide guidance to the local
governments and VDOT as to how to improve transportation in the corridor. The projects will come up
based on local requests as projects are advanced, and the projects will have to go through the normal
processes before anything takes place.
Mr. Dorrier said in looking at the map, it appears that from the Covesville area to south of
Lynchburg, there will be a completely new road. Mr. Springer said from Covesville to Colleen, there would
be a parkway basically centered on the existing alignment. The new alignment is from Colleen to Route
151 in northern Amherst County. The recommendation for that part is to have a freeway on a new
alignment. In that case, the existing Route 29 would become Route 29 Business.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Madison Heights/Lynchburg Bypass is a new road. Mr. Springer said that is
all on a new alignment.
Mr. Dorrier said in Albemarle the plan shows a traffic light at North Garden, one at Red Hill and one
at I-64. He asked the timing on installation of those lights. Mr. Springer said it would occur sometime
between now and the horizon year of 2020.
Ms. Thomas said she has been representing the Board at these meetings. She has tried to point
out that it is not that Albemarle is unaware of economic development issues, rather, it is that Albemarle’s
economy is based on some physical ambience of the area, and the beauty and rural setting of southern
Albemarle County is part of the economy and economic development. When the University of Virginia has
to compete against Stanford to get some professor to come here, that beauty is part of what the economy
depends on. Secondly, since capacity is not an issue, the community does not want to increase Route 29's
capacity and entice more cars to use it. The County is not particularly happy with having it designated a
highway of national significance, but can’t do anything about that. The County can be sure that more traffic
is not being enticed to use Route 29, particularly trucks. Throughout this study, she has been delighted at
September 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
how the consultants approached the railroad issue. She thinks many people were surprised that 80 percent
of the freight traffic (by weight) in the corridor is by rail. Anything that can be done to increase the use of rail
will benefit the road by not having so many large trucks use it, and will also benefit tourists using the road.
She also said that the freeway should end at a fairly distinct intersection, to facilitate cross traffic.
Mr. Dorrier asked how this plan interfaces with the plan for Route 29 north of Charlottesville. Mr.
Springer said the limits of the Phase I study were set to end at the northern terminus of the proposed
Western Bypass, but this study, purposely, did not get involved with that bypass. There will be a
determination of how to bring the two roads together after this study is complete. There needs to be a full
set of recommendations for the entire corridor from North Carolina to Interstate I-66. Access management
is a big recommendation in the study. For this phase, the consultants tried to incorporate access
management.
Mr. Dorrier asked how priorities for these improvements are set. Mr. Springer said the issue of
prioritizing has to come through the process of local government and VDOT. The consultant’s goal was to
provide a blue print so that as the various projects are built, they conform to a single vision for the corridor.
Ms. Humphris said Mr. Springer mentioned that access management is a recommendation, but she
understands that access management was the recommendation. It was the recommendation sent to the
Commonwealth Transportation Board that was tabled and on which the CTB took no action. It is important
to know that the consultant’s did not end up after all the meetings by recommending a freeway, limited
access, or anything of the kind, but with access management. There is a clear distinction between the two.
The people from Charlottesville to Warrenton said “no” to limited access. Mr. Springer said the consultants
had recently looked at the Phase I documents because at the end of this study, there has to be some
closure to the whole corridor study. In reading the resolutions associated with the Phase I study, there was
no clear direction. The consultants need to get a resolution on that when the current study is completed.
Ms. Humphris said she thought there was a very clear-cut decision that came out of the Phase I
study. Mr. Cilimberg said it was very clear. Mr. Bowerman said it was not accepted in the report. Mr.
Cilimberg said it was clear-cut that the counties along that corridor wanted to deal with access as the
primary matter, and management of access, and if necessary, go to the General Assembly to get
legislation which would allow them more directly to do that in land use planning and decision-making. It
was recognized that there were local improvements along the corridor that would have to be made. Mr.
Bowerman said there were many curb cuts that would have to be dealt with in terms of some parallel roads,
but they did not want to change the character of the highway.
Ms. Humphris said this disturbs her. To her, Mr. Springer has indicated that there is an attempt to
go back and rewrite history. Mr. Springer said they only want to go back and reconcile the whole thing and
put it into a single document. Ms. Humphris said in order to reconcile, the consultant’s will have to
recognize that the results of the Phase I study were different from the results of this study. Mr. Springer
said they are going to look at some of the resolutions coming out of Phase I so they can be put into the
overall study recommendation. They only want to get a “good handle” on what happened, in order to
summarize it. Ms. Humphris asked the meaning of “good handle”. She said it was clear what happened.
Mr. Springer said to him, all the recommendations were not that clear.
Mr. Martin said this is just another issue where VDOT and the counties in the Northern Corridor
disagree. He thinks Mr. Springer is saying that disagreement has to be resolved.
Mr. Bowerman said from Lynchburg south there is clearly a different mind frame. They see Route
29 as a continuation of the interstate from North Carolina. He has heard from people from Danville to
Lynchburg that they clearly have in mind what has been listed in the report. The question came up of how
to deal with the section between Point 14 and Point 18 on the map (Madison Heights/Lynchburg Bypass)
and how to deal with the rural thinking of trying to maintain what exists in Nelson and Albemarle counties.
And then combining that with the southern area, recognizing that the northern study was much like the
Albemarle and Nelson studies. He is hearing that the two are directly opposite in terms of concept of what
the roadway should be like. He said further development of computerized on- and off-truck on trains is the
answer for transportation needs throughout the country. It makes economic sense. The needs in the
southern part are different because they are looking for industrial types of employment because they have
workers who are unemployed. Albemarle does not have that problem. It is just not a continuum of the
same interest along the corridor, and that presents the CTB a conundrum as to how to deal with the road.
