2004-05-05
May 5, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May 5,
2004, at 9:00 a.m., County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Ken C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Dennis S.
Rooker, Ms. Sally H. Thomas and Mr. David C. Wyant.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Clerk, Ella W. Carey, and Director of Planning and Community Development, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Dorrier.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Neil Williamson with the Free Enterprise Forum provided the Board members with a copy of a
policy summary of a report released late last month with regard to inclusionary zoning and affordable
housing. He said that in 30 years of inclusionary zoning there has not been a significant academic study of
the affects of that housing on the market. This is only one study, but he encourages the Board to review it
in that the Board has recently set a goal that 15 percent of new houses in the County be affordable. The
Albemarle Housing Committee is working on this. He said that many communities in California suffer a
shortage of affordable housing. The response there has been inclusionary zoning with mandates to
developers to sell a certain percentage of the homes they build at below market prices to make them
available to people with lower incomes. After passing an inclusionary zoning ordinance, the average city
produces fewer than 15 affordable units per year. He suggested the Board members read the statistics for
the San Francisco Bay area. Selling new homes below the market rate costs builders in the average city
$45.0 million. By lowering the assessed value of homes and the resale value, inclusionary zoning leads to
substantial loss of state and local tax revenues. The total present value of lost state and local government
revenue due to the bay area inclusionary zoning ordinances is upwards of $553.0 million. He encouraged
the Board members to read the study and the full report online.
__________
Ms. Patt Keats said she lives at 421 Key West Drive. She lives at the dead-end of the ridge section
of the original road in Key West. The only way to her house is across an earthen dam that has collapsed to
within six inches of the road. The dam predates most of the present homeowners. Two drainpipes running
through the dam have rusted out. The bottoms of the pipes are completely gone. Inside the dam, a sink
hole has developed. Also going across the dam from side to side is an Albemarle County Service Authority
water main. She said the water main is above the rusting pipes but below the surface. It is on the
downstream side where the dam is collapsing. This earthen dam has never been maintained by anyone.
She wonders when the dam will collapse from neglect. She is afraid of who or how a collapse would be
discovered. There are no lights anywhere near the dam so if it collapsed after dark, someone could go in
the hole. This is a publicly traversed dam. Fire department, rescue squad and law enforcement vehicles
would not be able to get to her home in an emergency. She said they did not know who was responsible
for the remedy until they did some research. She said Mr. Kent Sinclair was present to explain the results of
his research.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there is water behind the dam. Ms. Keats said the dam created a pond behind
it. Mr. Dorrier asked if the road is over the dam. Ms. Keats said “yes.”
Mr. Wyant asked if it is a state maintained road. Ms. Thomas said the Board would soon find out
the answer to that question.
Mr. Kent Sinclair said the road is not a part of the State Secondary system. He said they have
come today at the suggestion of Mr. Boyd who was contacted over the weekend and met with several of the
homeowners. He said the County Engineer’s staff was also very responsive over the telephone and they
have scheduled a site visit for tomorrow. This is one of two portions of roads in the Key West Subdivision
that were not taken into the State Secondary System. This was in part because the earthen dam was not
built to State specifications. He said this Board had a meeting in 1977 where that was discussed.
Questions were asked about the maintenance of the dam and what would happen when the road surface
was paved. Unfortunately the developer was allowed to finish developing Key West without ever rebuilding
the dam to State specifications and VDOT has never taken the road that is on the other side of the dam into
its system. Recently, when the homeowners discovered that the pipes had rusted and created a dangerous
condition, they tried to determine if someone in the area owned the dam. The plat shows that the lots which
front on this pond have lot lines that go to the center of the pond, but they do not encompass the dam area.
They had a formal title search done, and nothing was found in the plats, deed notes, or restrictions that
impose an obligation on anyone to maintain the pond or dam. They have learned that this dam and the
road belong to the County. A series of plats approved by the Board shows that this road was dedicated as
a public road. By operation of the Virginia statutes that are cited in their letter that dedication vested fee
simple title in the County. The County has not elected to maintain the road and the State has not taken it
into the State System. He said there are places in Key West where the lot lines run to the center of the
road. That is not the case in this first section of Key West. This is a situation where there is a public road
owned by the County. It is not a private road; the 23 homes and the swim/tennis club do not own the road
May 5, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
across the dam. They realize there is no statute that orders the County to do anything with respect to this
dam. They came to present a problem which exists on County land for which the research seems to
indicate there is no other remedy. He will provide Mr. Davis a copy of the title report as soon as he has it in
paper form.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the County Engineer will make a report to the Board. Mr. Tucker said as soon
as he has made an onsite inspection.
Mr. Boyd said he asked Ms. Keats and Mr. Sinclair to come to this meeting today. He looked at the
dam and thinks there is a dangerous situation.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is a Key West Homeowners Association separate from this Ridge
Homeowners Association. Mr. Sinclair said there is. When the surface of the road was paved in the late
1980s, an association of the homeowners was formed to maintain the paving along that three-quarter of a
mile of road.
Mr. Rooker asked if these Ridge homeowners are also a part of that Key West Association. Mr.
Sinclair said they could be members of that association as well. The Ridge Homeowners’ agreement
simply relates to maintaining the paving of the six inches of gravel put down.
Mr. Rooker asked if they have an annual assessment for maintenance. Mr. Sinclair said the homes
on this end of the road do have an assessment pursuant to a declaration which requires maintenance of six
inches of crushed stone with a tar and gravel top. He said the rest of the roads in Key West have been
taken into the State system. He is not aware of any assessments that the subdivision as a whole levies
upon itself.
__________
Ms. Marcia Joseph provided the Board with information on the proposed Southeast Albemarle
Rural Historic District. It will be one of the largest historic districts in the state. They have met with a group
of landowners in the proposed district, met with the Department of Historic Resources, and submitted a
preliminary information form. They met with the University of Virginia who is interested and offered no
opposition to the district. They met with Ms. Kluge and Mr. Moses and they do not oppose the district.
There are a lot of historic properties, both small and large, in this district. There are about 1700 properties
that will need to be inventoried. It is an ambitious undertaking. Also, the neighborhood is organizing and is
in the process of developing a private nonprofit organization to receive donations because this will be
expensive. She will not be asking the County for money as this venture will be privately funded. As the
district progresses, the group will provide the Board with additional information.
Mr. Dorrier asked if it is the goal to preserve the historic structures. Ms. Joseph said the goal is to
preserve both the structures and the landscape. Fortunately, there are no restrictions in a historic district,
either National or State Register. Landscape can change, subdivisions can occur. One can do whatever
they wish to do to the building. However, if too much is done to the building, it is removed from the list, but
that does not affect the district as a whole. There is an extra level of review if Federal funds are spent for
things like roads or cell towers, etc. It does not stop them, but helps to mitigate their effect within the district.
Also, people get tax credits for any renovations on the buildings listed in the district.
Ms. Thomas asked if there is anything the County can do to help this along because this fits within
the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Joseph said they would be requesting GIS information from the County. She said the
consultant who has been hired is very clever and will be putting all the information about the historic
properties on tax maps. Mr. Tucker said staff would be able to provide some help.
Mr. Dorrier asked how they chose this particular configuration (see map on file). It does not take in
Covesville. Ms. Joseph said Covesville is in the process now of creating its own historic district. The
architectural historians chose this area because of the people involved, the transportation routes, and the
architecture. It has to hang together historically with the people and how the area was settled.
__________
Ms. Jackie Harris, Registrar, came to speak about a staffing issue. She noted that the Scottsville
Town elections went off yesterday without a hitch. The Electoral Board met last night and certified the
results. She said there was a staffing issue presented to the Board as part of the Registrar’s budget
request. The request was moved to the pending category during budget work sessions, but there were
questions about the request. She has sent the Board members answers to those questions.
Ms. Thomas said in the days before “motor voter” she knows that dealing with the University of
Virginia population had a major impact on the Registrar’s manpower. Now, she assumes that most
students register to vote when they get their driver’s license and she guesses the Registrar does not have
that same increase in her workload.
Ms. Harris said it has been found that students still need additional support from her department.
They answer a lot of questions for student groups and spend a lot of time with the University. They do
registrations when the University has its back-to-school night. There are a lot of questions about residency.
She said Williamsburg recently was in Federal Court about allowing students to register to vote in the
locality. Locally the City and County have always had a policy that students may register here. But, students
still have a lot of questions about residency related to scholarships, and whether they would lose their
health insurance if they declared Virginia their state of residency. Also, they found that a lot of students
May 5, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
wish to register in their home locality and the office facilitates their registering in their home state, and also
assists them to get absentee ballots. She said students and University faculty members move often which
necessitates a change in their voter records.
Mr. Boyd said he thought the Board had approved this additional staff person in the budget. Mr.
Tucker said that approval was subject to presentation of additional information. Ms. Harris has now
provided that information (see copy on file in the Clerk’s Office) and that is why she is bringing the request
to the Board at this time. Before appropriations are made next month, staff needs to know if that
information is sufficient.
Mr. Boyd said he is satisfied with leaving the extra position in the budget.
__________
Mr. Jeff Werner from the Piedmont Environmental Council said he and Marcia Joseph have been
working with the residents of Covesville on a Rural Historic District. The citizens are highly energized about
land conservation and rural preservation in a truly unspoiled section of Albemarle County. He came to
speak about the Report, “Housing Supply and Affordability: Do Affordable
Reason Public Policy Institute
Housing Mandates Work?” the Board received earlier this morning. While it addresses inclusionary zoning,
it is presented as an argument against Albemarle’s affordable housing policy. He said any discussion must
be balanced on both sides. The Board cannot rely on any single source of information (see copy of his full
statement on file in the Clerk’s Office with the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors).
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr.
Bowerman, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.5 on the consent agenda and to accept the remaining items as
information. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item 5.1. Proclamation recognizing May 2 through May 8, 2004, as Youth Week.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following proclamation was approved:
YOUTH WEEK
WHEREAS, the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks has designated the week beginning
on the first Sunday in May as Youth Week to honor America’s junior citizens for
their accomplishments, and to give fitting recognition of their services to
community, state and nation; and
WHEREAS, Charlottesville Elks Lodge 389 will sponsor an observance during that week in
tribute to the junior citizens of this community; and
WHEREAS, no event could be more deserving of our support and participation than one
dedicated to these young people who represent the nation’s greatest resource,
and who in the years ahead will assume the responsibility for the advancement of
our free society; and
WHEREAS, our youth need the guidance, inspiration and encouragement which we alone can
give in order to help develop those qualities of character essential for future
leadership, and go forth to serve America; and
WHEREAS, to achieve this worthy objective we should demonstrate our partnership with youth,
our understanding of their hopes and aspirations and a sincere willingness to help
prepare them in every way for the responsibilities and opportunities of citizenship;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of
ndth
County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim the week of May 2 through May 8,
2004, as YOUTH WEEK and urge all departments of government, civic, fraternal
and patriotic groups, and our citizens to participate wholeheartedly in its
observance.
Mr. Dorrier read the proclamation into the record and presented it to Mr. Bruce Duncan of the Elks
Lodge.
Mr. Duncan said he is the elected Exalted Ruler of Elks Lodge No. 389. He said the Elks hold a
soccer shoot in August and a hoop shoot in January, but the main goal of the Virginia Elks Association is
the Virginia Elks Youth Camp. That camp is located in Bath County. His goal this year is to send 75 boys
and girls to the camp which is fully funded by the Elks. Mr. Dorrier asked how they choose the youth who
go to the camp. Mr. Duncan said it is done on a first come-first served basis. Nationwide, this is done by
the Elks.
May 5, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
Mr. Wyant said he knows the Elks have been working on the infirmary at the camp almost every
week. Mr. Duncan said it should be completed in a couple of weeks.
__________
Item 5.2. SP-2003-70. Gregory R. Galllihugh-Nextel Partners (Sign #59)(deferred from March 17,
2004).
At the request of the applicant, this petition is deferred until July 7, 2004.
__________
Item 5.3. Resolution: Ravens Homeowners Association Child-At-Play Signs.
It was noted in the staff’s report that the Ravens Home Owners Association, representing the
Ravenswood neighborhood, has requested that VDOT install two Child-At-Play signs on Ashwood
Boulevard. Ravenswood is a section of the South Forest Lakes development. It is located off Ashwood
Boulevard to the right as one exits Route 29. The proposed location of the signs will not conflict with any
existing traffic control devices. Staff recommends that the Board adopt the required resolution supporting
the installation of Child-At-Play signs on the street noted above.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the residents of Ravens subdivision (the Ravens Home Owners Association) are
concerned about traffic in their neighborhood and the potential hazard it creates for the
numerous children that live in the subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the residents believe that a “Child-At-Play” sign would help alleviate some of the
concerns.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
hereby supports the community’s request for VDOT to install the necessary “Child-At-
Play” signs on Ashwood Boulevard.
__________
Item 5.4. Resolution: Foxcroft Owners Association Child-At-Play Signs.
It was noted in the staff’s report that the Foxcroft Owners Association has requested that VDOT
install Child-At-Play signs on Foxvale Lane and the Southern Parkway. Foxcroft subdivision is located off
Avon Street Extended next to the Mill Creek subdivision. Staff supports the installation of Child-at-Play
signs at these two locations. Staff recommends that the Board adopt a resolution supporting the installation
of Child-At-Play signs on the streets noted above.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the residents of Foxcroft subdivision (Foxcroft Owners Association)
are concerned about traffic in their neighborhood and the potential hazard it creates for the
numerous children that live in the subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the residents believe that a “Child-At-Play” sign would help alleviate
some of the concerns.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby supports the community’s request for VDOT to install the necessary
“Child-At-Play” signs on Foxvale Lane and Southern Parkway.
__________
Item 5.5. Intergovernmental Agreement on the Juvenile & Domestic Relations District Court
Facilities.
It was noted in the staff’s report that the renovation and expansion project for the Juvenile &
Domestic Relations Court is about to begin with the move to temporary quarters at the Levy Opera House
scheduled for June, demolition of existing structures in July and construction in August/September. The
Board’s approval is needed for the proposed City of Charlottesville/County of Albemarle Intergovernmental
Agreement which obligates both the County and the City to a shared responsibility for the construction and
temporary relocation costs for the Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court expansion and renovation project,
as well as the acquisition costs for the two adjacent High Street properties and the on-going maintenance,
repair and upkeep for the J&DR facilities. The total Renovation, Expansion and Acquisition Costs for the
$13.5 million project are shared between the City and County by agreed upon formulas as outlined in
Exhibits A, B, C and D.
Exhibit A details $1.791 million in costs associated with the lease, alteration and operation of the
Levy Opera House, which will provide temporary housing for current J&DR Court occupants during
construction. The City has provided a seven months rent credit of $102,173 to the County to offset the
May 5, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
City’s delay during the facade design phase.
Exhibit B, dated September 25, begins by breaking down the renovation and expansion costs for
the facility of $10.3 million shared by the County and City. Renovation and expansion costs for the J&DR
Court facility are shared on a 50/50 basis by the City and County; the one exception is the space allocated
for the Albemarle County Sheriff’s Office which is a 100 percent County expense. With 100 percent county
funding of the Sheriff’s space, the total construction costs are shared 54 percent by the County and 46
percent by the City.
Parking Deck construction costs of $2.6 million are allocated to the County and City on a 60/40
basis, respectively. The County’s share is calculated based on an agreed upon formula that allows for
County and City parking spaces contributed to the overall project, as well as future space usage between
the City and County.
The combined cost of the facility expansion and renovation, the three-level parking garage and the
Levy rental space is $13.5 million, which is shared 54.56 percent and 45.44 percent by the County and City,
respectively. Based on this formula, the County’s share of the project is approximately $7.4 million and the
City’s share is approximately $6.1 million. At the bottom of Exhibit B can be seen the $1.6 million additional
funding required in the County’s share since the initial September, 2002 project estimate. These additional
project costs have been incorporated and funded in the FY ‘05 CIP budget for the J&DR Court project,
which was approved by the Board in April.
