HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-11-05November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
November 5, 2008, at 9:00 a.m., Lane Auditorium, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Ann H. Mallek, Mr. Dennis S.
Rooker, Mr. David Slutzky and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W . Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W .
Davis, Director of Community Development, Mark Graham, County Planner, V. W ayne Cilimberg, Clerk,
Ella W . Jordan, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Meagan Hoy.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:02 a.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Boyd.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Recognitions:
a. Miller School Fire Fighting Efforts.
Mr. Boyd said, on behalf of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, he would like to recognize
Dan Pugh, the Chief Engineer of Miller School, and his staff for their outstanding efforts in support of
improving firefighting capabilities at the school.
Albemarle’s firefighting water supply options in the rural areas of the county are very limited in
some instances, and this lack of water supply can negatively impact our ability to contain fire growth and
spread as quickly as we would like. In the face of this difficulty, Mr. Pugh and his staff have voluntarily
added two hydrants to their water line for firefighting purposes. They did this without any request by the
County Fire Rescue Department and at their own expense in spite of working under very tight budget
constraints.
The new hydrants at Miller School provide the only hydrant system for several square miles –
other water supply possibilities in this area including ponds, lakes, or streams are very time and labor
intensive to establish in the event of a fire.
He is very pleased to recognize Mr. Pugh’s initiative in creating the hydrant system, and would like
to extend our sincere appreciation to the Miller School for providing this valuable resource for this area for
now and well into the future.
Mr. Boyd then asked Chief Dan Eggleston to come forward to make a presentation.
Chief Dan Eggleston said with the Fire and Rescue Department’s long travel times and
sometimes inadequate water supply, they are often at a disadvantage when fighting fires in the rural
areas. Mr. Pugh “stepped up to the plate” and recognized the challenge of fighting fires in the rural area,
going above and beyond his duty to provide additional fire protection measures. Chief Eggleston
recognized Mr. Pugh’s efforts and thanked him on behalf of the members of the Fire/Rescue Department
for his duty to the citizens, Miller School and fire services. He then presented Mr. Pugh with a certificate.
__________
b. Digital Government Award.
Mr. Boyd said for the sixth year in a row Albemarle County has been named among the top ten
most technologically advanced, cutting edge county governments of its size in the U. S. by the Center for
Digital Government and the National Association of Counties (NACo) in their 2008 Digital Counties
Survey. Albemarle County ranks ninth in the nation in utilizing information technology (IT) to deliver high
quality service to its customers and citizens based on a population category of 150,000 or less, according
to the survey. Albemarle is among only seven Virginia jurisdictions ranked in the top ten for the four
population categories, and one of only two Virginia counties to be ranked in the top ten in the 150,000 and
less population category. All counties in the United States were invited to participate in the survey.
Albemarle is delighted to be included in the elite communities across the country that is receiving
national recognition for providing quality information technology services to their citizens. This award is
particularly significant as it reflects considerable efficiency, cost savings and improved service to
customers realized by the county website and other IT innovations. W e truly are providing convenient
access to County government services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week – saving citizens’ time and reducing
impacts to our environment as they are more and more able to do business with Albemarle at the time and
place of their choosing.
This honor reflects the hard work of the County W eb Team which is comprised of our W ebmaster,
Elaine Pack; our W eb Content Manager, Lisa Gilliam, and the Departmental W eb editors who are so
critical to keeping the website accurate and up to date. It also is a strong testament to our IT staff, who
continues to keep the County on the leading edge of technology innovations. Mr. Boyd then asked those
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
present on the web team and from the IT Department to stand and be recognized. Several individuals
rose as Board members expressed appreciation.
__________
c. VML Green Government Award.
Ms. Thomas reported that she recently attended the Virginia Municipal League conference.
VML’s “Go Green Virginia” initiative endorsed by the League’s Executive Committee issued a “green
government challenge” and Sarah Temple of Albemarle, among others, “rose to the challenge.” The
Green Government Challenge is designed to encourage implementation of specific environmental policies
and practical actions that reduce the carbon emissions generated by both the local government and the
broader community. Local governments earn “green points” by implementing or adopting policies and
actions listed in 11 categories. She stated that the categories include: energy efficiency, green buildings,
waste management, vehicles, land use, transportation, water and air quality, employee incentives,
education, community participation, schools, and innovation. Ms. Thomas noted that participants needed
to have 100 points, and Albemarle scored around 130 – making it an official “green government.” Ms.
Thomas then presented the award to Sarah Temple and the staff of General Services.
__________
d. Bob W illingham, County Assessor.
Mr. Tucker introduced Bob W illingham, the County’s new assessor. Mr. W illingham oversaw all
appraisal responsibilities in Loudoun County for the past 20 years. Mr. W illingham also worked for
Manassas and the City of Fairfax, as well as in the private sector. Mr. Tucker recommended that the
Board appoint Robert H. W illingham as the County Assessor effective October 13, 2008.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to appoint Mr. Robert (Bob) H. W illingham, County Assessor,
effective October 13, 2008. Ms. Thomas seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
Mr. W illingham said he is glad to be here. He is a Virginia native and lived in Loudoun County
most of his life. His wife had said there were three places in Virginia she would like to go, and the first on
her list was the Albemarle and Charlottesville area.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Mallek provided Board members with copies of information she picked up at the recent
Chamber of Commerce luncheon where they discussed safety on Route 29 North, and information from a
highway safety presentation by VDoT. She reported that they are trying to focus on accomplishable,
small, less expensive safety measures that they can implement immediately.
__________
Ms. Mallek said she represents the Board on the Piedmont W orkforce Network. As part of their
strategic planning, they are focusing on making sure the One Stop Center is as successful as possible in
helping job-seekers, and also in becoming a true one-stop for businesses that are looking for employees.
It is an important investment that the Board will be asked to make in their budget for next year to meet the
per person donation to keep the One Stop going.
__________
W ith yesterday’s election, Ms. Mallek said that she heard lots of feedback from constituents on
wanting better voting machines. She was asked why the County could not get new machines for 2010.
There is great interest in a grassroots effort that maybe County government will want to be part of. If the
Board wants, she can bring it up at the VaCo Annual meeting this weekend.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there were any problems with machines.
Ms. Mallek responded that most of the machines being used are no longer legal. She knows that
last summer before the July 1st cutoff the County had to buy more of the illegal ones in order to have
enough machines to get through yesterday’s election.
Mr. Boyd and other Board members emphasized that they are not “illegal,” but just could not be
sold after July 1st. He also asked how new machines would be paid for.
Ms. Mallek responded that there has to be a tremendous push from the bottom to have a paper
trail.
__________
To comment on the election, Mr. Rooker said there were very few waits and the election seemed
to be handled very smoothly. He thinks the “people mechanism” worked very well. Albemarle has a lot to
be proud of locally for how the election was conducted in comparison to the four to five hour waits in other
localities and nationwide.
__________
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
Mr. Rooker mentioned that on September 5, 2007, the Board dealt with an issue on a grass and
weed ordinance, and that was more than a year ago. He said that they considered grass and weed
ordinances, and maintenance of buildings, and staff researched the various ordinances on how those
were handled in other localities. Mr. Rooker recalled that the Board wanted to go forward with some kind
of grass ordinance in the growth areas, and he would like to see it come back. During the summer he
received between eight and ten calls from constituents. It is very aggravating to the neighbors when there
is an overgrown parcel and nothing is being done; it does reduce property values. The places that have
ordinances that are responsive enforcement averaged about 45 complaints per year. He said that staff
had estimated a cost of $5,000 to $10,000 per year and that can ultimately be charged back against a
home or lot owner.
Mr. Davis indicated that according to Mr. Graham this issue is a work plan issue for Community
Development, and it is something that can be brought forward quickly if it is on the top of their work plan.
Mr. Rooker commented that it seemed staff had already done 90 percent of the work, including
researching statutes in other localities and presented information on the type of ordinance that would be
implemented. There did not appear to be a lot to do to get something in place from this point forward. He
emphasized that it was over a year ago this was done and it seems to him it is something that needs to be
completed.
Mr. Graham said that in February 2008, when he came up with a revised work plan based on
reduced staff, he indicated that they were going to have to stagger some of the ordinance amendments
out. They have been pursuing a number of them; next week the Board will hear the two dealing with rural
lots and contractors storage yard. Administrative waivers are working its way through the system. The
grass and weeds ordinance is one of the next ones in line. As he indicated in February, staffing is going to
require prioritization of the ordinances. They will try to bring them forward as staff is available.
Mr. Rooker commented that it seems to make sense to complete items first that require very few
hours, instead of prioritizing those that still require significant research and time.
Mr. Graham responded that they are within a month or two of having what is needed for the
mowing ordinance.
Mr. Rooker said a month or two is no problem.
__________
Ms. Thomas commented that one reason the election went so smoothly is that a number of
people voted ahead of time, but that was an additional expense for part-timers and staff.
Mr. Tucker indicated that he was aware of this.
__________
Ms. Thomas reported that tomorrow she would be representing local governments at a
conference held by the Department of Forestry. The focus will be on measures such as sustainable flow
of ecosystems services.
__________
Ms. Thomas said that Creciendo Juntas recognized the County’s Department of Social Services –
which went to great lengths to have programs and information available during Hispanic Heritage Month in
October.
__________
Ms. Thomas said that she went to the affordable housing meeting that the Planning District
Commission sponsored, and one of the items that came out of that was discussion of properties that are
being foreclosed on, which can often turn into opportunities for nonprofits and social service agencies.
There is supposed to be a report coming out in the next week or so on how many and where the
foreclosed houses are located in this community. She encouraged staff to keep on top of that information.
__________
Mr. Slutzky said that he is not comfortable with electronic voting, and encouraged the Board to
weigh in as far as input to the State. He commented that in Louisa County there was a glitch that
generated a confirmation page for the opposite candidate of who a voter selected.
Mr. Slutzky said he thinks the grass and weed ordinance is an important priority and would be
willing to move it ahead of some other items in the work plan.
Mr. Slutzky said he was actively involved in this campaign and learned a number of things from it.
There is a law about what campaign workers can and cannot do but he is not sure the law is entirely well
understood throughout all the involved stakeholders. There were a number of instances where different
political parties had different interpretations of what canvassers could and could not do. He was proud of
how the County police responded with “reasonableness and fairness” to all incidents. He encouraged the
County Attorney to get with Denise Lunsford, Commonwealth’s Attorney, to work on information regarding
what campaign workers can and cannot do so that it can be shared with campaigns, the police, etc. Mr.
Slutzky commented that private property rights and the right of free speech “bump up against each other”
and having examples of potential situations and how they are handled would be helpful. He clarified that
he is talking about people soliciting for a candidate, putting up signs, etc.
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
Mr. Rooker commented that there are a lot of nuances there.
__________
Mr. Dorrier mentioned that the previous week he attended a meeting at Monticello High School
regarding renovation of schools in the southern part of the County. He explained that at that meeting, the
question was raised as to whether Scottsville, Yancey, or Red Hill would be renovated or if a bigger school
would be built on the W alton site. He was surprised that the Board members had not heard about it on
the Board of Supervisors. He asked if the Board would be discussing this with the School Board. He
noted that renovating the three schools would be $15.0 million and building a new one would be about
$22.0 million, and perhaps the School Board could share some more information with the Board.
Mr. Tucker responded that this was generated from the Resource Utilization Study done last year,
and this is the initial phase in informing the public about what the issues are. He said that the process can
be supplied to the Board, but some of this will be discussed at the time the Oversight Committee deals
with the CIP. Mr. Tucker said that all of those things are interrelated, but the School Board could definitely
share more information. It is possible to discuss this with the School Board at the joint meeting on Friday.
He clarified that the Board decides whether to support borrowing of funds, etc., based on the School
Board’s recommendations for new buildings. He emphasized that the School Board has just begun the
process and they are weighing the available options.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the School Board had the specific figures Mr. Dorrier mentioned.
Mr. Boyd noted that the figures were in the Resource Utilization Report.
Mr. Slutzky commented that he thought it was the purview of the School Board to decide on
whether it would consolidate or build a new school.
Mr. Dorrier said that there was a lot of misperception at the meeting he attended, and he did not
feel that this Board had been very well informed.
Mr. Tucker replied that the recommendations were in the Resource Utilization Study. He added
that this is the initial phase it will likely take several months to a year before any of those
recommendations are finalized.
__________
Mr. Boyd mentioned that he had received something in the mail from the American Public W orks
Association related to “reinvesting in America’s transportation system.” He indicated that when he was
finished viewing the video he would provide it to the Clerk for anyone else who wants to look at it.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
There were none.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Slutzky to approve Items 7.1
(as read) through 7.14 on the Consent Agenda, with the exception of Item 7.2, and to accept the
remaining items as information. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion. (Note: Discussions on individual
items are included with that agenda item.) Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item No. 7.1. Approval of Minutes: September 5, September 28, October 11 and October 19,
2007; and March 10, 2008.
Mr. Boyd said he had not read his portion of the September 5, 2007 minutes, and asked that they
be pulled.
Mr. Slutzky said he would like to pull the minutes of September 28, 2007 as he has some changes
to make. The minutes are not verbatim (they were from Board retreats), but for when specific
discussions, he would like to have the Board member identified.
Mr. Slutzky had read the minutes of October 11 and October 19, 2007and found them to be in
order.
Mr. Dorrier had not read the minutes of March 10, 2008 and asked that they be pulled.
Mr. Rooker had read his portion of the minutes of September 28, 2007 and found them to be in
order.
Ms. Thomas had read her portion of the minutes of September 28, 2007 and found them to be in
order.
Mr. Mallek had not read the minutes of March 19, 2008 and asked that they be pulled.
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
By the above recorded vote, the minutes were approved as read. The remaining minutes
were forwarded to the next agenda.
__________
7.2 Fiscal Year 2009 County of Albemarle & State Health Department Local
Government Agreement.
The Executive Summary states that the Virginia Code § 32.1-31 allows local governing bodies to
enter into contracts with the State Board of Health for the operation of local health departments. It also
requires that these contracts specify the services to be provided in addition to those required by law, and
contain such other provisions as the State Board and the governing body may agree on. The County’s
contract specifies both the scope and costs for the services to be provided locally.
The Thomas Jefferson Health District (TJHD), in cooperation with the Virginia Department of
Health, is the primary provider of public health services and programs for Albemarle County and
surrounding localities. TJHD offers specific health programs targeted at preventing and controlling
infectious diseases, as well as initiatives aimed at improving the health of low income women, children
and infants. In addition, the Health District provides dental services and an inspection and monitoring
program to ensure the safety of food and private well/septic systems.
Non-local funding for these programs is provided by the Commonwealth of Virginia, as well as
from grants and income from fees charged to individual clients. In addition, the localities served by TJHD
provide matching local funds for the allocations made by the state. Moreover, the County of Albemarle
and City of Charlottesville have historically funded the following programs that are not mandated by the
federal and/or state governments:
• The Jefferson Area Child Health Partnership (CHIP) - An in-depth home visiting program
for at-risk children (ages 0-6) and families provided by public health nurses and family
support workers aimed at enhancing awareness and use of community resources to
promote health;
• A dental care program for low-income children.
The County Attorney’s Office has reviewed the proposed contract and has approved it as to form.
The County’s original FY09 appropriation for the Thomas Jefferson Health District totaled
$938,097 of which $262,716 was designated for the Jefferson Area CHIP program. Effective January 1,
2009, this program will be administered through the newly established Jefferson Area CHIP agency. A
separate appropriation request has been submitted to the Board to reallocate $131,358 from the Thomas
Jefferson Health District to the Jefferson Area CHIP. After this reallocation, the FY09 funding for the
Thomas Jefferson Health District will total $806,739. Of this amount:
• $562,851 is for support of federal/state mandated programs;
• $7,712 is to provide supplemental support for the Food Safety/Inspection Program
• $104,818 is for operation of the Children’s Dental Program; and
• $131,358 remains designated for six months of the Jefferson Area CHIP program.
Based on the vital nature of the services provided by the TJHD, staff recommends that the Board
of Supervisors approve the Fiscal Year 2009 County of Albemarle & State Health Department Local
Government Agreement and authorize the County Executive to execute the Agreement.
(Discussion: Mr. Tucker requested that this item be pulled. He just learned the previous
evening that the Health Department is not prepared to move forward with the numbers as presented.)
__________
Item No. 7.3. Route 640 (Turkey Sag Road) – Abandonment and Addition of Road
Segments.
The Executive Summary states that Route 640 (Turkey Sag Road) was realigned and
reconstructed at its intersection with Route 231 (Gordonsville Road) in the 1970’s. (Attachment A) In
1976, the Board adopted a resolution abandoning a segment of Route 640 and requesting that another
segment be added to the secondary system of state highways (the “secondary system”) as part of Route
640. The lengths of the two segments referenced in the Board’s 1976 resolution were erroneously stated
as less than their actual length. In 1997, VDOT requested that the Board adopt another resolution
abandoning the segment of Route 640 purportedly abandoned in 1976 because an abutting owner desired
to acquire the triangular residue between the old alignment and the new alignment. However, the Board
was not asked at that time to request that the new segment be added to the secondary system. Because
of perceived errors in the prior Board resolutions, VDOT has now requested that the Board adopt a new
resolution to abandon the segment of the old alignment and to request that the new alignment be added to
the secondary system.
Under Virginia Code § 33.1-155, the Board may abandon any road in the secondary system that
has been altered and a new road serving the same citizens as the old road has been constructed in lieu
thereof. W hen a road in the secondary system is replaced by a new road in a new alignment, the Board
adopts a resolution that simultaneously requests that the new segment be added to the secondary system
under Virginia Code § 33.1-229, and abandons the old segment under Virginia Code § 33.1-155. For the
reasons explained in the Background, VDOT has requested that the Board adopt such a resolution
regarding Route 640.
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
The segment of right-of-way to be added to the secondary system as part of Route 640 and the
segment of Route 640 to be abandoned are shown on Attachment B, which was provided by VDOT. The
segment to be added to the secondary system is 0.09 miles in length and the segment to be abandoned is
0.10 miles in length. The segment proposed to be abandoned is no longer needed because the new
alignment serves the same citizens as were served by the old alignment.
A public hearing is not required under Virginia Code §§ 33.1-155 and 33.1-229. Because the
segment being abandoned was within a prescriptive easement, abandonment destroys the prescriptive
easement and no further conveyance of any property interest is required.
There will be no budget impact.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment B) abandoning a
segment of Route 640 and requesting that another segment be added to the secondary system of state
highways as part of Route 640.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution abandoning a
segment of Route 640 and requested that another segment be added to the secondary system of
state highways as part of Route 640.
RESOLUTION ABANDONING A SEGMENT OF STATE ROUTE 640
AND REQUESTING THAT ANOTHER ROAD SEGMENT BE ADDED TO THE
SECONDARY SYSTEM OF STATE HIGHWAYS
(Virginia Code §§ 33.1-155 and 33.1-229)
WHEREAS, a sketch provided by the Virginia Department of Transportation dated October 15, 1997
(the “Sketch”) depicts a segment of State Route 640 (Turkey Sag Road) to be abandoned and a segment of
road to be added to the secondary system of state highways; a copy of the Sketch is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the segment of road to be added serves the same citizens as the segment of State Route
640 identified to be abandoned, and the segment to be abandoned therefore no longer serves a public need.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors requests the Virginia
Department of Transportation to add to the secondary system of state highways the segment of road depicted
on the Sketch as the “Section to be added” from State Route 231 for a distance of 0.09 miles to its intersection
with State Route 640, having a fifty (50) foot right-of-way width, pursuant to Virginia Code § 33.1-229; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors abandons as part of the secondary
system of state highways that segment of State Route 640 depicted on the Sketch as the “Section of old
location to be abandoned” from State Route 231 for a distance of 0.10 miles, pursuant to Virginia Code § 33.1-
155; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Resolution shall serve as the Board of Supervisor’s Order of
Abandonment as provided in Virginia Code § 33.1-163.1, shall be recorded in the records of the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle, and shall be indexed by identifying the County of Albemarle, Virginia,
as the grantor.
__________
Item No. 7.4. Abandonment and Addition of Road Segments - Earlysville Road (Route 743)
and Dickerson Road (Route 606) and Rio Mills Road (Route 643).
The Executive Summary states that the intersection of Routes 606 (Rio Mills Road) and 743
(Earlysville Road) and the intersection of Routes 643 (Dickerson Road) and 743 were recently realigned and
reconstructed, and a segment of Route 743 was relocated. (Attachment A) The new road alignments have
been open to the public since 2007. The Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority (the “Airport Authority”)
has requested that the Board of Supervisors adopt resolutions to abandon segments of the old alignments and
to request that the new alignments be added to the secondary system of state highways (the “secondary
system”).
Under Virginia Code § 33.1-155, the Board may abandon any road in the secondary system that has
been altered and a new road serving the same citizens as the old road has been constructed in lieu thereof.
The Airport Authority has requested that the Board adopt a resolution to abandon certain segments of Route
606 that no longer serve a public need because of the construction of the roundabout at the intersection of
Routes 606 and 743.
W hen a road in the secondary system is replaced by a new road in a new alignment, the Board
adopts a resolution that simultaneously requests that the new segment be added to the secondary system
under Virginia Code § 33.1-229, and abandons the old segment under Virginia Code § 33.1-155. The Airport
Authority has requested that the Board adopt such resolutions for the new alignments for Routes 643 and
743.
The segments of right-of-way to be added to the secondary system as part of Routes 643 and 743
and the segments of Routes 606, 643 and 743 to be abandoned are shown on Attachment B. Attachment B
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
is the plat that is referred to and incorporated by reference in each Resolution (Attachments C, D and E).
The segments proposed to be abandoned are no longer needed because the new alignments serve the
same citizens as were served by the old alignments.
A public hearing is not required under Virginia Code §§ 33.1-155 and 33.1-229. For those segments
being abandoned within a prescriptive easement, abandonment destroys the prescriptive easement and no
further conveyance of any property interest is required. For those segments being abandoned that are
owned by the County or the Commonwealth, once the right-of-way is abandoned, the County or the
Commonwealth are authorized to sell or convey the abandoned right-of-way for consideration or in exchange
for other lands as provided in Virginia Code § 33.1-154.
There will be no budget impact.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolutions (Attachments C, D and E) to
abandon segments of Routes 606, 643 and 743, and to request that other segments be added to the
secondary system of state highways as parts of Routes 643 and 743.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolutions to abandon
segments of Routes 606, 643 and 743, and to request that other segments be added to the
secondary system of state highways as parts of Routes 643 and 743.
RESOLUTION ABANDONING SEGMENTS OF STATE ROUTE 606
(Virginia Code § 33.1-155)
WHEREAS, Sheet 3 of 4 of the plat entitled “Right-of-way and Drainage Easements to be Dedicated
for Relocated State Routes 743 & 643 Across Lands of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority, and
Existing Right-of-W ay to be Abandoned and Drainage Easements to be Vacated, and a New 30’ Access
Easement, Rio and W hite Hall Magisterial Districts, Albemarle County, Virginia October 30, 2007, revised April
16, 2008” prepared by Kirk Hughes & Associates (the “Plat”) depicts segments of State Route 606 (Dickerson
Road) to be abandoned near its new intersection with State Route 743; a copy of the Plat is attached hereto
and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the altered State Route 606 serves the same citizens as the prior State Route 606, with
the only material change being the construction of the roundabout at the intersection of State Route 606 and
State Route 743, and the segments to be abandoned therefore no longer serve a public need.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors abandons as part of the
secondary system of state highways those segments of State Route 606 depicted on the Plat to be abandoned
(without consideration to the Plat’s notes as to which parcels the abandoned right-of-way should be added)
pursuant to Virginia Code § 33.1-155; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the any segment of the abandoned right-of-way that is owned by
the County is hereby authorized for sale and conveyance for consideration or in exchange for other lands as
provided in Virginia Code § 33.1-154, and the County Executive is hereby authorized to execute all deeds or
other instruments on behalf of the County for such purposes, provided that they are approved as to form and
content by the County Attorney; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Resolution shall serve as the Board of Supervisors’ Order of
Abandonment as provided in Virginia Code § 33.1-163.1, shall be recorded in the records of the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle, and shall be indexed by identifying the County of Albemarle, Virginia,
as the grantor.
_____
RESOLUTION ABANDONING SEGMENTS OF STATE ROUTE 643
AND REQUESTING THAT ANOTHER ROAD SEGMENT BE ADDED TO THE
SECONDARY SYSTEM OF STATE HIGHWAYS
(Virginia Code §§ 33.1-155 and 33.1-229)
WHEREAS, Sheets 1 and 2 of 4 of the plat entitled “Right-of-way and Drainage Easements to be
Dedicated for Relocated State Routes 743 & 643 Across Lands of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport
Authority, and Existing Right-of-W ay to be Abandoned and Drainage Easements to be Vacated, and a New 30’
Access Easement, Rio and W hite Hall Magisterial Districts, Albemarle County, Virginia October 30, 2007,
revised April 16, 2008” prepared by Kirk Hughes & Associates (the “Plat”) depict segments of State Route 643
(Rio Mills Road) to be abandoned and a road segment to be added to the secondary system of state
highways; a copy of the Plat is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the segment of road to be added serves the same citizens as the segments of State
Route 643 identified to be abandoned, and the segments to be abandoned therefore no longer serve a public
need.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors requests the Virginia
Department of Transportation to add to the secondary system of state highways the segment of road depicted
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
on Sheet 1 of the Plat as “28,114 Square Feet to New S.R. 643 R/W ” pursuant to Virginia Code § 33.1-229;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors abandons as part of the secondary
system of state highways those segments of State Route 643 depicted on Sheets 1 and 2 as segments to be
abandoned (without consideration to the Plat’s notes as to which parcels the abandoned right-of-way should
be added) pursuant to Virginia Code § 33.1-155; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the any segment of the abandoned right-of-way that is owned by
the County is hereby authorized for sale and conveyance for consideration or in exchange for other lands as
provided in Virginia Code § 33.1-154, and the County Executive is hereby authorized to execute all deeds or
other instruments on behalf of the County for such purposes, provided that they are approved as to form and
content by the County Attorney; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Resolution shall serve as the Board of Supervisors’ Order of
Abandonment as provided in Virginia Code § 33.1-163.1, shall be recorded in the records of the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle, and shall be indexed by identifying the County of Albemarle, Virginia,
as the grantor.
_____
RESOLUTION ABANDONING SEGMENT OF STATE ROUTE 743
AND REQUESTING THAT ANOTHER ROAD SEGMENT BE ADDED TO THE
SECONDARY SYSTEM OF STATE HIGHWAYS
(Virginia Code §§ 33.1-155 and 33.1-229)
WHEREAS, Sheets 1, 2, 3 and 4 of 4 of the plat entitled “Right-of-way and Drainage Easements to be
Dedicated for Relocated State Routes 743 & 643 Across Lands of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport
Authority, and Existing Right-of-W ay to be Abandoned and Drainage Easements to be Vacated, and a New 30’
Access Easement, Rio and W hite Hall Magisterial Districts, Albemarle County, Virginia October 30, 2007,
revised April 16, 2008” prepared by Kirk Hughes & Associates (the “Plat”) depict a segment of State Route
743 (Earlysville Road) to be abandoned and a road segment to be added to the secondary system of state
highways; a copy of the Plat is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the segment of road to be added serves the same citizens as the segments of State
Route 743 identified to be abandoned, and the segment to be abandoned therefore no longer serve a public
need.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors requests the Virginia
Department of Transportation to add to the secondary system of state highways the segment of road depicted
on Sheets 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Plat as “4.2967 Acres to New State Route 743 R/W” pursuant to Virginia Code §
33.1-229; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors abandons as part of the secondary
system of state highways the segment of State Route 743 depicted on Sheets 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Plat as
“2.5784 Acres Existing R/W to be Abandoned” (without consideration to the Plat’s notes as to which parcels
the abandoned right-of-way should be added) pursuant to Virginia Code § 33.1-155; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the any segment of the abandoned right-of-way that is owned by
the County is hereby authorized for sale and conveyance for consideration or in exchange for other lands as
provided in Virginia Code § 33.1-154, and the County Executive is hereby authorized to execute all deeds or
other instruments on behalf of the County for such purposes, provided that they are approved as to form and
content by the County Attorney; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Resolution shall serve as the Board of Supervisors’ Order of
Abandonment as provided in Virginia Code § 33.1-163.1, shall be recorded in the records of the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle, and shall be indexed by identifying the County of Albemarle, Virginia,
as the grantor.
__________
Item No. 7.5. Acquisition of Garnett and Other FY 2007-08 Class ACE Easements.