Mr. Springer said the consultants feel the concept for Nelson and Albemarle counties is not one that will
change the nature of the road, but will provide additional means to keep it as it is.
Mr. Martin said the committee and the consultants have done an excellent job. The sentiments of
many people all the way to the North Carolina line have been incorporated into the study. The Board is
saying that at whatever point this study connects to the Phase I study, it should take into consideration the
desires and wishes of the community. Probably from Lovingston to Warrenton would have the upgrade
recommendation.
Mr. Dorrier asked when the consultant’s will give the Board an integrated opinion. Mr. Springer said
they are getting feedback from local governments in the corridor and will then come up with a more
detailed recommendation and hold a public hearing. After that, they will draft the final plan. They have no
specific plans to come back to the local governments, but would respond to an invitation to do so. Mr.
Dorrier said he would like to hear from the consultants again.
Ms. Humphris said VDOT has said the locality can say what they want in the way of a public
September 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
hearing, and she thinks it would be this Board’s choice to have a true public hearing.
Mr. Martin thanked Mr. Springer for the presentation.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8b. Transportation Matters: Meadow Creek Parkway, Phase I, County Section -
Melbourne Road to Rio Road, Architectural/Engineering Consultant.
Mr. Tucker said that several weeks ago, VDOT invited staff to Richmond to view a 3-D model they
have developed that actually starts at the 250 Bypass and shows the City’s proposed alignment of the
Parkway northward to Melbourne and Rio Roads. Because the Board was scheduled to discuss this
question today, he had the model brought to the County Building so the Board could look at it. He said the
Board may be able to recess for a few minutes to look at the model before getting into the actual
discussion. Ms. Angela Tucker is present and will explain how they arrived at the proposed alignment.
Mr. Martin suggested going to Agenda Item No. 8c, and then recessing to go into Room 235.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8c. Other Transportation Matters.
Mr. Perkins said there is a road in the Greenwood area which he would like to have considered as a
Rural Addition to the State Secondary System of Highways. That is the road in Corville Farms. He said the
right-of-way is available, but the road needs to be upgraded before it can be taken into the system.
__________
Mr. Dorrier said there is a request for a new subdivision coming before the Board on September 20
called Creekside which is located at the intersection near Monticello High School and Route 20 South. The
Planning Commission had questions about the traffic counts on that road, so he would like to ask for
up-to-date traffic counts on those roads for that meeting.
__________
Ms. Thomas said there will be a meeting of the Morgantown Road residents on Friday, September
8th.
__________
Mr. Bowerman complimented the Culpeper District Residency for its public process on the segment
of the Meadow Creek Parkway called the Free State Road to Rio Road connector. He and members of
Fairview were involved in their preliminary meeting at the Residency. He has never seen this occur before.
__________
Mr. Bowerman noted that VDOT has added a sign on Route 29 as one approaches the Route 250
Bypass directing traffic to Richmond. This takes traffic along the 29 Bypass south to I-64 instead of sending
it east along the 250 Bypass, across Free Bridge and over Pantops. He thinks this make a great
improvement to local traffic.
__________
Mr. Martin said he will truly miss Ms. Angela Tucker, Resident Engineer, who is leaving VDOT for
other employment. He asked if the things planned for the Route 29 North area will still go forward. Ms.
Tucker said Mr. Bill Mills will cover her role in an acting assignment, but he is very familiar with everything,
and things should move forward while VDOT looks for her replacement.
___________
Ms. Tucker said she would like to provide one update. The bids for Grassmere Road came in over
the engineering estimate, so the project will be readvertised. Because of this, the project may not take
place until early next spring. This delay should not impact the Six-Year Road Plan.
__________
Ms. Tucker introduced Ms. Melissa Barlowe, the newly hired Assistant Resident Engineer for
Construction, who replaces Richard Caywood.
_______________
(Note: Because of time constraints, the Board skipped to Agenda Item No. 10.
Agenda Item No. 10. School Board Presentation.
Ms. Susan Gallion was present for the School Board. She said current enrollment stands at
12,290, which is only 170 below projections. They feel another 100 students will be added this week. They
hired 170 new teachers which is 20 more than hired last year, but last week there were still six vacant
positions. There are 1026 teachers, full- and part-time. This was one of the smoothest school openings in
the County’s history. The many changes in administrative positions has been well-received.
Ms. Gallion said the School Board has worked on its priorities for the last eight weeks. They hope
to have them adopted on September 14. They are seeking appointees for their Long-Range Planning
Committee which will analyze enrollment trend data, population growth trends, building capacities, staffing
standards, the Capital Improvement Program and redistricting needs. Ms. Roxanne White and Mr.
Courtney Rogers (Mr. Rogers is from Davenport and Company) made a presentation on August 14 to the
September 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
School Board concerning the CIP. Ms. Gallion noted that the Long-Range Planning Committee members
will also serve as a permanent part of the Redistricting Committee.
Ms. Gallion said the School Board knows the Board of Supervisors has had concerns about their
policy on community use of school facilities. The School Board is reviewing that policy and Mr. Frank
Morgan is present today and can talk with the Supervisors about any concerns they have about school
buildings and their use. Ms. Humphris said she heard Mr. Morgan on the radio one morning talking about
the County’s schools, and she would like to say that if one had heard him, they would want to go back to
school. He was so positive and bubbly. Her concern about the policy had to do with Supervisor members
using facilities. She did not see that they fit in as an organization that does not have to pay a fee. Mr.