Exhibit C outlines some of those changes in the construction project costs since the original
September, 2002 estimate. Of the $2.148 million change, the largest increases were approximately
$800,000 to add the third parking deck, $400,000 for additional site work, $200,000 for asbestos
abatement, $250,000 for higher property acquisition costs than anticipated, and, $300,000 in cost
escalation estimates.
Exhibit D is the Project Management Plan, which outlines the project responsibilities for the City and
County during the construction phase.
Staff recommends that the Board approve the “City of Charlottesville/ County of Albemarle
Intergovernmental Agreement Regarding the Juvenile & Domestic Relations District Court Facilities” and
authorize the County Executive to sign the Agreement on the County’s behalf.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the “City of Charlottesville/County
of Albemarle Intergovernmental Agreement Regarding the Juvenile & Domestic Relations District
Court Facilities” (set out in full below) and authorized the County Executive to execute the
Agreement on the County’s behalf.
City of Charlottesville/County of Albemarle
Intergovernmental Agreement
Regarding The
Juvenile & Domestic Relations District Court Facilities
This agreement made this 5th day of May, 2004, by and between the CITY OF
CHARLOTTESVILLE (“City”), a municipal corporation, and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
(“County”), a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and collectively referred to as
the “Parties”.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the City and the County, either separately or jointly, are owners of property
generally located at 411 East High Street, Charlottesville, Virginia, and more commonly referred to
as the Juvenile & Domestic Relations District Court (J&DR) facilities; and,
WHEREAS, the City and the County are contemplating renovations to and expansion of the
J&DR Court facilities, to enable the Court to meet the current and future needs of the
Charlottesville–Albemarle community; and
WHEREAS, the City and the County intend to share the costs associated with the
renovation and expansion of the J&DR Court facilities, and the costs associated with the acquisition
of additional properties needed for the Court expansion; and
WHEREAS, the City and the County intend to share in the costs associated with the
maintenance, repair and upkeep of the J&DR Court facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the
parties agree as follows:
I. THE PROPERTY
As used herein, the term “Property” shall include the following:
?
J&DR Courthouse – a three-story building, directly fronting East High Street;
May 5, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
?
Sheriff’s Annex – a two-story building with basement, immediately north of the
J&DR Courthouse;
?
Maintenance Building – located immediately north and attached to the north side
of the Historic Jail;
?
City-owned surface parking lots designated on City Real Property Tax Map 53 as
Parcels 27 and 28;
?
Property located at 401 and 407 East High Street, designated on City Real
Property Tax Map 53 as Parcels 30 and 31, and a 15-space parking area located
at 417-419 Park Street, which is a portion of Parcel 34 as designated on City Real
Property Tax Map 53, which the parties intend to acquire for use as J&DR Court
facilities; and,
?
The Levy Opera House and associated surface parking, located at 350 Park
Street, which the City has leased as a temporary location for use as a J&DR Court
facility.
The term “Property”, as used herein, specifically excludes the historic stone Jail and the
Jailer’s residence, located immediately west of the Sheriff’s Annex and not contemplated to be a
part of the J&DR Court expansion and renovation project.
II. RENOVATION, EXPANSION & ACQUISITION:
1. The City and the County have engaged Moseley Architects to prepare design
documents for the renovation and expansion of the Property.
2. The City and the County agree that all costs associated with the lease, operation
or alteration (including design costs) of the Levy Opera House, as detailed in the
“Levy Opera House, Development, Construction and Operations Budget, dated
August 11, 2003, and as later revised (Exhibit A) will be allocated in accordance
with the “Court Cost Allocation Summary” (Exhibit B).
3. The City and the County agree that all costs associated with the design and
construction of the Courts Facilities, as detailed in the “J&DR Development,
Construction and Operations Budget”, dated April 7, 2003 with revisions (Exhibit C)
shall be allocated in accordance with the “Court Cost Allocation Summary” (Exhibit
B).
4. The City and County agree that the management of design and construction of the
Courts Project, to include Levy modifications, shall be in accordance with the
“Project Management Plan”, dated November 25, 2003 (Exhibit D).
5. The City and County agree that all costs associated with the acquisition of title to
the properties located at 401 and 407 East High Street, and a portion of the
property located at 417 – 419 Park Street, including but not limited to the costs of
appraisals, surveys, title examinations, recording fees, attorney fees and
consideration for the conveyances, as detailed in the “J&DR Development,
Construction and Operations Budget”, dated April 7, 2003 with revisions (Exhibit
C), shall be allocated in accordance with the “Court Cost Allocation Summary”
(Exhibit B); provided, however, that the County shall not be required to share in
attorney costs for the voluntary acquisition of title to any of the above-referenced
properties.
6. The City and County agree that the City shall receive a fiscal agent/management
fee of two percent (2%) of the annual operating and capital budget as
compensation for its assumption of fiscal and project management responsibilities.
The City may deduct the two percent fee from its required funding contribution
each year.
III. GENERAL MAINTENANCE:
1. The City shall be responsible for the general management, upkeep, repair and
maintenance of the Property in accordance with a written maintenance program
approved in advance by the parties; and
2. The City shall be the fiscal agent for all funding issues surrounding the
management, upkeep, repair and maintenance of the Property; and
3. The County shall reimburse the City for fifty-four percent (54%) of any and all
costs, of whatever nature, incurred by the City for the management, upkeep, repair
and maintenance of the Property in accordance with the approved maintenance
program. The County’s cost percentage is based on an equal allocation
(50%/50%) of the costs between the parties for all space used for J&DR Court
functions, and an additional four percent (4%) representing space allocated to the
Albemarle County Sheriff’s Department.
IV. PARKING GARAGE OPERATIONS:
May 5, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
1. The City shall be responsible for the general management, operation and
maintenance of the new three-level parking garage, currently under design and
proposed for construction on the Property. Said management shall be in
accordance with a written garage operations program, approved in advance by the
parties, which shall reflect the respective ownership and operational goals of the
Parties. The City and County agree that the costs of operation and the allocation
of revenues, if any, shall be shared in a manner consistent with the allocation of
construction cost for the garage. Said garage operations program shall be
reviewed periodically by the Parties and be subject to change to reflect changes in
use or operational requirements.
V. ANNUAL FUNDING:
This Agreement is subject to annual funding by the governing bodies of the City and
County. In the event that the City of Charlottesville City Council or the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors fails to appropriate sufficient funds as may be necessary to meet the obligations
specified in this Agreement and other contract documents, this Agreement shall be deemed
cancelled, with no penalty to either party, and of no effect. In the event of such termination the City
shall be relieved of all management, upkeep, repair and maintenance obligations specified in this
Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the governing bodies of the City and the County have approved
the execution of this Agreement by the following authorized officials.
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
By: Aubrey Watts______
Title: COO/CFO________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
By: Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Title: County Executive__
__________
Item 5.6. Copy of Draft Planning Commission minutes for March 9, 2004, was received as
information.
__________
Item 5.7. VDOT Monthly Report for May 2004, received for information.
______________
Agenda Item No. 5a. Board-to-Board Presentation, School Board Chairman.
Ms. Diantha McKeel, Chairman, Albemarle County School Board, was present. She said the
School Board has adopted its FY 2004-05 Budget of approximately $128.0 million that includes both a Self-
Sustaining Fund and regular School Fund Operations. The School Fund budget of $115,070,637 includes
the use of an additional $614,600 from the Fund Balance to address needs in the FY ‘05 request.
Reductions were made in several areas totaling more than $367,000. The core priorities of the budget,
especially compensation, were met. While utilizing one-time funds to meet some recurring needs is not an
optimal solution, it meets the needs of the Division for FY ‘05. Compensation remains the School Board’s
top priority and will continue to require significant funding to meet goals for the future. She said the
compensation initiative this year was only one part of a two-year initiative. The School Board knows it is
barely keeping up with compensation for its employees. Other school divisions are still ahead of Albemarle
County.
Ms. McKeel said the School Board is currently seeking applications for appointees to the School
Health Advisory Board. She said the School Board revised its policy concerning school admissions to allow
full-time, permanent School Division and Local Government employees who do not reside in Albemarle
County to enroll their children in Albemarle County schools on a tuition basis.
Ms. McKeel said the School Board has accepted a proposal for updating the School Division’s
strategic plan that currently supports implementation of the School’s Mission and Goals through 2005. The
School Board endorses the importance of the strategic planning process and will begin discussion of a new
planning cycle at a special meeting on May 8, 2004. The strategic planning cycle will be completed by April
2005.
Ms. McKeel said the Golden Apple Award Ceremony is to be held this afternoon at the UVA
Rotunda. This is a way of selecting and honoring some outstanding teachers from the public schools in
Albemarle County, Charlottesville City, CATEC, and eligible private schools.
Ms. McKeel said the School Board is to meet with the Charlottesville City School Board on May 27.
The agenda includes a presentation from the National School Boards Association, a presentation from the
African-American Teaching Fellows Program, and a progress report on the joint (City/County) education
foundation.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the School Division has received any notification about state revenues. Ms.
McKeel said “no.”
May 5, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mr. Boyd said he had some questions at last month’s meeting and has not received a reply. Ms.
McKeel said Mr. Zimmerman will respond to her and she will in turn send the reply to Mr. Breeden.
Mr. Boyd said there are a lot of capital expenditure issues that will be facing the County in the
future. In the last five years, the number of students expected has been over-projected. There was a
projection of 421 new students, and the County only received 64. He would like to know if the School
System is doing anything about the way it makes those projections. Also, during that five-year period, 1500
seats were added to the schools. He knows there are another 800 seats planned. He asked that Ms.
McKeel address this with the Board and say how it will be handled in the future.
Ms. McKeel said their projections have been within a two-percent projection.
Mr. Tucker said the next CIP review in the fall is a major review. The CIP is reviewed bi-annually,
and this next year is the time for that review, so it will be a major review. He said there is a Board member
on that CIP Review Committee. The best time to focus on this will be during that review.
Mr. Boyd said that often when a report comes to the Board it does not necessarily address the
School Board issues.
Ms. McKeel said the School Board’s Long-Range Planning Committee is to begin meeting soon to
review all of those issues in order to plan for that CIP review.
Mr. Rooker said today this is simply a Board-to-Board presentation. He would prefer that questions
like those posed by Mr. Boyd be answered in a work session set aside for that purpose.
Ms. McKeel said the School Board is trying to build seats for the students in order to accommodate
them before buildings become overcrowded.
Ms. Thomas said she has mentioned a problem at Brownsville Elementary School to Ms. McKeel.
Most of the wooded area to the north and west of the school is going to contain hundreds of houses, and
yet there is no access from the houses to the school grounds. She walked the area the other day. There
will be a road near the school grounds, but that road will go from Route 250 to Jarmans Gap Road and will
not access the school grounds. There is a bottleneck in traffic right in front of Brownsville School. It
impedes the County’s goal to get more people to use I-64 instead of Route 250. There will be an informal
get-together walking the grounds with the developer and some people from the School System to see how
to get a road coming from that area to the school grounds. She thinks that when contacted initially, the
School System discouraged the idea, but she is suggesting that they think about it again.
Mr. Wyant said there is a problem with traffic flow in the mornings. He has looked at a couple of
alternatives for getting access easements over to Crozet Avenue.
Mr. Rooker asked if this was a by-right development.
Ms. Thomas said there is a willing developer at this time. It is Galen Bates. He knows that he will
be building a north/south road, but there is a question about there being a spur over to the school grounds,
or a road at the back of the school going to Route 240. The Board will be discussing this later today when
working on the Crozet Master Plan.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6a. Transportation Matters: Meadow Creek Parkway Design, Resolution.
Mr. Tucker said that on March 16, 2004, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
conducted a Design Public Hearing for the County portion of the Meadow Creek Parkway located between
Melbourne Road and Rio Road. The purpose of the hearing was to determine the public’s opinion toward
the overall design of the Parkway and to obtain specific responses to a roundabout versus a conventional
(signalized) intersection at Melbourne Road.
Mr. Tucker said according to the April 13, 2004, letter from Mr. James Bryan, the written public
comments received at the hearing reflected opposition to the project. However, the Parkway is a
component of a transportation network that is the key to improving the overall transportation efficiency in the
greater metropolitan area. Therefore, it is VDOT’s position that the benefits of building the Parkway
outweigh the negative impacts expressed by the public.
Mr. Tucker said in regard to the option of roundabout or a conventional (signalized) intersection at
Melbourne Road, the public comments did not reflect a definitive preference. Therefore, VDOT supports a
signalized intersection since they believe it would provide better efficiency and safety for vehicles, bicycles
and pedestrians and would better meet predicted future traffic volumes. During the design hearing,
residents of the neighborhoods adjacent to Melbourne Road expressed concern regarding the potential
increase in cut-through traffic. This was only briefly mentioned in the written comments, but discussions
with the public at the meeting suggested that they believe there may be a third alternative. Their suggestion
was to grade-separate the Parkway and Melbourne Road with no access provided to Melbourne Road.
Mr. Tucker said the design hearing plans presented an alignment of the Parkway consistent with
the “Meadow Creek Parkway Final Report”, dated May, 2001, as incorporated into the Albemarle County
Comprehensive Plan. The design of the Parkway and pedestrian/bike trail, and the proposed public land
and public easement limits were generally consistent with the requests from the County. The concerns that
were not satisfactorily addressed at the design hearing were included in the resolution as conditions of the
May 5, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
County’s endorsement of the design. The option of grade separating the Parkway from Melbourne
Road was not included in the design hearing plans, but it would seem prudent to request VDOT to evaluate
this as a viable alternative and add it to the conditions.
Mr. Tucker said staff recommends that the Board adopt a resolution endorsing the design of the
Parkway and pedestrian/bike trail, and the limits for proposed public land and public easement as
presented in the design public hearing with the conditions as stated in the resolution.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this would get the project close to construction. Mr. Tucker said it is probably
still a couple of years away assuming everything works out at the southern end of the portion in the City.
Mr. Rooker said there is no funding in the Six-Year Plan for this construction project. He
understands it is unlikely there will be funding for any big projects unless some additional revenue stream is
found. However, he thinks that projects currently with funding in the Six-Plan will be built at some point in
the future.
Mr. Boyd said he knows this project is scheduled for 2008. He asked if it actually would be funded
in that time frame.
Mr. Jim Bryan, Resident Engineer, said the project is scheduled to be advertised in June 2008.
There is money already set aside for the project, but there is a need for that much additional money.
Mr. Boyd asked if the County’s portion of the project would move forward without solving the City’s
half of the project. Mr. Bryan said “yes.”
Mr. Bowerman said he asked a year or so ago if the project could be constructed in the County
from Melbourne Road, and he thinks there has been a change there. Mr. Tucker said he understands that
because the right-of-way of Melbourne Road is actually a city right-of-way that could prohibit a connection
to Melbourne. He does not know where VDOT’s right-of-way authority ends and the City’s begins.
Mr. Bryan said VDOT would like for the project to be done all at one time, but that would not
preclude VDOT from going forward.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks it is an important to know the project could potentially move forward without
the City’s cooperation.
Mr. Rooker said the Board has gotten different answers to the question of the authority needed to
connect to Melbourne Road. He thinks that legal issue needs to be resolved.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the requested resolution would move this project forward. Mr. Bryan said “yes”.
It is a key step.
Mr. Rooker said this design matches up with the Jones & Jones design. Mr. Bryan said it does. He
said Paragraph 4 of the draft resolution was a surprise to VDOT but they can deal with it by way of phasing.
They will have to analyze and study that paragraph, but it will not stop anything.
Ms. Thomas said a few comments made at the public hearing were made by people who simply
oppose the project. But, there were comments made that the Board had not focused on before, i.e., safety
of high school students. It means beginning drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists. It is not explicitly stated in
No. 4, but it seems to her that one of the purposes is to consider the location of that intersection so close to
a high school and any safety aspects associated with that intersection.
Mr. Bryan said in an ideal world the idea of an overpass bypassing Melbourne Road is a perfect
solution. It is too bad that was not considered years ago now because there is a high school in the area.
Mr. Rooker said the road is to have a 35 mph speed limit and is designed with pedestrian trails and
bicycle paths.
Ms. Thomas said it is not the pedestrians walking along the road, but the crossing, and she is not
sure Jones & Jones or the Board focused on that fact. Mr. Bryan said that is why VDOT prefers a regular
intersection rather than the roundabout.