The Executive Summary states that on October 8, 2008, the Board approved the Acquisition of
Conservation Easement (ACE) Committee’s request to move ahead with the Anderson easement, the top
ranked applicant from the FY 2007-08 class (see Attachment “A”). Since the second-highest ranked
applicants (Garnett) were still assessing their situation when the Board met, the Board also accepted the
ACE Committee’s recommendation to delay action on the Garnett and other lower-ranked properties until
the November 5th Board meeting. The $735,000 cost to acquire the Anderson easement is only a portion
of the total funds appropriated for the FY07-08 applicant pool and the remaining balance ($826,026) is
more than enough to purchase the Garnett easement and/or other lower ranked easements. To avoid
delaying a decision on the lower ranked properties in the FY 2007-2008 class, the ACE Committee gave
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
the Garnetts until October 13 to decide whether to remain enrolled. If the Garnetts’ easement is not
purchased, the ACE fund balance would be enough for the County to purchase most of the remaining
properties in this class, including the Hudson (Michael), Dutnell, Riddervold, Hudson (Fred) and Thurman
properties.
Under Albemarle County Code § A.1-111(A), "From the list of applications received under section
A.1-110(D), the board of supervisors shall designate the initial pool of parcels identified for conservation
easements to be purchased. The size of the pool shall be based upon the funds available for easement
purchases in the current fiscal year and the purchase price of each conservation easement in the pool
established under section A.1-111(B)." Nothing in the ordinance, however, obligates the Board to
purchase a conservation easement on any property that meets the minimum number of qualifying points.
Because not every invited applicant is likely to submit an offer, if one applicant drops out of the pool,
another applicant would be added until the Program runs out of applicants or money, whichever occurs
first.
Goal Two, Objective 2.1: By June 30, 2010, increase the total combined acreage in permanent
conservation easements and qualifying public parkland by 30,000 acres (50%) using public and private
means.
In order for the County to reach this objective, 7,500 acres would have to be placed under
easement each year between 2006 and 2010. In the first two years (2006 and 2007), 14,064 acres were
protected, just short of the 15,000 acres needed for this period to stay on target. If funding were available
for acquisition of all nine (9) eligible properties from the FY 2007-08 class (see Attachment “A”), 1,310
acres could be placed under easement. The seven (7) appraised properties from the FY 2007-08 class
total 1,151 acres.
A total of $1,627,000 was appropriated to the ACE Program for FY 2007-08. Approximately
$66,000 has already been spent on easement appraisals and miscellaneous expenses from the previous
year (such as title insurance, advertising, brochures etc.). After setting aside $735,000 (see Attachment
“B”) for the acquisition of the top-priority Anderson easement, a balance of $826,026 will remain in the FY
2007-08 budget to fund other easement purchases. W hile some grant money may ultimately supplement
County ACE funding, nothing is guaranteed at this point.
The Garnetts have decided to proceed. Though the full appraised value of the Garnett property
was $928,000, adjustments from the income grid will reduce the ACE payment to $705,280, leaving
$120,746 to fund any of the other remaining eligible easements. Because the adjusted easement value
for the Hudson (Michael) property is $582,800, ACE can only offer 21% of the easement value. Uncertain
which invited applicant(s) might be willing to offer easements, the ACE Committee, at its October 13, 2008
meeting, made the following recommendation for the Board to consider:
Acquire the Garnett easement at the adjusted value of $705,280 and offer the remaining balance
of funds ($120,746) to acquire the Hudson (Michael) easement. If the offer to Hudson (Michael) is
rejected, proceed down the ranking list and extend offers to other, lower ranked applicants until the
remaining funding or willing applicants are exhausted.
Acquisition of the Anderson and Garnett easements together would provide the following resource
protection:
• protection of 319 acres of farm and forestland
• elimination of 20 development lots
• 7,578 feet of state road frontage
• 2,462 feet of riparian buffer on the Hardware River and 5,824 feet on the South Fork of the
Hardware River will be protected on the Anderson property
• Natural Heritage resources were found within ¼ mile of both properties
• Anderson lies in the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District
• 9,181 feet of common boundary with other protected lands
• 250 acres of “prime” farm and forestland
• Anderson has significant tourism value
In addition, the ACE Committee (during its October 13, 2008 meeting) voted to express its
concern about long-term funding of the ACE Program and its inability to acquire more eligible and highly
ranked properties. This concern is summarized in a Memo from the ACE Coordinator in Attachment D.
Funding for the purchase of these conservation easements comes from the CIP-Planning-
Conservation budget (line-item 9010-81010-580409) and the CIP-Tourism-Conservation budget (line-item
#9010-72030-580416), a budget previously approved by the Board to fund ACE properties with “tourism
value”.
The following recommendations are provided for action by the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors:
1) Authorize staff to formally send an invitation to offer to sell the Garnett easement at the
adjusted value of $705,280.
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
2) Authorize staff to send invitations to offer to sell to the remaining eligible applicants in
priority order (Hudson (Michael), Riddervold, Dutnell, Hudson (Fred) and Thurman),
continuing through the applicant pool until available funding is exhausted.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board authorized staff to formally send an invitation to
offer to sell the Garnett easement at the adjusted value of $705,280; and authorized staff to send
invitations to offer to sell to the remaining eligible applicants in priority order Hudson (Michael),
Riddervold, Dutnell, Hudson (Fred) and Thurman), continuing through the applicant pool until
available funding is exhausted.
__________
Item No. 7.6. Set public hearing to consider proposed ordinance to amend County Code Chapter
9, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, Article I, In General, and Article IV, County Vehicle Licenses to eliminate the
County vehicle decal requirement.
The Executive Summary states that Virginia Code § 46.2-752 enables localities to license vehicles
and to impose a vehicle license tax. Traditionally, most localities did so by issuing annual vehicle decals.
However, while still licensing vehicles, many localities are replacing annual decals with permanent decals,
or are doing away with vehicle decals altogether. At its December 5, 2005 meeting, the Board revised the
vehicle decal requirement from an annual to a permanent issuance. Since 2005, a growing number of
localities have eliminated vehicle decals altogether as a convenience to their citizens. Decals are not
legally necessary for the County to maintain or enforce its vehicle license requirement. As a practical
matter, enforcement of the County’s decal requirements has become less of a priority and has grown
increasingly difficult since the City of Charlottesville eliminated its vehicle decal requirement in 2005.
The attached proposed ordinance retains the County vehicle license requirement and tax but
eliminates the existing legal requirement that a decal be displayed. Proposed Section 9-401 clarifies that
it is the failure to obtain a license, not the failure to display a decal that is unlawful. Consistent with state
enabling authority, this section would also make the failure to obtain a license a Class 4 misdemeanor.
W hile Section 9-408 would still require all personal property taxes to be paid before a license was issued,
Section 9-401 would no longer require a vehicle license before a Court fine could be discharged.
W hile the proposed ordinance would eliminate vehicle decals, many existing procedures would
remain unchanged for vehicle licenses. Residents with a vehicle normally garaged, stored or parked in the
County would still be required to maintain a County vehicle license. The annual license tax would still be
billed and paid together with the first-half personal property taxes. Purchasers of new vehicles and new
residents of the County would still be required to obtain a County vehicle license within thirty (30) days of
purchase or of their move into the County. Proration practices would remain unchanged under the new
ordinance.
Although vehicle decals historically have been used as a tool to identify vehicles with a County
situs, DMV records now serve the same purpose. Those records now provide the most up-to-date
information regarding new residents of the County and the purchase of new vehicles by County residents.
Various other methods are also used to identify vehicles subject to a County license tax (see Attachment
B).
This ordinance is being proposed primarily as a convenience to the citizens. Over 50 Virginia
localities, including some of the largest jurisdictions in the state (such as Fairfax County, Richmond,
Roanoke, Henrico County, Portsmouth and Suffolk) no longer require decals (see Attachment C). Most of
these localities have experienced virtually no change in tax collection percentages twelve months after the
elimination of the decal.
If this ordinance is adopted, vehicle decals would no longer be issued beginning in 2009. The
County issued 15,353 decals during the first nine months of 2008. Under the proposed ordinances, the
labor-intensive task of issuing and mailing vehicle decals would be eliminated. Staff estimates that at least
20,000 decals would be issued in 2009 and that approximately $14,800 would be saved in the cost of the
decals, envelopes and postage in 2009 if decals were eliminated. In addition, there would be a savings in
staff time to issue decals. It is not anticipated that there will be any significant impact on the collections.
Staff recommends that the Board set a December 3, 2008 public hearing for the attached
ordinance.
(Discussion: Mr. Boyd asked if vehicle decals are eliminated, can people scrape the permanent
ones off of cars.
Mr. Tucker replied that the decals are not permanent; they are good for five years and could be
scraped off.
Mr. Davis noted that in Albemarle they were permanent decals good for the life of the vehicle, but
if the ordinance is adopted they will no longer be necessary. He said that in other localities, after the decal
requirement is eliminated and a car gets inspected, it is required that the decal be removed because it is
no longer a lawful obstruction on the windshield. Mr. Davis said that the decal removal would likely need
to occur during inspection.
Ms. Thomas noted that having decals was one way Parks and Recreation employees could tell
what facility users were local or not; perhaps different rates should be considered for recreation activities
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
for the City and County. It is going to be harder to make some distinctions. There are some side effects
of not having the decals.
Mr. Rooker commented that at the public golf courses it is done on an honor system.
Ms. Mallek said that she is not certain she is in favor of changing the decal requirement.
Mr. Davis responded that if the Board does favor making changes, then the issue can be brought
back for public hearing.
Mr. Slutzky mentioned that when he spent lots of time in Northern Virginia, he got ticketed for not
having a decal on his car and wondered if more localities are abandoning the stickers.
Mr. Davis replied that the Finance Department found out there were about 50 jurisdictions that no
longer have decals, including some major jurisdictions. He also said that Finance is bringing this forward
because of the trend in other localities.
Ms. Mallek expressed concern about not getting enough reporting to make this effort as seamless
as it appears right now.
Mr. Davis responded that Finance is pretty comfortable that the reporting from DMV is adequate
to enforce the personal property tax and decal requirement. He added that other jurisdictions that have
gone this route have not experienced a significant drop in revenues from their collections. Mr. Davis
commented that the only significant enforcement aid at this time is for new vehicles. The decal is only
issued one time.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the decals were actually used as a “metric” whereby someone goes out and
counts County stickers.
Mr. Davis replied that the permanent decals were used for counting, but that has to be weighed
against cost and efficiency – and Finance does not feel that it is paying off to have them.
Mr. Rooker noted that staff is being asked to do more with less, and if other localities have had a
positive experience with eliminating them, Albemarle should consider it.
Ms. Thomas said she would appreciate everybody looking at any unintended side effects.
Mr. Tucker commented that they have used surveys of users at the recycling center.
Ms. Mallek said that it seems that would be more staff-intensive.
Mr. Rooker said there is an administrative expense involved with stickers and mailing them out.
He thinks that the communities that have adopted this have saved in administrative expenses.)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board set the proposed public hearing for December 3,
2008.
__________
Item No. 7.7. Petty Cash Resolution to amend Petty Cash Fund for Hollymead and Monticello
Fire Stations.
The Executive Summary states that Virginia Code Section 15-2-1229, provides that the County
may adopt a resolution to establish petty cash funds not exceeding $5,000 to be used to transact daily
County business.
The Board of Supervisors last established petty cash funds by a Resolution adopted on October
3, 2007. Staff recommends adoption of a new Resolution to:
Increase petty cash fund for the Hollymead Fire Station from $250 to $500. This increase
is to accommodate the increase in the number of active volunteers receiving meal
reimbursement.
Decrease petty cash fund for the Monticello Fire Station from $250 to $200. This
decrease is due to a smaller number of active volunteers.
There is no budget impact from this action.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution to reestablish the current petty
cash funds as well as amend the petty cash funds for the Monticello and Hollymead Fire Stations.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution to reestablish the
current petty cash funds as well as amend the petty cash funds for the Monticello and Hollymead
Fire Stations:
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Virginia Code §15.2-1229, provides that the governing body of any county may establish
by resolution one or more petty cash funds not exceeding $5,000 each for the payment of claims arising from
commitments made pursuant to law; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors adopted a Resolution on October 3, 2007 establishing petty
cash funds; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors now desires to amend certain petty cash funds for the above
stated purpose.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia establishes the following petty cash funds:
Finance Department $ 4,350.00
Social Services 200.00
Community Development 100.00
Police Department 1,800.00
Sheriff’s Department 100.00
Fire and Rescue 150.00
Fire and Rescue - Monticello Fire Station 200.00
Fire and Rescue – Hollymead Fire Station 500.00
Commonwealth’s Attorney 300.00
Parks & Recreation 100.00
Total $ 7,800.00
__________
Item No. 7.8. Leahs Lane Road Name Change to Ronins W ay.
The Executive Summary states that pursuant to Part I, Section 6 (e) of the Albemarle County
Road Naming and Property Numbering Manual, road name change requests shall be forwarded to the
Board for approval upon validation of the following:
That the landowners of more than fifty (50) percent of the parcels served by the road have signed
a petition in favor of a common road name, and that the proposed road name is otherwise consistent with
other road name guidelines set forth in the Manual (i.e., that it is not a duplicate name, is limited to three
words, and does not exceed sixteen characters and/or spaces).
Charles E. Lewis, III, the sole landowner of property served by Leahs Lane, submitted a request to
change the road name of Leahs Lane to Ronins W ay (Attachment A). The proposed name is a common
road name within the meaning of the Manual and is consistent with the Manual’s other road name
guidelines. A map showing the location of the road is attached (Attachment B).
There is no anticipated budget impact. The landowner will be responsible for costs associated
with new signage.
Staff recommends that the Board approve changing the road name of Leahs Lane to Ronins W ay
and authorize staff to implement the change.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved changing the road name of Leahs Lane to
Ronins Way and authorized staff to implement the change.
__________
Item No. 7.9. Reas Creek Drive Road Name Change to Golf Drive.
The Executive Summary states that pursuant to Part I, Section 6 (e) of the Albemarle County
Road Naming and Property Numbering Manual, road name change requests shall be forwarded to the
Board for approval upon validation of the following:
That the landowners of more than fifty (50) percent of the parcels served by the road have signed
a petition in favor of a common road name, and that the proposed road name is otherwise consistent with
the road name guidelines set forth in the Manual (i.e., that it is not a duplicate name, is limited to three
words, and does not exceed sixteen characters and/or spaces).
Beights Development Corporation, the sole landowner of property served by Reas Creek Drive,
submitted a request to change the road name of Reas Creek Drive to Golf Drive (Attachment A). The
proposed name is a common road name within the meaning of the Manual and is consistent with the
Manual’s other road name guidelines. A map showing the location of the road is attached (Attachment B).
There is no anticipated budget impact. The landowner will be responsible for costs
associated with new signage.
Staff recommends that the Board approve changing the road name of Reas Creek Drive Lane to
Golf Drive and authorize staff to implement the change.
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved changing the road name of Reas Creek
Drive Lane to Golf Drive and authorized staff to implement the change.
__________
Item No. 7.10. Resolution of the Economic Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia,
authorizing the issuance of up to $23,100,000 in revenue bonds for The University of Virginia Health
Services Foundation.
The following letter dated October 14, 2008, to the Board of Supervisors, from the Secretary,
Economic Development Authority was received:
“The University of Virginia Health Services Foundation ("UVAHSF") has requested that the Economic
Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia ("Authority"), assist UVAHSF in financing (i) the
acquisition, construction and equipping of a 64,000 square foot long-term acute care hospital, including an
approximately 8,000 square foot imaging, center to be located adjacent to property at 2985 Ivy Road in
Albemarle County, Virginia, (ii) the acquisition and installation of a Gamma Knife (a specialized neurosurgical
device) at the University of Virginia Medical Center located in the Primary Care Building at 1221 Lee Street at
University of Virginia Medical Center in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, (iii) the replacement of the HVAC
system in the Northridge Building at UVAHSF's facilities, located at 2955 Ivy Road in Albemarle County,
Virginia, (iv) capitalized interest and (v) certain costs of issuing the bonds (collectively, the "Project"), through
the issuance by the Authority of its variable rate revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $23,100,000
("Bonds").
As set forth in the resolution of the Authority attached hereto ("Resolution"), the Authority has agreed
to issue its Bonds as requested. The Authority has conducted a public hearing on the proposed financing of
the Project and has recommended that you approve the issuance of the Bonds as required by Section 147(f)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Section 15.2-4906 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as
amended.
Attached hereto is (1) a certificate evidencing the conduct of the public hearing and the action taken
by the Authority, (2) the Fiscal Impact Statement required pursuant to Virginia Code Section l5.2-4907, and (3)
the form of resolution suggested by counsel to evidence your approval.”
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution:
RESOLUTION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
W HEREAS, the Economic Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Authority"), has
considered the application of The University of Virginia Health Services Foundation (the "UVAHSF") located at
500 Ray C. Hunt Drive, in Albemarle County, Virginia, requesting the issuance of the Authority's variable rate
revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $23,100,000 (the "Bonds") to assist in financing (i) the acquisition,
construction and equipping of a 64,000 square foot long-term acute care hospital, including an approximately
8,000 square foot imaging, center to be located adjacent to property at 2985 Ivy Road in Albemarle County,
Virginia, (ii) the acquisition and installation of a Gamma Knife (a specialized neurosurgical device) at the
University of Virginia Medical Center located in the Primary Care Building at 1221 Lee Street at University of
Virginia Medical Center in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, (iii) the replacement of the HVAC system in the
Northridge Building at UVAHSF's facilities, located at 2955 Ivy Road in Albemarle County, Virginia, (iv)
capitalized interest and (v) certain costs of issuing the bonds (collectively, the "Project"), and has held a public
hearing on October 14, 2008;
W HEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), provides
that the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the issuer of private activity bonds and over the area in
which any facility financed with the proceeds of private activity bonds is located must approve the issuance of
the bonds;
W HEREAS, the Authority issues its bonds on behalf of the County of Albemarle, Virginia (the
"County"); the Project to be located in the County and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia (the "Board") constitutes the highest elected governmental unit of the County;
W HEREAS, the Authority has recommended that the Board approve the issuance of the Bonds; and
W HEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds, subject to the
terms to be agreed upon, a certificate of the public hearing and a Fiscal Impact Statement have been filed with
the Board.
NOW , THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of UVAHSF as
required by Section 147(f) of the Code and Section l5.2-4906 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended
("Virginia Code") to permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project.
2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds does not constitute an endorsement to a
prospective purchaser of the Bonds of the creditworthiness of the Project or UVAHSF.
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
__________
Item No. 7.11. Historic Crozet Streetscape Enhancement Project – Phase 2, Authorize County
Executive to sign revised Dominion Power Agreement for relation of utility lines on Crozet Avenue.
The Executive Summary states that the County entered into an Agreement with Dominion Virginia
Power dated May 5, 2008 (Attachment C) after approval by the Board on April 2, 2008. The Agreement is
for the relocation of the overhead utility lines as part of the Crozet Streetscape project. This relocation
would extend a new “primary” line down High Street using the existing power poles, turn west at Tabor
Street, and follow the north side of Tabor Street to the existing “primary” line on Crozet Avenue (south of
Jarmans Gap Road). New poles would be necessary along the north side of Tabor Street and a few trees
would have to be removed.
Staff met with the property owners along Tabor Street to discuss the relocation plan and Dominion
Virginia Power easements that would need to be granted. The owners expressed concerns about the
aesthetic impact to the historical nature of Tabor Street, future enhancement plans for Tabor Church, the
loss of specimen trees and significant screening shrubs, and potential health impacts of the overhead wire
electromagnetic transmissions to a family member of one owner who suffers from Crohn’s disease. The
owners did not support the plan and would not agree to grant the necessary easements unless the power
lines were placed underground. Letters received from the owners along Tabor Street are enclosed for
reference (Attachment B).
Alternatives were discussed by County and Dominion Virginia Power staff, and it was decided that
a reasonable and affordable solution would be to install the new wire underground and outside of the right-
of-way by the use of a “Guide Drill”. This installation method would minimize the land disturbance and
allow the existing specimen trees and shrubs to remain, but would increase the estimated cost of
$307,563.68 set forth in the May 5, 2008 Agreement to $351,553.64. Dominion Virginia Power revised the
Agreement to incorporate the changes in design and cost (Attachment A). The revised design addresses
the concerns expressed by the owners and will help assure their support.
This project is being funded through the Capital Improvements Plan, with partial funding coming
from a VDOT Transportation Enhancement Grant. A line item, budget code and budget estimate of
$600,000 have been specifically assigned to this portion of the project, so this change is well within
budget.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to sign the attached amended
Dominion Virginia Power Agreement (Attachment A) for the relocation of utility lines in Crozet.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board authorized the County Executive to sign the
following amended Dominion Virginia Power Agreement for the relocation of utility lines in Crozet:
Crozet Avenue
AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED
I understand the estimated cost of the requested work is $351,553.64 and will be performed on an actual cost
basis and based upon utility relocation plan prepared by Dominion Power titled “Remove Overhead Power
Line – Crozet Avenue” dated September 19, 2008. As an authorized representative of the County of
Albemarle, I hereby provide authorization for Dominion Virginia Power to proceed with the work subject to the
conditions herein and confirm the County of Albemarle's agreement to reimburse Dominion Virginia Power the
total actual cost upon completion of the work subject to the conditions herein. In the event the requested work
is canceled, the County of Albemarle agrees to reimburse Dominion Virginia Power its costs incident to
implementing this authorization subject to the conditions herein.
The County of Albemarle limits the authorization of Dominion Virginia Power to proceed as follows:
1) Dominion Virginia Power is not authorized to incur reimbursable costs on this project in excess of
$351,553.64, as outlined on the attached W ork Request As-Built / Estimate Cost Summary for W ork
Request No. 6922354, Revision No. 3, without the prior written consent of the County of Albemarle.
2) Dominion Virginia Power is not authorized to incur any reimbursable costs on this project until the
County notifies Dominion Virginia Power that all necessary easements have been obtained.
The County of Albemarle requests that the bill for the non-service project work described above be mailed to
the following address for payment:
County of Albemarle
Attention Name: Jack Kelsey
Address: Office of Facilities Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 222
City, State, Zip: Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
I confirm with my signature below that the information contained and provided within this Authorization to
Proceed is true and correct.
Signature: (Signed)
Print Name: Robert W . Tucker, Jr.
Title: County Executive
Date: November 10, 2008
__________
Item No. 7.12. Resolution to accept roads in Mosby Mountain Subdivision into the State
Secondary System of Highways.
At the request of the County Engineer, and by the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted
the following resolution:
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 5th day of
November, 2008, adopted the following resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
W HEREAS, the street(s) in Mosby Mountain Subdivision, as described on the attached Additions
Form AM-4.3 dated November 5, 2008, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in
the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
W HEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the
Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW , THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests
the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) in Mosby Mountain Subdivision, as described
on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated November 5, 2008, to the secondary system of state highways,
pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as
described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded
plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer
for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
* * * * *
The road(s) described on Additions Form AM-4.3 is:
1) Ambrose Commons Drive (State Route 1870) from the intersection of Old Lynchburg Road
(Route 631) to the intersection of Hatcher Court (Route 1871), as shown on plat recorded in
the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2682, page 529, with a
50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.05 miles.
2) Ambrose Commons Drive (State Route 1870) from the intersection of Hatcher Court
(Route 1871) to the intersection of Singleton Lane (Route 1875), as shown on plat recorded
in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2682, page 529,
with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.14 miles.
3) Ambrose Commons Drive (State Route 1870) from the intersection of Singleton Lane
(Route 1875) to the intersection of Rhett Court (Route 1873), as shown on plat recorded in
the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2682, page 529, with a
50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.10 miles.
4) Ambrose Commons Drive (State Route 1870) from the intersection of Rhett Court (Route
1873) to the intersection of Ridgetop Drive (Route 1874), as shown on plat recorded in the
office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2682, page 529, with a 50-
foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.05 miles.
5) Ambrose Commons Drive (State Route 1870) from the intersection of Ridgetop Drive
(Route 1874) to the end of maintenance, as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of
Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2682, page 529, with a 50-foot right-of-way
width, for a length of 0.01 miles.
6) Hatcher Court (State Route 1871) from the intersection of Ambrose Commons Drive (Route
1870) to the intersection of Turnstone Drive (Route 1872), as shown on plat recorded in the
office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2682, page 529, with a 44-
foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.11 miles.
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
7) Hatcher Court (State Route 1871) from the intersection of Turnstone Drive (Route 1872) to
the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 2682, page 529, with a 44-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.04
miles.
8) Turnstone Drive (State Route 1872) from the intersection of Hatcher Court (Route 1871) to
the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 3190, page 529, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.06
miles.
9) Singleton Lane (State Route 1875) from the intersection of Ambrose Commons Drive
(Route 1870) to the intersection of Hubbard Court (Route 1876), as shown on plat recorded
in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2682, page 529,
with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.02 miles.
10) Singleton Lane (State Route 1875) from the intersection of Hubbard Court (Route 1876) to
the intersection of Mattox Court (Route 1877), as shown on plat recorded in the office the
Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2682, page 529, with a 50-foot right-
of-way width, for a length of 0.04 miles.
11) Singleton Lane (State Route 1875) from the intersection of Mattox Court (Route 1877) to
the intersection of Old Lynchburg Road (Route 631), as shown on plat recorded in the office
the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2682, page 529, with a 50-foot
right-of-way width, for a length of 0.10 miles.
12) Mattox Court (State Route 1877) from the intersection of Singleton Lane (Route 1875) to
the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 2682, page 529, with a 44-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.13
miles.
13) Hubbard Court (State Route 1876) from the intersection of Singleton Lane (Route 1875) to
the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 2682, page 529, with a 44-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.13
miles.
14) Rhett Court (State Route 1873) from the intersection of Ambrose Commons Drive (Route
1870) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 2682, page 529, with a 44-foot right-of-way width, for a
length of 0.10 miles.
15) Ridgetop Drive (State Route 1874) from the intersection of Ambrose Commons Drive
(Route 1870) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit
Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2682, page 529, with a 50-foot right-of-way width,
for a length of 0.46 miles.
Total Mileage – 1.54
__________
Item No. 7.13. FY 2008 End-of-Year Preliminary Financial Report.
The Executive Summary states that the attached Preliminary Financial Report provides
information on the County’s General Fund operations and Fund Balance as of June 30, 2008. The
financial report includes a bar chart that compares current fiscal year revenue and expenditure data with
data from the previous fiscal year.
($ in Millions)
A. Attachment A: General Fund Financial Report:
a. Revenues:
Revenues, excluding Transfers and Fund Balance Appropriations, are estimated to total
$212.321 million; $5.199 million (2.4%) less than revised appropriations (hereinafter
“Budget”). This is a $1.590 million decrease from the previous estimate submitted with
the March 31, 2008 Financial Report. Combined with the use of $1.769 million in
transfers from other funds and $2.803 million in fund balance, Revenues, Transfers, and
Use of Fund Balance total $216.893 million; $5.195 million (2.3%) less than Budget.
Following is a brief revenue analysis for the fiscal year:
• Real Estate Tax revenues total $108.364 million; $1.401 million (1.3%) less than
Budget. The Budget was prepared based on a 5% 2008 reassessment rate and
tax rate of $0.68 per $100. The actual 2008 reassessment rate was 0.14% and
tax rate $0.71 per $100. New construction also decreased from budget
estimates.
• Personal Property Tax revenues total $19.973 million; $1.192 million (5.6%) less
than Budget. The reduction is due to a shift from high cost, fuel inefficient to
lower cost, fuel efficient vehicles, average used vehicle sale prices falling faster
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
than prior year comparable vehicle sales, and actual decreases in new vehicle
unit sales from prior years.
• Delinquent Property Tax revenues are estimated to be $0.725 million; $0.263
million (26.6%) less than Budget. The decrease is being experienced both in real
estate and personal property tax collections. New delinquent fees are being
implemented which should encourage timely payment of future tax bills.
• Sales Tax revenues total $13.144 million; $1.456 million (10.0%) less than
Budget. Actual collections are slightly less than FY07. The Commonwealth as a
whole has also experienced lower than anticipated collections attributed to
current economic conditions. Housing-related and grocery store sales were flat
to negative. Taxable sales from department stores and restaurants were flat
compared to FY07. Increased internet sales typically do not generate sales tax
revenues.
• Business License revenues total $10.393 million; $0.648 million (6.7%) more than
Budget. Even with the weak economy, significant construction has taken place at
the University. Additionally, business license revenues are based on prior year
operations when the economy was stronger.
• Food & Beverage Tax revenues total $6.059 million; $0.484 million (8.7%) more
than Budget. The increase is due to the continued shift from home to
convenience food preparation.
• Other Local Tax revenues total $10.867 million; $0.497 million (4.4%) less than
Budget. The shortfall is primarily due to decreased vehicle license tax collections,
recordation tax collections, and seller fees resulting from the vehicle and real
estate markets slowdown.