Morgan said there is a list of non-school organizations in the policy which would cover board meetings. Ms.
Humphris said she did not understand when a fee would be charged. Mr. Morgan said no fee would be
charged since janitorial personnel work at night, so there is someone in the building until midnight on most
days.
Mr. Bowerman said he has never had a problem with any community group or neighborhood
association, or himself, scheduling a meeting at Woodbrook, and has never had to pay a fee. Mr. Morgan
said they have tried to put in some language that is more specific for neighborhood associations.
Mr. Perkins said the Crozet Lions Club, which uses Henley Middle School, has expressed concern
about the fee they pay which uses up a lot of the money they get from their shows. Mr. Morgan said the
hardest thing about the policy is trying to reach a balance with their costs and paying time-and-a-half for
school personnel to be on site when they use the building at a time when it is not normally open. It is much
easier when the building is normally open. He said that when an organization such as a PTO has an event
at the school on a day when it is normally open, they are given four hours of free custodial services.
Mr. Martin said he would like to mention the after-school program. Last year the Board discussed
how people had to pay in advance, and there was no refund if they did not use all of those days. He had
suggested that parents be allowed to buy a certain number of days and use those days as they saw fit. He
said there is a coupon book now, but the parent still has to chose the number of days they plan to use in the
month. If the child is sick and does not use those days, that time is lost. He knows the program has to be
self-sustaining, and he understands the problems they have in collecting fees, but it seems the program
has gone from one extreme to the other. He thinks there should be a system to collect for services
performed. Ms. Gallion said some of the after-school programs have been lenient, and when a child is sick
the parent has been allowed to carry those days over. They are staffing for those children even if they are
not there, so there is cost involved. Right now, the after-school program is breaking even on costs, the first
time in a long time. She said they are trying this year to make things a little smoother.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the School Board knew the number of Albemarle students going to
Charlottesville schools this year, and vice versa. Mr. Morgan said the School Board’s policy does not allow
Charlottesville students to attend Albemarle County schools. Murray High School is an exception, but he
does not know the number of students involved.
_______________
At 10:44 a.m., the Board recessed and went into Room 235 to look at the model of the Meadow
Creek Parkway on display in that room.)
Ms. Tucker discussed the details of the model and stated that it is a true scale model of the existing
topography. Ms. Thomas asked when VdoT would make a decision about land purchase and move
forward with the park concept. Ms. Tucker responded that she did not know.
(The Board reconvened in Room 241 at 11:09 a.m., and picked up with Agenda Item No. 11.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-00-048. South Fork Soccer Fields (Sign #40 ). PUBLIC HEARING on a
request to extend the approval period for SP-98-18, South Fork Soccer Fields, approved by the Board of
Supervisors on September 9, 1998. SP-98-18 was approved to locate 5 soccer fields, a 2000 sq ft storage
bldg & 216 parking spaces on approx 72 acs. This activity required a SUP in accord with Sec 10.2.2.4 of
the Zoning Ord. TM 46, Ps 22 & 22C. Znd RA. Located on S sd of Rt 643 (Polo Grounds Road) approx
1.1 mi E of Rt 29. (The property is not in a designated growth area.) Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this public
hearing was given in the Daily Progress on August 21 and August 28, 2000.)
Mr. Tucker said he did not believe there will be anyone present for this public hearing. The staff’s
report on this request is on file in the Clerk’s Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board
of Supervisors.
Mr. Martin said he believes everyone is aware of all the details of this request. He then opened the
hearing to the public and asked for comments. No one from the public rose to speak, so the public hearing
was immediately closed. Mr. Martin requested a motion on this matter.
Motion to approve SP-00-048 as recommended by the Planning Commission on August 29, 2000,
and subject to the 14 conditions recommended, was offered by Ms. Humphris and seconded by Ms.
Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
September 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1.No exterior lighting shall be installed;
2.No loudspeakers or public address system shall be permitted;
3.No portion of any field shall be located closer than 75 feet to any lot line;
4.Compliance with the provisions of Section 5.1.16;
5.Entrance to the site shall be gated to prevent use of the site after hours and
during flood events;
6.The final site plan should reflect any changes to the flood plain and floodway
limits, and the applicant must provide computations supporting any such
changes, as well as copies of the correspondence demonstrating approval by
FEMA;
7.Water quality measures shall be provided to achieve water quality at least
equivalent to predevelopment conditions, subject to the approval of the Water
Resources Manager;
8.Route 643 (Polo Grounds Road) shall be upgraded with a minimum of 1.5
inches of SM-2A from Route 29 to the entrance of the soccer fields. This work
shall be completed prior to the applicant making use of both SP-98-18/SP-98-22
(Soccer Fields) and SP-90-35 (Church). The applicant may make use of one of
the special use permits without the need to upgrade Route 643 (Polo Grounds
Road);
9.The owner shall reserve a 100 foot wide strip of land the length of the property
abutting the northern side of the Rivanna River for the Rivanna Greenway. The
width of the reserved area shall be measured from the edge of the Rivanna River
at its normal flow level. When the County decides to establish a public area or
park, including canoe access, within the reserved area, upon the request of the
County, the owner shall dedicate the reserved area to the County and such
property necessary for ingress and egress to the reserved area;
10.Phase 1 archeological survey shall be completed, followed by appropriate
mitigation measures, as directed by Planning staff, prior to issuance of a grading
permit;
11.The special permit shall be void upon notice by the Board of Supervisors that a
road design plan which conflicts with this use has been approved by VDOT
encompassing this property;
12.The use of the building shall be limited to restrooms, equipment storage and
concession counter;
13.The concession counter shall be open only during use of the soccer fields; and
14.A tot lot shall be provided.