Ms. Thomas said the Board has always wanted this to be a true parkway. That means it would
exist in a park, and there has been a lot of interest in the amount of parkland. The General Assembly
weighed in on this and required that there be parkland considered in purchase of the right-of-way. She
asked if everybody is satisfied that the four conditions in the resolution are sufficient. Nowhere does the
resolution say anything about insuring there will be the maximum purchase and there will be cooperation
with the County to ensure there will be the maximum amount of parkland. Mr. Bryan said the parkland has
been incorporated into the plan.
Mr. Boyd asked if Ms. Thomas is referring to the issue of purchasing replacement parkland.
Ms. Thomas said it is partly because it is replacement, but it has transcended that issue to become
one in which the Board realized this will be a parkway and it will have parkland. There will be land cut off
without any access, so it would be good land to turn into a park. It is going to require cooperation between
VDOT, the County and the landowners. Some of it may happen when there are rezonings at the northern
May 5, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
end, maybe getting some of the land through proffers. Not all of the land will be purchased. It
has been a goal of the County for several years, and she is just recognizing that this resolution does not
mention that fact.
Mr. Davis said it is covered in the “Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved” paragraph of the resolution.
The public lands are shown in the plans. He believes it is covered within the resolution.
Mr. Rooker said the design includes the proposed parkland, existing public lands which may be
included in the park, and proposed public easement for parkland, so he thinks the design being talked
about is the design in the drawing posted on the wall in this room today. He does not think the resolution
will preclude efforts to add to that. As Ms. Thomas said, the idea is to have a linear park coming out of
McIntire Park, virtually continues McIntire Park along the Parkway. The Board needs to make certain the
park is designed and realized in that fashion. He thinks that 50+ acres of parkland are shown on the map
on the wall, whereas only nine acres are being lost to this road.
Ms. Thomas said the map on the wall was not shown at the public hearing with the coloration as it
appears today. She thinks a lot of people in the public did not get the sense of how much parkland is
involved.
Mr. Dorrier said he noticed that the map is not dated, so suggested that it be dated and a copy
attached to the resolution.
Mr. Rooker suggesting adding a paragraph to the resolution saying: “The County specifically
requests that VDOT acquire the proposed public land as shown on the attached design.”
Mr. Boyd said before adding anything like that to the resolution he would be curious as to the
financial consequences of that statement. He asked if it could potentially delay or prevent this project from
happening. Mr. Bryan said that wording was put in the last iteration of this about eight months ago.
Mr. Rooker said they have met with Mr. Butch Davies and Mr. Davies said he would push for the
acquisition by VDOT of the property included in this design. It may be that there is a small piece of land that
does not get acquired, but the County’s CTB member has said he will do all he can to make sure this land
is acquired and VDOT has factored that into the cost of the project. Mr. Bryan said VDOT would have had
this public hearing six months earlier except for this matter.
Ms. Thomas said the Board could add to the resolution or simply attach this particular version of the
map to the resolution.
Mr. Rooker said there should be a reference to the map in the resolution.
Mr. Davis said he thinks that is already in the resolution. If the design plans are simply the
uncolored version of the map being referenced, the resolution already captures that. The proposed public
land will be acquired as part of the project. It is a little redundant to add another condition that just shows
the map.
Mr. Rooker said he just wants to be sure that what is referenced in the opening paragraph is in fact
the map on the wall today.
Mr. Dorrier said the map is not dated, and there are many illustrations of the Meadow Creek
Parkway. He just wants to be sure this particular version is the one the Board is dealing with.
Mr. Davis said he does not think there will be a conflict between the two maps. He is relying on Mr.
Bryan to say the map on the wall is reflective of the plans.
Mr. Jack Kelsey, County Engineer, said VDOT designers actually provided this map. In fact, they
provided him with the original map that he colored and sent back to them. They used that map to set up
the property acquisition limits that were shown on the plans at the Design Hearing.
Mr. Dorrier asked for a motion.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr. Wyant, to adopt the following resolution of
intent. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
MEADOW CREEK PARKWAY
WHEREAS, the Meadow Creek Parkway is a component of a transportation network that is key to
improving the overall transportation efficiency in the greater metropolitan area and consists
of the McIntire Road Extension, being within the Charlottesville City limits between Route
250 and Melbourne Road, and the Meadow Creek Parkway being within the County of
Albemarle between Melbourne Road and Rio Road; and
WHEREAS, on March 16, 2004, the Virginia Department of Transportation conducted a Design
May 5, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
Public Hearing for the Meadow Creek Parkway; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has designed the alignment of the Meadow
Creek Parkway to be consistent with the “Meadow Creek Parkway Final Report, dated May,
2001”, prepared by Jones & Jones Architects and Landscape Architects, as incorporated
into the Albemarle Comprehensive Plan on June 20, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the plans presented at the public hearing displayed the design of the parkway and
pedestrian/bike trail, and the limits for proposed public land and public easement generally
consistent with the requests from the County of Albemarle.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia hereby adopts a Resolution of Intent to endorse the design of the Meadow Creek
Parkway and pedestrian/bike trail, and the limits for proposed public land and public
easement, as presented in the Design Public Hearing for VDOT Project: 0631-002-128,
C502, B612, B657 with the conditions as stated below:
1. The Meadow Creek Parkway plan sheets will include the existing and
proposed topography.
2. The Meadow Creek Parkway plan sheets and cross-sections will display
the vertical and horizontal rounding of the side-slopes necessary to blend
the road grading into the natural terrain.
3. A three (3) meter planting strip will be provided between the curb and
sidewalk on both sides of the four-lane divided portion of Rio Road to
provide a visual transition into the Parkway.
4. The County of Albemarle will concur with a conventional (signalized)
intersection at Melbourne Road only upon VDOT demonstration, to the
satisfaction of the County Board of Supervisors, that the public would not
be better served by grade separating the Parkway and Melbourne Road
with no access to Melbourne Road, as suggested in the public hearing
comments.
__________
Mr. Rooker said there has been discussion for a long time about building an interchange at McIntire
Road. Traffic studies show that to make this a really good functioning project. VDOT concurs that an
interchange is needed at that location. He has met with Mr. Bryan and with Mr. Butch Davies to discuss this
idea. Mr. Davies concurs that to make traffic flow well the interchange is needed. The best time to
construct an interchange is when the road is constructed. However, there is no money for an interchange,
but there is money for the rest of the road. He does not think the Board wants to delay construction of the
road while waiting for an interchange to be funded. He thinks it would be wise for the County to look at the
potential of going with the City to fund partly the interchange. It is a significant undertaking. The cost is
estimated to be from $18.0 million to $45.0 million. If the City and the County paid for the project, they
might be able to eliminate some design features and keep the cost down somewhat. He thinks it is
important when this new road is opened it be able to move traffic freely up and down the bypass. He is
asking the Board’s support to have staff do some preliminary research on how the County might participate
with the City and VDOT to accelerate an interchange.
Ms. Thomas said there was a piece of legislation that said VDOT could pay back localities that did
projects that were on the Six-Year Plan. It is a new piece of legislation and it might provide an increased
ease in doing things like what Mr. Rooker is suggesting. She said she would second the motion if Mr.
Rooker was making a motion.
Mr. Dorrier said there is not even a State budget yet. He thinks the Board should wait and see what
the State puts forward before it decides to commit the local government’s money to anything.
Mr. Rooker said he is not asking for a commitment, only that staff investigate the potential of joint
funding of such a project. That is not a commitment to spend any money.
Mr. Dorrier asked that the Clerk call the roll. The vote was as follows:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No 6b. Transportation Matters not listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Bryan introduced Mr. Moreza Saheli, VDOT’s new Culpeper District Administrator. He came
from Northern Virginia where he was the assistant District Administrator for eight years. Before that he was
in the private sector. Originally he came from Iran in 1981.
Mr. Dorrier welcomed Mr. Saheli and invited him to attend all of the Board’s meetings.
__________
Mr. Boyd referred to Page 7 of VDOT’s monthly report and asked about the scheduling of the rural
May 5, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
rustic road projects. The report shows Taylors Creek Road as the next road on the list after Gilbert
Station Road. He thought the second rural rustic road was to be Allen Road. Mr. Bryan said he would have
to check into this.
__________
Mr. Boyd asked about the status of Doctor’s Crossing. Mr. Bryan said VDOT could do
approximately the first two miles of the road as a rural rustic road project. The topography prevents the
entire roadway from being done as a rural rustic road project. He said the first part could be done because
the sight lines are good, and the road is straight. There is no cut-through traffic problem.
__________
Mr. Rooker mentioned getting together with Mr. Bryan to plan for potentially widening the shoulders
on Garth Road for bike lanes/paved path. If something like that is to be included in the Six-Year Plan, there
needs to be some preliminary work done soon. Mr. Bryan said VDOT has done an initial spreadsheet on
bike lane priorities that he will share with Mr. Rooker.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she has gotten many complaints about how messy the sides of the roads are with
paper, cans, etc. She asked if VDOT could make an effort to push the Adopt-A-Highway program. She
also suggested adding the program to the County’s web page. Mr. Bryan said he would see what VDOT
could do to market the program a little better.
__________
Ms. Thomas said as an item of interest she would like to mention that the people on Grassmere
Road who wanted their road paved are now requesting that a speed study be done. After a while, she said
one becomes a little cynical as to whether citizens really want a road paved. The juxtaposition was within
six months.
__________
Mr. Wyant mentioned meeting with Mr. Bryan to discuss two drainage easement problems, one in
Crozet.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Pursuant to Virginia Code Sections 15.2-940 and 15.2-1300, the Board will
consider an Ordinance to approve a new Agreement between the City of Charlottesville and the County of
Albemarle to provide for the continued joint funding and operation of a local Convention and Visitors’
Bureau. (Public notice was published in the Daily Progress on April 19 and April 26, 2004.)
Mr. Tucker said that since 1989, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Convention and Visitors’ Bureau
(CACVB) has operated under a joint exercise of powers agreement between the County and the City of
Charlottesville and has been jointly funded on an annual basis in accordance with a formula based on local
sales and lodging taxes. The CACVB has been supervised by a Management Committee consisting of the
County Executive, the City Manager and the President of the Chamber of Commerce. A regional Tourism
Council, consisting of 15 people appointed by the Management Committee, has served in an advisory role
to the CACVB’s Executive Director.
Mr. Tucker said in November 2002, the CACVB began a strategic planning process to evaluate
marketing, performance, governance and structure. The CACVB is implementing its Strategic Plan that
supports changes to the current Visitors’ Agreement. The most substantive changes included in the revised
agreement are that it:
1. Eliminate the Charlottesville Regional Tourism Council but increase the size of the CACVB’s
governing board from three to eleven including representatives from the tourism industry,
2. Fund the CACVB based upon 30 percent of City and County annual transient occupancy tax
revenues, and
3. Specify performance measures by which the CACVB is held accountable for funds provided. Mr.
Boyd has reviewed the agreement as the liaison for the Board of Supervisors, just as Mr. Martin
served in that capacity in the past.
Mr. Tucker said City Council had its first reading of the ordinance on April 19 and is scheduled for
its second reading on May 3, 2004. Staff recommends approval of the 2004 CACVB Agreement and
Ordinance.
Mr. Davis noted that the City had made a change on Page 3 and in Section 4 of the proposed
agreement.
Motion was immediately offered by Ms. Thomas to adopt An Ordinance to Adopt and Approve an
Agreement between the County of Albemarle, Virginia, and the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, for the
Funding and Operation of a Joint Convention and Visitors’ Bureau. The motion was seconded by Mr. Boyd.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
May 5, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
(The ordinance and agreement, as adopted, are set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 04-A(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO ADOPT AND APPROVE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA AND THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA FOR THE
FUNDING AND OPERATION OF A JOINT CONVENTION AND VISITORS’ BUREAU
WHEREAS, the City and County have, since 1979, jointly funded and undertaken the
operation of a joint Convention and Visitors Bureau for the purpose of promoting the Charlottesville-
Albemarle area as a tourist destination and site of convention facilities; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority of § 15.2-940 and § 15.2-1300 of the Virginia Code,
this Board desires to enter into an agreement with the City of Charlottesville to re-establish and re-
authorize the Charlottesville-Albemarle Convention and Visitors Bureau;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED THAT the Agreement between the County of
Albemarle, Virginia and the City of Charlottesville, Virginia entitled “Charlottesville-Albemarle
Agreement for Operation of a Joint Convention and Visitors’ Bureau” dated July 1, 2004, pertaining
to the joint funding and operation of a local Convention and Visitors’ Bureau, attached hereto and
incorporated herein, is hereby approved, and that the County Executive is hereby authorized to
execute the Agreement on behalf of the County of Albemarle.
This ordinance shall be effective immediately.
_____
CHARLOTTESVILLE-ALBEMARLE
AGREEMENT FOR OPERATION OF A
JOINT CONVENTION AND VISITORS’BUREAU
st
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 1 day of July, 2004 (“Commencement
Date”) by and between the City of Charlottesville, Virginia (“City”) and the County of Albemarle,
Virginia (“County”) (together, the “Parties”).
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority vested in them by §§ 15.2-940 and 15.2-1300 of the
Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, the Parties desire to enter into an agreement with one
another for the joint funding and operation of a local Convention and Visitors’ Bureau; and
WHEREAS, the Parties desire, through this joint undertaking, to promote the holding of
conventions, meetings, conferences and trade shows in Charlottesville; to advertise, publicize, and
promote tourism, leisure travel and meeting facilities within the Charlottesville-Albemarle area; and
to otherwise promote the resources and advantages of each locality, and the Parties deem such
activities to be the purposes of the joint Convention and Visitors’ Bureau established by this
Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Parties, in entering into this Agreement, intend to revise the terms and
conditions under which the existing Convention and Visitors’ Bureau has been funded and operated
within their community prior to the date of this Agreement, and to re-authorize that entity in
accordance with the provisions set forth herein;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual obligations herein, the parties
hereby set forth their agreement as follows:
SECTION 1. CACVB Established. There is hereby re-established and re-authorized a
joint entity, to be known as The Charlottesville-Albemarle Convention and Visitors’ Bureau
(“CACVB”), responsible for administering the functions that are the subject of this Agreement.
CACVB shall act by and through the management board established and referred to within Section
8 of this Agreement. CACVB shall perform the following services (hereinafter referred to as the
“Services”) for the benefit of the Parties in a satisfactory and proper manner, as determined by the
Parties:
A. Meeting Booking and Sales. CACVB shall respond to inquiries, provide information
to the public, and as part of its convention marketing efforts, shall aggressively promote the
bookings and sales of sites within the City and County for regional, national, and international
conventions, trade shows, and corporate meetings.
B. Convention Services. CACVB shall provide customary convention services to
those clients who have booked their convention/ meeting through the CACVB. All other
conventions/meetings will be serviced on an availability basis. The particular services to be
provided depend upon the agreement between CACVB and the meeting planner at the time of
booking and other requests, which may be made in the course of servicing the convention/meeting.
Customary convention services may include but are not limited to the following:
May 5, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
?
Assistance in promoting attendance
?
Visitors guides and appropriate literature
?
Shuttle bus coordination
?
Attraction/Itinerary Scheduling
?
Dining/Restaurant Scheduling
?
Bonded Registration
?
Tourism information tables
C. Tourism. CACVB shall promote tourism within the City of Charlottesville and the
County of Albemarle. Strategies may include but are not limited to: visitor information services;
attendance at industry and travel/trade, consumer, planner, hotel and attraction conferences and
meetings; and responses to phone inquiries, advertising, public relations, promotions, and
packaging. CACVB will oversee the operation and maintenance of at least one visitor center within
the City and at least one visitor center in the County.
D. Reports. CACVB shall keep the City and County advised of its activities and
accomplishments, and shall deliver the reports described within Schedule A, attached and
incorporated herein by reference.