• Other Local Revenues total $5.397 million; $0.392 million (6.8%) less than
Budget. The decrease is primarily due to reduced interest earnings, development
fees, and Clerk fees resulting from the real estate market slowdown.
• Federal Revenues total $4.300 million; $1.194 million (21.7%) less than Budget.
The Budget shortfall is due to less than anticipated public assistance
reimbursements.
• Categories with variances of less than $0.100 million have not been analyzed for
this report.
b. Expenditures:
Total expenditures, including transfers, total $213.435 million; an $8.652 million (3.9%)
savings from Budget. A $1.187 million uncompleted project carryover reappropriation
request is in process. Uncompleted purchase orders of $0.218 million have been
reapproved.
i. Departmental expenditures total $78.060 million; a $5.195 million savings from
Budget.
• Administration expenditures total $10.455 million; a 6.5% savings of
$0.731 million.
• Judicial expenditures total $3.674 million; a 3.4% savings of $0.130
million.
• Public Safety expenditures total $28.376 million; a 2.1% savings of
$0.604 million.
• Public W orks expenditures total $4.496 million, a 19.3% savings of
$1.072 million.
• Human Services expenditures total $17.283 million; a 6.9% savings of
$1.287 million.
• Parks, Rec., and Culture expenditures total $6.027 million; a 1.8%
savings of $0.109 million.
• Community Development expenditures total $7.750 million; a 14.0%
savings of $1.261 million.
ii. Non-Department expenditures consisting of the revenue sharing payment,
reserves, and refunds total $13.343 million; a $1.148 million savings from Budget.
iii. Transfers total $122.032 million; a $2.310 million savings from Budget.
• Transfers to the School Division total $96.372 million, a 2.1% savings of
$2.061 million. This is approximately $970,000 less than the school
transfer specified in the Third Quarter Financial Report, which was based
on estimated revenues for the year at that time. As noted previously in
this report, actual revenues for the year were $1.590 million less than the
third quarter estimate. Therefore, the school transfer is reduced
accordingly.
• Transfers to the Capital and Debt funds total $25.660 million; a 1.0%
savings of $0.249 million.
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
c. Revenues less Expenditures:
The report indicates that the fiscal year will end with revenues in excess of expenditures
by $3.458 million:
• Revenues and transfers experienced a $5.195 million shortfall which was offset
by $8.652 million in expenditure savings.
B. Attachment B: General Fund Budget Comparison Report:
The chart report tracks changes in revenues and expenditures over time.
• Revenues in all categories except Sales Tax, Other Local Revenue, Federal Revenue,
Transfers from Other Funds, and Use of Fund Balance increased over last year.
• Expenditures in all categories except Capital and Debt transfers increased over last year.
C. Attachment C: Fund Balance Report:
The report indicates that the County:
• Has an Audited FY07 Fund Balance of $19.997 million as of June 30, 2007,
• Appropriated $2.803 million for FY08 projects,
• Has a remaining FY07 Fund Balance of $17.194 million as of June 30, 2008,
• Estimates Preliminary Revenues in Excess of Expenditures of $3.458 million,
• Resulting in an estimated June 30, 2008 Fund Balance of $20.652 million,
• Subsequently approved $0.629 million for FY09 projects,
• Has Proposed Commitments of $1.187 million, and
• Has Projected Unobligated Funds of $18.836 million as of November 5, 2008.
Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary June 30, 2008 End-of-Year Financial Report.
(Discussion: Mr. Rooker said this report mentioned federal revenues totaling $4.3 million were
$1.194 million or 21.7 percent under budget due to “less than anticipated public assistance
reimbursement”. He emphasized that that’s a huge cut that impacts the County budget significantly.
Ms. Thomas stated that expenditure savings are the only things keeping our heads above water,
and expressed her gratitude to all staff and Mr. Tucker. She also mentioned that the County decided not
to enforce the BPOL tax for internet sales.
Mr. Rooker noted that Senator Emmet Hanger was “miffed” about the State not taxing internet
sales and how unfair it was. He thinks Senator Hanger is going to bring that issue back up. Mr. Rooker
also said that staff did a terrific job with the strategic planning session, and expressed his thanks to Ms.
Catlin and Ms. Allshouse.
Ms. Mallek added that she appreciates the extra details showing actual dollars and percentages
rather than just reductions.)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the Preliminary June 30, 2008 End-of-
Year Financial Report.
__________
Item No. 7.14. Cancel Board of Supervisors’ December 10, 2008 meeting.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board cancelled its’ December 10, 2008 regularly
scheduled meeting.
__________
Item No. 7.15. Board-to-Board Monthly Communications Report from School Board, November,
2008, was received for information.
(Discussion: Ms. Thomas commented that one of the effects of the revenue cutbacks is that the
Parks and Recreation Department is not participating in the “turf fields” project in the way that had been
hoped.)
__________
Item No. 7.16. Copy of application of Virginia Electric and Power Company: Notification to the
Commission of Election to Abandon the Company’s Bidding Program and Application to Revise its
Cogeneration Tariff Pursuant to PURPA Section 210, Case No. PUE-2008-00078, was received for
information.
(Discussion: Ms. Thomas commented that she does not have the ability to decipher the
statements issued by power companies, and wondered if anyone is speaking for the residents when they
are sent.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the County should make comments during the comment period.
Mr. Davis noted that VaCo does have a review responsibility for these, but typically there is not a
lot of attention given to “routine” notices.
Mr. Tucker added that VaCo and VML focus more on the cost to local governments.
Ms. Thomas said her concern is who is looking out for the citizens.
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
Mr. Rooker mentioned that a lot of these things get challenged by private advocacy groups at the
SCC level.
Mr. Davis said that this is a notice and comment opportunity that is required by statute, and all
these issues all go before the SCC.
Mr. Slutzky asked if it would be appropriate to ask staff to review these to see if there were
changes that were going to negatively affect rate-payers.
Mr. Davis commented that local governments rarely have the ability to play a significant role here,
but it is put on the Board’s agenda and publicized on the County’s webpage.
Mr. Slutzky said that perhaps the rate-payers could be alerted and take their own action
accordingly.)
__________
Item No. 7.17. Copy of letter dated October 16, 2008, from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning
Administration, to Donna R. DeLoria, Esq., Payne & Hodous, LLP, re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS – Tax Map 123, Parcels 4 & 7, Scottsville Magisterial District (property of
Murcielago, LLC) Section 10.3.1, was received for information.
__________
Item No. 7.18. Copy of letter dated October 22, 2008, from the Honorable Governor Timothy M.
Kaine, to the Honorable Ed Schafer, Secretary of Agriculture, re: designation of localities as disaster
areas due to drought and heat for crop year 2008, was received for information.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Jail Inmate Reentry Initiative Program, Ronald Matthews, Superintendent,
Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Jail.
Colonel Ronald Matthews, Superintendent of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail,
addressed the Board. He asked his staff and members of the Reentry Program to stand and be
recognized. Col. Matthews said that they are looking for endorsement for the Reentry Program, noting
that in 2004 President Bush passed the Public Safety Act and as part of that the reentry initiative. He
explained that the purpose of the initiative was to help inmates coming back into the community transition
and change their thought pattern and behavior to ease the reentry. Col. Matthews emphasized that the
Jail is trying to train and reeducate the individuals to take a different path. In 2006 Governor Kaine
created the Virginia Prisoner Reentry Policy Academy with the purpose of establishing the program state-
wide. They started off by identifying five locations within the state, and one local location – the Regional
Jail.
Col. Matthews said that the State reentry program was financed, but the local program was not so
the Jail has done it on their own. He explained that a lot of the measures are already in place, and there
must be a successful reentry program if you want to stop recidivism. Col. Matthews emphasized that this
is a collaborative effort among all agencies – including Offender Aid and Restoration (OAR), City and
County Department of Social Services (DSS), Region Ten, Jail, Probation and Parole, the Public
Defender’s Office, Department of Rehabilitative Services (DRS), Piedmont Virginia Community College
(PVCC), Virginia Employment Commission (VEC), Adult Education, The Mohr Center, Love Inc., Focus,
Commission on Children and Families (CCF), the Aids Services Group, and more.
He explained that they have established a steering committee to guide people through the
different phases of reentry. There are four subcommittees under this steering committee: housing,
financial, and resources – chaired by Sue Moffat and Jason Ness; employment and education committee
– chaired by Ross Carew; social reintegration – chaired by Bob Rannigan; and mental health and
substance abuse – with no chair currently in place. Those are the areas they hope to help people with the
transition. Col. Matthews said that they strive to “remove the barriers” to reentry. The reason they are
here today is to ask the County to help in that regard. He stated that the most difficult barriers to
overcome include housing, employment, and mental health. Col. Matthews mentioned that mental health
is a difficult barrier but there are a lot of initiatives statewide to help address the issue. He added that the
criminal justice system has the largest mental health population in the State. W ith all the closing of beds
and other facilities, the Jail has become the de facto place for holding mentally ill individuals.
Col. Matthews said that they are trying to get the community involved, and are here asking the
Board to pass the resolution that has been provided to Board members.
Ms. Thomas asked if all people in the Jail leave knowing their HIV status. Col. Matthews
responded that they do not test everybody for AIDS; it is all voluntary, not mandatory, unless it is court-
ordered. He is not aware of anything mandatory in the State of Virginia.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is anything legal that prohibits a mandatory AIDS testing program. It is
not a huge expense. Col. Matthews said he would think that would have to come out of the General
Assembly.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this program works to find jobs for individuals, and how successful are they.
Col. Matthews said they can probably get just about everyone a job who needs one. OAR has a bank of
employees that they work closely with and the Jail works closely with VEC but finding jobs that pay enough
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
is very difficult. He also said that substance abuse often coincides with mental illness, and those are also
difficult cases.
Mr. Slutzky said the City, County and University formed a collaborative task force to look at
affordable housing with a focus on 50 percent AMI and below. There are some draft recommendations
that have been circulated to the City and County’s Housing Committees. He said it might be productive if
Col. Matthews or someone from his staff take a look at these recommendations to see if they are
consistent with some of the things this program is trying to address with recidivism. He added that
comments and thoughts from the Jail would be helpful. He thinks the draft recommendations will be
coming to this Board at its first meeting in December.
Col. Matthews said at their last steering committee meeting the housing recommendations were
discussed, and he thinks someone from their committee is involved.
Mr. Slutzky commented that Ron W hite has a copy of the recommendations.
Mr. Dorrier asked the role of the people, who are present today, in the reentry program.
Col. Matthews replied that the individuals present today all work in some phase of reentry. He
mentioned that Mr. Rannigan does the mentoring program which is one of the most difficult parts. He has
to get individuals to obligate themselves for a year to 18 months to mentor a specific individual to help
them address any issues that come up. He does have some volunteers, but they could always use more.
Col. Matthews said that he cannot say right now what the success of the program is, but Dr. Ann Loper of
the University of Virginia is doing a study of individuals who enter the program through three control
groups of 100 people each – one receiving no services, one volunteering for services, and one mandated
to get services. The groups will be studied to determine the success or nonsuccess of the program based
on each area.
Mr. Rooker commended Col. Matthews and his staff for implementing the program, and
expressed dismay that the State would not fund the local elements. He also said that the measurement
through the U.Va. study will be a tremendous benefit to the community.
Col. Matthews added that there are over 20 community agencies involved and it takes
cooperation among all the agencies and individuals to make it work.
Ms. Mallek expressed concern that the Jail has to assume the role of mental health caregiver, and
encouraged him to make recommendations in the future as to how Region Ten might be more involved.
Col. Matthews responded that the State Department of Mental Health and Rehabilitative Services
started a study of that issue and it will carry over into this year with a recommendation in 2009 or 2010 to
address the problem. He also mentioned a grant that they working on for a diversion program with Region
Ten to divert those with mental health issues into the community to receive appropriate services.
Motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier to adopt the proposed resolution in support of a Local Reentry
Initiative in the Charlottesville/Albemarle community. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
Resolution
In Support of Local Reentry Initiative In The Charlottesville/Albemarle Community
WHEREAS, the Code of Virginia directs the Office of the Secretary of Public Safety to establish a system
for coordinating the planning and provision of reentry services for offenders; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Policy Academy has established the Virginia Reentry Pilot Program in five
localities focusing on state prisoners and one local jail focusing on local inmates; and
WHEREAS, the Charlottesville/Albemarle Community has been identified to pilot a local reentry program
to integrate service delivery and interagency collaboration to prepare inmates for successful
transition into their communities upon release from incarceration; and
WHEREAS, the OAR/Jefferson Area Community Corrections (OAR), in conjunction with the Department
of Social Services (DSS), Region Ten Community Services Board (CSB), the Albemarle-
Charlottesville Regional Jail (ACRJ), and other local government and private organizations
have developed a pilot program known as the Local Reentry Initiative, whose main goal and
focus are working to reduce recidivism rates for inmates transitioning to the community; and
WHEREAS, the Local Reentry Initiative led by a steering committee has developed four sub-committees
to address the roadblocks to a successful reentry program, which are the Financial
Obligations, Housing and Community Resource Sub-Committees; the Employment and
Education Sub-Committee; the Social Reintegration Sub-Committee; and the Health-Mental
Health-Substance Abuse Sub-Committee; and
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
WHEREAS, OAR staff will work in conjunction with the ACRJ staff to develop an “action plan” comprised
of a “pre-release” and a “post release” plan to promote the safe and successful return of
formerly incarcerated individuals to our community by promoting a comprehensive support
system that reduces violence and recidivism, and promotes public safety;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors fully supports and
endorses the reentry program developed by the Local Reentry Initiative and ask that all
government and private agencies and citizens give their support in assisting our fellow
citizens returning to the community.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Request to Seek Enabling Legislation to Establish a Regional Transit
Authority in the Charlottesville-Albemarle Area.
Mr. David Blount, Legislative Liaison, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, addressed
the Board, noting that Mr. Slutzky and Mr. Rooker have been serving on the Regional Transit Authority
joint working group. The group, along with the Mayor and a City Councilor, has been meeting almost
weekly for the past two months to discuss the formation of a transit authority for the two entities. Before
the Board today is a resolution that would endorse moving forward with enabling legislation in the next
General Assembly to authorize the formation of that authority. He commented that both the City and
County Attorneys’ offices have shaped the proposed enabling legislation, and it is modeled largely on the
W illiamsburg Area Transit Association – which was formed two years ago. Mr. Blount reported that it
gives authority to create that body, and sets the membership at just Charlottesville and Albemarle initially,
with provisions that would allow it to be expanded to include other entities such as JAUNT and U.Va. and
other localities in the Planning District region. Mr. Blount said that Delegate Toscano has sent the
proposed legislation to Legislative Services staff in Richmond for drafting, and it will come back to him for
review prior to submission. He stated that the resolution before the Board today is to move forward with
the enabling legislation that has been drafted.
Mr. Boyd commented on the distinction between transportation and transit.
Mr. Slutzky responded that the MPO is responsible for transportation planning in the communities,
and it was determined that the current condition of the relationship between the City and County regarding
the transit system needed attention. He said that the Regional Transit Authority is a specific element of
governance that would apply to the transit system, and the broader issue of transportation planning would
continue to be covered through the MPO. This is an actual institutionalization of the ownership and
operation of a system, which is different from the planning exercise with respect to the integrated
elements of a transportation network.
Mr. Boyd asked about the funding part.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that there would be a funding proposal that comes before this Board
separately, and they are two separate pieces of legislation. He said that there was unanimous support for
the RTA legislation among Legislators, and they do not foresee any issue with getting the legislation
through this year. Mr. Rooker stated that the funding issue is a separate issue. At the joint City Council
meeting it was agreed that these things would be separate – as funding is needed for transportation as
well as transit.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Slutzky to adopt the proposed resolution to seek enabling
legislation to establish a Regional Transit Authority in the Charlottesville-Albemarle area. Mr. Rooker
seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
Resolution
To Seek Enabling Legislation
To Establish a Regional Transit Authority
In The Charlottesville-Albemarle Area
WHEREAS, transportation planning and systems are regional in scope; and
WHEREAS, transportation planning includes both transit planning and transit operations; and
WHEREAS, limited transit facilities currently serve the overall Charlottesville-Albemarle area; and
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle intend to continue to serve existing
ridership; and
WHEREAS, the City and County are interested in extended transit service to developing areas and
providing faster, more frequent service to the existing system; and
WHEREAS, a Regional Transit Authority would coordinate regional transit planning and operations; and
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
WHEREAS, a Regional Transit Authority does not currently exist in the Charlottesville-Albemarle area;
and
WHEREAS, enabling legislation is necessary to create a Regional Transit Authority.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the County of Albemarle requests that enabling authority for a
Regional Transit Authority to serve the Charlottesville-Albemarle area be adopted.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Region Ten Community Services Board, Robert Johnson, Executive
Director.
Mr. Johnson stated that he is here today to talk about substance abuse treatment services to the
citizens of Albemarle, and to make a short statement in support of Col. Matthews report that more
services are needed for individuals with mental illness, mental episodes, and those who have co-occurring
addictions and mental illness. He reported that Region Ten has had a good year in terms of serving those
in the community who suffer from alcohol and other drug abuse and addictions, including children’s
services that now have a consolidated campus on 500 Old Lynchburg Road. Provided to Board members
in the packet of information is a list of the number of individuals served for FY 2008 as well as a
comparison with the other counties and the City of Charlottesville that Region Ten serves. Mr. Johnson
commented that some of the services tend to cross boundaries and a lot of services occur in
Charlottesville although the individuals reside in Albemarle.
Mr. Johnson reported that Region Ten served about 250 individuals in the last year, and many of
them were served in several different treatment programs in the agency – including intensive outpatient
services, individual services, residential treatment, and a six-bed inebriant program at the Mohr Center.
He noted that they are connected with the CIT model that involves police officers who become aware of
individuals exhibiting psychotic episodes and end up in Jail. Mr. Johnson reported that Region Ten was
selected by the State Department of Mental Health to apply for grant funding for its CIT program. They
were one of about a dozen communities selected to go after this proposal which is due on November 10th.
He said that the addiction services are part of a matrix system of services that are evidence-based –
proven treatment modalities that help individuals begin the recovery process from addiction to alcohol and
other drugs. Mr. Johnson mentioned problems with alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and prescription
drugs, but said that treatment is effective if there is enough intensity, the right length of time, and
treatment upon demand.
He noted that the last area is the weakest area here and nationwide, and this system is
underfunded to treat the demand. He said that they are a system that is underfunded because of the
need and the lack of capacity to treat that demand, and they will never be as effective as need be until
they can treat on demand. Mr. Johnson reported that Region Ten does a lot of outreach, and has a
program called Step Up that allows them to take individuals who are homeless, at risk for homelessness,
a mental health or substance abuse problem, or a co-occurring mental health/substance abuse problem.
He hopes to continue to grow the program and they are planning for a re-up of the grant. He stated that
he has only been here a year and a half but he is very impressed with the effort and energy various
agencies put into partnering.
Ms. Mallek asked Mr. Johnson about his progress with modernizing the agency, filling Board
vacancies, and with addressing the tension between behavioral versus medical treatment.
In terms of Board vacancies, Mr. Johnson replied that it is an easier task when people are
passionate about helping, and informed about the consumer issues. They serve individuals with
intellectual disabilities, mental health disorders, and substance abuse disorders. Region Ten is still
looking to fill the Albemarle County vacancy on their Board and they have an individual who has applied.
Mr. Johnson said that he is with the public defender’s office and has lots of experience dealing with local
agencies. He added that the agency is moving in the right direction, albeit slower now with the recent
budget cuts. They are engaged in a lot of initiatives. Mr. Johnson said that staff morale is pretty high,
although budget cuts can deflate this. He stated that they are working to modernize their information
technology system so that it is web-based, and that will make them more efficient and effective, and better
able to forecast future areas of need and service gaps, and potential demands. Mr. Johnson said that the
new system would be up and running on December 1st, and that will enable staff to do work electronically.
He added that the consumers are very much a part of the decision-making for the treatment they receive
– often referred to as person-centered or shared decision-making – and that makes them a lot more likely
to follow a service plan. Mr. Johnson noted that relapse eats up a lot of dollars and creates a lot of
suffering for the person and their family. They are working with U.Va. on a shared-decision model, and
Region Ten has focus groups implemented to review the plan. They are trying to modernize everything
they do and create a better life for everyone in the community.
Mr. Slutzky asked Mr. Johnson to provide input into the affordable housing plan. Mr. Johnson
agreed.
Ms. Thomas commented that she has heard it is more difficult for women to get into substance
abuse treatment programs.
Mr. Johnson confirmed this, explaining that it is often difficult to engage women in treatment and
keep them in treatment. He said that women often come in with children, and having a placement for the
kids is very challenging. Mr. Johnson added that it is difficult for women to come into treatment if they
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
have children to care for, and the separation created with residential treatment programs is another
barrier. Many treatment programs cannot afford to have a separate wing for the kids. He added that
there was significant funding in the early 1980’s for treatment programs, but that money has been diverted
over time to building jails and prisons. This diversion of funds was at the expense of actual direct
community services and half-way houses for individuals who had completed formal treatment, and yes,
the women suffer. One of their challenges and needs is to have a residential treatment facility for women
in the community.
Ms. Mallek asked where people go when they are awaiting crisis intervention.
Mr. Johnson responded that there is a need for a crisis drop-off center, but very few localities
have that, and right now it is mostly done on a case-by-case basis whereby a client is assessed and often
diverted to the emergency services unit for evaluation. If it is truly a psychosis, the individual may be
placed under a TDO and transported to UVA for short term hospitalization. He mentioned that there are
contacts within the hospitals that are able to administer treatment if applicable. Mr. Johnson said that
there is a definite need for more capacity. He added that the housing deficits in the community create
significant problems because a crisis may be resolved but there is nowhere to put the person. There is
always going to be a need for specialized housing for individuals, especially lower economic citizens who
do not have a lot of resources to get the services they need.
Mr. Boyd thanked him for coming in.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Historic Preservation Committee Update.
The Executive Summary provided to Board members state that the Historic Preservation Plan was
adopted by the Board in September 2000. In April 2001 the Board adopted the “Priority Recommendations
for Historic Preservation in Albemarle County” (Attachment A) as the action agenda to be used for
implementation of the Plan. The Historic Preservation Committee held its first meeting on January 8, 2002.
The Board last received an update from the Committee on June 6, 2007. That update outlined the progress
the Committee had made on the “Priority Recommendations”.
Item #12 of the Priority Recommendations calls for an evaluation of the need for an Historic Overlay
District Ordinance. The attached Ordinance Evaluation Report (Attachment B) was developed by a
subcommittee of the Committee and was approved by the Committee on September 22, 2008. The
Committee recommends that Albemarle County pursue the adoption of an Historic Overlay District
Ordinance or some other type of local regulatory measure designed to provide more effective protection of
historic resources than currently exists. The Committee also recommends that these regulations be
combined with other existing County strategies so that it will be just one part of a broad, multi-faceted and
comprehensive program whose goal is the protection and preservation of Albemarle County’s historic
resources. The Committee is also providing its current list of County historic resources and the status of
those resources for the Board’s information. (Attachment C.)
There are no budget impacts directly related to the Committee’s report. However, the report
includes a recommendation for the County to develop historic preservation regulations. The development
and enforcement of any regulations would require additional staffing and funding. Given the number of
frozen positions in Community Development, existing mandates, and Community Development’s work
program, staff does not believe it would be possible to initiate the development of an Historic Overlay District
Ordinance unless other initiatives are postponed. If the Board is interested in pursuing a historic overlay
district, staff recommends that the Board prioritize this initiative along with its other initiatives during the
annual review of Community Development’s work program. Additionally, unless funding is provided for
additional staff to enforce this ordinance, administering the ordinance will require Community Development
to shift staff from their current responsibilities, diminishing staff’s long-term capacity to work on other
programs. There has not been any analysis of resource impacts associated with developing or
administering such an ordinance, nor have possible revenue sources been identified. Staff believes this
information would be necessary in prioritizing initiatives, and will include this in the annual review of the
Community Development work program if the Board wishes to consider the adoption of an Historic Overlay
Ordinance.
Staff recommends that the Board accept the Historic Preservation Committee’s report and direct
Community Development staff as the Board feels necessary. Should the Board wish to move forward with
this initiative, staff recommends including it as part of the annual review of the Community Development
work program, which is scheduled to come before the Board in February 2009.
* * * * *
PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS for HISTORIC PRESERVATION in ALBEMARLE COUNTY
1. Create a permanent Historic Preservation Committee to provide assistance and advice concerning
the County's historic preservation program.
2. Compile and maintain a current and comprehensive information base for Albemarle County's historic
resources. This database should include, but is not limited to, the following: Identification of all historic
sites by tax map and parcel number; maintenance of a map of potential prehistoric archaeological
sites, and ready accessibility to all Virginia Department of Historic Resources historic survey inventory
data on Albemarle County resources. This information base should be consulted so that historic
resources may be fully considered in the County's development review process, and should be made
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
easily available to interested citizens for educational and informational purposes. This information
base should also be coordinated with the County's GIS system.
3. Institute a program whereby new owners of historic properties are notified of the significance of their
property and are given instructions for obtaining additional preservation-related information
concerning their historic resource.
4. Establish a formal definition of the term "significant historic resource" to be used in the
implementation of the County's Historic Preservation Plan.
5. In the event that demolition of a significant historic resource must occur, thoroughly document the
resource prior to demolition. Also encourage documentation prior to major adaptive reuse or
renovation whenever possible.
6. Promote and encourage preservation by making available information regarding state and national
register designation procedures, tax incentives, historic and conservation easements, and other
voluntary preservation measures.
7. Foster community pride, good citizenship, and stewardship of the County’s historic resources through
heritage education programs, beginning with the creation of educational/informational brochures on
various County historic preservation issues, including state and national register listing, tax incentives,
County policy, etc.
8. The Historic Preservation Committee should work with other organizations to initiate and implement
community events for Albemarle County that recognize our historic resources. These events should
be coordinated with other statewide heritage tourism activities and National Preservation W eek.
9. To help protect the Monticello viewshed, adopt a more formalized procedure that begins early in the
planning process to encourage cooperation between the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation and
developers of property within the viewshed.
10. Be prepared to take advantage of resources, as they become available, to assist in implementation of
the County's historic preservation plan.
11. Continue to pursue the implementation of financial incentives for historic preservation, including the
establishment of a revolving loan fund and the requisite enabling legislation.
12. Two years after the adoption of these recommendations, evaluate the County's progress on these
preservation priorities, and evaluate the need for an historic overlay district ordinance.
__________
Mr. Ben Ford addressed the Board, stating that their current president – Garth Anderson – is ill
and unable to attend today. Mr. Ford thanked the Board on behalf of the Committee for approving their
recent slate of new committee appointments, stating that they value the “advice, perspective, and fresh
outlook on historic preservation issues” that new committee members bring. He said the document before
the Board represents many months of hard work, discussion and debate on the part of a subcommittee
tasked with drafting the document and subsequently the larger Historic Preservation Committee. He said
that their work represents the last part of a study evaluating the County’s progress on its list of 12 priority
recommendations. In March 2007, he reported, the Committee approved the first part of the evaluation
process focusing on priority recommendations 1 through 11 and that document was subsequently
presented to and accepted by the Board. Mr. Ford stated that what is before the Board today specifically
addresses priority recommendation #12 – evaluating the need for an historic overlay ordinance.
He said that the Committee found that the County’s Historic Preservation Plan, component of the
Comprehensive Plan, was still a very “sound and relevant document,” so the subcommittee used it as a
baseline and expanded from their – with the focus of the work explaining how historic preservation has
changed since 2000. Mr. Ford said that the Committee began by tracking easily accessible data available
through the County – population growth, demolition permits, building permits – that was determined to
impact historic resources. He noted that the Committee found that population growth has continued to
increase since 2000 and development pressure had also increased. Mr. Ford stated that they also
reviewed County documents and policy regarding historic preservation and the Committee found that the
County professes a strong desire to protect and preserve its cultural heritage, as represented in a variety
of documents such as the Historic Resources Plan and the Natural Resources and Cultural assets section
of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Ford stated that the Committee has characterized the current level of County sponsored
preservation efforts as “largely voluntary in nature”. In their opinion, they believe the Committee’s
activities in educating the public and the role of tax credits as incentives are the two most prominent roles.
He said that these are essential and important parts that should be continued and hopefully expanded.
Mr. Ford commented that the greatest success the County has seen in preserving and protecting historic
resources has been through policies and programs that contain language which specifically address
historic resources – such as ACE. He stated that the Neighborhood Model via the proffer process has
also been prominent in successfully preserving and protecting historic sites.