__________
Ms. Thomas said appreciation should be expressed to all the people who supported the
archeological study (which was a condition of approval on the SP-98-18). Mr. Bowerman said he has heard
that the work would have cost $50,000 without the help of so many volunteers. Also, Dr. Hurt helped by
providing the big equipment needed.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Legislative Presentation by Dave Blount, TJPDC Legislative Liaison.
Mr. Blount was present to provide an update for the Board on the progress in putting together a
legislative proposal for the PDC for the 2001 Session of the General Assembly. Last year, the program
contained several prioritized action items, as well as a section on ongoing and continuing concerns. In his
initial drafting, he has scaled back the program in that latter section, basically by consolidating duplicate
items.
Mr. Blount said tax structure and reform will be a priority item, as will land use and growth
management, the Comprehensive Services Act, and Standards of Quality (education funding). In July, the
Board approved a list of items to be sent to VACO for inclusion in their package. He said that all of those
items are currently in the PDC’s program, or will be incorporated into the draft. There is an item that he and
Ms. Thomas have talked about concerning preservation of historic structures, which will be included. He
plans to have the final draft ready by the end of September, and hopefully get the Board’s approval of the
program early in November. He asked for Board comments.
Mr. Martin said a lot of the increases in the Comprehensive Services Act are driven by state
mandates. In particular, state mandates to do with special education and emotionally disturbed and
severally emotionally disturbed. When talking about children at the age of 15 or more, the child does not
want to be in school, and the parents do not want the child to be in school, the school does not want the
child in school, but instead of allowing that child to simply drop out, incredible amounts of money are spent
to place that child in programs. He understands the goals and agrees with those goals, but strategically
there needs to be a third, administrative exemption for that child. He said at this point, the education
process is over. Instead of just admitting this, games are being played with the process.
Mr. Blount said he thinks the cost aspect will get more attention this year, particularly as it relates to
some of the high cost placements. There has been discussion that there be a cap placed on local
expenditures. Second, there were some changes made to the compulsory attendance law a couple of
years ago, where students and parents can go to the school board and seek waivers. A lot of people have
taken advantage of that new law.
September 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
Mr. Bowerman asked where the facilities are located that cost so much. Mr. Martin named several
facilities and said there are more of these facilities all the time. There are basically four personnel
assigned to each child, plus feeding and clothing costs. But, it is only a learning environment if the child will
take advantage of it. Basically, by this time, the learning experience is over.
Ms. Thomas said that after hearing the Route 29 Corridor Study report, it is obvious how important
freight train service is to the quality of life. She thinks passenger rail service should also be added to the
legislative program. Mr. Blount said the Trans-Dominion passenger service was added last year. He has
added language stating “we also support policies that would encourage the increased use of railroads for
the transport of freight in order to enhance the public safety, and to reduce wear and tear on highways.”
Ms. Humphris suggested adding to that sentence, “and the construction of new highways.”
Ms. Thomas said the High Growth Coalition has come out with two priorities. One is for money for
school construction and renovations. Second, that the General Assembly does not pass any legislation that
further diminishes local government land use practices. She showed a study that VACo distributed at
LGOC which shows that the state will have a deficit of $4.0 billion by the year 2008. She said as the state is
being asked for more money, the state will not have the money.
Ms. Humphris said she would like to emphasize two items in this legislative package. One is E-911,
and the photo-red traffic lights. Hearing what is happening around the state, there is an overwhelming
movement by the people to allow the localities to have the photo-red traffic light programs. Many lives can
be saved. In this area, it is “angryfy-ing” to see what is happening. People deliberately go through red
lights, endangering lives. The E-911 thing should not be an issue. She thinks the locality should be able to
charge what the program costs.
Mr. Bowerman said the Governor has modified the requirements for the four counties that have it,
so it seems that makes it more acceptable to him. If that is part of the legislation for the counties that want
photo-red, it seems that should make it more palatable.
Mr. Blount said what is being missed by the people making decisions about E-911 is that in the past
localities had increased the surcharge when they had capital expenditures, but then did not drop that
charge back down. If a cap is put on, flexibility for the counties will be reduced. Ms. Humphris said she
believes the localities should have the right to self-determine because the board has to decide on behalf of
its constituents what needs to be expended on the program.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8b. Transportation Matters: Meadow Creek Parkway, Phase I, County Section -
Melbourne Road to Rio Road, Architectural/Engineering Consultant.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Bill Mawyer, County Engineer, will make a brief presentation of this item.
Mr. Mawyer said the Board requested that staff hire a consultant to provide assistance in the
analysis of the design and alignment of the County section of the proposed Meadow Creek Parkway, to
consider the parkway corridor for its potential as a linear park, and to review the relationship of the parkway
to the development of adjacent urban land in the County.
The Selection Committee has spent the last several months interviewing three consultants. The
top ranked consultant is from Washington state. A detailed scope of work was drafted and has been
included with the Board’s materials today (on file in the Clerk’s Office). The focus of the study is to address
the parkway, the park and the adjacent urban planning elements. The primary focus was to be on the
parkway. The initial fee proposal from the top-ranked consultant was $248,000. The committee did not
feel that was within the original intent, so they have talked with the consultant for a number of weeks as to
how to minimize that cost and get it within the $150,000 range.
There was basically three different scopes of work.
Scope of Work #1 has been negotiated down to $200,000. It would provide a detailed analysis of
this roadway project to ensure it reflects the art techniques and practices for parkway design, analyze the
corridor for its potential as a linear park and consider the relationship of surrounding urban development.