E. Conduct of Services. Expenditures made by CACVB pursuant to this Agreement
shall be in conformity with the purposes and requirements for which Transient Occupancy Tax
Revenues may be expended by the Parties under the law of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
SECTION 2. DURATION OF AGREEMENT. This Agreement shall be and remain in effect
until terminated by the Parties, or either of them. Either party may terminate this Agreement by
giving written notice to the other party, and to the CACVB Management Board, at least six months
st
prior to any July 1 of any year in which the Agreement remains in effect. The effective date of any
th
such termination shall be no sooner than June 30 of the year following the six months’ notice.
SECTION 3. FUNDING
A. Funding Cycle. The Parties agree to fund the activities and responsibilities of
CACVB during each Fiscal Year (July 1 through June 30 of each calendar year) in which this
Agreement remains in effect, beginning with the Parties’ Fiscal Year 2005.
B. Funding Levels. Subject to the provisions of subparagraph (E), below within this
section, each of the Parties shall provide funding for CACVB, in each Fiscal Year, in an amount
equal to thirty percent (30%) of its Transient Occupancy Tax revenues collected by it in the most
recent Fiscal Year for which a full year of data is available (“Actuals”). This specified percentage
and obligation is based on, and specifically limited to, a Transient Occupancy Tax of five percent
(5%) in each locality; if either party enacts a Transient Occupancy Tax greater than 5%, that party’s
funding obligation shall be determined as if its tax were 5%.
C. Payment by County. Annual funding provided pursuant to paragraph 3(B), above,
shall be delivered by the County to the City (as Fiscal Agent for CACVB) in equal quarterly
payments, payable on July 1, October 1, January 1 and April 1 each year, due upon receipt of an
invoice from the City.
D. Budget. CACVB shall establish and maintain a budget for its operations and activities
in each Fiscal Year, as follows:
(1) Each year CACVB shall prepare and approve a budget for the upcoming Fiscal
Year, using Actuals provided by the City and the County. The budget shall identify
all amounts received by CACVB from private funding sources.
(2) A copy of CACVB’s approved budget shall be provided to the City and the
County no later than December 31 each year. Along with the approved budget,
CACVB shall provide the City and County with a balance sheet showing its
revenues and expenditures for the prior fiscal year and the fund balance, if any,
from the prior fiscal year.
E. Documentation of Costs. All costs incurred and expenditures made by CACVB
in performance of its obligations under this Agreement shall be supported by payrolls, time records,
invoices, purchase orders, contracts, or vouchers, and other documentation satisfactory to the
Parties, evidencing in proper detail the nature and propriety of such costs. Upon request of either
Party, all such documentation and records pertaining in whole or in part to this Agreement shall be
made available for review and inspection.
F. Appropriations. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, the
Parties’ funding obligations are expressly made contingent upon the availability of public funds and
the annual appropriations thereof by the Parties. The City’s appropriations of funds for the
promotion and advertisement of the City are and shall be further subject to the provisions of
Section 21 of the City’s Charter. In the event that either party does not appropriate funds in the
amount necessary to support its obligations hereunder for a subsequent fiscal year, then this
May 5, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
Agreement shall automatically expire at the end of the then-current fiscal year.
SECTION 4. PERFORMANCE.
A. Return on Investment. CACVB shall meet a Return on Investment ratio of 7 to 1
annually, i.e., $7.00 of total direct visitor expenditures for every dollar ($1.00) of funding provided to
CACVB by the Parties (“ROI Requirement”). The formula for calculating “
total direct visitor
” is set forth within Schedule B, attached and incorporated herein by reference.
expenditures
Schedule B may be amended from time to time upon the agreement of CACVB, the City Manager
and the County Executive. In the event CACVB fails to meet the ROI requirement in any year,
CACVB will be placed on Contract Review Status for the following year. If CACVB then fails to
meet the ROI requirement for the subsequent year, the Parties may cancel this Agreement. The
City Manager, or his designee, and the County Executive, or his designee, shall, together, meet with
CACVB at least once each Fiscal Quarter to review CACVB’s performance and accomplishments.
B. Performance Measures. CACVB shall track and report to the Parties on a
quarterly basis its progress toward achieving the performance measures described within
Schedule B. Specific performance measures that will be effective as of the Commencement Date
are also set forth within Schedule B.
C. Performance Indicators. CACVB will track certain performance indicators and
report to the Parties on a quarterly basis the results of such tracking. The performance indicators
that will be utilized as of the Commencement Date are set forth within Schedule B.
SECTION 5. CITY/COUNTY SERVICES.
A. Personnel Administration. The City will provide CACVB with employees
necessary to perform the services required under this Agreement. These employees, including a
staff member to serve as the Executive Director of CACVB, shall be recruited, hired, managed and
paid under and in accordance with the City’s personnel/payroll system and policies. The Executive
Director shall serve at the pleasure of CACVB’s management board.
B. Fiscal Agent. The City will serve as Fiscal Agent for CACVB and shall be entitled
to a fee of two percent (2%) of the Actuals referenced in Section 3(B) in return for this Service,
which fee may be deducted from the City’s required funding contribution each year. The City will
provide insurance coverage as well as legal representation and counsel to CACVB. CACVB will
conduct public procurement under and in accordance with the City’s procurement laws and
procedures.
SECTION 6. LIABILITY. Liability for damages to third parties arising out of or in
connection with the operations and activities of CACVB shall be shared jointly by the parties, to the
extent not covered by funding within CACVB’s budget or insurance proceeds, and only to the extent
that the City and County may be held liable for such damages under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
SECTION 7. TERMINATION FOR CAUSE. In addition to any other rights of termination
reserved to the Parties herein, in the event that CACVB fails to fulfill in a timely and proper manner
its obligations under this Agreement, or in the event that CACVB violates any of the covenants,
agreements, or stipulations of this Agreement, the Parties shall thereupon have the right to
terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to the CACVB of such termination and specifying
the effective date thereof at least sixty (60) days before the effective date of such termination. In
such event, all finished or unfinished documents, data, maps, studies, surveys, drawings, models,
photographs and reports prepared by the CACVB under this Agreement shall be delivered by
CACVB to the Fiscal Agent for the Parties, and CACVB shall immediately take steps to wind up
outstanding business with third parties.
SECTION 8. CACVB ORGANIZATION.
A. Management Board. The powers and authority of CACVB shall be vested in a
joint management board, consisting of eleven members, as follows:
Seat 1
: Charlottesville City Manager, or his designee
Seat 2
: Albemarle County Executive, or his designee
Seat 3
: President of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Chamber of Commerce, or his
designee
Seat 4
: Executive Vice President of the University of Virginia, or his designee
Seat 5
: President/CEO of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, or his designee
Seat 6
: Representative of Local General Business Community, appointed by City Council
Seat 7
: Representative of Local General Business Community, appointed by County
Board
Seat 8
: Representative of Local Accommodations/Hotel Business (Manager), appointed
by City Council
Seat 9
: Representative of Local Accommodations/Hotel Business (Manager), appointed
by County Board
Seat 10
: Representative of Local Tourism Industry (Tourist Site Owner or Manager),
appointed by City Council
May 5, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
Seat 11
: Representative of Local Tourism Industry (Tourist Site Owner or Manager),
appointed by County Board
B. Terms of Appointments. The City and County shall each select the initial
appointees for seats 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 (“Appointed Seats”); thereafter, when any of those seats
becomes vacant, the Management Board shall submit a list of three eligible nominees to the
appointing jurisdiction and such jurisdiction may, but shall not be required to, appoint a person from
the nomination list to fill the vacant seat. The persons initially appointed to seats 6, 7, 10 and 11
st
shall serve terms of one year each, commencing on July 1, 2004. Persons initially appointed to
st
seats 8 and 9 shall serve terms of two years each, commencing on July 1, 2004. Thereafter, all
appointments to the Appointed Seats shall be for terms of two years each. Any person appointed
to the Appointed Seats must be and remain, throughout his term of appointment, an owner,
operator, officer or manager of a business or organization within the category represented.
(1) No person may be appointed to more than four (4) consecutive two-year terms
in an Appointed Seat, exclusive of time served in the unexpired term of another.
(2) An appointment to fill a vacant Appointed Seat resulting from the resignation,
removal or other unavailability of a member shall be for the unexpired portion of
the vacant term only.
C. Officers. CACVB shall prescribe procedures for the election of officers, to be set
forth within bylaws duly enacted by the management board.
D. Powers. The City and County hereby authorize CACVB to exercise the following
powers and duties:
(1) To establish and maintain an official seal, which may be altered at will, and to
use it, or a facsimile of it, by impressing or affixing it, or in any other manner
reproducing it;
(2) To make and amend bylaws, not inconsistent with the provisions of this
Agreement or the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, for managing the
business and regulating the affairs and meetings of the management board;
(3) To conduct its business, locate offices and exercise the powers and obligations
that are the subject of this Agreement within the City of Charlottesville and the
County of Albemarle;
(4) To elect and appoint officers and agents of CACVB;
(5) To make payments or donations, or do any other act not inconsistent with this
Agreement or any applicable law, that furthers the business and affairs of CACVB.
E. Meetings; quorum. The management board shall hold meetings no less than bi-
monthly. Meetings shall be conducted in accordance with FOIA. Six members of the management
board shall constitute a quorum. No action shall be taken by the board except by majority vote at a
lawfully constituted meeting.
SECTION 9. MISCELLANEOUS.
A. No Discrimination. In performing the functions and services assigned to it under this
Agreement CACVB shall not discriminate against any person on the basis of race, color, religion,
sex, national origin or ancestry, age, physical handicap, or disability as defined in the Americans
With Disabilities Act of 1990, as now enacted or hereafter amended.
B. FOIA Applicable. CACVB is a “as that term is defined within §2.2-
public body”
3701 of Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act (§§2.2-3700 et seq.) (“FOIA”), as are any committees
or subcommittees appointed by CACVB to perform delegated functions of CACVB or to advise
CACVB. At all times CACVB shall conduct its activities and operations in accordance with FOIA.
C. Ownership of Documents, Materials. No material produced in whole or in part
under this Agreement shall be subject to copyright by CACVB, or any other person or entity other
than the City or County, whether in the United States or in any other country. The Parties shall
have unrestricted authority to publish, disclose, distribute and otherwise use, in whole or in part, any
reports, data or other materials prepared by or for CACVB under this Agreement.
D. Disposition of Property Upon Termination. Upon the expiration or earlier
termination of this Agreement all personal property of CACVB shall be and remain the joint
property of the City and County for disposition, and the proceeds of disposition shall be pro-rated
between the City and County in accordance with the ratio of the amount(s) provided by each of
them to CACVB: (i) as capital contributions since 1979, and (ii) as contributions of operating funds
during the 10 years preceding the date of expiration or termination, as compared with the sum of
the Parties’ contributions.
E. Compliance with Applicable Laws. In performing the Services required
May 5, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
hereunder, CACVB shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, and codes of the Federal,
State and local governments.
F. Amendments. The Parties may, from time to time, request changes in the
Services or functions to be performed by CACVB hereunder. Such changes, including any increase
or decrease in the amount of CACVB’s funding, shall be incorporated in written amendments
approved by the Parties to this Agreement. This Agreement may be altered, amended, changed or
modified as mutually agreed upon by and between the Parties and CACVB, and such alterations,
amendments, changes or modifications shall be incorporated in written amendments to this
Agreement.
G. Assignments. CACVB shall not assign any interest in this Agreement and shall
not transfer any interest in this Agreement (whether by assignment or novation), without the prior
written consent of the Parties.
H. Political Activity. None of the funds, materials, property or services provided
directly or indirectly to CACVB under this Agreement shall be used for any partisan political activity,
or to further the election or defeat of any candidate for public office.
I. Severability. If any part of this Agreement is determined by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, such holding will not affect the validity or enforceability of
any other part of this Agreement.
J. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties
and supersedes any and all other prior or contemporaneous agreements or understandings,
whether verbal or written, with respect to the matters that are the subject of this Agreement.
K. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed and
enforced in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
L. Approval Required. This Agreement shall not become effective or binding upon
the Parties until approved by ordinances of the Charlottesville City Council and of the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and as authorized by duly adopted ordinances of each, the City
and County do hereby execute this Agreement as of the date first above written, by and through
their respective agents or officials.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Department of Social Services Adult Division Program, Presentation of.
Ms. Kathy Ralston, Director of the Social Services Department, said she had come to introduce
Trisha Suszynski who will provide the Board with information concerning the Adult Division Program. She
said the entire staff of this division had come this morning to also hear the presentation by a member of
staff rather than by the Director. She then introduced Ms. Beth McGiver, Chairman of the Social Services
Advisory Board who noted that the Advisory Board is in need of members of this time.
Ms. Ralston said the County Executive’s vision for a high performance organization has caught on
in her department. The work which will be seen in the presentation today is produced not only through
individual efforts, but through a team effort. Line staff was involved in creation of the division and the
continual improvement of the systems with which they work. She is proud of what they have accomplished
in the short time they have been together. She gives credit to them and Mr. Paul McWhinney, who is the
Assistant Director, and oversees the Adult Division staff.
Ms. Suszynski first related a story about one of their clients. She said the Management Team is an
internal work team charged with developing an Adult Division. They met 14 times during the fall and winter
of 2000. Utilizing the knowledge, skills, talents and expertise of line staff, managers and data from a focus
group of the department’s community partners, the group defined how benefits and service staff could be
combined to provide a coherent, comprehensive, coordinated and collaborative approach to the delivery of
services to a diverse population of adults. Since its formation in 2001, the division has been active in the
community life of the agency and the agency’s community partners. She then related several stories
pertaining to their work. She handed to the Board members a copy of a Caregivers Resource Guide.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board appreciates the work of this department. He thanked Ms. Suszynski for
her report.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Appeal: ARB-2004-11. Goodwill Industries Sign. TM 78, P 5F. Loc on N side
of Rt 250 E, E of Rt 20 N & Pegasus auto dealership, at site previously occupied by Authorized Auto
Service. Znd HC & EC. Rivanna Dist.
Ms. Margaret Maliszewski, Planner, said the purpose of Architectural Review Board (ARB) review is
to ensure that new development in the Entrance Corridors is compatible with the historic architecture of the
County and to promote orderly and attractive development. Signs can have a significant impact on the
appearance of a commercial corridor. The ARB reviews for compatibility in sign type, size, color and other
features to help reduce visual clutter and distraction and that provide for coordinated appearances along
the entrance corridor. For this particular proposal for the Goodwill channel letter wall sign, the ARB
May 5, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
determined that the proposed size of the sign was over-scaled for the building on which it was to be
installed. At the proposed size, the sign would appear to be a billboard. Consequently the ARB required a
reduction in the size of the sign to make the sign more compatible with the architecture and scale of the
building. The ARB also required changes in the color of the returns and trim caps on the sign. She said
changing the color would reduce the overall number of colors and would promote the coordination of colors
between the signs and the building. She said the color of the proposed trim caps is gold. Gold trim caps
have been approved by the ARB for other signs, but after seeing their effect, they no longer approve the
gold caps. The gold has a reflective quality that focuses attention on that piece of the sign and does not
promote the overall coordination the ARB attempts to achieve.
Mr. Dorrier said if there were no question from Board members, he would ask the applicant to
speak.
Mr. Kirtis Webb said he is the owner of Bruce Signs, Inc. and is present to represent Goodwill. He
checked with the Zoning Department to see what Goodwill could have before this project began. They
were given square footage limits. Under the current zoning they were allowed 1.5 square foot per lineal
foot. The building has a 60-foot store front which allows them to have 90 square feet. They proposed a
sign of 84 3/8 square feet. That was thought to be too big but is what is allowed by the County’s zoning. He
said they were asked to reduce the logo to 24-inch lettering, but when scaled down the sign is only 28.5
square feet, They are allowed 90 square feet. He said the only thing he is discussing is the building sign
itself as they can abide with everything the ARB wanted on the pole sign. He said the signage that is
allowed does not overpower the building. They abided by the County’s laws. He asked why there are two
laws. They called Zoning to see what could be built, and actually thought there was going to be a color
issue, but there was none, and nothing was said at that time about square footage.
Mr. Rooker asked if the Zoning Department had advised Mr. Webb that the sign would also have to
be approved by the ARB. Mr. Webb said it had to be approved by the ARB as to color and aesthetics, by
nothing was said about a square footage problem. The rules are pretty tight and the sketch shows that the
sign will not overpower the building.