Mr. Ford said that despite the County’s stated desire to preserve and protect its cultural heritage,
the Historic Preservation Committee finds that it has not yet implemented an effective means of doing so;
historically significant properties continue to be lost on an annual basis. He asked on behalf of the
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
Committee that an Historic Overlay Ordinance be adopted to more effectively protect and preserve all
historic resources, and funding for historic preservation continues to take a back seat to other equally
important priorities. Mr. Ford said that in order to enact a more effective preservation policy that includes
some type of local regulatory measures, the Committee believes that the County will need to prioritize
historic preservation along with other issues within the Community Development office – a
recommendation that staff also makes.
Ms. Thomas said she serves as the Board’s liaison on this Committee. She mentioned that a
tremendous amount of work went into the document before the Board today, and Committee members
take their roles very seriously. She pointed out that the group tries to get a letter to all new owners of
historic properties, with assistance from the Charlottesville Area Association of Realtors. Ms. Thomas
said the Committee is asking the Board to be more serious in its response to the fact that development
pressures end up leading to the destruction of some of the County’s historic buildings. Ms. Thomas said
that the most endangered type of buildings is those that are least appreciated – such as a corn crib that
might be torn down for new development. She asked Mr. Ford to describe where the Committee would
like the County to go, even if staffing were not an issue.
Mr. Ford replied that he would like to reduce the staffing cutbacks, noting that the Historic
Preservation Planner position has been frozen for some time now, and there is also uncertainty about a
part-time intern in Community Development who works through December only at this point. Staffing
directly impacts what they can accomplish as a Committee. He mentioned their efforts to create a
database that would be “essential” in helping planning and keeping up with properties to learn about their
significance. Mr. Ford said that the Committee would like to see the Board continue to support
sustainability, and encourage the use and reuse of existing building stock; construction of new buildings
results in a significant waste of materials and economically it makes sense to reuse existing buildings. It
is also an essential part of any successful historic preservation policy.
Mr. Boyd commented that he recently attended the W algreens ribbon-cutting on the corner where
the old airport hotel was, and found the new use to be much more effective. If it could have been restored
and used with some economic value, someone would have done so. He also said that it should be left up
to the landowner who owns that property.
Mr. Ford agreed that its former use as dilapidated and unoccupied did not serve anyone or
anything, but it would be considered significant based on the history of the region as it was used during the
early 20th Century as people began traveling recreationally. There is a larger context within which that
property can be placed which some would argue is quite significant.
Mr. Boyd stated that he does not believe it is the role of government to decide whether something
is preserved or not. He thinks it is good to encourage voluntary programs, but another thing to tell
someone what they can do with their property.
Mr. Slutzky asked him if he felt the same way about property rights needed for a road project. He
is talking about the dynamic tension between the greater public good and the individual.
Mr. Boyd said that is entirely different than determining the value of a building.
Ms. Thomas emphasized that historic preservation ordinances do not have to put a clamp down
on things and say they can never be changed.
Mr. Ford agreed, stating that the Committee has always supported “protect and preserve” as
defined as getting the best solution out of it. That does not mean a person cannot build on a piece of
property or alter existing buildings. The Committee would strongly encourage reusing buildings,
documenting archeology of a site, and at least documentation of a property with drawings and
photographs, and then move on with development. Documentation of the property would allow that when
the building disappears there is a record of what was there.
Mr. Boyd said that he thought the group was doing that anyway.
Mr. Ford replied that staff has done that to some degree, and it can be as minimal as following the
Department of Historic Resources inventory survey or as detailed as full-scale archeological excavations
on a site.
Ms. Thomas said when the County issues a demolition permit, it allows time for an intern to follow
up to see what the building was and document any significance.
Mr. Ford explained that they have frequently worked on partnerships – such as those with UVA. –
to document properties or larger spatial areas, but the Committee itself is not charged with doing
inventory. He also noted that in some cases a farm property owner does not need to apply for a
demolition permit, and those buildings are rapidly disappearing in the County. That is something that they
are concerned about and would like to see changed.
Mr. Dorrier asked for clarification of truly historic sites versus buildings that are just old.
Mr. Ford replied that it is in the eye of the beholder, with the National Park Service definition being
anything 50 years or older eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
Mr. Rooker thanked the Committee for their work. He said he has strongly supported the
Committee’s initiative since its inception. He commented that he does take issue with things that could be
swept into an ordinance if it is not carefully crafted. W hen he looked at the present definition of historic
resources, he could not read and understand it. For example, the average person would not understand
why the Airport Motel should be preserved. There has never seemed to him to be a cutoff for whether or
not something was considered to have some outstanding characteristic when it was built. It is one thing to
preserve something that everyone recognizes has architectural significance and was recognized as
something outstanding.
Mr. Ford responded that the Committee has been trying to achieve that through establishment of
their database. The DHR inventory and list of Virginia Landmarks and/or National Register are also
helpful tools, but the Committee also wants to broaden the type of properties that this community would
consider significant – such as general stores, many of which are only 80 to 120 years old. There are
many examples in the County where these types of structures may not be architectural gems, no famous
architect designed it, but they have been integral parts of the local communities that surround them.
There have also been efforts by individual property owners to use them in a new adaptive way where there
have been local successes. He said that the Committee feels that any historic overlay district should
address other property types as well, whether it is a barn, cemetery or airport motel.
Mr. Rooker noted that regulatory schemes can propose different ways of dealing with different
categories of properties.
Ms. Mallek said that documentation is very important and once something is gone, you can never
get it back.
Mr. Slutzky commented that having a process map would help define some properties as being
significant in a certain way.
Mr. Boyd replied that that’s going on now, such as with churches.
Mr. Rooker said that it is because the Historic Preservation Committee voluntarily has put in
hundreds and hundreds of hours to get that kind of input.
Ms. Thomas noted that it is easy to envision the “extreme” version of an ordinance, but the reality
may be an ordinance that requires simple steps – such as demolition permits and site visits so that a
structure can be documented. W hat we have in this County is not even that first step. She mentioned
that the Committee is comprised of professionals or avid amateurs and there is a tremendous amount of
talent there.
Mr. Ford commented that even when listed on the National Register, there is a lot that can be
done with a historic building and property.
Mr. Rooker commented that he is supportive, expressing caution not to overreach the intent of the
goal, and if the resources can be found.
Mr. Boyd said that the resources are not there. He stated that he considers this just more
government intrusion.
Mr. Slutzky stated that a majority of the Board does support moving forward, and there are
challenges to funding and implementation.
Mr. Rooker asked if the part-time intern was still going to be funded.
Mr. Benish replied that given budget constraints, the intention is not to pay them beginning in
January, but the County is trying to get unpaid interns from UVA.
Mr. Ford emphasized that the Committee understands the budget situation, and asks just that
they be treated the same as anyone else in terms of staffing and funding.
Ms. Mallek commented that the landowner notification process is an effective part of this, and
expressed hope that the Board will think conceptually this is important.
Mr. Slutzky said he thinks that moving forward with a possible ordinance is reasonable for the
Board to do. The Board will have to decide where this sits within other budgetary priorities.
Mr. Boyd said he does feel the work of the Committee is important, regardless of his feelings
about the ordinance.
Mr. Benish said that as suggested in the budget section of the Executive Summary, if there is
consensus to consider this a zoning text amendment priority, staff can come back in February with a list of
projects at which point the Board can set priorities about which to undertake.
Mr. Rooker responded that much like the transportation plan, there is no funding, but at least the
priorities will be set when money becomes available again.
Mr. Boyd said he hopes the County will go down the volunteer route.
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
Mr. Tucker agreed, noting that there are students who are not interested in being paid; there are
those resources available.
Mr. Ford also agreed to gather information by doing background research from other localities in
the State on their ordinances.
Mr. Dorrier said that there was an effort to pass an ordinance in Albemarle about ten years ago,
but that did not move forward because of resistance by property owners to have their properties mandated
for participation in an historic district.
Ms. Thomas noted that the Committee is not going to settle on a proposal that takes the presently
designated historic districts and changes them, adding that those districts are probably the most exciting
thing that is happening in historic preservation in the community as entire communities are getting
acquainted with their history.
Ms. Mallek added that people who have become aware of the Greenwood historic project are
actually clamoring to get within the boundary line.
Mr. Slutzky suggested that it might be helpful for Mr. Graham to meet with the Committee to get a
sense of the resources needed to move this forward.
Mr. Graham said that the closer definition staff can get of what the ordinance is supposed to look
like, the better estimate can be given of what it will take to implement and enforce it.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing: Abandonment of right-of-way in Section III of
Brookwood Subdivision. Consider abandonment of 50-foot right-of-way under Virginia Code § 33.1-157
et seq., dedicated to the County on the subdivision plat of Section III of the Brookwood subdivision,
recorded in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle at Deed Book 601, page 311.
The right-of-way intended to be vacated is not in the state-maintained system of secondary highways and
is located along the forested boundary between the residential properties known as 5553 and 5559
Brookwood Road in the Crozet area of the W hite Hall Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on October 20 and October 27, 2008.)
Mr. Benish summarized the following Executive Summary which was forwarded to Board
members. Michael and Charlotte Zinnser Booth have requested that the Board adopt a resolution to
abandon a 50-foot wide right-way extending off Brookwood Road in the Brookwood Subdivision in Crozet.
The Zinnser Booths are the owners of a 45.60 acre-parcel adjacent to the Brookwood Subdivision that
abuts this right-of-way. The Zinnser-Booth parcel is split by Lickinghole Creek. To avoid having a road
cross Lickinghole Creek, the Zinnser Booths proposed a subdivision of the parcel with Lot A having
access from the extension off of Brookwood Road, and Lot B having access from Route 240. This
proposal required a waiver of Albemarle County Code § 14-404, which requires that a subdivision take
access from a single existing road. The Planning Commission approved the waiver with conditions that
limited Lot A to not more than two dwelling units and required that the Brookwood extension right-of-way
either be abandoned as a public right-of-way or that the County allow the public right-of-way to be used as
a private road. (See Attachment A-on file for additional background) On September 3, 2008, the Board
directed staff to schedule a public hearing on the proposed abandonment of the 50-foot wide right-of-way.
The 50-foot right-of-way was never improved and it is not in the secondary system of state
highways (“secondary system”). It physically can only serve the Zinnser Booth parcel or the two parcels
within the Brookwood Subdivision that abut it. The right-of-way has no historical value. Because the
waiver approved by the Planning Commission limited the Zinnser Booth’s proposed Lot A to not more than
two dwelling units, the right-of-way, if constructed as a street to serve those dwelling units, could not be
accepted into the secondary system under current state regulations which require that a secondary road
serve at least three dwelling units.
The right-of-way is located between two residential properties known as 5553 and 5559 Brookwood
Road (Attachment C). Staff has received comments from Danny Newton, who with his wife owns the
property at 5559 Brookwood Road. Mr. Newton has raised concerns about the impacts resulting from the
construction of a road in the right-of-way. (Attachment B) He has requested that if a road is constructed,
that it be located in the center of the right-of-way, that it be paved, and that vegetative buffers be
established or preserved.
Staff has evaluated this proposed abandonment for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and
other County policies, and has concluded that it would not conflict with County policies. The Comprehen-
sive Plan, including the Crozet Master Plan, does not identify or recommend any public road or other public
improvement in this area for which the right-of-way would be necessary. No road crossings of Lickinghole
Creek in this area are identified in either the Comprehensive Plan, the Crozet Master Plan or any other
transportation plan. Finally, allowing the Zinnser Booths, proposed Lot A to be accessed from Brookwood
Road, and proposed Lot B, located on the other side of Lickinghole Creek, to be accessed from Crozet
Avenue, would reduce the length of needed roadway and eliminates the need for the roadway to cross
critical slopes, floodplain, and stream buffers. For the foregoing reasons, it is staff’s opinion that the right-
of-way no longer serves a public need and it recommends that the right-of-way be abandoned.
Because the right-of-way was dedicated to public use by a subdivision plat, the County owns it in
fee simple. The abandonment of the right-of-way does not transfer ownership from the County. Rather,
once the right-of-way is abandoned, the County is authorized to sell or convey the abandoned right-of-way
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
for consideration or in exchange for other lands. Mr. Newton’s concerns, as well as permanent restrictions
prohibiting future street crossings of Lickinghole Creek, can be addressed in conjunction with the sale or
exchange of the abandoned right-of-way.
Mr. Benish said after conducting the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt the
attached Resolution (Attachment D) to abandon the 50-foot right-of-way.
Mr. Boyd asked what the rationale was to limiting the number of dwelling units.
Mr. Benish replied that the Planning Commission wanted to limit impact on Brookwood Drive, but
also the physical characteristics of the site – a lot of floodplain and critical slopes – would make further
development difficult. He added that the applicants were agreeable to the conditions.
Mr. Slutzky asked if there were any reasons why the County would not want to do this.
Mr. Davis responded that if they can access the property another way, you are not allowing any
additional development, but this right-of-way, if abandoned, does not have to be allowed to be an access.
He added that if the County abandons it, the property owners can acquire it and use it as a private road or
driveway which would allow access to the property on this side of Lickinghole Creek rather than having to
cross it.
Mr. Benish said crossing Lickinghole Creek would probably require a special permit. He added
that there would probably be further review of that type of activity.
Mr. Boyd then opened the public hearing.
Mr. Corban Klug, representing the property owners, addressed the Board, stating that the idea
behind this subdivision is there is an existing house on Lot B occupied by another person, and the Booths
want to minimally develop the parcel by subdividing it with a division along the creek – which is a natural
boundary. Mr. Klug said that the limitation to two parcels was not required, but the Booths desired a low-
impact form of development that would preclude them from having to cross the stream. He noted that the
Planning Commission minutes noted that this limitation of development on Lot A was a substantial benefit
to the Crozet community as it precludes the need for a larger road across the creek. Mr. Klug noted that
the Newtons have been concerned about the road development, but it has not been developed at all and
there is essentially just a swath of trees and a cart path that runs along the boundary of their property.
The applicants’ hope to use that cart path which would minimize the need for clear-cutting trees. They are
willing to pave the private driveway, and install reasonable screening. He emphasized that the only
purpose this serves is some access to the Booth’s property, and the right-of-way is ultimately useless to
the County at this point. He asked that the abandonment request be granted.
Ms. Mallek asked if the cart path was centrally located in the strip.
Mr. Klug responded that the Newtons believe it is very close to their property line, and they have
requested a five-foot setback with screening, which would require some minimal tree removal. He said
that Mr. Newton also requested it to be centrally located in the 50-foot roadway, but that would require
clear-cutting a huge swath of trees in the center which would be very expensive, and he does not think it
would ultimately minimize the impact.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed
before the Board.
Mr. Davis said that the resolution, if adopted, would follow the staff recommendation to abandon
the property and authorize the County Executive to enter into negotiations for the disposition of the
property. He explained that this hearing counts as the public hearing, and there is no further public
process required. He added that there are three people who have interest in this and he thinks they are all
aware of it.
Mr. Slutzky asked about the number of development rights on Lot A and Lot B. Mr. Benish
explained that this particular action limits Lot A to two dwelling units. Lot B is unconstrained by the action
of the waiver. He thinks Lot B has a Comprehensive Plan density of about three to six dwelling units per
acre.
Mr. Davis explained that in order to subdivide the parcel, it required a waiver to allow Lot A and
Lot B – with the further subdivision of Lot A limited to two lots.
Mr. Benish mentioned that this action allows a road from Crozet Avenue to serve Lot B, but Lot A
is limited to two dwellings.
Mr. Klug said that the applicants are willing to limit their development rights in order to access this
roadway.
Mr. Slutzky noted that the parcel is in the growth area, but topographical constraints would likely
limit further development here anyway.
Ms. Mallek commented that the minimalist nature of the private access is important, and she has
not heard any complaints from Brookwood residents.
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
Motion was then offered by Ms. Mallek to adopt the proposed resolution abandoning a segment
of public right-of-way not in the State-maintained system of Secondary Highways. Mr. Rooker seconded
the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION ABANDONING A SEGMENT OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
NOT IN THE STATE-MAINTAINED SYSTEM OF SECONDARY HIGHWAYS
(Virginia Code § 33.1-157)
WHEREAS, the owners of Tax Map and Parcel Number 05600-00-00-03500 have petitioned the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors pursuant to Virginia Code § 33.1-159 to abandon a fifty (50) foot
wide public right-of-way dedicated to the County of Albemarle, Virginia, (hereinafter, the “Right-of-W ay”) in
conjunction with the subdivision plat for Section 3 of the Brookwood Subdivision, identified as the “Plat of
Section Three – Brookwood Subdivision Located Near Crozet, Albemarle Co. Virginia” dated November 5,
1975, prepared by R.O. Snow, recorded in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of the County of
Albemarle at Deed Book 601, page 311 (hereinafter, the “Plat”), a copy of which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Right-of-W ay is identified on Sheet 2 of 2 of the Plat as “50’ Roadway,” is
unimproved, is not in the state-maintained system of secondary highways, and extends from Brookwood
Road along the forested boundary abutting the parcels identified as Tax Map and Parcel Numbers 056D0-
00-0E-01700 (5553 Brookwod Road) and 056D0-00-0D-01700 (5559 Brookwood Road) in the Crozet area
of the W hite Hall Magisterial District; and
WHEREAS, the Right-of-W ay could provide access only to a portion of Tax Map and Parcel
Number 05600-00-00-03500 which is subject to a condition of a waiver granted under Albemarle County
Code § 14-404 restricting it to no more than two dwellings and, therefore, the Right-of-W ay would be
ineligible for acceptance into the state-maintained system of secondary highways; and
WHEREAS, the Right-of-W ay has no historic value.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that for the reasons set forth hereinabove, the Board of
Supervisors finds that the Right-of-W ay no longer serves a public need and, therefore, it abandons the
Right-of-W ay as shown on the Plat pursuant to Virginia Code § 33.1-157; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the abandoned Right-of-W ay is hereby authorized for sale
and conveyance for consideration or in exchange for other lands as provided in Virginia Code § 33.1-165,
and the County Executive is hereby authorized to execute all deeds or other instruments on behalf of the
County for such purposes, provided that they are approved as to form and content by the County Attorney.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Resolution shall serve as the Board of Supervisors’ Order
of Abandonment as provided by Virginia Code § 33.1-163.1, shall be recorded in the records of the Clerk
of the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle, and shall be indexed by identifying the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, as the grantor.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Public Hearing: FY 2009 Budget Amendment.
The Executive Summary forwarded to Board members state that the Code of Virginia § 15.2-2507
stipulates that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during
the fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget. However, any such amendment which exceeds
one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first
publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code
section applies to all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
The total of the new requested FY 2009 appropriations, itemized below, is $49,311,138.74.
Combined with the appropriations approved since the budget was adopted, the cumulative appropriation
total is $51,432,475.73. Because the cumulative amount of the appropriations exceeds one percent of the
currently adopted budget, a budget amendment public hearing is required.
The proposed increase of this FY 2009 Budget Amendment totals $51,432,475.73. The estimated
expenses and revenues included in the proposed amendment are shown below:
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
General Fund $ 1,182,592.36
Special Revenue Funds $ 126,400.13
School Fund $ 19,065.00
School Program Funds $ 155,246.27
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
Capital Improvements Funds $ 47,370,619.54
Storm W ater Management Fund $ 2,501,622.43
Emergency Communication Center Fund $ 76,930.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES – All Funds $ 51,432,475.73
ESTIMATED REVENUES
Local Revenues (Contributions, Proffers, Other) $ 681,887.84
State Revenue $ 654,485.46
Federal Revenue $ 59,140.00
Loan Proceeds $ 17,702,424.00
General Fund Balance $ 1,187,281.56
Other Fund Balances $ 31,147,256.87
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES – All Funds $ 51,432,475.73
The budget amendment is comprised of twelve (12) separate appropriations, one (1) of which has
already been approved by the Board as indicated below:
Approved October 8, 2008:
• One (1) appropriation (#2009031) reappropriating $2,126,026.19 for the Acquisition of
Conservation Easement program.
The eleven (11) new appropriations are as follows:
• One (1) appropriation (#2009026) reappropriating $42,310,343.81 for uncompleted local
government capital projects;
• One (1) appropriation (#2009027) reappropriating $2,919,833.54 for uncompleted school
capital projects;
• One (1) appropriation (#2009028) reappropriating $2,501,622.43 for uncompleted
stormwater capital projects;
• One (1) appropriation (#2009032) totaling $3,861.00 for two miscellaneous budget
adjustments;
• One (1) appropriation (#2009033) in the amount of $53,931.24 for Police and Fire Rescue
Department grants;
• One (1) appropriation (#2009034) totaling $188,727.27, for Education donations and
programs;
• One (1) appropriation (#2009035) providing $76,930.00 in funding for the implementation
of a twelve hour work schedule for Emergency Communication Center’s communications
officers;
• One (1) appropriation (#2009036) totaling $789.69 to close out the Circuit Court Clerk’s
Office Preservation Grant;
• One (1) appropriation (#2009037) for a Sheriff’s Department grant in the amount of
$19,829.20;
• One (1) appropriation (#2009038) reappropriating $1,180,631.56 for uncompleted
General Government projects; and
• One (1) appropriation (#2009039) appropriating $58,500.00 for new local government
projects to be funded from FY 08/09 savings.
A detailed description of these requests is provided on Attachment A.
Staff recommends approval of the FY 2009 Budget Amendment in the amount of $51,432,475.73
after the public hearing, and then approval of Appropriations #2009026, #2009027, #2009028, #2009032,
#2009033, #2009034, #2009035, #2009036, #2009037, #2009038, and #2009039 to provide funds for
various local government, school, ECC, and capital projects and programs as described in Attachment A.
_____
Appropriation #2009026 $ 42,310,343.81
Revenue Source: Local Revenue $ 161,588.84
Proffer Revenue 366,718.00
State Revenue 654,485.46
Loan Proceeds 17,702,424.00
Gen. Govt. CIP Fund Balance 23,425,127.51
This request reappropriates the remaining balances of General Government Capital Improvement projects
that were uncompleted as of June 30, 2008.
Appropriation #2009027 $ 2,919,833.54
Revenue Source: School CIP Fund Balance $ 2,919,833.54
This request reappropriates the remaining balances of School Capital Improvement projects that were
uncompleted as of June 30, 2008.
Appropriation #2009028 $ 2,501,622.43
Revenue Source: Stormwater CIP Fund Balance $ 2,501,622.43
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
This request reappropriates the remaining balances of Stormwater Management projects that were
uncompleted as of June 30, 2008.
Appropriation #2009032 $ 3,861.00
Revenue Source: Board Contingency $ 3,861.00
During the FY08/09 budget process, Group Life Insurance costs for local government part-time employees
were inadvertently omitted from the original adopted budget. Funding, in the amount of $3,861.00, is
being provided from the Board Contingency.
Effective January 1, 2009, the Jefferson Area CHIP Program and the Teen Pregnancy Program will be
administered by the newly established Jefferson Area CHIP agency. FY08/09 funding for the Jefferson
Area CHIP Program and Teen Pregnancy had been appropriated to the Thomas Jefferson Health District
and Monticello Area Community Action Agency, respectively. This request reallocates $131,358.00 from
the Thomas Jefferson Health District and $27,214.00 from Monticello Area Community Action Agency to
the Jefferson Area CHIP agency which represents six months of FY08/09 funding for these two programs.
There will be no impact on the total County budget as a result of this appropriation.
Appropriation #2009033 $ 53,931.24
Revenue Source: Local Revenues (Donation) $ 100.00
Federal Revenue 44,000.00
Grant Fund Balance 9,831.24
The Department of Motor Vehicles has awarded the Albemarle County Police Department a grant in the
amount of $42,000.00 with an “in-kind” local match of $8,400.00. The purpose of this grant is to assist in
overtime expenses, training, and equipment for traffic safety. The traffic safety activities include:
Operation Safe Holiday, Impaired Driver Enforcement Campaigns (3), Click it or Ticket enforcement, and
quarterly speed enforcement projects.
The Commonwealth of Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles has awarded the Albemarle County Police
Department additional monies in the amount of $2,000.00 to assist in funding overtime hours for DUI
checkpoints, increased saturation of trouble spots both on primary and secondary roads, and shopping
locations. There is an “in-kind” match for the grant.
In FY 07/08, the Albemarle County Fire Rescue Department received $12,000.00 from the J & E Berkley
Foundation. These monies are to enable the continuation of a free smoke detector program to bring
single family residences into compliance with the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
recommendations. This program targets groups that are at risk and usually cannot afford smoke
detectors. In addition to the $9,831.24 available to reappropriate into FY 08/09, an additional local
donation of $100.00 has been given for the program.
Appropriation #2009034 $ 188,727.27
Revenue Source: Local Revenues (Donation) $ 153,481.00
Grant Fund Balance 35,246.27
At its September 25, 2008 meeting, the School Board approved the following appropriations:
• Broadus W ood Elementary School received donations totaling $610.00 from various
donors. These donations were made in honor of Mrs. W ebber, a teacher at Broadus
W ood who eventually became principal in the 1960s and 1970s. The following are the
donors along with their donations: Mr. and Mrs. A. Kindrick donated $20.00; Mr. and Mrs.
Michael Forman donated $20.00; Ms. Betty Bradney donated $25.00; Mrs. Roberta
Eichman donated $25.00; Mr. and Mrs. Joe Brown donated $20.00; Mr. and Mrs. T. Clark
donated $20.00; Ms. Virginia Holman donated $25.00; Mr. and Mrs. Edward Johnson
donated $25.00; Mr. Charles Simmons donated $25.00; Mr. and Mrs. Richard Tevendale
donated $25.00; Ms. Jane Crady donated $30.00; Mr. and Mrs. George Hall donated
$50.00; Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Loftin donated $50.00; Mr. and Mrs. Cavil Huff donated
$50.00; Ms. Ann Charlton donated $100.00 and Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Hurlburt donated
$100.00.
• Broadus W ood Elementary School received donations totaling $100.00 from various
donors. These donations were made in honor of Mrs. W ebber, a teacher at Broadus
W ood who eventually became principal in the 1960s and 1970s. The following are the
donors along with their donations: Lovell L. Coleman donated $25.00; C.E. Johnson
donated $25.00; Mr. and Mrs. Bailey donated $25.00 and Mr. and Mrs. Inis L. Claude Jr.
donated $25.00.
• Broadus W ood Elementary School received several donations totaling $825.00. The
following are the donors with their amounts: Sharon T. Veith donated $25.00; Thyrza B.
McCauley donated $25.00; Carl L. Knauer donated $25.00; Frances P. Jones donated
$50.00; Carolyn G. German donated $25.00; Arline D. Kyger donated $25.00; Louise B.
Potter donated $500.00; Frances P. Gibson donated $100.00 and Julia J. Fudula donated
$50.00. The donors have requested that their contributions be made in honor of Mrs.
W ebber, a teacher at Broadus W ood who eventually became principal in the 1960s and
1970s.
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
• Albemarle High School received a donation totaling $325.00 from two donors. Mr. Martin
Goldstone donated $25.00 and Mr. and Mrs. John Young donated $300.00. The donors
have requested that their contribution be used to help fund the turf project at Albemarle
High School.
• Albemarle High School received a donation in the amount of $100.00 from Mr. and Mrs.
John Carroll Jr. The donor requests that their contribution go towards the turf project at
Albemarle High School.
• Red Hill Elementary School has received a donation in the amount of $13,866.00 from the
Red Hill PTO. The donor has requested that their contribution be used to help fund the
Red Hill Performance Area.
• W estern Albemarle High School received two donations totaling $125.00. Steve Heon
donated $100.00 and Ann Sweeney donated $25.00. The donors requested that their
contributions go towards the turf project at W estern Albemarle High School.
• Jack Jouett Middle School received a donation in the amount of $3,000.00 from the Jack
Jouett PTO. The donor has requested that this contribution be used to purchase a
laminator and encyclopedias for Jack Jouett Middle School.
• Jack Jouett Middle School received a donation in the amount of $350.00 from Patricia
Kenney and Stephen Bosley. The donors requested that $250 go towards helping finance
the purchase of violins for the JJMS orchestra. They also request that the remaining
funds go towards the 6th grade field trips.
• V.L. Murray Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $600.00 from Dr.
Jeffrey Barth. The donor requested that his contribution be used to fulfill any educational
needs at Murray Elementary School.
• Henley Middle School received a donation in the amount of $2,580.00 from the Henley
PATSO. The donor has requested that this contribution be used to help fund the At-Risk
Program at Henley Middle School.
• The Community Public Charter School Grant (CPCS) is an alternative middle school
based upon an arts infused curriculum. The mission of the CPCS is to provide an
alternative and innovative learning environment, using the arts, to help children in the
grades six through eight learn in ways that match their learning styles (i.e. developing the
whole child-intellectually, emotionally, physically and socially). Seeking to serve students
who have not succeeded in school, the program will close their achievement gap by
offering a balance of literacy tutorials and the arts-infused curriculum. Funds, totaling
$120,000.00, were received to help with salaries and benefits.