Develop two independent parkway alignments and designs while also providing a comparison of those
designs with the proposed VDOT parkway alignment and design. Provide presentations/work shops for the
Board of Supervisors (3), Planning Commission (1), MPO Design Advisory Committee (2), County staff (2),
VDOT (2), and the public (2).
Scope of Work #2 would reduce the number of alternatives the consultant would evaluate, and
reduce the number of meetings they would attend, and the level of detail they would address on the road
alignment. The cost of this work would be $140,000.
Scope of Work #3 would evaluate the VDOT alignment only without a detailed evaluation of an
independent alignment. That provided a minimal cost decrease to $130,000.
Mr. Mawyer said that after the Board reviewed VDOT’s latest revisions this morning, staff has two
options to recommend for consideration:
Option 1: If the Board does not feel that the most recent changes are adequate to address
September 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
previous concerns, proceed with Scope of Work #2. The information provided by this level of detail will
enable the Board and others to reasonably consider the varied aspects of this project.
Option 2: If the Board feels that the most recent changes developed by VDOT are adequate to
address previous concerns, focus review on the linear park and urban planning elements of the project,
with minimal review by the consultant of the VDOT parkway alignment and design. Under this scenario,
purchase of right-of-way for the Parkway by VDOT should begin within 90 days and the consultant fees can
be reduced to a level within the original budget.
Mr. Martin asked the pleasure of the Board. Mr. Dorrier asked why the County is going all the way
to Washington state to get a consultant. He said there are two in Virginia who could do the work. Mr.
Mawyer said the committee reviewed the three consultants who responded to the RFP, and it was
unanimous that the Washington state firm provided the highest level of service.
Mr. Tucker said the process of selecting consultants does get into the cost of the work. It is based
on a professional type of RFP. After the person is chosen, then a price is negotiated. Mr. Mawyer said the
committee looked at them doubling up on trips in order to minimize costs, and in some respects the
committee has been successful.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there were a distinct degree of quality difference between the number one
choice and the next number choice. Mr. Mawyer said the other firms were highly qualified also, but it was a
unanimous choice on the part of the committee members to pick this firm. They seemed to have the best
technological capability to model a road.
Ms. Thomas said she does not have the expertise to say whether the VDOT model is good or not.
She thinks the Board needs to hire the expertise to align a road. She does not think a lot of public meetings
are needed to convince people it is a good road. She would like to suggest that the Board pick Scope of
Work #2 possibly reducing the number of presentations. There is the possibility of having telecommuting.
She thinks the Board needs more than a general analysis; it needs a road alignment. Mr. Bowerman
agreed. Ms. Thomas said the Board also needs to be conscious of what this is costing; the number of
presentations need to be cut. Mr. Bowerman said he would like for the consultants to look at the alignment.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks Option 2 does that, but there is no price tag on the option. Ms. Thomas
said she does not agree with Option 2, but does agree with Scope of Work #2. Mr. Bowerman said he is
also referring to Scope of Work #2. Mr. Perkins said there are two points to be connected, and there are
only so many ways that can be done. What else can a consultant say about it? Option 2 provides that with
just a minimum review by the consultant of the VDOT parkway alignment and design. Ms. Thomas said
she thinks the Board would get a better value for the money if it told the consultants to just draw an
alignment rather than having them pick apart VDOT’s work.
Mr. Dorrier said looking at the roadway on the model, it appears that it is going through heavily
wooded areas, and it has flood plain restrictions on one side. There will only be a few ways that road can
be placed on the land. Ms. Thomas said she wants the best route. Mr. Perkins said there are a lot of
places where there is only one way. He thinks VDOT has already done that work. Mr. Bowerman said in
certain segments that is true, but between segments there may be several alternatives.
Mr. Martin said he agrees with Mr. Perkins on this project. If the Board hires a consultant that is
willing to say what is being proposed is a bad idea, the County may lose money by then having to hire
someone to do a full study. If the Board can assume that VDOT, after what they have done through with
the City, is presenting the Board with the best options, that puts the Board in a different position. The
County does not have the same problems that the City had. The County’s concern should be to make sure
it gets an excellent linear parkway. In looking at Option 2, that is what will occur, unless the consultant does
not agree with the road being proposed by VDOT. Other than that, the County is getting what it wants with
Option 2. The main thing the Rieley study did for the City was to save acres of their parkland.
Ms. Thomas said Mr. Rieley did come up with an alignment that meets curvature standards, the
things needed to make it a pleasant road to drive. It was explained to her that VdoT’s present proposal
violates VDOT’s standards for how a roadway ought to be built. VDOT actually does not have the expertise
needed to build this road because that type of expertise is so seldom used. It is a unique road and needs
unique expertise.
Mr. Bowerman agreed, but he wants the expertise brought to bear looking at the community outside
of the linear parkway and the floodway in maximizing that area where a dense population is wanted. He
does not think that has been considered in the scope of work. He does not want the consultant to be limited
to that alignment if the County can get 300 more housing units.
Ms. Thomas said that is what the County’s consultant will take into account, whereas VDOT does
not have to make the same consideration. Mr. Dorrier said the Board has agreed to hire a consultant, and
he thinks Option 2 deals with urban planning and the linear park. He does not share the same fears as Mr.
Bowerman and Ms. Thomas that the alignment proposed by VDOT is off. Mr. Bowerman asked what
happens if that alignment restricts the County from usable residential land in some manner that the Board
has not considered.
Mr. Martin said he thinks the County has someone on staff that can tell it what land is usable. Mr.