Mr. Boyd asked if he had seen something which said the sign had already been made. Mr. Webb
said they had made the sign. After they got everything into the County, and his customer had already
opened, it took three weeks to be heard. They checked with Zoning to be sure the square footage was
okay. The color changes are only a matter of painting the sign, so is not a big problem.
Mr. Wyant asked the size of the freestanding sign. Mr. Webb said for the freestanding sign they
had proposed a two-foot skirt, but the ARB wanted a four-foot skirt with twelve feet to the top of the sign.
The previous sign was about 15 feet tall. Only 32 square feet were allowed for that sign. The previously
approved sign was a 50 square foot sign. They made the sign 32 inches by 12 feet which is exactly 32
square feet. They went ahead and put on the four foot skirt. He had to repaint everything to a tan color
instead of white. He was allowed to have the blue letters which is Goodwill’s logo color. At one time they
wanted those letters to be green. He said his issue is with the square footage on the building.
Mr. Wyant asked if any size in between was discussed. Mr. Webb said the ARB mentioned a
couple of things, and then said “no”, they wanted the two-foot size letters. The ARB was so drastic that they
filed the appeal and are here today.
Mr. Dorrier said if there were no further questions, the matter is before the Board.
Mr. Rooker said he was interested in what is permitted by the Zoning Ordinance and the information
given by the Zoning staff to applicants about signs. He said the applicant has said he was told he could
have a sign of a certain size and then was told he could not have that size sign. He knows signs in the
entrance corridor have to first be approved by the ARB, and he hopes applicants are given the correct
information.
Ms. Maliszewski said that generally applicants come into either the Zoning Office or the Planning
office, depending on where they are beginning their process, and are told they must go to the ARB. The
allowances for signs in the ordinance are maximum allowances. They are not a given.
Mr. Davis said the Entrance Corridor is an overlay district that imposes higher standards on that
district subject to review by the ARB. Even though the maximum square footage might be higher in the
underlying district, more stringent standards are imposed in the overlay district.
Mr. Rooker asked if the size of the lettering on the building is consistent with what the ARB has
approved for other buildings in that area. Ms. Maliszewski said the previous sign was 24 inches high.
Mr. Boyd asked if any other businesses in the area have larger signs. Ms. Maliszewski said it would
be hard to compare this sign to a sign on a different building because the buildings themselves are different
sizes.
Mr. Boyd said Ms. Maliszewski has indicated that the reason for denying the larger sign is because
it is not in keeping with other signs there. He asked the question because he assumes there are no other
signs along that corridor of this size and scale. He was not asking if it was specific to this building.
Mr. Rooker said he understands the ARB is trying to achieve consistency of scale with respect to
the building’s size. A bigger building could have a bigger sign because in size it would be close to what they
May 5, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
have approved in this case.
Mr. Boyd said he looking for some consistency in the ARB’s decisions based on scale. He asked if
there are other buildings where the size of their signs has been restricted.
Mr. Rooker said Ms. Maliszewski indicated that the previous owner had gone through this process
and ended up with a sign of this same size. That indicates consistency with regard to treatment of that
building. He said other buildings might have had their signs approved before the Entrance Corridor Overlay
and the ARB were created.
Mr. Wyant asked if the previous sign was there prior to the ordinance being adopted. Ms.
Maliszewski said “no.”
Ms. Thomas said this is a well-signed building. It has a freestanding sign, so she views the sign on
the wall as identification.
Mr. Boyd asked if the ordinance specifies a maximum height that may be subject to reduction
based on ARB review. He does not think that is clear in the ordinance.
Mr. Wyant said there is a maximum size on the sign, but what they are questioning is its proportion
with the size of the building. He thinks that is the only issue.
Mr. Rooker said there is an ordinance for the Overlay District and signage is included in that district.
There are two different ordinances in this case. He thinks most people would have gotten full approval
before building the sign.
Mr. Boyd said the applicant stated that he got the impression, either verbally or through reading,
that the only variance had to do with color, not scale.
Mr. Tucker said staff could look at the sign ordinance to see if there is some comment that the
applicant must obtain ARB approval.
Mr. Rooker said in the Sign Ordinance it should say that the limitations might be subject to
adjustment if the sign is in an entrance corridor. If there is a packet of materials sent to people, the two
levels of requirements should be highlighted.
Mr. Bowerman said this is an issue that has not been presented to the Board previously.
Mr. Rooker said this applicant knew the sign had to be approved by the ARB.
Mr. Wyant said the people he has worked for always went to the maximum size sign, and that is
what this applicant did. He sees the question as whether the sign is proportionate to the size of the building.
He said the size could be inconsistent one sign to another.
Mr. Davis said there is a whole section in the ordinance devoted to the ARB and the process one
goes through to obtain approval. He thinks it is pretty clear.
Mr. Bowerman said he thought all the sign makers knew about these regulations.
Mr. Rooker said this Board looks to the ARB to make these decisions. Unless the Board thinks
something is out of line, it would be difficult for this Board to second guess a unanimous decision of the
ARB.
Mr. Boyd said that in light of what Mr. Davis just said he would offer motion to deny this appeal.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
(Note: At 11:04 a.m., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 11:16 a.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Board-to-Board Presentation, School Board Chairman, was heard as Item 5a
today.
________________
Agenda Item No. 11. Public hearing: Proposed FY 2004 Budget Amendment. (Notice of this
public hearing was advertised on April 24, 2004.)
Mr. Melvin Breeden said the Budget Amendment today totals $3,126,763.62. It is comprised of
eleven separate appropriations, five of which were approved by the Board on March 3 and April 7, 2004.
There are six new appropriations presented for approval today.
May 5, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
Mr. Breeden said Appropriation No. 2004-073 in the amount of $2,539,075.00 provides funding in
the current fiscal year for renovations occurring at COB–South. In September 2003, the Board approved
renovations to the total building. The decision to proceed with full construction of the building was based on
it being more cost-effective to fully build out now with current interest rates and rental opportunities for the
unused space, as well as avoiding disruption caused by construction after the building was occupied. This
appropriation request includes the additional $2,379,473.00 plus $159,602.00 to cover expenditures related
to maintenance and operation of this facility since its purchase. These expenditures relate primarily to
utilities, snow removal, and insurance; it was intended that the revenue generated from Wachovia’s
temporary rental of the facility would cover these expenses. During FY ‘03 and FY ‘04, the County received
$388,129 in rent and utility payments from Wachovia that were never appropriated to cover these
expenditures.
Mr. Boyd asked if it was anticipated that the County would only use 80 percent of that building for
the next ten years. Mr. Breeden said he is not sure of the percentage, but a portion of that building will be
available for rental purposes.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Board had ever discussed increased usage of the building. Mr. Tucker
said there were no specific tenants in mind at that time. Mr. Bowerman said he was referring to the change
in plans to renovate the total building. Mr. Breeden said that request was presented to the Board in
September 2003, with these same numbers.
Mr. Boyd asked if this money is coming from the General Fund. Mr. Breeden said the majority of
the money is coming from the funds set aside for Debt Service on the 800 MHz system. When the County
received the $6.0 million grant for that system, that grant freed up a lot of funds.
Ms. Thomas asked who is overseeing the design of the renovations. She is concerned that its
parking lot be bus ready and the facility be handicapped usable. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Mike Stumbaugh is
overseeing the project.
Mr. Breeden said Appropriation No. 2004-074 in the amount of $183,308.87 was approved by the
School Board at its meeting on March 25, 2004. It consists of various donations, $26,000.00 from VPSA
School Technology Series II bonds; a local fund balance of $2,958.87 from FY 2002-03; and, a Section 611
Flow Through Grant from the Virginia Department of Education in the amount of $150,000.00 of which
$75,000.00 will be used in the current year to purchase laptop computers for special education teachers,
with the additional $75,000.00 being placed in the School Board’s Reserve account for future use.
Mr. Breeden said Appropriation No. 2004-075 in the amount of $43,150.00 is a grant from the
Virginia Recreation and Trails Fund in the amount of $34,520.00 for construction of a one-mile trail from
Free Bridge downstream to the Riverbend beach area. The County’s 20 percent match is $8,630.00 that
will be provided through funds already appropriated for the Rivanna Greenway in the Capital Improvement
Program.
Mr. Breeden said Appropriation No. 2004-076 in the amount of $16,100.00 is a grant for the
Emergency Communication Center to assist the Emergency Services Office in purchasing equipment and
training related to domestic preparedness for any kind of disaster. CERT (Citizen Emergency Response
Team) has trained approximately 90 citizens in a variety of areas including disaster preparedness, fire
safety, light search & rescue, and team organization. There is no local match.
Mr. Breeden said Appropriation No. 2004-077 in the amount of $15,968.00 is for a group of items
approved by the School Board at its meeting on April 15, 2004. It consists of donations for the Weight and
Wellness Room at Western Albemarle High School and $5,000.00 from Bank of America Matching Gifts for
Murray Elementary School. This donation will be used toward construction cost of an athletic track for the
school. Donations for Albemarle High School will be used by the Choir Department. Also received was
$6,163.00 from the Carl D. Perkins Vocational Grant over the original budget estimate of $160,000.00.
These additional funds will be used to help purchase equipment for the high school’s vocational labs.
Mr. Breeden said Appropriation No. 2004-078 in the amount of $7,000.00 is a contribution to the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport from the community for an Airport Grant Proposal from US-DOT for
$600,000.00 with a match from the airport ($40,000.00) and the community ($70,000.00). The grant
proposal is to upgrade the existing air service at the Airport to a small jet service and/or a new service to the
Chicago or Detroit Hub. The University of Virginia and City of Charlottesville have already pledged
$5,000.00 and $5,001.00 respectively. Several businesses have also pledged various amounts. This
appropriation, in the amount of $7,000.00, will be made from the General Fund Balance.
Ms. Thomas said she has concerns about Appropriation No. 2004-078. She is also curious as to
why the County is putting in $7,000.00 instead of $5,000.00 as the other entities have done. She regards
this as an expenditure of local taxpayer dollars to increase growth in the area, and that is something this
Board has always avoided doing. She likes the Airport and thinks the Airport Authority does a great job, but
it would be breaking a precedent to have local money put into a program to entice a different service here.
She does not think it is necessary. The Airport is doing a good job and is growing, unlike airports all over
the country. She thinks it is appropriate for the business community to participate if they want to increase
their customer base, but she does not think it is appropriate to use local taxpayers’ dollars for that purpose.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to address the question about the $7,000.00. After attending several
Airport Authority meetings, he suggested that the amount be increased to $7,000.00. He does not think this
additional service will promote growth. He perceives this as using tax dollars to promote the economy and
bring in jobs, and by doing so it would increase tax revenues. He views this as something the Board should
May 5, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
be doing in the community, as it is done nationwide and statewide. He views this as promoting the economy
while using no additional tax revenues.
Mr. Bowerman said he sees this as a direct benefit to some businesses.
Ms. Thomas said a quote from Bob Boyce says this makes the candy more attractive to any
businesses considering relocating here.
Mr. Rooker said he supports the $7,000.00. He thinks providing good transportation is a service to
the County’s existing citizens. He does not see it as a big growth item. He said there was jet air service
from Charlottesville to New York City at one time.
Ms. Thomas said she does not think the Board needs to put private taxpayer’s dollars into it to
make that happen.
Mr. Rooker said airports are basically governmental operations and they are part of the
transportation network that is generally funded by government. If the Authority Board has made a judgment
that an expenditure of funds is necessary to get jet service back to this area, he trusts their judgment. He
thinks it is an inconvenience to the citizens to have to jump on small prop planes, which are not as safe, for
virtually every trip out of this airport.
Mr. Wyant said he hopes they get the additional hubs. A lot of business people go out and back in
the same day. He thinks that would help a lot.
Mr. Boyd mentioned the $16,100.00 appropriation for emergency operations. He asked where it
shows in the budget. Mr. Breeden said the Board does not see much information on ECC’s operation. It
has a separate fund and this is a joint operation between the City, the County and the University.
Mr. Boyd said he was interested in where the flow-through funds are shown in the budget. Mr.
Breeden said the funds show in the audit report for that joint operation. As fiscal agent, the County is
responsible for making the appropriation, but the Board would not see any reference to it in any report other
than the County’s contribution.
Mr. Boyd said a lot of money comes to the County, but they never show as money being spent for
services to the community.
Mr. Rooker said the question is, when the Board gets a financial statement, do the grants show
somewhere as revenue and do the expenditures show up as expenses? Mr. Breeden said in the quarterly
reports presented to the Board, they are not shown. In the annual report, the majority of the grants will
show as revenues and expenditures. This particular grant would not even show there since it is to a joint
account.
Mr. Davis said the grant from the Virginia Recreation and Trails Fund would show. The ones for
County department expenditures would show.
Mr. Boyd said he had spent the last four years studying what goes on in the School System where
millions of dollars flow-through and do not show as being spent on education. He thinks the grants should
show. The public should know about these expenditures. Mr. Breeden said all of the expenditures paid
with flow-through funds show in the annual report.
Mr. Boyd said that is not a document that is seen by the people.
Mr. Breeden said on the School side a lot of those grants are program related. They are in some
of the Schools’ special revenue type of funds, but they are part of the School budget.
Mr. Boyd said an extra $2.0 - $3.0 million was spent on special education services that never
showed as being spent for that purpose because they were in some self-sustaining funds. Mr. Breeden
said all of those funds are combined in the annual report and do show there.
With no further questions for staff, the public hearing was opened. With no one rising to speak, the
public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Rooker to approve the FY 2004 Budget Amendment in the amount
of $3,126,763.62 and to adopt the following Resolutions of Appropriation. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: Ms. Thomas.
(Note: The Resolutions of Appropriation are set out in full below.)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2004-073
DATE: 05/05/04
EXPLANATION: FUNDING FOR RENOVATIONS AT COB-SOUTH
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
May 5, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
1 9010 11200 800901 BUILDING RENOVATIONS J 1 2,539,075.00
2 9010 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE J 2 997,139.00
2 9010 51000 512003 TRS FR DEBT SERVICE J 2 1,541,936.00
1 9910 93010 930010 TRANSFER TO CIP J 1 1,541,936.00
2 9910 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE J 2 1,541,936.00
9010 0501 EST REVENUE J 2,539,075.00
9010 0701 APPROPRIATION J 2,539,075.00
9910 0501 EST REVENUE J 1,541,936.00
9910 0701 APPROPRIATION J 1,541,936.00
TOTAL 8,162,022.00 4,081,011.004,081.011.00
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2004-074
DATE: 05/05/04
EXPLANATION: EDUCATION PROGRAMS/DONATIONS/CAPITAL PROJECT
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 2111 61311 580500 STAFF DEVELOPMENT J 1 3,150.00
1 9000 60302 800656 WEIGHT/WELLNESS EQUIP J 1 1,200.00
1 3122 63349 800700 ADP EQUIPMENT J 1 28,958.87
1 2112 61102 800700 ADP EQUIPMENT J 1 75,000.00
1 2410 60100 999981 SCHOOL BOARD RESERVE J 1 75,000.00
2 2000 18100 181109 DONATION J 2 3,150.00
2 9000 18100 181123 WEIGHT/WELLNESS EQUIP J 2 1,200.00
2 3122 24000 240500 GRANT REVENUE-VPSA J 2 26,000.00
2 3122 51000 510100 APPROPRIATION - FB J 2 2,958.87
2 2000 33000 330110 SP ED FLOW THROUGH J 2 150,000.00
2000 0501 EST REVENUE J 153,150.00
0701 APPROPRIATION J 153,150.00
3122 0501 EST REVENUE J 28,958.87
0701 APPROPRIATION J 28,958.87
9000 0501 EST REVENUE J 1,200.00
0701 APPROPRIATION J 1,200.00
TOTAL 366,617.74
183,308.87
183,308.87
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2004-075
DATE: 05/05/04
EXPLANATION: GREENWAY PROGRAM GRANT FROM VIRGINIA RECREATION AND TRAILS FUND
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1715 71018 800605 RECR TRAIL-GREENWAY J 1 43,150.00
2 1715 24000 240765 VA TRAIL-RIVANNA GWY J 2 34,520.00
2 1715 51000 512031 TRANSFER FROM GF/CIP J 2 8,630.00
1 9010 72030 950026 RIVANNA GREENWAY J 1 (8,630.00)
1 9010 93010 930200 TRANSF TO GRANT PROJ J 1 8,630.00
1715 0501 EST REVENUE J 43,150.00
0701 APPROPRIATION J 43,150.00
TOTAL 86,300.00 43,150.00 43,150.00
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2004-076
DATE: 05/05/04
EXPLANATION: CERT GRANT (EMERGENCY SERVICES)
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 4100 31045 800700 ADP EQUIPMENT J 1 16,100.00
2 4100 33000 330213 FEDERAL GRANT REV J 2 16,100.00
4100 0501 EST REVENUE J 16,100.00
0701 APPROPRIATION J 16,100.00
TOTAL 32,200.00 16,100.00 16,100.00
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2004-077
DATE: 05/05/04
EXPLANATION: EDUCATION PROGRAMS, DONATIONS, AND GRANTS
May 5, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 2215 61411 580000 MISC. EXPENSE J 1 5,000.00
1 9000 60302 800656 WEIGHT/WELLNESS EQUIP J 1 755.00
1 2301 61101 601300 INST/REC SUPPLIES J 1 4,050.00
1 3207 61190 800100 EQUIPMENT J 1 6,163.00
2 2000 18100 181109 DONATION J 2 9,050.00
2 9000 18100 181123 WEIGHT/WELLNESS EQUIP J 2 755.00
2 3207 33000 330107 CARL PERKINS J 2 6,163.00
2000 0501 EST REVENUE J 9,050.00
0701 APPROPRIATION J 9,050.00
3207 0501 EST REVENUE J 6,163.00
0701 APPROPRIATION J 6,163.00
9000 0501 EST REVENUE J 755.00
0701 APPROPRIATION J 755.00
TOTAL 31,936.00 15,968.00 15,968.00
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2004-078
DATE: 05/05/04
EXPLANATION: CONTRIBUTION TO CHARLOTTESVILLE-ALBEMARLE AIRPORT
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 89000 568100 CA AIRPORT-USDOT GRNT J 1 7,000.00
2 1000 51000 510100 APPROPRIATION - FB J 2 7,000.00
1000 0501 EST REVENUE J 7,000.00
0701 APPROPRIATION J 7,000.00
TOTAL 14,000.00 7,000.00 7,000.00
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Third Quarter Financial Report.