• The Refugee Impact School Grant was a federally funded program that provided
additional services for Albemarle County’s growing multicultural population, which
includes refugees. The grant program was run in conjunction with the evening Adult ESL
program. There is a local fund balance of $133.62 from FY 07/08 that may be
reappropriated for use in FY 08/09.
• The Project Graduation grant provides additional assistance during summer school for
juniors and seniors needing to obtain verified credits in reading, writing and algebra.
There is a local fund balance of $35,112.65 from FY 07/08 that may be reappropriated for
use in FY 08/09.
At its meeting on October 9, 2008, the School Board approved the following appropriations:
• Stone Robinson Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $8,000.00 from
the Stone Robinson PTO. The donor has requested that each Stone Robinson teacher
receive $200.00 of this contribution to purchase instructional/recreational supplies.
• V.L. Murray Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $3,000.00 from the
Martinsville Area Community Foundation/Mr. and Mrs. Nelson Teague. The donors have
requested that their contribution be used to support the technology program at V.L.
Murray Elementary School.
Appropriation #2009035 $ 76,930.00
Revenue Source: ECC Fund Balance $ 76,930.00
At its meeting on August 19, 2008, the ECC Management Board approved the use of $76,930.00 from the
ECC Fund Balance to fund additional salary expenses for communications officers who switched to a 12
hour work schedule. These funds will cover this additional expense for FY 08/09.
The Management Board had previously approved the 12 hour work schedule as a six month pilot program
that was subsequently reviewed by the Human Resources Department before final approval was made.
The new schedule allows for staff to have every other weekend off duty, reduces the number of days
worked annually by seventy-eight, and has reduced employee overtime, sick leave, and turnover. This
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
new schedule has also assisted the ECC as a recruitment tool in attracting experienced communications
officers.
Appropriation #2009036 $ 789.69
Revenue Source: Grant Fund Balance $ 789.69
In FY 07/08, the Circuit Court Clerk’s Office received a Virginia Circuit Court Records Preservation grant
from the Library of Virginia in the amount of $3,350.00 to provide funding of overtime hours for scanning
and indexing of order books into the Clerk’s Office. At the end of the grant period, $789.69 remained
unexpended and will be returned to the Library of Virginia.
Appropriation #2009037 $ 19,829.20
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue $ 15,140.00
Transfer from Sheriff’s Dept. 4,689.20
The Commonwealth of Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles has awarded the Albemarle County Sheriff’s
Department a grant in the amount of $15,140.00 with a local match of $4,689.20 for a total grant of
$19,829.20. This grant will assist in the purchase of radar units, breath testing units, as well as funding
overtime hours for DUI checkpoints and speed enforcement. The local match of $4,689.20 has previously
been funded within the Sheriff’s Department’s operating budget. This appropriation will increase the
County’s total budget $15,140.00.
Appropriation #2009038 $ 1,180,631.56
Revenue Source: General Fund Balance $1,168,781.56
Bright Stars Fund Balance 11,850.00
The following departments had FY 07/08 funds for specific projects that were uncompleted at June 30,
2008 and will require reappropriation for use in FY 08/09:
General Fund
• County Executive - $51,609.13 for the citizen survey
• Community Relations - $30,000.00 for upgrade and redesign of County website
• General District Court - $900.00 to purchase an additional credit card machine
• Fire Rescue
o $6,000.00 for Captain’s promotional process
o $3,000.00 to purchase cameras for the Prevention Division
o $7,000.00 for strategic planning with the volunteer and career fire departments
which began in FY 07/08
• General Services - $482,729.43 for the Rivanna Solid W aste Authority contribution for Ivy
Landfill
• Stormwater Management - $5,000.00 for contract services
• Parks & Recreation - $60,000.00 to replace two tractors whose purchase was delayed
due to potential FY 07/08 budget shortfall
• Community Development - $5,000.00 for groundwater monitoring
• Housing
o $27,543.00 to fund project development costs for AHIP associated with the
Treesdale development
o $240,000.00 for the down payment assistance to homebuyers
• Job Opportunities Fund - $250,000.00
Special Revenue Fund
• Bright Stars - $11,850.00 received from the Rotary Club for its Foundation Scholarship
Fund and for After School and Extended Day Enrichment Program tuition for Bright Stars
and Family Support children in Bright Stars and Family Support.
Appropriation #2009039 $ 58,500.00
Revenue Source: General Fund Balance $ 18,500.00
Motor Vehicle Repl. Fund Balance 40,000.00
Several departments have requested use of FY 07/08 expenditure savings for new projects:
• Circuit Court Clerk’s Office - $10,000.00 for a records storage system
• General Services - $8,500.00 to offset anticipated contract increases for street signs
• Social Services - $40,000.00 to replace two motor vehicles (1989 and 1991) that are
unreliable and have recurring repair issues. Staff recommends these vehicles be
purchased from available fund balance in the Motor Vehicle Replacement Fund.
__________
Mr. Richard W iggins, Director of Finance, summarized the above executive summary. He said
that staff is recommending one change – appropriation 2009027 for the reappropriation of the remaining
balances of the School Capital Improvement Projects is recommended to be reduced by $1,007,318.31
from $2,919,833.54 to $1,912,515.23. Mr. W iggins explained that this reflects the savings from Cale
Elementary and Monticello High School projects and the continued working discussions with School on the
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
use of these savings, which will be reported to the Board at a later date. He stated that the impact of this
change is to reduce the total budget amendment from $51,432,475.73 to $50,425,157.42. This
amendment is comprised of 12 separate appropriations including one in the amount of $2,126,026.19 for
ACE that has already been approved. Mr. W iggins said the remaining 11 new appropriations incorporates
the recommended change total $48,299,131.23. Staff recommends, after the public haring, approval of
FY 2009 budget amendment in the revised amount of $50,425,157.42 and approval of the appropriations
mentioned.
Mr. Tucker said that Ms. Thomas had commented on the Board to Board statement that Parks
and Recreation staff had indicated that the funds for the turf fields were not being appropriated, but what
staff had indicated to Schools is that it had not been done yet but would be voted for reappropriation today.
He clarified that it is in the CIP fund as $238,245 that will be used for the turf fields in the Schools.
Mr. W iggans said that is part of appropriation 2009026.
Mr. Boyd said he does not remember that being discussed. He commented that he thought that
was going to be funded privately, and he does not think the County should put public dollars into that.
Mr. Tucker mentioned that staff had proposed funds for lighting of two multi-purpose fields at
Monticello and Albemarle, and those are now lighted so Mr. Pat Mullaney had suggested using that money
for the turf fields which would allow use for general recreation needs.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that Little League Football teams are playing on other fields at Monticello
right now, and when they are not capable of being played on they go to St. Anne’s to play. He said that it
would be helpful for the Recreation Department to have access to turf fields assuming they will get times.
Mr. Boyd commented that he felt this was slipped in under the radar.
Ms. Mallek added that she would rather wait to put public money in until they have reached their
fundraising capacity.
Mr. Tucker said this is to carry the money forward.
Mr. Mullaney explained that Parks and Recreation had planned to light a field at Albemarle and
Monticello, but they did not do them because of the 24/7 fields. The stadium fields are already lighted, but
are not currently used for community recreation – this would provide unlimited use. If the County
participates, staff has an agreement that those fields are used by us; staff estimates 30 percent of the use
on each field by Parks and Recreation and Community Recreation. Basically that gives the County a
whole synthetic turf field for $238,000 that is already lighted. It is the biggest bang for the buck. He added
that if they were to light the two school fields, they take on the maintenance costs and because of heavy
School use, the fields are not in very good shape. Mr. Mullaney said that the County can increase what
they are offering citizens and actually reduce overall maintenance costs.
Mr. Slutzky said the economic analysis makes sense, but the question in his mind is the use of an
artificial turf field, as a lot of citizens have raised concerns about that.
Mr. Mullaney suggested having the Board do the reappropriation and then having a separate
discussion with Athletic Directors present to address those issues.
Mr. Slutzky stated that he would be comfortable supporting the appropriation as long as those
important issues are discussed in the future.
Mr. Tucker confirmed that it would not technically have to come back to the Board to be allocated,
but the Board could certainly request that.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that the School Board studied the health and safety impacts of artificial turf,
and he would like to get a copy of the minutes from the meetings where that was discussed.
Mr. Slutzky agreed, but said that he wants to ensure that citizens who objected the most have an
opportunity to provide input. He added that before he supports an appropriation that contributes to the
project, he would like for staff to bring the issue back to the Board for consideration.
Ms. Mallek noted that there have been major changes in the chemicals used for turf fields, and
there may be more developments by the time this money is allocated.
Ms. Thomas added that she would not want to have people in the community who are fundraising
assume there is a promise by the County to allocate funds.
Mr. Davis emphasized that it is the School Board’s decision whether to do the fields and they have
been dealing with that discussion. The only issue for the Board is whether they want to contribute funds to
it or not. He said that if the School Board decides to do it and the County does not fund it, they will just
have to find the money elsewhere and that may hinder the County’s use of those fields.
Mr. Rooker noted that the decision as to whether or not to participate in funding should be
separate from the discussion on the safety of the materials.
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
Ms. Mallek asked about the tractors in the budget. Mr. Mullaney explained that they are replacing
two 1974 John Deere 830 tractors with two four-wheel drive compact tractors that are much more
versatile.
Mr. Boyd asked staff for assurance that the budget items are priority items, and cannot be done
cheaper.
Mr. W iggins said all the projects have been approved by the Board in prior years. Staff works with
departments to make sure the dollar amounts are still feasible.
Mr. Rooker commented that the Board decides that every time they review the CIP. W ith regard
to savings from projects, in his mind, the savings is money that is available in the CIP for other projects.
He does not necessarily agree that the savings should go to School projects, but instead to projects that is
on the priority list as presented by the Committee and approved by the Board.
Mr. Tucker noted that later today the Board would be discussing projects in the out years.
Mr. Davis pointed out that some of the School funds are VPSA borrowed funds and can only be
used for School projects.
Mr. Rooker said he wants it understood that projects cannot be pulled out and funded when they
were never in the priority list.
Mr. Tucker emphasized that the savings is really in the debt service for School projects.
Referring to appropriation 2009026, Mr. Rooker asked if the $17,700,000 in bond proceeds is
already issued bonds.
Mr. W iggins responded that they are not. They are planned for issuance and as those projects
come to construction phase and funds needed, those bonds will go to the market.
Ms. Mallek asked how the raises for Captain’s promotional process (2009038) fit in with the
overall raises for law enforcement.
Mr. Bryan Elliott, Assistant County Executive, replied that this is a fee to conduct the Captain’s
promotional process, not for raises. There was a pool of candidates developed from that process which
has now been depleted; the funds being proposed for reappropriation are to pay to have that promotional
process done again. He explained that Fire and Rescue worked with Human Resources on a process to
bring in people from outside the agency to review candidates. This is the funding that would be utilized to
gain a pool of individuals that would be eligible for Captain’s positions as they come open. This does not
create a new Captain’s position; there is currently a position open. He added that Human Resources and
Fire and Rescue developed this process several years ago – and this focuses on career staff but
volunteers can apply to be part of the pool.
Mr. Tucker explained that the pool is evaluated by the panel, and once they are hired they are a
career captain.
Mr. Elliott added that this process has been used in prior years by Fire and Rescue.
Mr. Rooker asked about the Community Public Charter School Grant (appropriation 2009034) and
where the $120,000 came from, and if it is a continuing grant or one time.
Ms. Mallek commented that it is a federal grant.
Mr. Brian W heeler, Chair of the School Board, explained that his understanding is this is a federal
grant received, and the School has also been doing their own fundraising.
Mr. Dorrier asked about the $250,000 for the Job Opportunities Fund (appropriation 2009038).
Mr. Tucker responded that the Board created that to help a business relocate in the community.
The funds could be used for training purposes. He explained that the companies that were going to take
advantage of it have actually dropped out, adding that it is one-time money.
Mr. Slutzky said that they had agreed that that money would be on the table.
Ms. Mallek noted that JABA has applied for some seed money that would generate a bigger grant
for a local food project.
The public hearing was then opened. No one came forward to speak, and the public hearing was
closed.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Slutzky to approve the FY 2009 Budget Amendment in the
amount of $50,425,157.42 and to approve Appropriations #2009026, #2009027 (revised), #2009028,
#2009032, #2009033, #2009034, #2009035, #2009036, #2009037, #2009038, and #2009039 to provide
funds for various local government, school, ECC, and capital projects and programs. Ms. Mallek
seconded the motion.
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2009026
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Reappropriation of projects and programs from FY08 General Government
CIP
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION COD
E
AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
See Attached Information Technology J 1 50,000.00
Access Albemarle J 1 782,528.04
Voter Registration J 1 694.88
Court Facilities J 1 167,553.83
Juvenile Court J 1 6,491,836.68
Clerk of Circuit Court J 1 156,853.29
Public Safety J 1 974,511.18
Police Department J 1 940,556.36
Fire Department J 1 151,779.24
Hollymead Fire Station J 1 1,724,145.02
Pantops Fire Station J 1 2,610,968.20
Monticello Fire Station J 1 196,802.13
Volunteer Fire Dept J 1 864,070.03
Ivy Fire Station J 1 1,634,000.00
Volunteer Rescue Sq. J 1 1,160,108.85
Engineering J 1 1,467,036.14
Street Improvements J 1 8,224,054.86
Crozet Streetscapes II J 1 640,641.12
Sidewalk Program J 1 1,405,657.66
Public Works J 1 1,254,525.82
COB Phase II J 1 2,250,411.00
Health Department J 1 42,869.67
Parks & Recreation J 1 3,020,438.36
Beaver Creek Boathouse J 1 25,500.00
Tourism J 1 1,184,271.27
Libraries J 1 3,991,679.05
Planning J 1 609,414.07
Neighborhood Plan J 1 287,437.06
2 9010 16000 160536 City - Visitor's Center J 2 95,296.32
2 9010 18110 181129 W AHS Rowing Club J 2 5,500.00
2 9010 19000 190315 City Share - Eastern
Connector
J 2 60,792.52
2 9010 24000 240309 Va. National Defense J 2 401,000.00
2 9010 24000 240447 Dept Con./Rec. Trail J 2 77,576.00
2 9010 24000 240800 Clerk's Technology Trust
Fund
J 2 175,909.46
2 9010 41000 410500 Loan Proceeds J 2 17,702,424.00
2 9010 51000 510100 Appropriation - F/B J 2 23,425,127.51
2 9010 51000 512040 Trs. - Glenmore Proffer J 2 305,000.00
2 9010 51000 512055 Trs. - Avon Park Proffer J 2 61,718.00
9010 0501 Est. Revenue 42,310,343.81
0701 Appropriation 42,310,343.81
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
1 8521 93010 930010 Glenmore -Trsnf to CIP J 1 305,000.00
2 8521 51000 510100 Glenmore - App F/B J 2 305,000.00
8521 0501 Est. Revenue 305,000.00
0701 Appropriation 305,000.00
1 8534 93010 930010 Avon Park - Trsf to CIP J 1 61,718.00
2 8534 51000 510100 Avon Park - App F/B J 2 61,718.00
8534 0501 Est. Revenue 61,718.00
0701 Appropriation 61,718.00
TOTAL 85,354,123.62 42,677,061.81 42,677,061.81
Reappropriation
1 9010 12200 950226 INFORMATIO COURTHOUSE PHONE SW ITCH 50,000.00 50,000.00
1 9010 12210 312105 ACCESS ALB CONSULTING SERVICES 182,528.04
1 9010 12210 332115 ACCESS ALB MAINT. CONTRACT-SOFTW ARE 250,000.00
1 9010 12210 800700 ACCESS ALB ADP EQUIPMENT 150,000.00
1 9010 12210 800710 ACCESS ALB DATA PROCESSING SOFTW ARE 200,000.00 782,528.04
1 9010 13020 800610 DEPT OF VO RENOVATIONS 694.88 694.88
1 9010 21000 331000 COURT FACI REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 5,508.93
1 9010 21000 800201 COURT FACI FURNITURE & FIXTURES-REPL 15,463.00
1 9010 21000 950135 COURT FACI COURT SQUARE ENHANCEMENTS 45,000.00
1 9010 21000 950176 COURT FACI SALLYPORT 30,786.33
1 9010 21000 950301 COURT FACI OLD JAIL FAC MAINTENANCE 70,795.57 167,553.83
1 9010 21050 331000 JUVENILE C REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 122,384.52
1 9010 21050 800901 JUVENILE C BUILDING RENOVATIONS 6,369,452.16 6,491,836.68
1 9010 21060 800708 CLERK OF C DOCUMENT IMAGING SYSTEM 156,853.29 156,853.29
1 9010 31000 800305 PUBLIC SAF RADIO SYSTEM 37,015.19
1 9010 31000 800910 PUBLIC SAF TRAINING CTR/FIRING RANGE 937,495.99 974,511.18
1 9010 31010 800714 POLICE DEP TECHNOLOGY UPGRADE 830,596.05
1 9010 31010 800733 POLICE DEP VIDEO EQUIPMENT 109,960.31 940,556.36
1 9010 32010 950358 FIRE DEPAR COUNTY - COMMAND 110 58,000.00
1 9010 32010 999999 FIRE DEPAR CONTINGENCY FUNDS 93,779.24 151,779.24
1 9010 32017 312367 HOLLYMEAD CONSTRUCTION ADMIN 20,454.25
1 9010 32017 601315 HOLLYMEAD SAFETY EQUIPMENT/SUPPLIES 63,305.55
1 9010 32017 800741 HOLLYMEAD I/T COST(EQUIP/FIBER) 21,020.49
1 9010 32017 800742 HOLLYMEAD ALERTING SYSTEMS 60,345.17
1 9010 32017 811201 HOLLYMEAD NORTHERN-ENGINE 1,855.36
1 9010 32017 811202 HOLLYMEAD NOTHERN-LADDER TRUCK 1,082,751.50
1 9010 32017 950359 HOLLYMEAD NORTHERN TANKER 316,133.40
1 9010 32017 999999 HOLLYMEAD CONTINGENCY FUNDS 158,279.30 1,724,145.02
1 9010 32018 312350 PANTOPS FI ENGINEERING/PLANNING 124,985.00
1 9010 32018 800605 PANTOPS FI CONSTRUCTION 264,983.20
1 9010 32018 800750 PANTOPS FI PURCHASE OF PROPERTY 1,722,000.00
1 9010 32018 950391 PANTOPS FI PANTOPS - ENGINE 499,000.00 2,610,968.20
1 9010 32019 800741 MONTICELLO I/T COST(EQUIP/FIBER) 139,257.00
1 9010 32019 811101 MONTICELLO MONTICELLO-AMBULANCE 57,545.13 196,802.13
1 9010 32020 810099 VOLUNTEER VFD-CONTINGENCY 10,662.50
1 9010 32020 810610 VOLUNTEER ST/PT-FACILITY UNGRADES 176,504.80
1 9010 32020 810801 VOLUNTEER SEMINOLE-DESIGN/STUDY 14,746.08
1 9010 32020 810802 VOLUNTEER SEMINOLE-SALAVE 87 &EQUIP 287,500.00
1 9010 32020 950311 VOLUNTEER CROZET-TANKER 57 7,857.80
1 9010 32020 950352 VOLUNTEER SCOTTSVILLE FIRE-TANKR 79 326,546.39
1 9010 32020 950353 VOLUNTEER SCOTTS FIRE - COMMAND 70 16,862.46
1 9010 32020 950354 VOLUNTEER STONY POINT - COMMAND 60 23,390.00 864,070.03
1 9010 32021 800750 EAST IVY S PURCHASE OF PROPERTY 1,634,000.00 1,634,000.00
1 9010 32030 815101 AMBULANCE/ CARS-AMB. & EQUIP 260,108.85
1 9010 32030 815102 AMBULANCE/ CARS-SQUAD 133 300,000.00
1 9010 32030 815502 AMBULANCE/ W ARS - AMB 501 178,000.00
1 9010 32030 950355 AMBULANCE/ CARS - AMBULANCE #3 182,000.00
1 9010 32030 950356 AMBULANCE/ CARS - AMBULANCE #4 182,000.00
1 9010 32030 950357 AMBULANCE/ W ARS - COMMAND 506 58,000.00 1,160,108.85
1 9010 41000 800960 ENGINEERIN STREET LIGHTS 337,831.98
1 9010 41000 950039 ENGINEERIN MEADOW CREEK PARKW AY ENGIN 28,125.74
1 9010 41000 950059 ENGINEERIN KEENE LANDFILL CLOSURE 522,078.42
1 9010 41000 950061 ENGINEERIN MEADOW CREEK PATH 20,000.00
1 9010 41000 950110 ENGINEERIN RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYS. 559,000.00 1,467,036.14
1 9010 41020 950081 STREET IMP REVENUE SHARING ROADS 3,074,697.90
1 9010 41020 950115 STREET IMP AIRPORT ROAD LANDSCAPING 23,643.53
1 9010 41020 950136 STREET IMP TRANSPORT PL/CONSTR-LOCAL 4,110,729.78
1 9010 41020 950171 STREET IMP SUNRIDGE ROAD 8,388.54
1 9010 41020 950200 STREET IMP RT 22/250 INTERSECTION DV 305,000.00
1 9010 41020 950204 STREET IMP EASTERN CONNECTOR STUDY 95,631.00
1 9010 41020 950220 STREET IMP TRANSP PL/CONST-REGIONAL 100,000.00
1 9010 41020 950223 STREET IMP TRANSPORTATION PL-RS-SUPP 500,000.00
1 9010 41020 950501 STREET IMP TRAFFIC STUDY RT 250E 5,964.11 8,224,054.86
1 9010 41023 312350 CROZET STR ENGINEERING/PLANNING 145,641.12
1 9010 41023 800605 CROZET STR CONSTRUCTION 495,000.00 640,641.12
1 9010 41350 950038 SIDEW ALK P RIO ROAD SIDEWALK 97,217.55
1 9010 41350 950510 SIDEW ALK P SOUTH PANTOPS 512,000.00
1 9010 41350 950511 SIDEW ALK P AVON STREET 73,000.00
1 9010 41350 950513 SIDEW ALK P HILLTOP TABOR 200,000.00
1 9010 41350 950514 SIDEW ALK P ST. GEORGE AVENUE 104,617.00
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
1 9010 41350 950516 SIDEW ALK P RT 250/W ESTMINISTER 275,000.00
1 9010 41350 999999 SIDEW ALK P CONTINGENCY FUNDS 143,823.11 1,405,657.66
1 9010 43100 800666 PUBLIC W OR FACILITY MAINT. 399,376.74
1 9010 43100 950128 PUBLIC W OR COB ENTRY CORRIDOR BEAUTY 41,998.10
1 9010 43100 950168 PUBLIC W OR COB MCINTIRE RENOVATIONS 72,606.96
1 9010 43100 950169 PUBLIC W OR ROADW AY LANDSCAPING PRGM 213,902.12
1 9010 43100 950174 PUBLIC W OR HILLSDALE SIDEW ALK/IMP 191,106.62
1 9010 43100 950189 PUBLIC W OR COB-AUDITORIUM RENOVATION 10,535.28
1 9010 43100 950221 PUBLIC W OR RECYCLING CENTERS 250,000.00
1 9010 43100 950222 PUBLIC W OR HEALTH DEPT MAINT/REPAIR 35,000.00
1 9010 43100 950230 PUBLIC W OR PRESTON MORRIS-BUILD-ADA 40,000.00 1,254,525.82
1 9010 43101 312343 COB-MC REN SPACE NEEDS STUDY 9,780.00
1 9010 43101 312350 COB-MC REN ENGINEERING/PLANNING 171,506.00
1 9010 43101 580000 COB-MC REN MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES 3,500.00
1 9010 43101 800200 COB-MC REN FURNITURE & FIXTURES 53,000.00
1 9010 43101 800605 COB-MC REN CONSTRUCTION 1,774,905.00
1 9010 43101 999999 COB-MC REN CONTINGENCY FUNDS 237,720.00 2,250,411.00
1 9010 51020 800673 HEALTH DEP HVAC IMPROVEMENTS 42,869.67 42,869.67
1 9010 71000 800940 PARKS & RE PARK ENHANCEMENTS 83,954.43
1 9010 71000 800949 PARKS & RE MAINTENANCE PROJECTS 156,582.87
1 9010 71000 950009 PARKS & RE SCOTTSV COMMUNITY CENTER 14,461.58
1 9010 71000 950044 PARKS & RE ATH. FIELD STUDY/DEVEL. 238,245.26
1 9010 71000 950074 PARKS & RE RECREATION FACILITIES 2,030,000.00
1 9010 71000 950121 PARKS & RE SIMPSON PARK 75,221.70
1 9010 71000 950152 PARKS & RE COMM.REC.FAC.NEEDS ASSMNT 12,655.86
1 9010 71000 950201 PARKS & RE MT SPRINGS FISHING ACCESS 45,709.81
1 9010 71000 950202 PARKS & RE CROZET GREENW AYS 95,340.00
1 9010 71000 950219 PARKS & RE W ESTERN PARK MASTER PLAN 50,000.00
1 9010 71000 950231 PARKS & RE CALE PLAYGROUND EQUIP 3,266.85
1 9010 71000 950232 PARKS & RE PATRICIA BYROM FOREST PRE 200,000.00
1 9010 71000 950515 PARKS & RE W ESTERN PARK PLAN/DESIGN 15,000.00 3,020,438.36
1 9010 71032 800605 BEAVER CRK CONSTRUCTION 25,500.00 25,500.00
1 9010 72030 568901 TOURISM VISITOR'S BUREAU-MAINT. 190,602.65
1 9010 72030 800632 TOURISM PARK ENHANCEMENTS 4,101.00
1 9010 72030 950026 TOURISM GREENW AY PROGRAM 139,240.07
1 9010 72030 950107 TOURISM RIVER ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS 178,287.00
1 9010 72030 950111 TOURISM GREENBELT-BOAT ACCESS 1,711.00
1 9010 72030 950177 TOURISM BYROM FOREST PRESERVE 375,359.55
1 9010 72030 950233 TOURISM PREDDY CREEK TRAIL PARK 198,000.00
1 9010 72030 950520 TOURISM RIVANNA-FREE BRIDGE CONN. 96,970.00 1,184,271.27
1 9010 73020 800949 LIBRARIES MAINTENANCE PROJECTS 182,239.72
1 9010 73020 950114 LIBRARIES CROZET LIBRARY 3,809,439.33 3,991,679.05
1 9010 81010 950147 PLANNING G.I.S. PROJECT 456,471.51
1 9010 81010 950162 PLANNING CROZET PH1-ST SCAPES 18,400.63
1 9010 81010 950173 PLANNING 29N CORRIDOR STUDY 23,446.00
1 9010 81010 950178 PLANNING CITY VIEW PROJECT 16,407.00
1 9010 81010 950199 PLANNING MAIN STREET-CROZET 94,688.93 609,414.07
1 9010 81110 950550 NEIGHBORHO PLACES 29 MASTER PLAN 135,000.00
1 9010 81110 950560 NEIGHBORHO PANTOPS MASTER PLAN 98,731.45
1 9010 81110 999999 NEIGHBORHO CONTINGENCY FUNDS 53,705.61 287,437.06
Total $42,310,343.81 42,310,343.81
Revenues
2 9010 16000 160536 CHARGES FO CITY-VISITOR'S CENTER $95,296.32
2 9010 18110 181129 CONTRIBUTI W AHS ROW ING CLUB $5,500.00
2 9010 19000 190315 RECOVERED CITY SHARE-EASTERN STUDY $60,792.52
2 9010 24000 240309 CATEGORICA VA NAT DEFENSE INDUS AUTH $401,000.00
2 9010 24000 240447 CATEGORICA DEPT CON/REC: REC. TRAILS $77,576.00
2 9010 24000 240800 CATEGORICA CLERK'S TECHN. TRUST FUND $175,909.46
2 9010 41000 410500 NONREVENUE LOAN PROCEEDS $17,702,424.00
2 9010 51000 510100 TRANSFERS APPROPRIATION-FUND BAL $23,425,127.51
2 9010 51000 512040 TRANSFERS TRS FR GLENMORE PROFFER $305,000.00
2 9010 51000 512055 TRANSFERS TRS - AVON PARK PROFFER $61,718.00
$42,310,343.81
($0.00) $0.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2009027
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Reappropriation of uncompleted FY08 School Capital Projects
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 9000 60100 800665 ADA STRUCTURAL
CHANGES
J 1 18,979.35
1 9000 60202 312350 BROW NSVILLE - ENG/PL J 1 124,421.41
1 9000 60202 800605 BROW NSVILLE -
CONSTR
J 1 94,512.94
1 9000 60203 312350 CROZET -
ENG./PLANNING
J 1 845.00
1 9000 60204 312350 GREER - ENG./PLANNING J 1 264,225.16
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
1 9000 60211 312350 STONY PT -
ENG./PLANNING
J 1 906.00
1 9000 60214 800605 CALE - CONSTRUCTION J 1 15,687.32
1 9000 60216 800909 MURRAY - ATHLETIC
TRACK
J 1 2,290.60
1 9000 60301 312350 ALBEMARLE -
ENG./PLANN
J 1 176,045.35
1 9000 60304 312350 MONTICELLO -
ENG./PLANN
J 1 4,273.55
1 9000 60304 950179 MONTICELLO
AUDITORIUM
J 1 8,212.45
1 9000 60410 800949 CATEC - MAINT.