Bowerman said the expertise this firm will bring are capabilities of state-of-the-art road design, as well as
September 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
the urban setting it goes through and the parkland. He does not want anybody to be confined to one line on
the map.
Mr. Dorrier said he is not sure that for $140,000 the Board will get what it wants from the
consultants. He has questions as to why there is a need to hire this firm from so far away. Mr. Tucker said
that is immaterial.
Mr. Martin asked for Ms. Humphris’ opinion. He said this is not one of those issues where the
Board needs to get to a 3/3 vote.
Ms. Humphris said looking at Option 1 and Option 2 as the staff has laid them out, they are asking
whether the Board feels the most recent changes laid out by VDOT are adequate. She does not know the
answer. VDOT did not show anything except the alignment, and their opinion and approach. They don’t
show the fall-out of urban development and development of a linear park. The park is one crucial reason
this study is being considered. The Board is trying to have the best road possible, and one which does the
best thing for the whole community, and which makes available excellent urban development capabilities
for the DISC Program. The VDOT model was beautiful and impressive. However, the flood plan overlay
showed the Board a whole lot more than it knew before. Just showing what property is taken out of play, is
important to everybody’s understanding of the situation. Mr. Bowerman said it also defines what is in play.
Ms. Humphris said it is important to know what land is in play, what the accesses to that land are, the
usability of the land, etc. She thinks the Board needs to have the consultant at the No. 2 Scope of Work.
The Board is not asking the consultants to come back half a dozen times to ask if their work is okay. She
wants to see a bottom line plan. She hopes the Board can go for it and reduce all of the presentations and
workshops.
Mr. Bowerman said the 12 principles of DISC need to be considered. There needs to be a
recommendation for the best alignment that is the least disturbing, and a park system. Those are the
criteria for the consultants to work with.
Mr. Martin asked if someone wanted to make a motion for Scope of Work #2 with a request to
negotiate with the consultants further about having less presentations. Mr. Bowerman said he would make
that motion. Ms. Humphris gave second.
Mr. Perkins said Option #2 provides for minimum review by the consultants of VDOT’s parkway
alignment and design. They may be agreeable with that alignment, or might not agree at all. There is still
the opportunity under Option #2 to get further review. He thinks the Board is wasting money. Mr.
Bowerman disagreed. Ms. Humphris said that under Scope of Work #2 the consultants have the freedom
to look at the VDOT line and make a recommendation thereon. As Ms. Thomas said, why has VDOT been
hiding this model and keeping it from the public. Mr. Perkins said VDOT has a lot of expertise. He thinks
that to go with Option #1 is just wasting money because the money would be better spent for landscaping
after the road is built.
Mr. Martin said he does not think anyone is going to convince anyone else of anything. The worst
thing that can happen would be for the Board to deadlock 3/3. He suggested taking a vote at this time.
Mr. Dorrier said he would like to have some oversight put into the contract so the consultant is not
just going on his own. Mr. Bowerman said he believes Mr. Mawyer will exercise direct overview of the
consultant. Mr. Dorrier said he would like to have that stated in the contract.
Mr. Martin said he does not necessarily disagree with Mr. Perkins, but it would be disastrous to
deadlock 3/3 on this question.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: Mr. Perkins.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Closed Session: Legal Matters.
At 11:51 p.m., motion was made by Mr. Bowerman, that the Board go into Closed Session
pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to
boards and commissions; and, under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding
pending litigation relating to the Ivy Landfill and regarding specific legal matters relating to a claim against
the County. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Police Department Accreditation, Presentation.
Before going into Closed Session, the Board met on the front steps of the County Office Building to
attend the ceremony. Mr. Ernie O’Boyle, on behalf of the Virginia Law Enforcement Accreditation
September 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
Commission, presented to Chief John Police, the Certificate of Accreditation. Mr. O’Boyle stated that there
are between 370 and 380 law enforcement agencies eligible for this distinction. Albemarle is one of 26
agencies that have accomplished this task. Chief Miller accepted the Certificate on behalf of the entire
Police Department.
The Board members then proceeded onto lunch during the Closed Session.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Certify Closed Session. The Board reconvened into open session at 1:40
p.m. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the
best of each Board member’s knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open
meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the
closed session were heard, discussed or considered in the closed session.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Ms. Thomas (she arrived immediately after the vote).
_______________
Not Docketed: Mr. Martin said the Board has before it a resolution to deny a claim against the
County. Mr. Bowerman said that Kurt and Jane Kroboth made a claim against the County for legal
expenses incurred by them in a dispute with the County. The Board finds that there was no basis in fact for
their suit and he then moved to adopt the following resolution denying payment of this claim:
RESOLUTION TO DENY CLAIM
WHEREAS, Kurt and Jane Kroboth by letter dated September 1, 2000, have
demanded that the County of Albemarle pay to them $4,940 to reimburse legal expenses
incurred by them in 1998 in a dispute arising out of whether their property at 186 Terrell
Road East could be served by public water; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has considered such demand; and
WHEREAS, the Board finds that the demand has no basis in fact or law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby denies the claim of Kurt and Jane Kroboth as demanded in the
attached letter dated September 1, 2000.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Appointments.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins to make the following appointments to the Route 250 West
Task Force: David Carr, Charles B. Mitchell, David A. Rash, Bonnie W. Samuel, Diana Strickler, Charles
M. Toms and William Viasis. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Allocation of Two Percent Funding for Classified/ Administrative Employees,
Discussion of.
Mr. Tucker said Ms. Lorna Gerome from the Human Resources Department would make the
report.