Mr. Melvin Breeden, Office of Management and Budget, said the Board had been sent the written
report showing the first nine months of operations and the revised estimates of revenues as of April 19. At
that date, the General Fund revenues were projected to be $3.8 million more than budgeted. There will be
additional revenue from the real estate tax; projected to be $1.783 million more than estimated, and
$105,000 more than the figure shown in the December Financial report. Personal Property Tax revenues
will be $377,000 more than budgeted, with a $34,000 increase in that estimate. Sales Tax revenues are
estimated at approximately $500,000 more than was budgeted, which is a $50,000 increase. Utility Tax
revenues should exceed the budget by $237,000, which is $36,000 more than what was shown in the
December report. Other Local Taxes are estimated to exceed budget by $334,000 or a $38,000 increase.
The majority of that is related to local taxes, real estate and personal property.
Mr. Breeden said total expenditures through the first nine months are on target with the budget at
75.3 percent. No revisions to expenditure estimates were made for this report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if this is additional money the Board can spend. Mr. Tucker said some of the
Fund Balance shown in this report is from unobligated non-recurring funds.
Mr. Breeden said at the end of the report under the Fiscal Impact section, staff is projecting a $3.7
million unobligated Fund Balance at June 30, 2004. However, $2.2 million of that was actually allocated
during the FY ‘05 budget process. That will leave an additional $1.6 million. It is the Board’s policy that this
money be transferred to the CIP for either capital projects or Debt Service.
Mr. Breeden said there is an item of interest which some may have read about in the newspapers.
There has been some change by the National Automobile Dealer’s Association (NADA) in their
methodology as far as how they arrive at the average loan value, as well as the trend for used car values.
Used car values have gone down much more anticipated. The same thing happened a few years ago. He
thinks Albemarle was one of the first localities to realize that was happening and those decreased values
were taken into consideration when making these projections.
Mr. Breeden said the tax bills were processed this past weekend. They will be mailed out the first
part of next week. Staff has not analyzed the totals, but he thinks the projections seen today will create
about $400,000 more in the current fiscal year.
Mr. Rooker asked if staff has looked at the changes made by the General Assembly in the car tax
program to see how they will impact Albemarle. Mr. Breeden said staff has attempted to look at the
change. He said it is not clear at this time as to what the state is going to approve. He understands that
whatever amount the locality gets from the State in 2005 it will continue to get in future years. But, if the
County’s projection of its tax base using the $4.28 rate would generate more than the amount received, the
County would have to come up with a separate tax rate to make up the difference in revenue.
Mr. Rooker said the County would then have to change its tax structure. Mr. Breeden said that is
correct. He said of bigger concern is the impact of this on cash flow. Now, on what the County collects
May 5, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
today, it is reimbursed the 70 percent state share tomorrow. Under the change, the state is going to
reimburse on a fiscal year basis. For localities that have a June 5 tax collection date, there may be an
impact on the timing for receipt of that money the first time.
Ms. Thomas said VACo and VML are supposedly working something out on that. This change
creates a windfall for the state.
Mr. Boyd asked Mr. Breeden to explain what the first sentence in Item No. 4 on page 3 means as
concerns the 60/40 split of revenues. The sentence reads: “In September 2001 the Board approved a
carry-over policy that would allocate 100 percent of unbudgeted revenue (minus the amount of Fund
Balance used in the upcoming budget year) and 60 percent of departmental expenditure savings (savings
after all encumbered amounts are reappropriated) to the Fund Balance to meet required cash flow needs
with any remaining funds to be allocated to the CIP Reserve for future capital needs or debt service.” Mr.
Breeden explained the policy.
Mr. Dorrier thanked Mr. Breeden for this report.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Stormwater Master Planning Financing Options, Work Session.
Because the meeting was running well behind schedule, Mr. Tucker asked that Mr. David
Hirschman make an introduction of the subject before the Board recesses to attend County Government
Day. This agenda item will be discussed in detail later in the meeting.
Mr. David Hirschman, Watershed Manager, said this work session is a follow-up to the Board’s
work session on April 7, 2004. This will focus on stormwater funding options. The County’s consultant,
CH2M Hill, has produced a report on this topic that outlines several funding scenarios available to the
County. The degree to which various funding alternatives are utilized will depend on the “level of service”
the County decides to provide to address stormwater management needs.
Mr. Hirschman said members of the consulting firm, Ms. Sherry Stolas, Mr. Mike Matitich and Mr.
Keith Bischnan, are here today. Last month he talked to the Board about the program elements, and the
consultants will talk about the costs of stormwater management and a funding plan in terms of options and
revenues. What is the County dealing with in terms of stormwater management? There are the existing
programs, programs that are mandated by State and Federal law and expected programs. Existing
programs include ordinance provisions, plan review, inspection and maintenance functions. Mandated
programs through the County’s storm sewer permit include stormwater education, detecting discharges and
keeping County facilities in good operating order for pollution prevention. Expected programs are largely
tied to the urbanization process in terms of maintenance obligations.
Mr. Hirschman said that in April 2000, the Board made a decision that easements should be
dedicated to public use. That maintenance obligation is always increasing, and there are also regional
controls and addressing citizen complaints, etc. He then turned the presentation over to Ms. Sherry Stolas.
Ms. Stolas gave a slide presentation. She began by showing the costs of the stormwater program.
She said the costs of the program, the appropriate funding strategies and the rates for the program will all
depend on decisions made by the Board, as will the areas to be covered and the level of service provided.
Several policy choices will need to be made, such as how to treat agricultural properties, or churches.
These decisions will determine rates and funding strategies.
Ms. Stolas said in developing funding strategies they talked to County staff first to determine a level
of service. How often will the County inspect its BMPs, how often will they be maintained, and how will the
data be managed? When the County gets the stormwater action lists, how quickly would it want to
implement those lists? Does the County want to expand the program it is mandated to do by the State?
During discussion with staff, they picked several areas that are outlined in red on a slide she showed. The
level of service chosen will determine on which funding strategy makes the most sense. She then showed
several slides outlining revenue requirements (see copy of slides on file in the Clerk’s office).
Mr. Rooker asked if there is any level of service required for the rural area. Ms. Stolas said there
are some programs that the County is already doing. The VPDES programs are only mandated in the
development areas.
Ms. Thomas said the County already has programs in the Rivanna watershed that would need to
be included in the BMPs. Mr. Hirschman said the current Water Protection Ordinance applies to the whole
County. A lot of the existing programs are countywide. A disproportionate amount of time is spent in the
development areas, but staff spends time inspecting and reviewing rural plats and plans as well.
Ms. Stolas said the cost was developed this way because they evaluated the option of having just a
utility to fund only the development areas versus a utility funded and charged to the entire County. The
County would not want to charge development area citizens for services provided in the rural area. Those
funds would have to come out of the General Fund.
Mr. Dorrier suggested that the Board take a break at this time and recess for County Government
Day.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Closed Session: Personnel and Legal Matters. At 11:55 a.m., motion was
May 5, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
offered by Mr. Boyd that the Board adjourn into closed session pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A) of the Code
of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards, committees and commissions; and,
under Subsection (3) to consider the acquisition of property for a public facility use.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Certify Closed Session. The Board reconvened into open session at 1:30
p.m.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Boyd that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the
best of each Board member’s knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open
meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the
closed session were heard, discussed or considered in the closed session.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
_______________
At this time, the Board continued with Agenda Item No. 13. Stormwater Master Planning, Financing
Options, Work Session.
Mr. Matitich said a countywide program starts at about $1.5 million with the cost escalating to $2.0
million over a five-year period. The development area program is several hundred thousand dollars less.
He will talk about some funding options, budget impacts and the next steps for consideration. Stormwater
programs can be funded through a variety of funding sources. They range from the General Fund that has
been funding the bulk of the existing program. There is a Stormwater Utility that they will discuss in more
detail later. There can be pro-rata share contributions from developers. Permit and plan review fees are
part of the existing program. There are some limited loan and grant funds available. Watershed
Improvement Districts are enabled by Virginia Code. There are special taxing districts. Then there is long-
term financing such as General Obligation or Revenue bonds.
Mr. Matitich said there is much interest in a stormwater utility, and he will show a slide later showing
all the existing utilities in the Mid-Atlantic area. This option is not used by every jurisdiction, but there is a lot
of interest in this approach because it provides a dedicated funding source for municipal stormwater
management programs and it does not compete with other general fund revenue sources. He said under
Virginia enabling legislation, localities can create utilities to fund a fairly broad array of activities, including
land acquisition for construction of stormwater facilities; administration of stormwater programs;
engineering, construction and debt retirement costs of stormwater facilities; facility operation and
maintenance; and, monitoring of stormwater control devices.
Mr. Dorrier asked if Mr. Matitich is speaking about creating an authority like a service authority. Mr.
Matitich said a stormwater utility is set up under §15.2 of the Virginia Code. It essentially can be done as a
county department using this enabling legislation to fund stormwater related programs.
Mr. Dorrier said it is then part of county government. Mr. Davis said that is correct. There would not
be a separate board like the service authority. It is simply a funding mechanism.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there could be a one-cent levy on the tax rate for that purpose. Mr. Davis
said they would explain that later.
Mr. Rooker asked about the funding mechanism. Mr. Matitich said the ones that exist in Maryland
and Virginia are essentially extensions of city or county government and are not set up as a separate
authority. He then explained through the use of slides and charts how to determine costs for a utility.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is any distinction between residences of different sizes. Mr. Matitich said
the treatment of residential properties is one of the policy choices available. In Virginia, different methods
have been used in different localities.
Mr. Matitich said in terms of developing a stormwater financing strategy they found a combination of
funding sources were used to meet overall stormwater needs. For example, the feasibility study they are
doing now may be funded from the general fund. Ultimately, there is a pro-rata share used in combination
with a countywide or development area utility. It is useful to look for a grant split. Bonds may be used for
capital projects if it is found that large BMPs or other facilities must be built. He said a stormwater utility or
the general fund may be used to fund the bulk of the program, but many jurisdictions continue to use pro-
rata share and permit fees to fund some activities.
Mr. Matitich said in light of increasing mandates and requirements, one long-term source should be
considered if there are substantial capital projects to be undertaken. There should be a plan for one on-
going equity method. There are some things for which bond funds are not suitable, and things for which
May 5, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
there can be no borrowing. Consistent with the general move toward utilities, a utility fee structure should
be considered as a funding component. One reason for using impervious area as a factor is that it is a
better surrogate for the contribution of the property to stormwater issues.
Mr. Rooker asked if the revenues for a stormwater utility must be segregated and used purely for
stormwater purposes. Mr. Davis said “yes.” Mr. Rooker asked if such things as buffers to protect
groundwater be included. Mr. Davis said he would have to check the statute to see if groundwater is
included.
Mr. Matitich said he is not aware of any utilities in Virginia that have funded those things under the
enabling legislation. Mr. Davis said it does not seem to be in the language of the Code for this utility option.
Mr. Matitich said a systematic process to develop a financing strategy leads to successful funding
options. There are some policy issues that must be considered. Goals and objectives would have to be
identified and prioritized as a first step. He said that next they would like to examine some rate and budget
impacts from the preliminary work in the report. He drew the Board members attention to several charts
which he showed on slides (see charts on file in the Clerk’s Office), and refer to the
Final Technical
Memorandum, Stormwater Master Plan Funding Analysis, prepared for Albemarle County, Virginia, April
by Hill.”
2004”CH2M
Mr. Matitich said rates would depend on policy choices, such as: treatment of agricultural property,
treatment of religious/institutional properties, treatment of government properties, and treatment of
residential properties (e.g., separate rate for attached and detached dwellings).
Mr. Matitich said the next steps toward implementation are: preliminary strategy selection
(geographic area covered, level of service); identifying appropriate support technical studies and outreach
program (GIS studies, billing system studies, public involvement, outreach program, focus group), and,
developing detailed implementation program and schedule (program to address policy choices,
development of ordinances, schedule for hearings and other outreach efforts).
Mr. Boyd asked what the next step should be. Mr. Tucker said another work session is scheduled
in June. Any input provided by the Board today would be helpful to staff in developing alternatives.
Mr. Boyd said when the Board gets to the point of discussing what a stormwater utility would cost,
that is when he would like to have public input. The Board is talking about creating a new fee, and the
public needs to know about it. Counties of Albemarle’s size were not on the list of counties doing this. Mr.
Tucker said that eventually they would have to do this. He understands Albemarle County does not have a
lot of alternatives.
Mr. Rooker said the Board has to decide what level of service will be provided. To him it makes
sense to use the ERU system, and that makes sense because people pay according to their contribution to
the problem. He thinks it makes sense to look at doing it on a countywide basis rather than just on a
development area basis. It is a countywide issue. He thinks the Board should avoid piling costs on the
development area making it more expensive to develop those areas. He is in favor of looking at a general
utility for the County. The public will have to pay for this either in the tax rate or as a utility.
Mr. Boyd said it takes a different level of service to meet the mandates.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks this Board needs to decide whether to go forward and do a utility either
on a development area basis or countywide. After the Board makes that decision, to look at the rates and
then hold a public hearing and adopt an ordinance. Mr. Davis said the rate would depend on the level of
service to be provided. He mentioned the problem brought to the Board earlier in the day concerning the
Key West Dam and said if the County took on many projects of that magnitude, the rate would have to be a
lot higher. Because it is a set rate not based on property values, it would not generate a significant amount
of money.
Ms. Thomas said the chart on Page 7 of the report shows the service level options for maintenance
of drainage systems, and maintenance of BMP facilities. This looks like a fairly modest proposal.
Whenever the community is asked what things they feel are important, water, erosion control and
stormwater are high on the list.
Mr. Boyd said educating the public about stormwater management was mentioned earlier. He
does not want this to just show up in an advertisement for a public hearing without a lot of education of the
public taking place first.