PROJECTS
J 1 196,000.00
1 9000 60510 800901 VMF - BUILDING
RENOVATIONS
J 1 436,067.40
1 9000 61101 800700 CLASS/INST - ADP
EQUIPMENT
J 1 172,449.52
1 9000 62190 800700 ADM. TECH - ADP
EQUIPMENT
J 1 34,960.53
1 9000 62420 800949 F/M - MAINTENANCE
PROJECTS
J 1 149,041.16
1 9000 62420 950188 F/M - EMERGENCY
GENERATOR
J 1 36,893.97
1 9000 62420 950229 F/M - W AHS-GIRLS
LOCKER ROOM
J 1 6,057.25
1 9000 62420 950237 F/M -STONY PT PARTIAL
ROOF RPL
J 1 4,900.00
1 9000 62420 950238 F/M -PHONE SYSTEM
UPGRADE
J 1 23,286.05
1 9000 62440 312350 GYM HVAC -
ENG./PLANNING
J 1 117,401.60
1 9000 62440 950215 GYM HVAC - AHS LARGE
GYM
J 1 25,058.62
2 9000 51000 510100 APPROPRIATION - F/B J 2 1,912,515.23
9000 0501 EST. REVENUE 1,912,515.23
0701 APPROPRIATION 1,912,515.23
TOTAL 3,825,030.46 1,912,515.23 1,912,515.23
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2009028
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Reappropriation of uncompleted FY08 Stormwater projects
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 9100 41000 800975 STORM WATER
CONTROL IMP
J 1 1,769,155.37
1 9100 41059 800605 WOODBROOK -
CONSTRUCTION
J 1 78,967.06
1 9100 41062 800975 TURTLE CREEK - STORM
WATER CONTROL IMP
J 1 53,500.00
1 9100 41063 312353 DNTWN CROZET -
DESIGN
J 1 50,000.00
1 9100 41063 800605 DNTWN CROZET -
CONSTRUCTION
J 1 300,000.00
1 9100 41063 800692 DNTWN CROZET -
BUFFER ENHANCEMENT
J 1 50,000.00
1 9100 41063 800750 DNTWN CROZET -
PURCHASE OF
PROPERTY
J 1 200,000.00
2 9100 51000 510100 APPROPRIATION - F/B J 2 2,501,622.43
9100 0501 EST. REVENUE 2,501,622.43
0701 APPROPRIATION 2,501,622.43
TOTAL 5,003,244.86 2,501,622.43 2,501,622.43
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2009032
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Miscellaneous Budget Adjustments: 1) Budget funds for Group Life/Part-
time inadvertently excluded from original adopted budget; To reallocate
funding for CHIP and Teen Pregnancy Program from the Health Department
and MACAA to Jefferson Area CHIP
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 12030 242000 Group Life/Part-Time J 1 3,861.00
1 1000 95000 999990 Board Reserve J 1 (3,861.00)
1 1000 59000 566301 Jefferson Area CHIP J 1 158,572.00
1 1000 59000 560100 Health Department J 1 (131,358.00)
1 1000 89000 566300 MACAA J 1 (27,214.00)
TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2009033
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Police and Fire Rescue Department Grants
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1522 33000 330001 Federal Revenue J 2 42,000.00
1 1522 31013 120000 Overtime J 1 27,705.00
1 1522 31013 210000 FICA J 1 2,295.00
1 1522 31013 550100 Training J 1 1,000.00
1 1522 31013 800100 Machinery & Equipment J 1 11,000.00
1522 0501 Est. Revenue 42,000.00
0701 Appropriation 42,000.00
2 1539 33000 330001 Federal Revenue J 2 2,000.00
1 1539 31013 120000 Overtime J 1 2,000.00
1539 0501 Est. Revenue 2,000.00
0701 Appropriation 2,000.00
2 1576 18000 181114 Donations - Fire/Rescue J 2 100.00
2 1576 51000 510100 Appropriation - F/B J 2 9,831.24
1 1576 31092 800100 Machinery & Equipment J 1 9,931.24
1576 0501 Est. Revenue 9,931.24
0701 Appropriation 9,931.24
TOTAL 107,862.48 53,931.24 53,931.24
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2009034
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Education Donations, Programs, and Grants - School Board Meetings:
09/25/2008, 10/9/2008
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 2000 18100 181109 DONATION J 2 8,065.00
2 3123 51000 510100 APPROP - FUND
BALANCE
J 2 133.62
2 3217 51000 510100 APPROP - FUND
BALANCE
J 2 35,112.65
2 3380 18100 181080 DONATIONS J 2 120,000.00
2 9000 18100 181136 RED HILL COMMUNITY
DONATIONS
J 2 13,866.00
2 9001 18100 181107 AHS DONATIONS-TURF
PROJ
J 2 425.00
2 9002 18100 181107 W AHS DONATIONS-TURF
PROJ
J 2 125.00
1 2201 61101 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES J 1 1,535.00
1 2215 61411 580000 PRINCIPAL-MISC J 1 600.00
1 2252 61101 134100 PT/TEACHER AIDES J 1 2,396.66
1 2252 61101 210000 FICA J 1 183.34
1 2253 61101 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES J 1 3,350.00
1 3123 61101 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES J 1 133.62
1 3217 63335 160300 STIPENDS J 1 32,615.00
1 3217 63335 210000 FICA J 1 2,497.65
1 3380 61101 112100 SALARIES-TEACHER J 1 89,000.00
1 3380 61101 210000 FICA J 1 6,810.00
1 3380 61101 221000 VRS J 1 12,000.00
1 3380 61101 231000 HEALTH INSURANCE J 1 11,140.00
1 3380 61101 232000 DENTAL INSURANCE J 1 300.00
1 3380 61101 241000 VRS GROUP INSURANCE J 1 750.00
1 9000 62420 950241 RED HILL
PERFORMANCE AREA
J 1 13,866.00
1 9001 60301 950245 AHS SYN TURF FIELD J 1 425.00
1 9002 60302 950245 W AHS TURF FIELD
PROGRAM
J 1 125.00
2000 0501 Est. Revenue 8,065.00
0701 Appropriation 8,065.00
3123 0501 Est. Revenue 133.62
0701 Appropriation 133.62
3217 0501 Est. Revenue 35,112.65
0701 Appropriation 35,112.65
3380 0501 Est. Revenue 120,000.00
0701 Appropriation 120,000.00
9000 0501 Est. Revenue 13,866.00
0701 Appropriation 13,866.00
9001 0501 Est. Revenue 425.00
0701 Appropriation 425.00
9002 0501 Est. Revenue 125.00
0701 Appropriation 125.00
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation J 2 11,000.00
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
1 2210 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 8,000.00
1 2215 61101 800700 Data Processing Equip -
New
J 1 3,000.00
2000 0501 Est. Revenue 11,000.00
0701 Appropriation 11,000.00
TOTAL 377,454.54 188,727.27 188,727.27
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2009035
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Emergency Communications Center - Funding of 12 Hour Work Schedule
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 4100 51000 510100 Appropriation - F/B J 2 76,930.00
1 4100 31040 110000 ECC - Salaries J 1 65,930.00
1 4100 31040 210000 ECC - FICA J 1 4,000.00
1 4100 31040 221000 ECC - VRS J 1 5,000.00
1 4100 31040 241000 ECC - Life Insurance J 1 1,000.00
1 4100 31040 270000 ECC - W orker's
Compensation
J 1 1,000.00
4100 0501 Est. Revenue 76,930.00
0701 Appropriation 76,930.00
TOTAL 153,860.00 76,930.00 76,930.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2009036
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Circuit Court Clerk Records Preservation Grant
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1216 51000 510100 Appropriation - F/B J 2 789.69
1 1216 29413 568911 Ct. Pres. Grant - LVA J 1 789.69
1216 0501 Est. Revenue 789.69
0701 Appropriation 789.69
TOTAL 1,579.38 789.69 789.69
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2009037
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Sheriff's Department Grant - Operation Eagle Eye
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1530 33000 330011 Federal Revenue J 2 15,140.00
2 1530 51000 512004 Transfer from General
Fund
J 2 4,689.20
1 1530 21070 110000 Salaries - Regular J 1 266.80
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
1 1530 21070 120000 Overtime J 1 7,388.00
1 1530 21070 210000 FICA J 1 612.00
1 1530 21070 580000 Miscellaneous Expenses J 1 1,182.40
1 1530 21070 600800 Vehicle - Fuel J 1 3,000.00
1 1530 21070 600900 Vehicle -
Maintenance/Repair
J 1 240.00
1 1530 21070 600900 Machinery & Equipment J 1 7,140.00
1530 0501 Est. Revenue 19,829.20
0701 Appropriation 19,829.20
TOTAL 39,658.40 19,829.20 19,829.20
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2009038
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Reappropriation of Uncompleted Projects
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 12010 312391 County Executive J 1 51,609.13
1 1000 12013 301200 Community Relations J 1 30,000.00
1 1000 21020 800100 General District Court J 1 900.00
1 1000 32011 310000 Fire Rescue Admin. J 1 7,000.00
1 1000 32013 800100 Fire Rescue - Prevention J 1 3,000.00
1 1000 32015 310000 Fire Rescue - Operations J 1 6,000.00
1 1000 42040 999851 Solid W aste - Ivy Landfill J 1 482,729.43
1 1000 43005 301210 Stormwater Management J 1 5,000.00
1 1000 71012 800100 Parks - Maintenance J 1 60,000.00
1 1000 81022 950172 Community Development J 1 5,000.00
1 1000 81030 563100 Housing: AHIP J 1 27,543.00
1 1000 71030 563150 Housing: Com. Dev. Loan
Fund
J 1 240,000.00
1 1000 95000 999987 Contingency: Job Opp.
Fund
J 1 250,000.00
2 1000 51000 510100 Appropriation - Fund
Balance
J 2 1,168,781.56
1000 0501 Est. Revenue 1,168,781.56
0701 Appropriation 1,168,781.56
1 1579 53320 5710200 Rotary Donation/Bright
Stars
J 1 11,850.00
2 1579 51000 510100 Appropriation - Fund
Balance
J 2 11,850.00
1579 0501 Est. Revenue 11,850.00
0701 Appropriation 11,850.00
TOTAL 2,361,263.12 1,180,631.56 1,180,631.56
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2009039
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Department Requests for New Projects funded from FY08 expenditure
savings
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 21060 800201 Circuit Court Clerk's Office J 1 10,000.00
1 1000 43006 332300 General Services J 1 8,500.00
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
2 1000 51000 510100 Appropriation - F/B J 2 18,500.00
1000 0501 Est. Revenue 18,500.00
0701 Appropriation 18,500.00
1 9200 53013 800500 Motor Vehicle Repl - Social
Svcs.
J 1 40,000.00
2 9200 51000 510100 Motor Vehicle Repl. - F/B J 2 40,000.00
9200 0501 Est. Revenue 40,000.00
0701 Appropriation 40,000.00
TOTAL 117,000.00 58,500.00 58,500.00
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Closed Meeting.
At 12:15 p.m., motion was offered by Ms. Mallek that the Board go into a closed meeting
pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia, under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to
boards, committees, and commissions; and under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff
regarding specific legal matters requiring legal advice relating to the acquisition of property necessary for a
transportation project. Mr. Slutzky seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Certify Closed Meeting.
At 2:08 p.m., the Board reconvened into open meeting. Motion was offered by Ms. Mallek to
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 meeting were heard, discussed or considered in the
closed meeting.
Mr. Rooker seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16a. Boards and Commissions: Vacancies/Appointments.
Motion was offered by Mr. Slutzky to make the following appointments/reappointments:
appoint Fred Huckstep to the Board of Building Code Appeals with said term to expire November
21, 2013;
appoint Doug Lowe to the Board of Building Code Appeals with said term to expire November 21,
2013;
appoint Samantha W ood to the Monticello Area Community Action Agency as an Albemarle
County representative;
appoint David Bowerman to the Public Recreational Facilities Authority to fill an unexpired term
which will end on December 13, 2009;
reappoint Diane Allen to the Board of Building Code Appeals and to the Fire Prevention Board of
Appeals with said terms to expire on November 21, 2013; and
reappoint Emily Bardeen and Rod Gentry to the W orkforce Investment Board with said terms to
expire June 30, 2009.
Mr. Rooker seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
AYES: Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No 17a. Transportation Matters: VDOT Monthly Report.
Mr. Allan Sumpter, Charlottesville Residency Administrator, updated Board members on issues in
their districts:
• The monthly report that the Board received in their packets was actually last month’s
report. He has provided Board members with the correct report.
• The Burnley Station Road signal is under way.
• Next, the same crew will work on the controller actuated beacons at Forest Lakes.
• The traffic light at State Farm is now active. Mr. Boyd said there are many happy State
Farm employees.
• They will be putting a yellow light at Forest Lakes, and the rumble strips are already in
place
• The right-of-way sign agreement is being worked on by VDoT’s Central Office. He hopes
to see some movement at this time. He believes there will be individuals being proactive
in the sign collecting campaigns. After next week, VDoT will also make rounds and try to
collect the remaining signs.
• Crozet curb repairs have been scheduled. They are also looking at sign issues.
• VDoT staff is still working with the property owner at the W oodlands Road/Reas Ford
Road intersection to develop a permanent solution to the sight distance issues. There is
still some resistance from the property owner.
• VDoT staff is looking into the concerns about maintenance and traffic issues on
Owensville Road.
• Asked to set up a time with Mr. Slutzky to observe the signal at the intersection of
Northfields Road and Rio Road. Mr. Slutzky said that the problem is when you travel from
Route 29 and try to turn left onto Northfields Road, you get trapped at the prior light, which
is Old Brook Road. The turn arrow on Northfields is green while you are trapped at the
Old Brook light. Mr. Slutzky suggested they take a ride together.
• Mr. Slutzky asked the status of the Hillsdale Road improvements, including the cross walk
at Rio Road Road. Mr. Juan W ade said the project has to be readvertised to meet some
VDoT requirements; they hope to complete the work in the Spring of 2009.
• VDoT is still looking at Route 20, and have made sign modifications at the Triple C Camp
entrance. VDoT staff expects to have more signage and improvements in that area as
well.
Other items:
• Advanced Mills Bridge right-of-way negotiations are ongoing, and Embarq utility
relocations are expected to be completed this week. The power line relocations are
expected to be completed by Thanksgiving. VDoT is still on schedule for a February
advertising date and October 2009 completion date.
• The County portion of the Meadow Creek Parkway is out for advertisement and the bids
are due on November 26th.
__________
Item No. 17b. Transportation Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Dorrier asked about the intersection of Routes 22 and 250 (Glenmore) and when that project
would be complete. Mr. Sumpter said the grading work is for the most part complete. The scope of the
project was for Luck Stone to be able to tie in their entrance and come out to a traffic light there. Luck
Stone is planning to realign internally the roads in the quarry, and they anticipate it will be completed next
year. VDoT must wait until that is complete to install the traffic light. Until then, it will function without the
traffic light.
Mr. Dorrier commented that it is kind of dangerous as cars back up when they try to get into town.
Mr. Sumpter acknowledged this, stating that it is really an issue beyond that one intersection; it is
a capacity problem.
Mr. W ade said he talked with representatives from Luck Stone yesterday, and they would like to
expedite their plans. County staff will meet with them in the next few weeks to see how they can change
the site plan.
__________
Ms. Thomas asked why the W hite Mountain Road project was put on hold. Mr. Sumpter said he
needs to see how the maintenance budget will be impacted before they proceed with projects of that size.
Ms. Thomas asked for clarification of the inspections of new entrances; 406 seems like a high
number to her. Mr. Joel DeNunzio, of VDoT, confirmed that these include any requests they receive
including speculative roads.
__________
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
Mr. Rooker asked what the timeframe of completion was when the status from the VDoT report
says “Design modifications complete. Developing logistics for installation.”
Mr. Sumpter explained that “design modifications complete” means that Bill Parman has drawn
his sketches, and come up with everything he needs for installation. Developing logistics for installation is
when VDoT will draw up service contracts with entities such as concrete companies and work on
coordinating all of those. They hope to start the concrete work, as weather allows, in November or
December. They use some of the same crews that do the other signal installations. He is hoping to have
all of these complete by July 2009, but it may actually happen sooner. Mr. Sumpter added that there may
be different contractors to perform specific aspects of any given project. He added that it depends a lot on
timing and contractor availability, but said that his goal is to have all three projects listed on the report
complete by the end of this fiscal year.
W ith regard to W oodlands and Reas Ford, Mr. Sumpter said there was a small communication
issue with the gentleman they was working with as far as how much hedge he wanted removed. They
have approached him and asked if he is willing to take a privacy fence as it could be set back.
Mr. Rooker asked if the concept of a four-way stop is out. Mr. Sumpter said the Traffic Engineers
have some concern with a four-way stop. W oodlands Road is a road with so much through traffic that
they do not want to cause a condition whereby rear end accidents might occur.
Mr. Rooker said that it would certainly be better just to clear the sight distance there.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the land could be taken as this is a public safety issue.
Mr. Sumpter explained that the Board would have to establish that as a project like any other, with
right-of-way, public hearing, funding in the Six-Year Plan, etc.
__________
Ms. Mallek asked about the bridge over Buck Mountain Creek. Mr. Sumpter said that the contract
is set up for the bridge to be open by November 24th and there are incentives and disincentives for the
contractor to meet that timeframe. He confirmed that there is no way to keep fire lanes open during that
process.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Work Session: Economic Development Policy Comprehensive Plan
Amendment.
Ms. Susan Stimart, Business Development Facilitator, said that staff has provided a hard copy (on
file in Clerk’s office) of the Planning Commission’s input into the proposed Policy. Ms. Stimart said that
the purpose of the amendment is to update the Economic Development Policy’s element of the
Comprehensive Plan. The timeline started in December 2007. A work session held on February 13th with
three subsequent work sessions with the Planning Commission to address the three key areas; the last
public hearing was October 21st. She explained that the one goal of the policy has not changed since the
1995 policy: maintain a strong and sustainable economy: 1) benefitting the County citizens and existing
businesses and providing diversified economic opportunities; 2) supportive of the County’s growth
management policy and consistent with other Comprehensive Plan goals, and 3) taking into consideration
regional economic development efforts.
Ms. Stimart reported that stakeholders and the Commissioners gave input in three key areas: 1)
increasing Light Industrial land for local business expansion; 2) workforce development; and 3) enhancing
the rural area economy. She explained that the major changes to the policy were: 1) revising the
introduction to make it more direct; 2) working with objective one, strategy four, which references the
Agricultural and Forestal Support Committee’s recommendations publication from 1993 – deleting the
reference and spelling out specific strategies to support the agricultural and forestal industries. This
included increasing support for local agricultural infrastructure such as local food programs, establishing a
proactive rural support program, providing assistance for the local agricultural community including
ongoing dialogue with farm industry stakeholders, and supporting recruiting of farmers and connecting to
School programs.
Ms. Thomas commented that she did not see anything in the goals and objectives that relate to
ease of access for employees which are a major part of the Neighborhood Model concept. The section
that deals with land uses and locations may be the place to put the reference to the land use aspect of the
support for economic development.
Ms. Stimart replied that the policy was initially drafted before the Neighborhood Model form of
development became part of the Code.
Mr. Benish said that addition can be added. He added that this policy generally focuses on those
economic development activities other than locational decisions about land uses, but that does not mean it
cannot be added.
Ms. Thomas responded that decisions about placement of specific uses and convenience of
access are a factor in helping or hindering economic development.
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
Mr. Slutzky suggested expanding opportunities for agricultural activities in the rural area through a
movement with local food groups who are looking for land and small farmers who are looking for
business, and wondered if there could be some kind of “matchmaking system.”
Mr. Boyd said those type activities are already going on with farmers and businesses.
Ms. Mallek said that would be a good idea. Blandemar is a farm that comes to mind where she
thinks it would be a good idea.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks it is a good idea to include some language and he thinks that if the
County can facilitate it, then they should.
Mr. Boyd said he does not have a problem with encouraging this activity, but he is concerned that
the Farm Bureau and other agencies are capable of doing those things, instead of more government
funding for programs.
Mr. Slutzky said acknowledging that it is a good thing does not commit the County to setting up a
program or a body of regulations. He suggested incorporating the concept in the fourth bullet.
Referring to Objective 1, #5, Ms. Thomas commented that there is no recognition of the University
as the main driver of the County’s economic vitality and that the County should work in collaboration with
the University and the Three Party Agreement to encourage infill, appropriate location of activities and
environmental sensitivity. That gives some direction on how to deal with the University and it seems
strange to have an economic development policy that does not recognize that or give it any direction. She
thinks that there needs to be additional language added to this item.
Mr. Rooker said that he recalled the old version having more specific reference to U.Va.
Ms. Thomas said the next one is recognizing the increasing roll of military intelligence, working
with Congress and the military to facilitate advance planning and environmental sensitivity. It has been a
growing factor in the local economy and it seems strange to have an Economic Development Policy that
does not mention the economic factor that will bring about 1,000 new jobs to the community.
Mr. Boyd added that there are a lot of large companies that contribute to the County’s economy,
Martha Jefferson is one.
Mr. Rooker said he supports including language to continue to cooperate with the University to
facilitate their goals and strategies within our area.
Ms. Mallek said there should also be something about facilitating County goals within the
University.
Ms. Thomas said that she mentioned infill because the County has profited greatly from the
University’s decision to do greater infill on their own grounds instead of sprawling out into the countryside.
That should be continually encouraged.
Mr. Benish agreed that these are important statements, but should probably be included in the
Land Use Plan instead. That is where they should be used for making decisions about where
development should be. He acknowledged that there are economic development implications, and staff
would work on language to include that in the policy.
Ms. Stimart then referred to Objective 2, Strategy #4 to modify it read: Encourage infill
development of business and industrial uses in areas appropriately designated in the Land Use Plan,
including consideration of proactively rezoning land as needs are identified through Master Plans and
other efforts. Initiate zoning text amendments that further enable business and industrial uses of the
appropriate zoning districts. This gets at the problem of some LI land being used for Class A Office and
thereby driving up the market price of that LI land.
Mr. Rooker commented that the language does not specifically mention Light Industrial. He asked
if the goal is more specific to that category as opposed to being a general statement. If the County
initiates zoning text amendments, there is no proffer that accompanies a rezoning that is initiated by the
County. He thinks that is something the County would use sparingly and only in certain circumstances. A
general statement about Light Industrial may be better than specific recommendations about proactively
rezoning land. He does not want us to necessarily go down a mode of when we create master plans
going in and proactively doing the rezonings as opposed to application by landowners. He thinks that is
kind of a unique circumstance when we do that.
Ms. Thomas said when she saw the “initiate zoning text amendments” she was thinking about a
conversation by the Planning Commission about whether home occupations should have some different
wording. Maybe it is the zoning text that is wrong here rather than opening up more land for LI; what if
home businesses and landscaping businesses were more allowed in the rural area.
Mr. Rooker said this becomes a statement of general intent. As he reads this in the
Comprehensive Plan, after they have identified zoning districts and master plans, there is a policy of
proactively rezoning.
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
Mr. Slutzky said that the struggle is how to create conditions that stimulate interest among
applicants.
Mr. Rooker said if the issue is LI, he thinks we should be specific.
Mr. Benish explained that the intent was for staff to assess that need and determine whether that
would be an appropriate approach to address the market issues. It was for more industrial lands or other
land uses that met that industrial need.
Mr. Boyd stated that this is a road map anyway, and the language should be more along the lines
of encouraging development in these designated areas, even putting some mechanisms in place to make
it advantageous. He mentioned the strip of rural area that Berkmar Drive may run through, noting that
there is a developer who has been held up in anticipation of a Route 29 Master Plan that may never
happen. He would like to see us proactively encouraging people to develop in these infill areas.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that the area Mr. Boyd mentioned is in a rural area, not an infill area.
Mr. Boyd said that that area is squeezed in between commercial areas.
Mr. Rooker said he does not think that is a good example because that is rural area and the
decision to be made is whether to expand the growth area. The issue is whether to make a land use
change in order to get some significant contribution to the building of a bridge which has never been
forthcoming.
Mr. Boyd said he does not think there will be a significant building of a bridge, but there would be
significant building of a road.
Mr. Rooker said a developer always builds an internal road to serve his development. W ithout
building a bridge he does not know what it accomplishes other than several million square feet of
commercial space along Route 29, and there are plenty of locations for retail.
Mr. Boyd responded that there is also retail that won’t fit in there.
Mr. Slutzky said that language in this document should not determine a particular applicant’s
decision about how to move forward with a project.
Mr. Boyd said that the ultimate goal here is to be proactive in encouraging economic development
and bring tax dollars so the burden on property taxes will be eased. W e as a Board need to send a
message through this document to staff that we are interested in economic development and that means
growth of businesses, growth of retail. He said that he would like to come up with objectives and then
challenge staff to come up with ways to meet them.
Mr. Slutzky stated that the Comprehensive Plan should be as it is, “a well-written statement of
intent,” with the process dimension coming through policy behavior. He said that the encouragement of
infill is included in the language here, and the message is being sent that commercial activity within the
growth area is aligned with the Plan. The process aspect is a separate matter.
Mr. Boyd commented that he thinks a stronger message needs to be sent to staff that they should
be doing more to encourage economic development in the business sector of this community. He added
that communities around the area have been developing in retail and other sectors, and Albemarle is
lagging behind.
Ms. Thomas said that if he wants the economic plan to go full force ahead and not respect the last
16 years of growth management efforts you will have an argument and she certainly won’t agree with that.
She added that encouraging infill efforts is appropriate and sends a signal that the County is interested in
infill, not sprawling outward.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that U.Va. has had a lot to do with employment growth in the area, and it is
a natural engine of development. He emphasized that it is the County’s job to work with them. Mr.
Rooker also pointed out that the citizens’ survey indicated a low prioritization of economic development,
and a high prioritization for better growth management. He asked Mr. Boyd to show him the relationship
between growth and taxes, because that is inverse. He said that the Fiscal Impact Committee determined
long ago that there is a direct relationship between the pace of growth and real estate taxes.
Mr. Slutzky commented that planning for land and infrastructure to accommodate future business
industrial growth stimulates the economic engine that will reduce the residential property taxes. But the
element of providing for infrastructure means sometimes you have to invest money to get it to come back
later. W e are stymied sometimes in that regard because of your (Mr. Boyd’s) reluctance in the near-term
to fund the infrastructure that will obtain the objective that you are actually saying we should be trying to
obtain. There’s an inconsistency here.
Mr. Boyd responded that he thinks the private sector will fund that infrastructure if we open it up a
little bit to them and let them do it. He also asked why there is a mindset not to build a store in this
community that is over 70,000 square feet.
Mr. Rooker and Mr. Slutzky replied that that is not in the document.
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
Mr. Boyd asked about where the County has accommodated a location for a Super W al-Mart
because that would bring a lot of retail sales.
Ms. Mallek commented that in other communities those stores build on multi-levels to minimize
sprawling footprints.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that there is about 3,000,000 square feet of retail approved in the
community right now, and the country is in a recession – although that may be less pronounced locally –
and looking back only two years to assess economic growth “is ridiculous.
Mr. Boyd said that there has been a recent trend with other communities to make deals with
bigger companies. Recently he sat at a table with officials from surrounding communities and listened to
them talk about all the economic development going into their communities; how they are meeting with
these stores to get them to bring industry into their county, and they are making deals with them to get
them to do it. How many times do you sit down with these companies and do that?
Mr. Rooker replied that he has sat down twice with the owners of Albemarle Place to try to work
through issues and they are moving forward. Mr. Rooker added that Mr. Boyd’s view of the competition
with surrounding communities is a little different than his. He thinks we want high-quality development
here. W e want to provide services to our residents. W e want to do things to enhance quality of life in the
area. But, he does not think that that’s going to mean that it does not make sense for Greene County to
have their own W al-Mart when they reach a certain level of bedroom community building. He emphasized
that it is better for those communities to develop their own retail so their citizens are not driving 25 miles
when they want to go to the grocery store. Maybe our growth needs to be more self-sustaining rather than
based upon attracting grocery shoppers from Greene County.