Ms. Gerome said the annual salary survey report presented to the Board last Fall recommended
that two percent of salary for each of the next five years be used to address competitive shortfall,
progression and structural compensation issues. The 2000-01 adopted budget funded a two-percent
annual salary pool for classified and administrative employees contingent on the staff presenting a plan to
address specific issues. The two-percent funding in the Local Government Fund for 2000-01 is $350,000
(of which $295,917 is direct salary and the balance is benefit costs) and intended to address these issues.
Staff made a recommendation to address issues in the first phase and estimates the salary cost to
implement these effective September 1, 2000, through June 30, 2001, at $265,847, leaving a balance of
$30,070.
September 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
In developing the recommendations, the annual salary survey and local competitive market were
reviewed. They identified positions that are more than 10 percent below the competitive market as possible
candidates for reclassification to a higher pay grade. In some instances the market data warranted an
upgrade, but due to internal equity concerns within the department or within the organization, it was decided
to do an in-range adjustment rather than a reclassification. They reviewed the turnover/retention data in all
positions for the past two years to determine if certain positions are not competitive at the pay/grade entry
level. They reviewed incumbent salaries for specific positions that would be candidates for market, in-range
adjustments, and reviewed the impacts of any reclassifications on internal equity. Several departments
looked at which are not included in the recommendations include Parks and Recreation, Finance and
Building Code/Zoning. They were not included because the differences are not that great, or the
department is planning a restructuring.
Staff recommends the following salary adjustments as described in more detail in the report
forwarded to the Board:
1.Implement an $8.00 per hour minimum wage. There has been difficulty in hiring and
retaining employees in the lower pay grades. Most local businesses and the City or
Charlottesville are starting employees at $8.00/hour. This would impact positions in pay
grades 1 through 4 and would cost $5633. They would like to bring all employees whose
salaries fall below this level up to the $8.00, and then start hiring new employees at that
level.
Mr. Martin asked about this change for classroom aides in the school system. Ms. Gerome said the
School Board did not implement this change for all employees. Food service and the after-school
programs, because they are both self-sustaining, were not included. Bus drivers, custodial, and office help
were included.
2.Adjust salaries for those positions which are below market and in order to achieve
commonality with the School Division (eight positions are included for a cost of $34,922).
3.In Information Systems there were four positions identified for market adjustment. The
in-range market adjustments of five percent for four incumbents would cost $6813.
4.In Planning and Community Development, salaries lag the market considerably. The survey
showed that three positions should be reclassified one pay grade higher (a five percent
increase) and nine positions should be reclassified two pay grades higher (10 percent
increase) at a cost of $39,296. She said the Personnel Policy states that when a position is
reclassified to one higher pay grade, it is generally a seven and one-half percent increase,
and if it is two grades higher, it is ten percent. Because there was not enough funding to
accomplish that, and because there were changes to be made in a number of departments,
a five percent adjustment was put in for the one pay grade increases. The School Board
also did that.
5.In the Social Services Department, three positions were reclassified. Two positions were
found to be below market level, and a reclassification for the Senior Social Worker is also
recommended for equity purposes. The cost will be $30,625.
6.In the Police Department several positions have experienced a high turnover. The average
salary for a police officer was $27,600. The market midpoint was $34,000. So an in-range
market adjustment of five percent for 13 positions at a cost of $134,329 is recommended.
Actually, 116 employees were impacted by the change, thus accounting for this cost.
Mr. Bowerman asked if exit interviews showed that the high turnover was caused by salary. Ms.
Gerome said they do not collect that data. Mr. Bowerman asked if there were an organized policy of exit
interviews. Ms. Gerome said it has been stressed to their department as a priority. Mr. Bowerman said he
would not want to lose good people for only $5000. Mr. Davis said that exit interviews are voluntary and lots
of people don’t do them. Ms. Thomas asked if exit interviews are offered to all employees. Ms. Gerome
said they are not offered by her department at this time.
7.A number of positions in the Engineering and Public Works Department are below the
market, so in-range market adjustments of five percent for seven incumbents is
recommended at a cost of $14,229.
8.The Emergency Communications Center has experienced high turnover, and difficulty in
filling vacancies. Three positions are recommended to be reclassified to a higher pay grade.
This will be funded out of the jointly funded E-911 budget (it is not included in the cost).
Mr. Martin asked for a motion. Mr. Bowerman offered motion to accept the staff’s
recommendations shown as Nos. 1 - 8 above. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the County contracts for any services. Mr. Tucker said it does for lots of things
including engineering and consultants. Mr. Dorrier asked if contracting for services has been looked at as a
possibility instead of increasing salaries. Mr. Tucker said staff can look at that. He said that when
individuals are lost, if the salary does not match the market, they cannot be replaced. Ms. Thomas said the
Federal Government is going in that direction. That does not mean government is costing less.
September 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
Mr. Perkins said the charts provided to the Board show that the positions going to the $8.00
minimum were making from $6.71 to $7.71. He said there was a $1.00 difference there and he wondered if
some of those salaries should have been raised to $8.50. Mr. Martin said he would have no problem in
doing that, but he also thinks the After-School people deserve $8.00 an hour.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
Ms. Thomas said she recently attended the Southeast Watershed Forum and learned some
interesting things. The Federal Government essentially stopped funding major projects several years ago
and consumers are now paying for those projects. It will be a major problem all around the country.