Mr. Dorrier agreed with Mr. Rooker that the program should be countywide. He thinks the Board
needs to debate what the County can afford. It looks like the County is moving toward a public works
department.
Mr. Rooker said he understands that having the utility will not add a substantial administrative
burden. Staff people may have to be added if services over and above what are provided now are added.
If a utility were set up today, considering the services already being provided, he does not think there would
be any significant administrative burden other than to create a line item on the tax bill and go through the
ERU computation for commercial properties. Mr. Rooker said once the properties are identified there is not
a lot of ongoing expense on the revenue generating side. On the service provision side, regardless of how
services are funded, there will be whatever employee base is needed to provide those services.
May 5, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
Ms. Thomas said whether it is called a fee or a tax, it is something new that is being proposed. She
wrote down some standards the Board may want to agree to: to make sure whatever system is used is not
only fair but also appears to be fair; the fee or the tax should be easily calculated and understood; the fee
has to be equitable and explainable. Equitable means it has to be blind to individual situations. She does
not think that because someone has educational programs in a building that person should not pay.
Stormwater pays no attention to whether that is a good institution or not. She suggested being careful with
waivers; it should be countywide; it has to fit the County’s growth management policy; it has to be a good
return on investment in terms of the amount of money and the amount of administrative work being put into
the system; it has to be effective and get the whole job done. She still questions whether there should still
be reliance on the general fund or whether this raises enough money to be effective. It has to be efficient
and appropriately timed.
Mr. Tucker said this same unit (ERU) is being looked at as a possibility for a utility fee to fund solid
waste expenses. The same issues will eventually come to the Board to consider as a way to fund solid
waste, particularly remediation at the Ivy Landfill.
Mr. Wyant said he is not in favor of this being a countywide fee. He said most impervious areas are
in the development areas and not in the rural areas. A 2000 square foot house on 21 acres in the country
creates very little runoff. If the facility were five miles away, even less would be contributed. In being fair to
the people in the rural areas, this would not be a form of taxation he would favor. He would concentrate this
idea in the development areas. When doing stormwater calculations, it is the distance of travel in terms of
the quantity put in the overall sum. The closer the property, the more it contributes. The development
areas have more impervious areas.
Mr. Rooker said that is true, but they will pay more. If there is an apartment complex, it will
probably pay more for the impervious area it covers if it is done on a per unit basis than a comparable
number of houses in the rural area.
Mr. Wyant asked how one would deal with a house on 21 acres.
Mr. Rooker said it is one house. If it is $18.00 per year per unit, it would be the same fee for any
house, on any acreage, located anywhere in the County. He thinks the imperious area for one unit in the
rural area is greater than the impervious area from a house on a quarter of an acre with no driveway.
Mr. Wyant said that house would not be contributing to the problem like the house in the
development area.
Mr. Rooker said the runoff goes somewhere. He said there is no comparable commercial in the
rural area so there will be little translation of ERUs into commercial. He does not see the difference
between a house in the rural area and a house in the development area.
Mr. Tucker said he thinks Mr. Wyant is talking about concentration contributing to the problem.
Mr. Dorrier said it could still be countywide, but the fees charged could be differentiated.
Mr. Tucker said the consultants are saying the ERU would be the same whether the house is in the
development area or the rural area.
Mr. Mark Graham, County Engineer, said a large number of drainage complaints come from the
rural area. There are a lot of public roads that drop drainage on properties. The Key West issue discussed
earlier today is in the rural area. Also, the mandates are limited to the development areas. Is the County
trying to deal with the impacts of urbanization? Is the County primarily concerned with protection and
preservation of natural resources? There is extensive stream degradation in the rural area. Is that an issue
the Board believes the County should be involved with?
Mr. Wyant asked the consequences of that degradation. Mr. Graham said it impacts the overall
quality of water resources. There have been estimates that more than half of the sediment filling in the
reservoir is from stream bank erosion versus runoff from the land. Stream bank protection is a fairly
significant issue for the County.
Mr. Wyant said stream bank erosion is a natural process that will occur. Mr. Graham said it is a
natural process, but it is accelerated by even the limited amount of development in the rural area because
the change from wooded to pasture creates more of a water quantity impact than changing from pasture
into large lot subdivisions.
Mr. Wyant said he thinks the person on 21 acres farther out in the County will feel this to be unfair
to him.
Ms. Thomas said that person is using a lot of roads to get to his house, and to her that is a major
contribution. She said everyone in the rural area is impacting stormwater runoff in a major way because
they are the ones requiring the roads.
Mr. Boyd asked if current subdivision ordinance requirements for curb and gutter, etc. just
exacerbate the runoff problem.
Mr. Graham said curb and gutter is additional infrastructure, but in urban situations it reduces the
May 5, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
stormwater impacts. When rural section roads are used in developments, there is a lot of erosion along the
sides. All that material washes off into streams and rivers.
Mr. Wyant said for every curb mile of roads, there are four pounds of metals and solids involved, so
there is a tradeoff. If there is some distance between the edge of the pavement and the stream, it gets
filtered out. He said that curb and gutter concentrates the flow and ends up causing more flooding
situations. Mr. Graham said if stormwater facilities are present that is correct in so far as getting metals out
of rivers and streams. Curb and gutter are proposed in the urban section under the proposed Subdivision
Ordinance text amendments. By mandate, there will have to be facilities that address that issue.
Mr. Dorrier asked if staff has enough directions from the Board to proceed with this matter.
Mr. Graham said staff has enough direction to proceed to the next work session. The two primary
issues are to identify the pros and cons of a countywide program versus one for just the development
areas. Then, staff’s rationalization on the level of service it has recommended.
Mr. Tucker said staffing needs and the level of service should be included in the next report.
Mr. Wyant said he would like to know the time lines being imposed by the mandates. Mr. Graham
said it is actually in the written report, but staff will give some more detail on it at the June work session.
Mr. Boyd asked if the Board chose the utility route if there would still be initial upfront costs. Mr.
Graham said those costs would come from the General Fund now.
Mr. Dorrier thanked everyone for the report today.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Appointments. This item was skipped temporarily.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Strategic Plan Quarterly Report. Mr. Tucker said because the meeting was
running far behind the published schedule, this item could be deleted from today’s agenda.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Public hearing: Proposed Lease Amendment for the Old Crozet Elementary
School pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.2-1800(B). (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the
Daily Progress on April 19 and April 26, 2004.)
Mr. Tucker said the County currently leases the old Crozet Elementary School building to the
Charlottesville Waldorf School (CWS) that is currently in the process of constructing a new school in
Charlottesville and plans to be in the facility by July 2005. However, due to uncertainties with construction,
CWS has requested an amendment to its current lease to allow the option of two, six-month extensions.
They currently have the option to extend the lease only on a month-to-month basis at double the monthly
rent.
Mr. Tucker said this request has been reviewed with the Board’s Building Committee that
considered other potential uses of the facility and the timing of any potential use that might affect approval
of an extension. Given the time involved in the study and consideration of the ultimate use of this site, the
committee felt that allowing an extension of the lease as requested was appropriate. This will also allow
the County to continue generating rent on the facility while final plans are developed on reuse of the site.
Assuming there are no concerns following the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board authorize
the County Executive to sign the amendment to the lease as requested.
Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing.
Mr. Tom Loach said that in 1993, the Crozet Community study recommended that a feasibility
study be done concerning uses for the school. That study was never done. He said the question was
answered through the recent Crozet Master Plan. He said there are no public facilities in Crozet other than
the library. There are no facilities for children. He thinks it is time for this building to be returned for
community use. He said the Crozet Community Association needs someplace to meet. He would like for
the school to be a public-private partnership now that the growth area has been expanded northward. Such
a partnership might help fund the changes needed to the building. He thinks it is time the building come
back to the community since there are no fewer than seven active developments in Crozet, plus many more
planned developments.
Mr. Rooker said his district is three times the size of present Crozet and it does not have any of
these type facilities. He does not think that because Crozet has been master planned gives it a super claim
on capital investment money in the community.
Mr. Loach said many believe the master plan is going to fulfill what it is supposed to fulfill, and the
bar should be set for what the County feels would be adequate public facilities. He believes Mr. Rooker is
saying that his district is underserved, so Crozet should not expect anything more than being underserved.
He thinks both areas should be well served.
Mr. Rooker said he does not disagree. He is only pointing out that there seem to be expectations
that there should be public facilities. There have probably been more than $100.0 million of public facility
investments in and around Crozet over the years in expectation of Crozet being a growth area. He does not
disagree, but does disagree with the expectation that public facilities should be provided for 12,000 people
May 5, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
when the population now is only 4000+.
Mr. Loach asked if Mr. Rooker is saying a population of 4000+ should have no public facilities.
Mr. Rooker said there are all kinds of public facilities, things such as schools, sewers, planned
transportation, etc.
Mr. Loach said schools are mandated. There is also a library, but every other public facility
mentioned is not one that is specific to Crozet, but one that serves the whole County. They are looking for
something that will serve not only the community’s interest, but also serve the greater western Albemarle
area. His point is that if Crozet is going to be a growth area, be master planned, and expect extra density,
the residents should expect adequate public facilities. If the Board says “no” he is willing to go back, maybe
at Mr. Wyant’s meeting tomorrow, and redo the plan at a much lower density where those facilities would
not be required. Comparing apples to apples, if the Board expects Crozet to be one-quarter the size of
Charlottesville, he thinks Crozet should get one-quarter of the services he would expect. He has to have
something to judge it against, and at this time, that is nothing.
Mr. Rooker said he is suggesting that there are a lot of public facilities in and around Crozet today.
There will be more to come, but simply being master planned does not necessarily mean that Crozet is
entitled to more public facilities than other areas of the County.
Mr. Loach said if the area is master planned, it tells the community what should be expected in the
form of facilities. If the Board does not believe the master plan is going to happen, then he would not have
approved those facilities. If the Board does believe these things will happen because of the master plan,
then he believes the Board is under an obligation. He said the community asked for a feasibility study of the
school in 1993.
Mr. Wyant said he has been talking with people in Crozet about making the old school a cultural
center. People need to be kept in the area. He thinks there should be things like movies and plays, etc. to
make it a cultural center. There could also be a farmer’s market there. He thinks this should be studied so
the County will know what can be there in a year when the Waldorf School moves out.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
placed before the Board.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Wyant to approve the Lease Amendment between the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, and Charlottesville Waldorf School (f/k/a Crossroads Waldorf School), and to authorize
the County Executive to execute the agreement on behalf of the County. Ms. Thomas seconded the
motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The Lease Amendment as approved is set out in full below.)
LEASE AMENDMENT
The County of Albemarle, Virginia (“Landlord”) and Charlottesville Waldorf School (f/k/a
Crossroads Waldorf School) (“Tenant”) enter into this Lease Amendment this 17th day of May,
2004.
WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant entered into a Lease Agreement (the “Lease
Agreement”) with a date of July 15, 1999, for the lease of the Old Crozet Elementary School; and
WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant desire to amend the Lease Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, Landlord and Tenant, for the sum of Ten and No/100 Dollars
($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, agree as follows:
In addition to the Option to Renew set forth in Paragraph 1.5 of the Lease Agreement,
Tenant shall have the option to renew the Lease for two (2) terms of six (6) months each. Tenant
shall exercise this option to renew by providing written notice in accordance with Section 16.1 of the
Lease Agreement on or before January 1, 2005. The renewal term shall be on the same terms
and conditions of the Lease, except as expressly agreed to by the parties. The rent to be paid by
Tenant during the renewal term(s) shall be calculated according to Section 1.7 of the Lease
Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Lease Amendment this 17th
day of May, 2004.
LANDLORD:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By: Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Its: County Executive
TENANT:
May 5, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
CHARLOTTESVILLE WALDORF SCHOOL
By: Priscilla Friedberg
Its: Secretary/Treasurer
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. STA-2001-08. Comprehensive Revision of Subdivision Ordinance:
Discussion and Update of Review Process.
Mr. Cilimberg said a comprehensive revision to the County’s current subdivision ordinance is one of
the major regulatory changes needed to implement the Neighborhood Model adopted by the Board in
2001. Revision of the ordinance was identified as a high priority for staff and an extensive review process
has been conducted over the past year. Staff first reviewed the subdivision text amendment with the public
at a focused discussion meeting in July 2003 and brought a revised amendment to the Planning
Commission at a work session in September 2003. The Planning Commission subsequently held public
hearings in October 2003 and January, February and April of this year. At a hearing on February 17, 2004,
the Commission discussed the amendments and directed staff to provide changes based on both public
comment and their discussion. Staff made the requested changes and on April 6, 2004, the Commission
voted 6-1 to recommend that the Board adopt STA-2001-08 with minor revisions agreed to at that meeting.
Mr. Cilimberg said the proposed revision to the Subdivision Ordinance represents significant
changes over the current ordinance and raises a number of policy questions that will require careful
consideration by the Board. Based on discussions with the public and Commission, it is anticipated that the
focus of the Board’s review will be on the following elements of the proposed amendments: (1) making
urban streets the standard in the Development Areas by requiring curb, sidewalks and street trees on new
streets; (2) providing for interconnected public streets by requiring connections to adjacent parcels; (3)
preventing drainage, erosion and driveway safety problems for residents in new urban neighborhoods by
requiring an overlot grading plan; and, (4) allowing for easier approval of private streets including
administrative approvals. Each of these changes will establish new requirements for both the development
community and the County. For this reason, staff will prepare additional information for the Board’s review
at an upcoming work session regarding fiscal, staffing and customer service impacts above those
considered by the Commission.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff does not propose that the Board begin reviewing the amendments today,
but will provide background information so the Board is aware of the primary issues involved with the
changes. They suggest that the Board hold a work session on June 2 to review the goals and implications
of the proposed subdivision text amendment. This will include review of problems solved through the
amendment, policy issues related to the elements of the amendment, how the Neighborhood Model will be
implemented and its relationship to other pending ordinance amendments, and to talk about concerns that
arose at the Commission’s public hearings. Based on progress made at the work session today, the Board
should be able to determine if additional work sessions are needed or if a public hearing can be scheduled,
possibly for June 9, 2004.
Mr. Dorrier said the homebuilders have to deal with these stipulations, so he is interested in having
their input into this process.
Mr. Boyd said he and Mr. Dorrier recently had the opportunity to meet with the Blue Ridge
Homebuilders. He thinks they are very concerned that their side of this issue be presented to the Board.
Even though they participated on some committees and study groups, their thoughts were drowned out by
other interests in the group. An overwhelming majority of people in those groups did not share their views.
He thinks they are too important to this process not to listen to them. He thinks the Board should give them
adequate time to critique this whole plan from their viewpoint. He thinks they need more than three minutes
to make a presentation.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks the issues need to be separated. Affordable housing is one thing he
thinks needs to be talked out in terms of the subdivision ordinance. The Board needs to know if it is fixing a
problem or creating a new problem.
Mr. Tucker said in the staff’s report, four areas were identified that need to be focused on during the
work session(s). Affordable housing would need to be added to that list because the other items relate
mostly to street standards.
Mr. Rooker said he understands these are the areas that emerged during the Commission’s
meetings as the issue areas. Mr. Cilimberg said the affordability issues arose out of the other four issues so
focusing on those areas will get to that question.
There followed a short discussion of how the Board would proceed with work on these
amendments. The next work session will be on June 2. No public hearing will be scheduled at this time,
and Mr. Dorrier asked that staff notify the various entities of the Board’s format.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. ZMA-2002-09, North Pointe: Work Session.
Mr. Mark Graham said the Architectural Review Board held a work session on this project. Staff
will present the ARB’s discussion first. Also, there has been some discussion of having special use permit
conditions on this application, versus taking proffers. Staff will make the Board aware of its thinking on this
May 5, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
idea. Also, staff would like to discuss the CDA and how one might be applied in this property. Staff would
like input from the Board as to how to proceed with the proffers and this plan in order that everything can be
put in a form that is ready for Board review.
Ms. Elaine Echols, Planner, said staff has had an Application Plan in hand for about two weeks.