Mr. Boyd said that if we are going to talk about real economic development policy then we need to
have some meat; he does not think this plan does that.
Mr. Slutzky responded that this says “plan for land and infrastructure” and asked “what is missing
from that.
Ms. Mallek commented that the tax implications in Greene County are astonishing as they are
trying to accommodate residential growth, and sometimes other localities view Albemarle and
Charlottesville as “hogging” businesses.
Mr. Slutzky said that the notion of waiting for the private sector to stimulate economic vitality has
not been working. Mr. Boyd is acting like everyone else is anti-business and anti-development, and he
thinks that it is a gross misrepresentation of the sentiment of this Board. They are very careful and
mindful of how the County grows.
Mr. Boyd said this Board is not doing anything to encourage it.
Mr. Dorrier suggested that one specific objective that could be stated would be increasing Light
Industrial space in the County.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks that language needs to be in the Plan.
Mr. Benish said that perhaps staff needs to take these comments into consideration and identify
more clearly how infill developments are encouraged.
Mr. Boyd explained that he feels there should be something done to proactively work with
businesses that want to have a location in the County.
Mr. Slutzky suggested funding a full-time position to do that.
Ms. Thomas commented that there is already millions of square feet of space approved for that.
Mr. Boyd asked if there is space for a 250,000 square foot facility like a Home Depot.
Mr. Slutzky asked if that is the only kind of economic development that the County can absorb.
Ms. Thomas said that they could use their multi-level Arlington model.
Mr. Rooker stated that there is a plan for a Lowe’s or a Home Depot in Avon Park. He
emphasized that the Board rezones the land, it does not pick out the retailers that then go into the land.
Mr. Benish said that the Planning Commission was not focusing in on retail development, but was
thinking of things that were more strategic and would provide better jobs and career ladder opportunities.
This language may be a little intentionally weak to focus in on more basic type employment. There will be
a gap if the Board is looking for specific statements about retail-type development. If that is something the
Board wants incorporated into this Plan, then staff will have to go back and add.
Mr. Boyd commented that retail is the easiest to identify, and he simply wants language that
shows that we have open arms in this County.
Ms. Thomas asked him to suggest a sentence or two.
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50)
Mr. Slutzky agreed, but cautioned staff on including that type of language in this, especially related
to retail as those jobs tends to be the absolute lowest paying. There may be other commercial light
industrial and agricultural activities that might be much better paying jobs that could address the County’s
housing affordability problems. W e should be looking at building a robust, economically vital community.
Mr. Rooker mentioned a community in Scottsdale, Arizona that set a benchmark that they would
not seek any businesses that did not pay their employees at least $50,000 a year, and they have added
about 25,000 jobs over the last few years. He said that there is three million square feet of retail that has
been approved, but those are not the kinds of jobs that will pay people a high standard of living. Retail of
the same kind would essentially compete with each other.
Mr. Slutzky said that perhaps this should be discussed during budget talks, but infrastructure
needs to be on the table as well, as people are coming here to work and to shop.
Mr. Benish said that in February when staff started on this the focus was placed on Light
Industrial, workforce development, and enhancing economic vitality of the rural areas. Amendments are
focused in on those areas. If the Board wants staff to move into other areas, they need to let staff know.
Mr. Slutzky responded that the additional component of infrastructure was more of a short-term
response and should not be reflected in the Comp Plan, which is more of a long-term vision statement of
intent for the community.
Mr. Boyd asked how the first item is expected to be accomplished; is it through boundary line
adjustments or rezoning of properties.
Ms. Stimart said that was Objective 2, Strategy 4, and staff added a strategy under Objective 5
that was speaking to a business incubator. It could be helpful for your small craftsmen type people that
are a one or two-person operation.
Ms. Thomas said that John Cannon in the Planning Commission meetings said it was similar to
the affordable housing problem, because if it is something the County wants but is contrary to what the
market can provide, then perhaps it needs to be regarded as something to be subsidized. The County
has had policies that require a proffer of a certain amount of affordable housing, such as with Avon Street,
should we have required a certain amount of Light Industrial, or should we just come straight out with
money – taxpayers’ dollars – to provide Light Industrial land.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that there is somebody proposing a rezoning right now for that purpose. If
that is one of the Board’s goals and strategies, it should be given strong consideration.
Mr. Slutzky suggested that perhaps the County buy land at market rate and make it available for
Light Industrial uses, and the way to achieve that may be through a proffer system.
Mr. Boyd commented that it is the same train of thought as a land trust, and asked how that would
be accomplished in terms of setting aside Light Industrial properties.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that there are abandoned structures and parcels that could serve in that
capacity.
Mr. Benish said that the Planning Commission would like for any Light Industrial land to be found
within existing designated development areas and consistent with master planning processes that are in
place or underway, so what would be assessed is, in the Land Use Plan, whether there are some
underutilized or opportunity sites and specific gaps in providing sites such as railroad sites. Staff would
consider proactive rezoning. He does not think that they see that as a major approach but they think that
is a legitimate option. They also have some inventories of County-owned land that might be able to be
used as interim uses until a long-term public use is made of those sites.
Mr. Boyd asked if staff currently would encourage someone who came along with property in the
rural areas and wanted to convert it to LI. Mr. Tucker responded that it depends on the location and the
availability of utilities nearby. Mr. Boyd said he does not think the County is open to such considerations.
Mr. Slutzky said if the property is in a unique location and close to a growth area, it might be
reasonably considered, but, as a policy issue, he would not suggest opening up the rural areas to LI
development would make much sense. He thinks it is clear the Commission wanted to make it clear that
is not what they are talking about.
Ms. Stimart indicated that there is a third option with R&D projects, the County could go in at the
applicant’s request and look at their code and approve uses. Maybe there are some green businesses
that do not necessarily fit the office category; maybe they have a certain portion of warehousing and
distribution associated with the business that would make it at a smaller scale a good infill employment
activity for those N&D projects.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that the Avon Park property sat there for years and years, zoned Light
Industrial, and never found a user. He said that what has happened with most Light Industrial properties
is they have been converted to retail or office because those are more lucrative for the owner.
Mr. Tucker suggested going through at least three of these objectives now and perhaps finishing
these in a work session next week.
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 51)
Referring to the proposed amended language for Objective II, Strategy 5, which states: “Maintain
review of current infrastructure (water, sewer, roads, and community facilities) programs to determine their
impact on capacity to support business and industrial development of designated areas. Identify
infrastructure improvements that better enable business and industrial development that will make Growth
Areas work.”, Ms. Thomas asked if the Board wanted to have as a strategy maintaining infrastructure
capacity to support business and industrial development of designated areas. If the Board wanted to be
more strong it should delete the word “review”.
Mr. Rooker said, to him, it would be better to say “maintain and implement current infrastructure to
provide the capacity to support…”
Ms. Mallek asked if the County is going to build the infrastructure.
Mr. Rooker said the County does; this does not say how it is funded, but we do have a Six Year
Road Plan, work through the Albemarle County Service Authority to develop water and sewer for the
growth areas, provide schools to support the areas where growth is occurring, etc., that is what the CIP is
about.
Ms. Thomas asked why the change was made from “the regional” to the “Charlottesville
Metropolitan Region,” noting that she wants to make sure to emphasize that the County is part of a region.
It is the whole regional approach that she always liked about the County’s original Economic Development
Policy. Instead of the proposed amendment for Objective III, Strategy 3: “Maintain cooperation with the
City of Charlottesville, through the TJPDC, Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development
(TJPED), with other jurisdictions in the region, the University of Virginia, and Piedmont Virginia Community
College for”, she would suggest the following: “Maintain cooperation with the City of Charlottesville,
TJPDC, members of the Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development (TJPED), and other
jurisdictions in the region…”
Ms. Stimart responded that that strategy was folded into Objective 3, Strategy 1, because it had
become redundant as its own item.
Ms. Thomas said if the Board wants to fit transportation in somewhere, it should be a part of
Objective III, Strategy 3. Part of the County’s economic vitality depends on a transportation system that
works.
Mr. Slutzky said he thinks transportation would fit into Objective 2 because that is a core
infrastructure element that accommodates or facilitates future business and industrial growth. It is worth
acknowledging transportation on both places.
Mr. Rooker said that a bullet could be added in the regional part that says “continue to cooperate
and work with other jurisdictions on a regional transportation plan.”
Mr. Benish suggested “infrastructure, including transportation.”
Ms. Stimart commented that staff added a new strategy in Objective IV, that was amended during
the October 21st meeting to say “new benefits and costs imposed by the regulation.” The entire strategy
reads: “Recognize, identify and quantify new benefits and costs (for business and citizens) imposed by
any proposed ordinance or policy change on business prior to taking action on said policy or ordinance.”
Mr. Slutzky asked if in Objective IV, it means “standard of living” or “quality of life.” The objective
states: “Consider fiscal impact as one indicator of positive economic development, along with
environmental impact and standard of living impact.”
Mr. Benish replied that he thinks the intent was “standard of living”.
Ms. Stimart said Objective V references the idea of the feasibility of a business incubator. She
asked if there were other issues or questions regarding strategies associated with this objective.
Ms. Thomas commented that she was not sure the Board was interested in committing to
increasing support of TJPED. That is how she read the second strategy.
Mr. Rooker responded that that could also include other business development entities, not just
TJPED.
Mr. Slutzky said he also did not see that it just correlated to TJPED.
Ms. Thomas said that the County has not found them to be effective, and has removed support
for most of them. She would suggest eliminating “increase support” to “support” to read: “Support to and
coordination with existing entities that assist new small, locally-owned, and minority businesses and micro-
enterprises in their start-up and early operation efforts.”
Board members concurred with that suggestion.
Ms. Thomas then asked if the County wanted to get into being an incubator for small businesses.
Mr. Boyd and Mr. Rooker indicated that U.Va. serves effectively in that capacity.
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 52)
Mr. Slutzky suggested that maybe the term incubator is too narrow, and perhaps it means
encouraging different types of small businesses.
Ms. Stimart explained that this came forward from a Commissioner who wanted to keep the old
Crozet School viable while funding is developed over time for a recreation center.
Mr. Rooker said there is a difference between looking at particular uses for a vacant facility and
developing a general Comprehensive Plan statement. There is nothing that prevents the Board from
deciding that would be a good location for an incubator and trying to entice that to occur. He does not
think there needs to be a Comp Plan statement on that and suggested just removing the incubator
reference entirely.
Board members concurred.
Ms. Stimart said that Objective VI relates to workforce programs, and there have been a lot of
changes made to the first two strategies. She asked if there were any comments related to the changes.
Referring to the second bullet under Strategy 1, Ms. Thomas asked why support would be
increased for “testing” facilities.
Ms. Mallek said that AIMR – the insurance testing company – came to mind, and there may be
others as well.
Ms. Stimart noted that it also speaks to programs that could develop through the one-stop center.
Board members agreed to remove the word “testing.”
Mr. Rooker said he does not see anything in the Plan stating that we are “focusing our efforts on
opportunities to increase the pay for existing residents in the community”.
Mr. Benish said Objective IV is related to standard of living. Strategy 3 states: “Recognize that the
purpose of this economic development policy is to provide the local citizenry an improved standard of
living, improved job and wage opportunities, and work force development opportunities, rather than to
seek to stimulate further population growth.” That is where it was couched.
Mr. Rooker said that he wants to ensure that the County is providing enhanced income
opportunities for people, and one criterion the County should employ in evaluating businesses is how
much they intend to pay employees. That does not clearly come across in this language.
Ms. Thomas agreed, stating that there is no mention of that, or a focus on jobs that offer upward
mobility, in this document.
Mr. Slutzky said he agrees but is not sure how it could be reflected in the language.
Mr. Benish said staff will look at it, but he is not sure how that would be implemented. He added
that the County does not provide tax incentives where it could put that as an inducement.
Ms. Thomas said that the Economic Development Authority is about the only vehicle for offering
tax breaks, etc.
Mr. Rooker stated that in the case of rezonings, the Board has a fairly good idea of what business
will go there, and that inquiry can be made. He thinks that permeating the plan is the idea that we are
trying to raise the standard of living of our citizens and whatever we are doing to enhance the opportunities
for businesses to relocate here we ought to have that in mind.
Mr. Slutzky said that the Board does not want to be to proscriptive in the language because this is
a document about intent, and the goal is to enhance the economic condition of the workforce.
Mr. Boyd added that minimum wage jobs cannot be done away with.
Mr. Rooker commented that there’s a lot of retail in the area, and if other businesses are going to
be encouraged to locate here there should be an eye to what they pay.
Mr. Boyd said that there are opportunities for retail employees to advance.
Mr. Rooker responded that the average wage of a W al-Mart employee, is not that high. W e have
got a huge amount of retail and space zoned in the community for retail to come in and relocate. He does
not think the County needs to do a whole lot more to attract retail at this time. Again, he thinks efforts
needs to be focused on jobs that pay more than retail.
Ms. Thomas said that the Planning Commission felt the policy was too long and involved so the
first three paragraphs of the original policy have been removed. Perhaps the Board should look at that
because she feels something is lost by losing those words. She explained that Bruce Dodson did a lot of
research in comparing Albemarle to other similar communities. There are certain things that are
characteristic of a workforce in a University community that are not characteristic in other communities.
For example we look like we have low average wage when in fact we have high participation in the
workforce and a high number of part-time employees, and that reduces statistically your average weekly
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 53)
wage. It was that comparison that shaped the County’s original Economic Development Policy in a major
way. W ith the exception of James City County, we are now comparing ourselves to communities that are
not University communities and we look different from them in ways that give us a picture that is not
entirely accurately. She suggested Board members read those first three paragraphs and see if any of the
language should be included in the policy.
Mr. Slutzky suggested staff relook at the language to see if they can include a couple of
paragraphs that capture the essence of the County’s policy.
Mr. Tucker said staff will bring the revisions back after they’ve had an opportunity to pull all the
recommendations together. Staff may be contacting Board members about specific suggested language.
_______________
(Note: At 3:59 p.m., the Board took a recess, and reconvened at 4:14 p.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. Work Session: Five Year Financial Plan.
Mr. Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive, addressed the Board, stating that this is the first work
session for the Five Year Financial Plan, which was done for the first time last year when the Board
developed a balanced five year plan of revenues and expenditures. The objective of these work sessions
is to achieve the Board’s strategic plan goal of developing a comprehensive funding strategy to address
the County’s growing needs. He commented that the budget situation has impacted the five-year picture,
but there is some recovery in revenue over the timeframe. Unfortunately, the Plan does not get the
County back to unfreezing frozen staff positions. Staff will provide an overview of the process ahead and
then an overview of revenues and expenditures. Staff would then like for the Board to provide some
general feedback that will lead to another work session. Mr. Foley explained that the Five Year Financial
Plan has included some preliminary review and work from staff to develop a balanced Five Year Financial
Plan. The purpose of the work sessions is to have the Board weigh in on whether they agree with it or not,
and make any changes or reprioritizations. Mr. Foley said that it would be a good idea to have another
work session on this next week, and there is one already scheduled for December.
Mr. Foley reiterated that this is a financial planning process and not next year’s budget. This is
not an adopted Five Year budget; it is financial planning to give staff some direction and helps them to be
clear on the Board’s priorities. He explained that the goals established in the Plan were maintaining
essential health and safety services; avoiding layoffs by scaling back services, decreasing operating
expenses, and freezing vacancies; maintaining competitive compensation to the greatest extent possible;
continue commitment to the Board’s core public safety improvements; meet obligations and commitments
through this plan; and shore up reserves and undesignated General Fund balance to ensure maintenance
of the County’s strong financial position.
Mr. Foley noted that they have made some operating reductions over the last two years and into
FY 2010 as a result of frozen positions. There is a nine percent reduction in staff and about $3.2 million
has been recouped through frozen vacancies between FY 2008 and FY 2010, which has reduced the
base in the Plan by about 55 positions. He said that non-personnel operating reductions total about $1.7
million or 12 percent between FY 2008 and FY 2010. There is no increase in salaries or funding to
community agencies in FY 2010, but that builds back up over time. In addition, the previously approved
Board initiatives such as housing and transit are eliminated. It also delays or reduces capital projects and
associated operating costs.
Mr. Foley also said that, at the Strategic Planning Retreat, the Board had discussed increases in
available resources for operations such as reducing funding to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) by
a total of three cents, up from the originally planned one cent. The Board had indicated that it was
necessary to target the additional two cents towards transportation, the ACE Program and some urban
infrastructure investments. He said that staff has eliminated transportation funding over the five years of
the Plan, and ACE has been cut in half as it relates to real estate revenues; $350,000 is from tourism
revenues which leaves $1.2 million – leaving about $950,000 in the ACE Fund. In terms of urban
infrastructure, he said, there has been about $800,000 to $1 million in urban infrastructure; that has also
been cut in half over the five year period. Mr. Foley reported that this Plan utilizes the effective tax rate,
which is an increase of 3.5 cents based on residential real estate assessments. He clarified that at the
Strategic Planning Retreat it was discussed that the overall effective tax rate would add 2.2 cents. W hat
staff has done, he said, is used the residential real estate values as a basis for this rate change. This is
based on the principle that the average homeowner will get the same tax bill. The difference is that
commercial properties have increased in value and offset the residential loss.
Mr. Boyd asked the impact to the rental market.
Mr. Rooker asked if apartments are counted as residential or commercial.
Mr. Richard W iggins, Director of Finance, said that apartments count as commercial and the
County is projecting a slight increase in apartment values.
Mr. Boyd commented that 3.5 cents will increase their tax bills and get passed on to the residents.
Mr. Foley emphasized that staff will go through a number of iterations, if necessary, and the
Board’s decisions will move this Plan forward, but there had to be a starting point. He said that the
addition of two cents to capital and 2.5 cents to real estate is generating more operating revenues to
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 54)
address the shortfalls in both the Schools and local government, but with all the frozen positions staff is
working hard just to get back to zero. He added that there will remain 45 frozen positions throughout
these five years, and there will continue to be a reduction in services. For that reason, he said that staff is
proposing having the Board and School Board get together and talk about the “lock box.” There should be
some consideration of maintaining some level of Contingency Reserve from that money, but also consider
the significance of local government’s shortfall.
Mr. Boyd noted that the joint meeting with the School Board originally scheduled for November 7th
has been cancelled.
Mr. W iggins presented revenue assumptions for the model, explaining that the County is looking
at a 0.7 percent decrease in revenues in FY 2010, with a slow recovery in the out years, specifically in
terms of real estate. These assumptions anticipate a downturn continuing in the housing market in FY
2009 and 2010 – a three percent decrease in FY20 09, a two percent decrease in FY 2010, and modest
increases beyond that year. He stated that staff has also reduced assumptions on new construction in the
first two years, with a slow recovery after that. Other sources of revenue, he said, include reduced
assumptions for personal property tax and sales tax, and a continued reduction in State revenues in FY
2010 with those revenues remaining flat in the out years.
Mr. W iggins said that the tax rate being considered for calendar year 2009 (relates to FY 09-10
budget) assumes a 3.5 cent increase in the tax rate for a total of 74.5 cents. In the previously approved
model, the Board had approved a one cent increase. In calendar year 2010 (FY 10-11 budget), he said,
there is an additional one cent increase in the tax rate to 75.5 cents, which is assumed to continue in the
out fiscal years. Mr. W iggins said that staff wanted to specify what they are estimating for reassessment
rates in the model. They are projecting modest, positive percentages for all five years with a slight
increase in the succeeding years. In the current model, they are looking at a 3.15 percent decrease in FY
2009, a 2.07 percent decrease in FY 2010, with slight recoveries in the out years.
Mr. Boyd said that the one cent was escalated by a couple years because that was based on a
68-cent tax rate, but the rate approved was 71 cents last year. He thinks a four or five cent increase in the
final budget should be reflected in the out years.
Mr. Slutzky said the Board has not given any revised direction to staff.
Mr. W iggins acknowledged that the rate was at 68 cents when the model was reviewed last year
in November/December.
Mr. W iggans reported that last year’s assumptions for new construction contained small
percentage increases, ranging from 2.5 percent increase for the first year up to three percent for the out
years, but staff has now reduced those to a one percent increase for the next calendar year and slight
increases for the years beyond that.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the NGIC influx would impact new construction, or if the existing backlog was
enough to support them.
Mr. W iggins said that staff has built in those assumptions into the model.
Ms. Thomas commented that the discovery that most NGIC personnel would be renting impacted
those assumptions.
Mr. W iggins reported that there is no EMS recovery assumed in the model. For sales tax, they
are anticipating a decline of approximately one percent in FY 2010, with a three to five percent increase in
remaining years. State revenue is anticipating a slight reduction in FY 2010, with leveling in future years.
He added that in December staff would be presenting its First Quarter Financial Report for FY 2009 and
would be projecting revenues for the year based on receipts so far.
Mr. Slutzky said the fourth quarter of the calendar year might be significantly less than anticipated
and asked if staff will be able to capture a meaningful estimate of that so that when the Board has its’
February budget discussions, it will not make a mistake and then have to determine how to backfill next
year.
Mr. W iggins said by the time February budget discussions take place, staff will have received
information on Christmas sales which is the most significant month of sales tax. The information will be
available.
Mr. Rooker asked what percentage of State revenue reductions are being factored in for FY 2010.
Mr. W iggins responded that they are anticipating an additional $500,000 in State revenue
reductions for this year, and another $250,000 in FY 2010, and the current budget was already built with a
$500,000 State revenue reduction assumption.
Ms. Thomas noted that at a recent VML meeting, they were even more gloomy about the State
picture, thinking that revenue reductions are going to be even greater.
Mr. W iggins then presented the following chart of overall revenue sources, and what is anticipated
for changes from the previous year. It is most important to look at the bottom total figure.
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 55)
Overall Revenue Sources
FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14
Property Taxes 1% 3% 5% 7% 8%
Other Local Taxes -2% 1% 3% 4% 4%
Other Local Rev -9% 4% 5% 5% 5%
State Revenue -3% 0% 1% 1% 1%
Federal Revenue 3% 5% 5% 5% 5%
Transfers/Fund Balance -20% 0% 0% 0% 0%
TOTAL -1% 2% 4% 5% 6%
Ms. Laura Vinzant, Senior Budget Analyst, presented information on expenditure assumptions,
noting that the County is starting off with assumptions of tax rates, etc. that they had at the beginning of
the process. She explained that overall expenditures are decreasing just under one percent in FY 2010
with moderate increases in the out years. Some major expenditure changes are in the Revenue Sharing
increase, $1.0 million reductions in operating expenses for departments, and the frozen positions.
Regarding obligations and commitments, Ms. Vinzant said that they had a major increase in FY 2010 in
Revenue Sharing – $4.4 million – bringing it up to $18 million, and that smoothes out in subsequent years
with increases that are not quite that large. She stated that there is a nine percent increase annually to
the Comprehensive Services Act based on history and new mental health mandates, 12 percent annual
increase for the regional Jail, and a two percent increase in ECC for FY 2010, decreased slightly from last
year’s projections, but then increasing four to five percent annual in out years.
Mr. Boyd asked if the revenue increase should not go down with the assessments. Ms. Vinzant
said it does go down, but there will be a slight increase because of new construction. It will basically
remain flat for the next several years.
Ms. Thomas commented that certain services have a greater demand in difficult economic times,
and wondered if that had been factored into this model.
Mr. Bryan Elliott, Assistant County Executive, reported that first-quarter food stamp applications
were up 40 to 45 percent in FY 2009 over FY 2008. He said that VIEW and TANNF applications, and
other sources of aid, were up 30 to 33 percent.
Ms. Thomas asked if there is a way to project Jail incarcerations. Mr. Tucker said that is difficult
to do but staff will look into it.
Ms. Vinzant then discussed the School transfer showing the 60/40 split policy. Staff is
anticipating, based on reduced revenues, that the FY 2009 transfer to schools would actually be less than
the $101.2 million – about $99 million. She explained that the FY 2010 transfer is a 1.2 percent increase
over the adopted budget, and FY 2011 is a two percent; FY 2012 is a 4.5 percent with six percent and 6.5
percent in the last two years. Ms. Vinzant said that for local government compensation, market and merit
combined were 4.45 percent in all years previously, but in FY2010 there are no increases, but that goes
back up to three percent and four percent in 2011 and 2012; in the last two years those will be higher if
possible depending on what market studies say.
Mr. Boyd asked if staff looked at implementing the State’s strategy of sliding all increases six
months. Mr. Tucker said that the County is looking into that as it helps determine if revenues are down in
the first quarter and you have to project and possibly eliminate increases.
Ms. Vinzant reported that a year ago when this was done, there were 17 positions included as
frozen throughout the five-year model, but now that total is 34 eliminated or frozen positions with a goal of
55 frozen positions by FY 2010 that may gradually be reinstated. Staff is able to slowly thaw those
positions throughout the five year period bringing the County to a total of 41 frozen positions in FY2014.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the positions are frozen for over a year, are they eliminated. Ms. Vinzant said
some of the positions have been eliminated and staff will evaluate whether some of the positions needs to
be eliminated or changed to something else.
Mr. Slutzky expressed concern about the tax burden on the public of 55 fewer positions that
reduce the County’s ability to provide services. It means delays and things are not getting done that
people expect to be done. There should be some form of acknowledgment of that, associated with this
kind of strategy for balancing the budget. Staff is doing what it should do but he would like to see some
caveat added with the information provided to the Board.
Mr. Tucker said that that is difficult to do because in some instances, activity has gone down in
areas such as land use requests and proposals. The area they could probably do a better measurement
of that information is in the area of police and fire and rescue. For the most part, staff is trying to move the
positions around in the organization. Building activity, land use requests and proposals are down. Staff is
looking at whether they are able to meet the demand at the same level of service.
Ms. Vinzant said that department operations had been assumed at a two percent annual increase.
In the current model there is a $1 million reduction in department operations plus a two percent annual
increase on top of that – these are non-personnel, non-benefit operations expenses and this is well below
the rate of inflation. She reported that with agencies, staff had built in a four percent increase in the
previous model, no increase in FY 2010 and a gradual increase up to four percent in the last two years.
Previous goals and directions identified in the last iteration of the model showed four new police officers.
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 56)
Ms. Vinzant said that this model begins two new police officers starting in FY2011, for a total of eight new
officers throughout the five years of the plan.
Mr. Slutzky asked what the current population increase estimates are. Mr. Tucker responded that
that’s about one percent at this time.
In terms of operating impacts of Capital, Ms. Vinzant said that the Pantops and East Ivy fire
stations had been programmed to open in 2010, but this model shows them opening in 2013; Crozet
Library operating costs were moved from 2011 to 2013; Northern Library which was to open in 2014 is
slated out of the five-year plan at this time; recycling centers to begin in 2010 have been delayed to 2013;
Crozet growth park instead of opening in 2012 has been slated out of the five-year plan, and there were
some other slight reductions in operating impacts of capital due to changes made in the Capital budget.
Mr. Rooker asked the estimated cost of the Crozet growth area park. Mr. Elliott responded that
the cost was approximately $1.1 million for the construction starting in FY 2011.
Ms. Mallek asked how much was set aside from proffers for the park. Mr. Elliott said the proffer
was for the development of the master plan; there was no money proffered for construction. The funding
all came from the CIP. Mr. Davis said the proffer was for the land in the master plan.
Ms. Thomas stated that the cost of not increasing contributions to nonprofit agencies is
troublesome as they provide services, and they are depending on contributions from donors and our
portion of operating expenses. The State’s contributions are also decreasing. She would like to see the
dollar figure in cuts and what it means to be saving that amount of money. She thinks the impact on the
community will be significant.
Mr. Foley said staff was trying to look at community agencies and County departments and try to
create some consistency. Although there is a reduction in the increase, there are no other reductions. At
the same time there are frozen positions over the five years for departments. Staff feels they have held
them even.
Ms. Vinzant reported that the affordable housing, transit, and environmental initiatives are no
longer in the current model. This model reduces the Board’s reserves from $300,000 annually to
$100,000 annually. Also, staff has proposed a discussion with the Schools regarding use of the lockbox
funds. She said that the old growth formula was not designed to work with negative revenue growth, so
the formula has been simplified to be more understandable and is now tied to the Capital transfer growing
at the same rate as local tax revenue growth. Ms. Vinzant confirmed that the starting point uses the old
growth formula through FY 2009, and that generated the base. She mentioned that staff used the decline
in tax revenue to form the new base, and then have taken three cents off, off of that.
Mr. Rooker asked what this means in dollar contribution to Capital versus the planned contribution
to Capital and the past contributions to Capital. Mr. Foley said staff can provide that information.