__________
Mr. Perkins expressed concern about the Board's motion on June 7 to adopt the principles of the
Neighborhood Model. Normally, the Board accepts reports. He thinks the word "adopt" has had a bad
effect on staff and the way they are looking at this idea. He said the Board cannot adopt anything until it has
worked its way through the process. That is what is occurring now. He thinks that “accept” would be a
better word to use and would send a different message to the staff and the Planning Commission of what
the Board expects to happen to the neighborhood model. It seems foolish to him for staff to use the
neighborhood model on everything in the planning process at this time.
Mr. Bowerman said its just for information at this time. Mr. Perkins said the Board is not at that
point yet. The motion was to adopt, but the committee made the report and usually the Board accepts the
report. He said this report was treated differently from the way things have been treated in the past.
Ms. Thomas said she had made the motion, and she did it partly because the Board was sending it
on to the Planning Commission. She thought the Board was very impressed with what the DISC Committee
had done. What would the Commission do if the Board were to reopen all of the DISC recommendations
to them. She thought the Board should say that these were the principles adopted by that group. She
thinks the effect of that motion has been good on the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Ms. Thomas expected staff to go ahead and use those principles in the
evaluation of things coming before the Commission. Ms. Thomas said she does not know what she
expected at that moment, but she has been pleased to see the information they are sending.
Mr. Martin said his concern is similar to Mr. Perkins’. He did not have any problems with what the
Board did on that day. But, all through the DISC meetings and hearings, the Committee repeated over and
over that this is just a way of developing. It is not to be the model for the County. When he read the
minutes, he was concerned because it appeared that everything was being held to the DISC standards, and
he does not want staff or the Commission to say that everything has to meet the DISC model. That was not
the intent of the DISC Committee.
Mr. Dorrier said he is not sure what the DISC model really is. He does not have any preconceived
notion as what the DISC village is.
Mr. Bowerman said there were 12 principles that lacked an ordinance, or planning for the specific
areas. The Board asked the Planning Commission to go over the 12 principles and return their
recommendations to this Board. He did not consider whether or not staff would be making any input in
current events based on that other than the Commission working on the principles. The fact that they do
put in advisory comments which lend themselves to better planning, is fine. It did not occur to him that they
would be initiating while fine tuning at the same time.
Mr. Martin said if “we go down that road too far” the final DISC recommendations that come to this
Board probably will not be passed.
Mr. Perkins said what he is saying is that staff is trying to incorporate these things on everything that
is coming through, but there is no law to back it up.
Ms. Humphris said she agrees with Mr. Perkins. To her the principles were positive and harmless
as general principles. Mr. Perkins said that is his understanding also.
Ms. Humphris said it is her understanding that staff has simply been holding them up as an
exercise. They are not saying that any proposal is good or bad. There are some things with the proposal
that she is concerned about. She thinks there will be very interesting discussions by this Board when the
recommendations come back. There are some things which just do not fit in with the way this Board might
have to continue to do business in the future because of some built in limitations.
Mr. Tucker said it points out what the different Board members thought it was doing in adopting
those principles. He thinks there needs to be some consistency in what is being done. The Commission is
very close to finishing its work.
September 6, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
Mr. Perkins said he thinks staff is telling applicants that if they don’t meet the 12 principles, they will
not get approval. That should not be the case.
Mr. Martin said if the Planning staff and Planning Commission keep doing what they are doing now,
by the time the final product gets to the Board, people will see it as not being what the Committee said.
Then there will be a lot of opposition because every citizen does not want to do it the same way.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks the law has to be interpreted as to what a developer can legally obtain.
That developer can’t be held to 12 development criteria which are not part of the development ordinance.
He said Mr. Perkins may have a point.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Board wants to remind staff that these things are not legally binding at this
time. It is a little late to send a different message to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Perkins said he is more concerned about the direction staff is taking. He said back in 1995
there was the in-fill committee. He does not believe the DISC Committee is on a par with that committee’s
recommendations. It seems like the Neighborhood Model has to be for a perfect sized piece of property
before all of the principles can be applied.
Mr. Bowerman said the DISC Committee worked on the report for a couple of years, and this Board
passed it and the Commission has been working on it. He does not have any problem with staff discussing
a specific application and trying to work toward that total plan.
Ms. Humphris said the end product is to try and make it possible for certain things to happen, not to
say what has to happen. Mr. Martin said that is what the DISC Committee said. Ms. Thomas said the DISC
recommendations were just good planning principles. She thinks the Board did the appropriate thing.
__________
Mr. Tucker said VDOT’s Meadow Creek Parkway model will be on display in Room 214 near the
Planning Department for a couple of weeks.
__________
Mr. Tucker mentioned plans for resurfacing the parking lot at the County Office Building. Public
parking will also be expanded to the immediate parking lot just below the grade of this upper lot. The
Police Department will move their parking to the upper lot behind the building. Also, the landscaping
around the building will be upgraded. They hope it will become an example of what is being called
“heritage materials” which grow in this area easily. There will also be a bio-filter in the area next to McIntire
Road. Most of the work will be done in the evenings and over the weekends, but there may be parking
problems during this work.
Ms. Thomas asked if any portions of this work will be accomplished with porous paving. Mr. Tucker
said he did not know, but will ask.
Mr. Perkins said he noticed this morning that the trees are in the flags. Mr. Tucker said the flag
poles will be moved.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks there is a need to have reserved parking for the Board members on
certain occasions. Mr. Tucker said he is going to give the Board members a “Board Member” sticker to put
on their dashboard so the Board members can park in the Police Department’s area in the back of the
building.
__________
Mr. Tucker said staff is looking at a security plan for the building. It may mean that a lot of the
doors will be locked all the time, and there will be only one way in.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 2:25 p.m.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date 12/06/2000
Initials LAB