Mr. Foley noted that what is pointed out for FY 2009 is equivalent to about 15.2 cents on the tax
rate going to Capital – paying for debt first, then Capital. He added that staff does not take it lightly that
the formula has been changed. The formula does not work and staff cannot get a base under it; they had
to start with something different.
Ms. Vinzant pointed out that the transfer to Capital and Debt has also been impacted by the
overall reduction in revenues and the three cents discussed. She added that the impact that has had on
Capital projects is a significant delay in projects related to schools, transportation, ACE, stormwater, urban
infrastructure and some other adjustments.
Ms. Thomas noted that she would like to see information on what one cent could possibly do, as
the County may be able to get more for the tax dollar at this time. She thinks that investing in
infrastructure in the next few years is fiscally a good deal. It is a time to get more for the tax dollar.
Mr. Foley said that staff is trying to balance the CIP in a way that it has not done before, and the
Oversight Committee process is intended to provide feedback on how to best proceed.
Mr. Slutzky suggested that staff provide a list of the assumptions that are codified in the proposed
plan.
Ms. Vinzant stated that these assumptions and adjustments lead to the available balance of less
than $100,000 in each of the years.
Mr. Foley commented that this is a very difficult year, and this is a starting point based on staff’s
interpretation of the Board’s priorities. If there are specific changes that the Board would like for staff to
work with, they would like to hear those. Staff is looking for some general feedback at this time.
Mr. Rooker said that this is a “painful” budget time, and businesses go through this during
recessions and learn to operate with less. He said that the County is trying to avoid laying people off as
other sectors have, and is focusing on what the “core functions” of government are and make sure it is
achieving those. The County also needs to recognize that there are things it would like to do but may not
be able to because of lack of revenues. Mr. Rooker suggested having a chart that shows the number of
employees that the County has going back for the last 10 to 15 years to get an idea of where they were in
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 57)
total employment. He thinks this needs to be put into perspective in making judgments and decisions for
moving forward. It would be more helpful if the information was broken down by departments.
Mr. Foley said staff has already done some of that analysis and can provide that information. He
added that the current reductions take the County back to a staffing level of five years ago.
Ms. Thomas added that knocking out the previously approved Board initiatives is a valid step, but
the Board cannot know today what the needs of citizens will be in two years, and having only $25,000 in
reserve does not provide security in the event of emergency.
Mr. Tucker responded that there are other contingencies – that is just the unallocated portion.
Ms. Thomas emphasized that there needs to be some kind of lockbox to anticipate unforeseen
needs.
Mr. Slutzky suggested putting the affordable housing and transit initiatives back in, and create a
revenue scenario that would address that, as well as addressing the lockbox through small increases in
the tax rates.
Mr. Boyd suggested having revenue reduction figures on specific initiatives and how much on the
tax rate it would cost to put them back in.
Mr. Foley agreed that was a good idea, noting that they had done that in prior years. Staff can
bring that information back for the work session.
Mr. Boyd said that he would also like to see a cashflow analysis, showing investments.
Mr. W iggins said that the financial report will come out in February and will have all the audited
information through June 30, 2008. Staff can also provide some unaudited preliminary numbers.
Mr. Dorrier asked about debt owed at this time, stating that he thought the figure was about $9
million. Mr. Foley responded that the Debt obligations are in the Capital, as this information is how that is
all addressed.
Mr. Rooker said that it would also be helpful to see what the School budgets look like in the next
few years, and what they are projecting for revenue.
Mr. Slutzky added that he would like to see some projections on the impact of the influx of NGIC
families on the School population.
Mr. Rooker commented that they have been through public information sessions on land use tax,
but the County needs to recognize that that program costs about $18.0 million a year, and an alternative
considered was requiring conservation easements or a non-development agreement. He said that this
would serve the dual purpose of having more land in easements, and there would be substantial revenue
realized. Mr. Rooker said that he sees the value of the land use taxation program, but he also sees value
in other programs as well because the revenues are not there. Even with all of the proposed reductions,
the County is looking at raising the tax rate by 3.5 cents. He asked Board members to think about
whether it is wise of the Board to forego the revenue on land use when it is choosing to not do a lot of
things and to make a lot of cuts in other areas.
Mr. Slutzky said the Board might want to present to the public an option would be to raise the tax
rate “x”; another option would be to modify the Land Use Tax Program to raise those same revenues. He
would not be interested in getting rid of the Program and he would like to include the conservation
easement component a part of it. Another option is to perhaps redefine the basis on which the Revenue
Sharing is paid so that it is tied to the land use value instead of the market value of what could go into
commercial use. He asked if that would have to go to referendum with the City and County.
Mr. Davis replied that he would look at it more closely but his understanding is that modification
would involve going back through the entire process which is a referendum.
Mr. Boyd and Ms. Mallek said that they recalled it could go forward with mutual agreement.
Mr. Davis stated that it would still have to go through the legal process. He added that he thinks it
is clear in the agreement and the Board specifically discussed that that’s what the intent was.
Mr. Rooker commented that the minutes are clearer than the agreement on that point.
Mr. Boyd said that perhaps the Board should ask that some of the Revenue Sharing money going
to the City could go to community needs such as affordable housing and transportation.
Mr. Davis responded that that’s up to the City.
Ms. Thomas stated that one of her constituents whose property is in land use made a suggestion
that if the rollback was not such a penalty they might be willing to do that, but under the current system
they get hit with a five-year rollback.
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 58)
Mr. Davis said that the rollback only kicks in when they intensify the use of their property. As long
as they maintain the use of their property there is no rollback.
Mr. Boyd commented that land use is not the reason the County is in this financial situation; it is
the economy.
Mr. Rooker said the cost of the Land Use Program was factored into the Five Year Plan. Now
economic conditions have changed substantially. Land Use has a value but he also supports many other
things that are going to be eliminated from the Five Year Plan. Land Use is a program that needs to be
looked at like all other programs. He commented that the way things are currently structured, the County
is paying a whole lot out to the City on land that’s valued for tax purposes at a much lower level.
Mr. Boyd said that the Plan staff has brought forward is a good one, and he would not support
altering the Land Use Plan but if others want to put it on the table then that is their prerogative.
Mr. Slutzky said land use should be put on the table is another alternative to raising the tax rate.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that there are a lot of other things that are valuable to the County that are
being cut.
Ms. Thomas stated that she does not want to get the ball rolling on changing land use unless
there is enough support on the Board. If there are not more than two Board members interested in doing
something with that program then it should not be put on the table. She said that people are under the
assumption that the current land use policy, based on lots of Board discussion and public input, is a set
policy – and changing it now would be “using our citizens poorly.”
Mr. Rooker agreed, but also said that when land use was on the table the economic realities were
very different. He does think it needs to be looked at again because it has an impact on the tax rate.
Land use was presented in isolation and now the alternative is a general tax increase.
There was no further discussion. Another work session is scheduled for November 12, 2008.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Tucker said that on Monday night, Charlottesville City Council made changes to the Scope of
W ork for the expert panel water supply plan review for the Rivanna W ater and Sewer Authority (RW SA)
that was supposed to move forward in the next few weeks. He provided Board members with a copy of
the following proposal. He noted that Mr. Tom Frederick, Mr. Gary Fern and several members of the
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) are present for the Board’s discussion.
“Expert Panel Water Supply Plan Review for RWSA – Scope of Work Outline
Approved by the Charlottesville City Council, November 3, 2008
Objective: To provide an expert review of the major elements of the local Community W ater Supply Plan,
within the context of approved permits by the Army Corps of Engineers and Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality, and also within the local objectives of providing the 50-year water supply needs
from within the locally-controlled watershed area with enhancement of the in-stream flow restored to the
Moormans River. Further, with respect to all reviews, energy efficiency and options for renewable energy
will be considered where practicable and consistent with the context of the approved permits.
1. Appoint Board of Consultants: A minimum of three senior executive level professional engineers
who are nationally recognized experts in the field of water resources, having a significant number
of years of experience within a wide range of projects of varying complexity.
a. Assist RW SA in development of scope of work and hiring criteria for individual technical
studies as outlined below.
b. Meet with regulatory agencies to understand the context of approved permits and the
feasibility and consequences of modifications.
c. Provide quality control review of all individual technical studies, except that the Ragged
Mountain Dam Design Review team of experts may be organized independent of the
Board of Consultants at the option of RW SA.
d. Prepare final recommendations to RW SA in a written report.
2. Individual technical studies:
a. W ater Conservation – RW SA to retain a firm to define how water is being used by
customers of City and ACSA, review conservation programs and incentives, and review
rate structure, to include more aggressive conservation/efficiency measures. Firm to
develop and evaluate multiple alternatives for structural measures that can firmly assure
additional water conservation and achieve a significant water use reduction per capita.
Alternatives will be summarized in technical memorandum for review by the Board of
Consultants, and then presented to public in a community meeting with public input.
b. Future 50-Yr W ater Demand Calculations – Board of Consultants to review demand
projections for Community W ater Supply Plan and make judgment on reasonableness of
approach. RW SA will supply historical demand data updated to 2008. Methodology will
be long-term trending and other parameters defined by regulatory agencies, and AW W A
standard practices. Review will also consider decisions from a W ater Conservation study.
Demand needs of County and City will be determined independently and then combined.
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 59)
c. Dredging Feasibility Study – If the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir Stewardship Task Force
recommends dredging as a means of maintaining the reservoir, RW SA will retain an
engineering firm with specialization and proven experience in dredging operations to
evaluate dredging of the South Fork Reservoir. The objective and scope of desired
dredging will be based upon the local agencies’ approval of recommendations from the
task force. This may include reviewing background data, updating a bathymetric survey,
updating sediment sampling and evaluation of basic characteristics, identifying wetland
and other areas that would be restricted by regulatory agencies, calculating probable
volume of sediment that would be removed, identifying goals of neighboring property
owners, recommending acceptable dredging method(s), identifying and evaluating
disposal sites (including Airport site and quarry site), interviewing local firms in
construction dirt hauling and quarrying businesses to include DDR and Blue Ridge Sand.
Determine feasibility of development of “in-reservoir” forebay area to more efficiently
capture future sediment after initial operation. Develop estimated project cost for initial
dredging operation that includes RW SA administration and quality control, and order-of-
magnitude cost estimates in current dollars for future dredging to remove additional
sediment that settles in the reservoir after the initial dredging operation.
d. Ragged Mountain Dam Design Review – RW SA will retain a team of dam experts from
multiple firms to review geotechnical data, preliminary design, and foundation design for
proposed new dam and I-64 embankment. This review to follow draft RFP scope dated
October 27, 2008. Significant focus will be on improving the value (lowest possible costs)
of the project through foundation design, and will also consider revisions to dam
orientation, existing Lower Dam location, and alternative core wall design. A report will be
prepared listing technical decisions and providing an updated project cost estimate for a
new Ragged Mountain Dam with sufficient storage to meet 50-Year demand. In addition,
the team will determine the extent to which the height of this proposed dam could be
lowered to reduce total storage volume by an amount equivalent to the volume restored in
South Fork by an initial dredging operation, and will estimate how much of the cost of the
dam is saved by the lower height (this will permit a comparison of benefits to cost when
the savings are compared to the cost estimate for the initial dredging operation). The
team, for comparison purposes, will also develop an updated cost estimate in current
dollars to simply make required dam safety improvements to the existing Ragged
Mountain Dams with no supply increase.
e. Pipeline to Ragged Mountain – RW SA will retain a firm to review the conceptual design
for a pipeline from the South Fork Reservoir to fill the Ragged Mountain Reservoir, and
will develop a separate alternative to replace the Sugar Hollow Pipeline. This will include
a review of Gannett Fleming’s determination of pipe size and required water storage to
meet the 18.7 mgd safe yield in an attempt to identify if the storage in the proposed
expanded Ragged Mountain Reservoir can be reduced. This will also include field
reconnaissance of both alternative pipeline routes. A project cost estimate will be
prepared for each alternative, based upon an equivalent water rate transfer capacity at
each location, and include recommended pipe sizes and necessary modifications at each
location to provide an intake capable of providing the transfer capacity. The study also
includes a review of water plant data for each source (South Fork Rivanna and Sugar
Hollow) and consideration of economical measures for addressing the sediment in the
water transferred to Ragged Mountain.
Council in adopting this Scope of W ork on November 3, 2008 requested that construction
work on the dam will not proceed until the other studies are complete.”
__________
Mr. Frederick, Executive Director of RW SA), said that he was not in attendance at City Council’s
meeting. In summary, he said City Council’s intent is to appoint an expert group that would oversee or
review documents and studies that would be prepared by other consultants on a variety of topics, and
would authorize RW SA to move forward with a panel of experts to look at foundation issues for the dam.
He said that Item 2-D in the handout covers largely what RW SA recommended to their Board in
September, and everything else in the document is additional work. Mr. Frederick said that there would
also be a water resources expert panel that would likely be a different group of consultants and they would
oversee several studies outlined in the handout to include a study of water conservation to “include more
aggressive conservation/efficiency measures.”
He stated that his interpretation of “structural measures” is basically ways to confirm or approve
that water conservation can be achieved – which largely means government regulation of how water is
used by some sort of structure. Mr. Frederick said that there is also a review of demand calculations that
was done to establish 18.7 million gallons per day as the 50-year safe yield. He added that it is not clear if
that review will result in a different number, or if it is the same number and it calls for a judgment on
reasonableness of approach using a long-term trending analysis. Most of the conversation he hears from
the community that is critical of the demand calculations take a more short term approach, for example
the last three to five years. Mr. Frederick said that the demand calculations done for the permit application
process were a long-term statistical approach, and most statisticians suggest that 30 years of data for
projecting 50 years in the future would necessitate use of long-term data to predict those trends.
Ms. Thomas commented that two consultants were already brought in. The demand analysis was
done using outside expert consultants.
Mr. Frederick responded that there was an initial demand analysis done by VHB in the late 1990’s.
At that time O’Brien and Geer was the subconsulting engineer to VHB that helped work on the demand
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 60)
analysis. He said that there were also extensive conversations with the EPA and state agencies regarding
how to do the analysis in a way that meets their criteria since they contribute to the issuance of the permit.
Mr. Frederick said that Gannett Fleming reviewed and updated that analysis in 2003, but his
understanding is that that firm took the methodology and just bought it up to date but did not change or
radically affect how the analysis was done. He stated that a big reason for not altering that methodology
was to prevent running off in a direction the state and federal agencies would not approve.
Ms. Mallek asked if the state and federal agencies still use the same criteria. Mr. Frederick
replied that to his knowledge they do.
Mr. Boyd asked if the demand yield number came up the same. Mr. Frederick responded that in
the late 1990’s it came up over 19 million gallons per day; in 2003 it came up as 18.7. Gannett Fleming
added a five percent cut in the methodology based on the assumption that there would be more water-
efficient appliances being used.
Mr. Slutzky asked if they did any kind of crystal ball uncertainty analysis to determine accuracy.
Mr. Frederick explained that they did four different methods of analysis and then looked at the four
numbers and did an average to come up with 18.7. He said that one of the approaches used trends on
water consumption, and the others used population statistics and projections. He is familiar with a
industry process called sensitivity analysis, but have not read any documents that suggest that specific
type of approach was used.
Ms. Mallek said she understands that it was determined that about 15 percent of summer
consumption was household irrigation but there’s no consideration for that as a substantial amount of
water use if the County were to change its policy on “non-essential water use.”
Mr. Boyd noted that some might feel that is essential water use, such as Parks and Recreation.
Mr. Rooker asked who drafted the document presented tonight from the City. Mr. Frederick said
that he assisted Mr. Gary O’Connell in its preparation, and he made it clear that he would help any
Rivanna Board member but could not endorse any plan.
Mr. Rooker asked how much this approach would cost. Mr. Frederick replied that he has done
some confidential informal surveying of consultants, and he has heard estimates of $750,000 to over $1
million to do everything on the City’s Scope of W ork.
Mr. Rooker asked if the City assumes this would be paid for by Rivanna. Mr. Frederick replied
that he believes that is the case.
Mr. Rooker said that the question is how much additional study and consulting work the
community is willing to pay for as part of this review.
Mr. Tucker expressed concern about the time it would take, the integrity of the Ragged Mountain
Dam, and when the DCR Dam Safety Unit may start pushing. Rivanna has asked for multiple deferrals in
that and he is worried where that is going to go.
Mr. Frederick said that staff is working on correspondence to the Dam Safety Unit right now to
update them on the project. It will be a straightforward letter and will include the current discussions that
could have an unfavorable impact on the schedule. He has an obligation to make the Dam Safety Unit
aware of the statement from the City that says “construction work on the dam will not proceed until other
studies are complete.” He added that City staff knows that RW SA plans to include that language, but the
issue with the dam safety and State concerns date back to 1979.
Mr. Boyd asked if he knew how long it would take to put a panel like this. Mr. Frederick replied
that it depends on how the work is sequenced and how much public input is put in, but the estimate is nine
months to a year if it is fast-tracked, but public input and meetings could push that well beyond a year.
Ms. Thomas asked how long it took to get to this point. She said that the costs are not only what
is on this paper, but the loss of what has already been spent.
Mr. Frederick stated that the first land acquisition for Buck Mountain was in 1983, and the recent
effort started in 2003 with the updating of the demand analysis by Gannett Fleming. In 2004 the RW SA
went from 32 possible alternatives down to four, and then started a series of public meetings – a total of
ten community meetings plus over a dozen updates to the Board, ACSA Board, etc. He explained that in
2006 there was an application filed for a permit but it took until 2008 for the regulatory agencies to get
around to reviewing all the documents, asking questions and permitting the process. Mr. Frederick added
that if the community wanted to go outside of the context of the existing permits there could be substantial
delays.
Mr. Boyd asked how much money has been spent on this so far. Mr. Frederick replied that there
were environmental impact studies and other studies, including public input meetings, with a cost of over
$2 million not including staff time.
Mr. Slutzky said that he does not understand why the study for the long-term needs to be done
before the project moves forward.
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 61)
Mr. Rooker stated that when this first came through he questioned the demand analysis and the
growth figures that were included, the percentage of people on public water versus private water, the
starting point for demand – which is higher than what’s currently utilized, but at the end of the day you still
come back to developing a plan that accommodates the long term. He thinks where the people who have
been attacking the plan are coming from is that if you can lower the demand analysis so that it is 15 million
gallons per day, then you start getting to a point where dredging and conservation might satisfy that new
demand. He suggested setting up a joint meeting with City Council because it does not help to have
separate entities firing out resolutions that substantially alter the obligations of everybody involved.
Mr. Slutzky said that that would be his “Plan B.” He does not object to the calculations being
examined further. He is in favor of doing dredging as an additional element of the W ater Supply Plan
because Kevin Lynch made the argument on the downside of relying on one water source. The Ragged
Mountain Dam still needs to be addressed from a safety and capacity standpoint. He does not have a
problem with any of the items but he does not understand the need to do them before moving forwarded
with the agreed upon Plan. He stated that the County should let the City know that we do not object to
doing those things, but we object to doing them as a stumbling block to actually moving forward with a
plan that’s been through rigorous analysis, public input, collaboration, and ultimate agreement.
Mr. Boyd stated there is no guarantee that dredging would be cost-efficient. Mr. Frederick said
that is correct.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that the only way to know that is to get bids, so everything is conjecture
up to that point. He has generally been in support of dredging, but unless you satisfy all of the water
demand, you still have to look at the water supply plan, and it will end up being an add on to all or most of
the costs included in the current plan. The question then is whether the community is willing to pay for
that.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks the County should move full force with the plan that is in place.
Ms. Thomas asked if this was holding up the panel. Mr. Frederick responded that it was.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that Gary O’Connell requested that he be allowed to take
recommendations to City Council before Rivanna voted on it, so (d) is being held up.
Mr. Frederick said that when the press release was issued and that discussion happened, the
RW SA was authorized to pursue a panel of dam experts. Rivanna staff went back and prepared a draft
that could be released to consulting firms to submit proposal, and that’s the point where they were
stopped.
Mr. Rooker said that the City has two votes on the Board, and they are not going to go forward at
this point.
Mr. Frederick said, at this time, he does not think he has the authority from the Rivanna Board to
release that document and obtain consultants.
Mr. Rooker said ultimately there needs to be unanimous consent between the City and the County
to move forward on a water supply plan. He does not want to be in a mode of the County trying to garner
a third vote to do something the City is opposed to.
Mr. Slutzky said this Board could still say it wants to proceed and could let the Rivanna Board
decide how to proceed. The City unilaterally usurped what the County was thinking.
Mr. Boyd commented that the Sugar Hollow pipeline study has to be done. Mr. Frederick said it is
the County’s option on whether it wants to update the cost of a pipeline from Sugar Hollow. The permit
spells out that the pipeline will come from the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir.
Ms. Thomas emphasized that there will have to be a pipeline because Ragged Mountain has too
small a drainage area. The Sugar Hollow facility was built in 1920, goes through a tunnel where the roof
has collapsed and is old. There is a 23-mile pipeline from the James or a nine-mile pipeline from the
South Fork Reservoir. The pipeline from South Fork is the shortest and it is going to be expensive, but
compared to other pipelines and given the environmental value and the water supply value of that pipeline,
a pipeline is needed one way or another. She does not think people have thought about the alternative.
She does not think the Board wants to join in (e) and say you have to thoroughly analyze all the pipelines.
Mr. Rooker said in order to expedite a resolution of this the Board needs to sit down with the City.
The City needs to hear some of the reasoning expressed by Board members. He does not think they will
respond well to the Board agreeing to do some of these things and not others.
Mr. Boyd suggested the Board reaffirm the existing plan and then ask to meet with them.
Ms. Thomas commented that the City did not address this to the Board.
Mr. Slutzky added that they unilaterally took this action with no input from the County.
Mr. Tucker said that the ACSA has to be at the table also.
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 62)
Mr. Rooker said that they would be at the meeting, as the RW SA would be, the City, and the
County.
Mr. Slutzky asked why it could not go to the RW SA Board.
Mr. Tucker said this is the direction given to Gary O’Connell and Judith Mueller, to not support the
panel that RW SA was moving forward on. W hatever this Board decides to do today is his (Mr. Tucker’s)
direction. Gary Fern will be meeting with the ACSA Board to get his direction. Mike Gaffney is the fifth
vote on the Rivanna Board.
Mr. Fern added that he does not have a sense of the position from all his Board members. The
ACSA Board is meeting tomorrow to discuss this topic.
Mr. Tucker suggested that a meeting be coordinated among all parties.
Mr. Boyd said that he believes the County should go into the meeting with support for the 50-year
water supply plan. Mr. Tucker commented that that is the Board’s policy.
Mr. Tucker noted that Fredericksburg went ahead with the bids for their project, then did the
borings, and now they do not have the money to do it.
Mr. Frederick said that the RW SA is a regional organization that serves the County and City. He
sees his role as helping to facilitate the discussion, but he also has a professional obligation to advice all
parties if he sees potential pitfalls. The time that they are taking on this is making it probably impossible to
meet the June 2011 deadline that Dam Safety has imposed on them. This community does become at
risk for enforcement actions by state agency for not complying with state regulatory requirements. He said
that there could be a court order to drain Ragged Mountain Reservoir to the bottom and not be refilled until
the problem is fixed. That could lead to substantial mandatory restrictions on the community that could
drag on for months and even years.
Mr. Slutzky said that is the kind of information that needs to be shared.
Ms. Thomas said that the argument is that the old dam could be repaired, but if it is repaired there
is no increased capacity and there will need to be some other source of water. She commented that Lake
Albemarle, Chris Greene Lake, and Beaver Creek have all been suggested but they each have pitfalls and
barriers to use. Lake Albemarle has dam problems and is not owned by a water supply agency; it was
built for fisheries. Beaver Creek Reservoir is needed for Crozet. Chris Greene Lake is a major recreation
area and the federal government has supplied the money for the recreation facility as part of and would
probably demand that money back. None of those are an advantage to the County.
Mr. Rooker said there are also technical reasons why it would be difficult to incorporate the other
reservoirs into the water supply plan and have a plan that would provide the utilitarian service that the
current plan would provide. He is not so concerned about whether the County gives an asset to the City or
whether it becomes a joint use facility. Mr. Rooker stated that he is hoping that there will be an agreement
reached from the joint meeting. He does not think it is necessary to put out a position of opposition at this
time. He said that some opinions in the community seem to be based on incomplete and inaccurate
information that has been freely circulated.
Mr. Slutzky agreed.
Mr. Tucker suggested that Rivanna staff work on coordinating a meeting date with the other
entities. Mr. Rooker reiterated the importance of scheduling the meeting as soon as possible.
Following some discussion, Board members suggested contacting the City to see if they could
meet on Friday, November 7th at 1:00 p.m.
Mr. Slutzky asked what happens if the City cannot meet on Friday. Mr. Davis responded that a
Board member would have to come to the County Office Building and adjourn the meeting to the Board’s
work session on November 14th.
Mr. Davis commented that the City would need to call a special meeting to meet on Friday.
Mr. Frederick said that he is not sure with four boards involved if the other boards have to give
legal notice.
Mr. Davis said that the FOI requirement is three days or immediate notice upon the meeting being
called if it is less than that.
__________
Ms. Thomas commented that the South Fork Rivanna River Task Force is going to be looking at
dredging, but ahead of time she is going to be circulating information from a Gahagan & Bryant meeting
which is really ‘Dredging 101.”
__________
Mr. Tucker said he has received a request from the County’s Public Recreational Facilities
Authority for an additional allocation of $7,500 for legal counsel.
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 63)
Mr. Boyd said that the Board had approved $5,000, but he did not want to support the motion with
the term “litigation” and instead preferred “second opinion.” He expressed concern over spending more
money on this.
Mr. Slutzky said that Mr. Davis was the first opinion and Mr. Zunka was a second opinion.
Mr. Rooker said that the question is whether to appropriate another $7,500.
Mr. Slutzky said he thinks the purpose that made the Board allocate the original $5,000 is still
valid and if the County can get a positive result, he would be willing to support the additional allocation.
Mr. Rooker said the question is if that amount needs to be authorized now in order to carry
forward. Is there a need for outside counsel to participate in a meeting with the Harris’. He does not think
the cost of doing that meeting is $7,500.
Mr. Slutzky said it might be an important point of information for our negotiating representatives to
have that the Board is committed to investing in further legal work, if necessary. He suggested approving
the $7,500 and then see what might have to be spent.
Mr. Rooker said he is concerned with what happened the first time around with the $5,000, and he
is hesitant to authorize this amount of money for a small amount of work. He is not opposed to spending
the money to get a result. If the Board decides that litigation is the route to go, the authorization will have
to be larger than $7,500.
Mr. Dorrier said he supports Mr. Rooker.
Ms. Thomas said that the Board needs to show a firm commitment to what needs to be done,
even though the outcome may be the same.
Mr. Rooker agreed, but said that $7,500 does not express a willingness to litigate, and if that route
is chosen the expense will be substantially more than that. He said that he is concerned about the
controls on the expenditure in the interim.
Mr. Slutzky suggested putting up $2,000 with the Board’s statement that it is their desire to see
this matter resolved. The Board is prepared to visit the issue of litigation if it becomes ultimately
necessary.
Mr. Rooker replied that the PRFA Board could decide whether to litigate or not, and the County is
participating in negotiations now to see if that can be avoided. He said that he’s not expressing a lack of
desire to back them up if a resolution is not achieved, but he wants to have some joint control over the
release of the $7,500. Mr. Rooker asked if they could allocate that and stipulate what is done with those
funds.
Mr. Tucker explained that they received a bill for about $3,500; the County previously received
one for more than the $5,000.
Mr. Slutzky said he is willing to support the $7,500 and added that there needs to be some
language that shows intent to protect the integrity of conservation easements.
Mr. Boyd said that he thinks the County has gone as far as possible with that, and this seems to
be a frivolous legal pursuit.
Mr. Rooker said that he objects to discussing the opinions of County counsel at this point. He
then asked if the Board can approve the $7,500 with some “shackles”.
Mr. Davis clarified that the Board could approve $7,500 subject to approval by the County
Executive.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Slutzky that this Board reaffirms its commitment to protecting
conservation easements and further that this Board authorize the appropriation of up to $7,500 for this
legal matter subject to the approval of the County Executive. Ms. Thomas seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. Adjourn to November 7, 2008, 1:00 p.m., Room 241.
At 6:31 p.m., there being no further business to come before the Board, motion was offered by
Mr. Slutzky to adjourn to November 7, 2008, 1:00 p.m., Room 241, for a possible joint meeting with City
Council, Rivanna W ater and Sewer Authority (RW SA) and the Albemarle County Service Authority
(ACSA). Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion.
November 5, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 64)
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
(Note: This meeting was subsequently cancelled and scheduled for November 25, 2008.)
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 01/14/2009
Initials: EW J