Last week they received proffers. Staff did all the review possible of the application plan, but since the
proffers relate to the application plan, they are still working on that aspect to see how they match. The one
thing about the proffers is that staff has made the same recommendations for changes to the proffers
numerous times. So far, the applicant has rejected those recommendations. It has been a prolonged
period of negotiation. Staff may have some recommendations that differ from what the applicant wants.
Mr. Graham said the Board had asked for a proffer comparison, and Mr. Davis had said it would be
difficult if at all possible. He may have underestimated the problem. It has turned into a prolonged
exercise. There are many underlying assumptions that have to be made, and they all impact things. An
example was: what consideration is given to the existing zoning? A large part of the Hollymead Towne
Center started with commercial zoning, and was rezoned to Planned Neighborhood. The Center already
had a considerable amount of ability to develop. Albemarle Place had a similar situation; it had underlying
industrial zoning before it was rezoned. For North Pointe, it has underlying rural areas zoning. There is a
tremendous change in value going from rural areas zoning to what is being proposed. What value should
be placed on things? The school site has been a difficult issue. There is a school site proffered, but staff is
still working on issues such as how stormwater management can be provided. There is no room for
stormwater management facilities on the proposed school site. If there cannot be stormwater manage-
ment, the school site has no value to the County. There has been no commitment as to when the roads
fronting the school would be built. The school site is no good until the roads and utilities are brought to the
site. He said the proffer comparison would never be a good “apples and apples comparison.” The
applicant will present his position on issues, and staff will be presenting quite a different position on the
same issues. He is not sure that in the end the information will prove that useful to the Board.
Mr. Dorrier asked if staff is presenting its position on these issues. Mr. Graham said the staff is not
presenting any position today. The applicant is changing proffers, and at his request, staff is not presenting
a proffer comparison as the proffers stand now.
Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Graham is suggesting that the Board drop that request. She has no
desire to have staff work on something that is a major expenditure of staff’s time and that will not produce
any significant results. Maybe the Board should discuss this request. Mr. Graham said he would like to hear
such a discussion. There are a couple of other items staff would like to bring to the Board’s attention first.
He said his primary concern is that if it does not simplify issues for the Board, its value becomes
questionable.
Mr. Dorrier suggested Mr. Graham present it in the form of options for the Board to consider.
Mr. Rooker said staff has already been through the exercise several times. He thinks the Board
needs to decide at what point to cut off that effort. He thinks it is work the Board should see, but it needs to
get the information in its most refined form. The question is how much more time staff should give it.
Ms. Thomas said the Board asked for a comparison between other large projects and this project.
It is sort of a historical comparison. Mr. Graham said that is where staff is having the trouble.
Mr. Dorrier said a proffer is a voluntary commitment by the owner to do certain things that are of
public benefit. The County either accepts or rejects that proffer. Really, the ball is in applicant’s court to
submit the proffer and the Board can decide to accept or reject it. The Board does not create the proffer.
Mr. Graham said some of the things being proffered are really requirements, and that creates an issue. A
good example is the Route 29 road improvements; these were proffered with Albemarle Place, Hollymead
Towne Center and North Pointe. These are improvements that are required by VDOT in order to get an
entrance permit. Those improvements have been put into the proffers to make sure there is a good
understanding of what improvements will be made. Another example for North Pointe is what value the
County should establish for protection of sensitive lands (critical slopes and flood plain). The applicant and
County staff are far apart on what value should be placed on this item. The applicant thinks the slopes
should be valued at $600,000+ and staff is saying that the development opportunity with those slopes is
extremely limited. That is an example of the difficulty.
Mr. Rooker said everyone should keep in mind that the applicant asked for this comparison. He
made the comparison himself, but at that point the Board asked staff to develop a report on its compare-
son. He thinks the Board should get the information that has been done. If there is no agreement between
the applicant and staff, so be it. Ultimately this Board has to make a decision.
Mr. Boyd said a cloud over this project for a long time has been the proposal to use a CDA. He
asked how much of this difference in opinion is based on the fact that the Board is undecided about
allowing the applicant to have a CDA. Mr. Graham said for the school site it is not a factor. It will be a
factor for the library and some of the road improvements. He said staff would like to discuss that with the
Board today. He asked that Ms. Margaret Maliszewski present the ARB’s discussions at this time.
Ms. Maliszewski, Design Planner, said that on April 19, 2004, the ARB completed an advisory
review for a rezoning and a special use permit for North Pointe. The ARB voted 4:1 not to support the
requests based on the plan presented. They indicated that the project would have a significant impact on
the County’s image and because the preference for development in the Entrance Corridors is appropriately
May 5, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
designed buildings enhanced by landscaping, expansive buildings with box footprints are not consistent with
the character of the significant historic buildings of Albemarle County. She outlined some of their
conversation (see letter dated April 28, 2004, addressed to Chuck Rotgin, in which they set out several
pages of recommendations regarding this project). Some of the primary recommendations are: revisions
to the forms, size and scale of Buildings No. 14 and No. 36, primarily to establish human scale and to
eliminate the box character of those buildings, and also all of the buildings fronting the entrance corridor to
establish an appropriate streetscape; significantly increased landscaping including the provision of a
planting area adjacent to Route 29 with a minimum width of 25 feet; and, deletion of all rows of parking
immediately adjacent to the entrance corridor right-of-way.
Mr. Boyd asked if there has been any response from the applicant regarding these issues. Ms.
Maliszewski said there was discussion with the applicant and she thinks he is willing to work with some of
the issues.
Mr. Dorrier said the first is historic buildings. He asked to what buildings the ARB is referring. Ms.
Maliszewski said any historic building in the County. There are none on this property or immediately
adjacent to it. However, the ARB reviews for the general historic character of the County and the
relationship to that.
Mr. Cilimberg said it relates to the enabling legislation for the entrance corridor provisions. The
ARB uses a more general review element. The County’s Entrance Corridor provisions are founded under
provisions in the State Code that begins with historic resource protection.
Mr. Davis said the entrance corridor regulations protect the access to historic areas in the County.
The County has a character based upon the historical significance of various sites in the County, and the
entrance corridors are to keep the County character consistent with those important historical resources.
Mr. Boyd said that is a tremendous amount of interpretation. It seems very discretionary.
Mr. Dorrier said he wonders if Albemarle Place and Hollymead Towne Center are in keeping with
significant historic buildings. Ms. Maliszewski said she does not have an easy answer to that question.
There are aspects of Albemarle Place that are much more in keeping with the historic character of the
County than either of the other two projects. Hollymead Towne Center has very big problems in that
regard.
Ms. Thomas said the loading docks and all sorts of things were moved around in the Hollymead
Towne Center. Ms. Maliszewski said a number of things were changed to bring that design closer to what
the guidelines look for. The Board was confronted with difficulties from the start because of positions of
buildings that were established and in place before the review began.
Ms. Thomas said that in this case, the ARB was allowed to review plans earlier. Ms. Maliszewski
said actually the ARB was later in the process than usual. There were issues with the Hollymead plan,
pieces of it being established with the earlier Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Mr. Rooker said the Hollymead Towne Center had big box issues. The ARB made a general
comment that buildings with big box footprints are overtly inconsistent with the character and significance of
historic buildings in Albemarle County. He said that is a general statement about big boxes. The
Comprehensive Plan amendment that preceded the ARB looking at the Hollymead Towne Center plan
approved a big box of 100,000+ square feet. A lot of specific design elements were approved in that
Comprehensive Plan change so the ARB had to review the plan with the background that certain design
elements had already been approved. On the issue of whether larger footprint stores will be allowed in the
entrance corridor, he personally thinks the Board should make every effort to maintain the aesthetics of the
entrance corridor. He is in favor of using all the aesthetic tools possible to break up facades to limit the
impact of larger footprint stores. Most of the current big box stores are in entrance corridors, as are the
large grocery stores. That will be a policy decision for the Board to make.
Ms. Maliszewski said the ARB’s point is that having those big boxes directly on the entrance corridor
adjacent to the road makes a bigger impact than if they were located further back on the site.
Mr. Boyd said the ARB does not want parking in the front either. He was on the ad hoc committee
and they discussed the fact that from some viewpoints one cannot tell what the buildings will look like. He
has heard that there are architectural ways to break up the size of the building so it does not look like a
large building. He is not going to be opposed to the County having large box stores in the entrance
corridors unless the County is ready to invest a large amount of money to put the roads and infrastructure
somewhere else. It would create a transportation nightmare if the County tried to put them somewhere
other than the entrance corridor.
Mr. Dorrier said he thought the advantage of having a Comprehensive Plan amendment to deal
with large commercial proposals was to have an integrated plan that worked. He thought the Board was
looking at this to develop an integrated plan for the developer and the public.
Mr. Rooker said he agrees with Mr. Dorrier, but there are some competing things going on. One of
the things the Board tried to do in the interest of meeting one of the Neighborhood Model goals was to
move things closer to the street so more parking could be off the street and stores could have pedestrian
facilities in front. The goal of pushing buildings to the street is somewhat inconsistent with the aesthetic
goals in the entrance corridor especially if there are larger buildings. There is a lot of information beyond
the big box issue in the report that he thinks are things that can be met by this developer.
May 5, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Board wanted to discuss what to do with the ARB’s recommendation today
or later.
Mr. Boyd asked to hear the rest of the report.
Ms. Echols said there are several other issues staff would like to discuss with the Board. The three
biggest issues with the plan now are: are boxes appropriate to the entrance corridor; whether there should
be 25-foot landscaping strip along Route 29 because that changes the layout of the plan; and, should there
be parking between Route 29 and the buildings. If the Board thinks what it is seeing is appropriate, then the
Board needs to make that statement so if the plan is approved, the ARB is not striving for those items in a
struggle over something they cannot require.
Mr. Dorrier asked about the 25-foot landscaping strip. Ms. Echols said it runs all along Route 29.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks Route 29 is actually one of the most attractive entrance corridors in the
state. One reason is that there is some consistency. That is a factor that is seldom picked out by the eye,
but one is influenced by the fact that there are similar hedges along most of the properties the ARB has had
anything to do with. Then along Route 250 it is a stone wall that historically, and now through effort, is
being kept as a consistent factor. She does not know if the landscaping strip has to be 25 feet wide, but it
should be something totally consistent and big enough so the eye sees it as being consistent.
Mr. Wyant asked if that strip would be higher or lower than the roadway. Mr. Graham said the
proposed grade slopes downward from south to north on the property. He said if there is a road slope and
that is where the 25-foot strip is located, one would not see the vegetation at all.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the Board needs to pay attention to the ARB’s aesthetic
recommendations. To have a well-planted buffer area between the road and the development is a
reasonable aesthetic recommendation.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to hear from the applicant. The Board may be discussing something
he does not agree with. Another question was whether the Board would allow big boxes in the entrance
corridor.
Mr. Dorrier said if the Board is talking about Route 29 North, it wants the best integrated
commercial plan for the area. If a big box is the part of the plan that makes it work, he does not see any
harm in leaving it in the plan. If it will not work, what will be put on that property? He thinks an integrated
comprehensive plan dealing with the area is better than having piecemeal development. He would be in
favor of a big box. He agrees with Mr. Rooker that a 25-foot buffer of landscaping would be good.
Mr. Wyant said he has no problem with that. He asked Mr. Graham if there would be retaining
walls within 250 feet of the front of the development. Mr. Graham said there might be some critical slope
issues that will need to be addressed. There has been nothing addressed as an open space plan, it only
notes that an area is to be preserved. Staff made the assumption that as long as the applicant addressed
all the conditions dealing with critical slopes, a waiver could be approved.
Mr. Boyd asked about the other issue Ms. Echols mentioned earlier. Ms. Echols said the third issue
was whether there will be parking between Route 29 and any of the buildings. The ARB recommended that
there be no parking aisles adjacent to the entrance corridor right-of-way.
Mr. Boyd said depending on the slopes in that area, parking may not be seen. Ms. Maliszewski said
staff does not have complete details showing what will happen. It is anticipated that the parking will be
visible.
Mr. Rooker said he does not know if that presents a problem to the overall development of the site.
He said there is inconsistency with moving the building forward and then saying there is a box too close to
the road.
Mr. Wyant said if the road should be expanded at some time in the future, that row of parking could
be taken out easier than the building. Mr. Tucker said there has to be a travelway for emergency vehicles.
Ms. Thomas said she is less convinced with this recommendation than the one previously
discussed.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there were further comments from the Board members.
Mr. Rooker said there are 23 things listed in the ARB’s letter. He asked if the applicant is agreeable
to all the things not discussed. Ms. Echols said she does not know what the applicant thinks about them.
Mr. Dorrier said he is going to ask Mr. Rotgin in a few minutes whether he agrees. He thinks the
Board should finish its discussion first.
Ms. Echols said there are two more things to discuss. One is special use permit conditions relative
to proffers. The last thing to discuss will be about the CDA. In staff’s negotiations with the applicant about
things important to the residential areas on the plan, they have not been able to come to an agreement in
terms of proffers. This is a rezoning from RA to PD-MC with a special use permit for residential uses. Staff
will be recommending that some things be part of the special use permit conditions rather than be in the
May 5, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
proffers if staff cannot come to an agreement with the applicant. The biggest thing has to do with resource
protection, and staff and the applicant are in agreement on that one. Others where they do not agree are:
access to adjacent parcels, the mix of unit types, street standards for residential areas, and a buffer area on
Pritchett Lane. Staff gave a list to the applicant but he declined to take them out of the proffers.
Mr. Rooker asked if generally they are the same. Ms. Echols said “no.” Mr. Rooker asked if there is
a material difference and not just whether they should be in the conditions or the proffers. Ms. Echols said
one thing they are having a problem with is affordable housing. Whether there should be conditions in the
special use permit, what the percentage should be, and if the applicant continues to put that in the proffers,
whether they should come forward with or without a CDA. She said the CDA is a much larger issue and Mr.
Davis will discuss that later. Right now, the policy on affordable housing says there should be 15 percent,
but the applicant shows only three percent with the latest set of proffers. Staff has worked with the
applicant and the County’s Housing Office trying to put together some appropriate language for affordable
housing. The principle issues are: what is the right percentage and should it be a condition or a proffer?
Mr. Dorrier said the County can impose special conditions on the applicant, but the applicant has to
voluntarily provide proffers for the public good. He asked if that is correct. Mr. Davis said “yes.” For the
residential uses which require a special use permit, the Board can place reasonable conditions related to
the property that address impacts of the property and issues of the Comprehensive Plan. Proffers are
voluntary offers by the developer to entice the Board to approve the project by addressing the impacts of
the development the County otherwise could not require.
Mr. Rooker said the Board could deny a development because it does not think the proffers are
sufficient. Mr. Davis said that is correct. If the rezoning has impacts that are not addressed, the County can
decline to approve that rezoning.
Mr. Boyd said Ms. Echols asked whether the affordable housing is part of the special use permit or
the proffer. He does not know how it got to be a special use permit. He believes the policy says up to 15
percent or other comparable proffers of some type. Ms. Echols said the policy on affordable housing is
new. One thing looked for in any rezoning is conformity with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff would look for
something in the affordable housing area for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan. Because housing is
a part of the residential use, it could be included as a special use permit condition to meet the policy goals if
that is what the Board wants.
Mr. Boyd said he remembers the discussion was very specific. It is up to 15 percent affordable
housing or comparable proffers. If the applicant is saying there are other proffers which make up the
equivalent 15 percent of affordable housing, why does there need to be a special use permit? Mr. Davis
said the housing (residential) use itself requires the special use permit. For the residential use, the Board
has the ability to impose a condition to address the Comprehensive Plan issue of affordable housing. The
Comprehensive Plan says that every special use permit or rezoning should address affordable housing with
an accommodation of up to 15 percent of the units being used as affordable housing or some comparable
contribution. Staff is hesitant to take the position that it should be addressed by the special use permit
because the timing of this development preceded the Comprehensive Plan amendment. The Board
discussed whether or not this plan should fully comply with that amendment. That is an issue Planning staff
is grappling with. What Ms. Echols said is that there is a proffer to have three percent of the units as
affordable housing. Details need to be worked out, and then a cash contribution of $250,000 for housing
purposes by agencies that will be identified. If that fully addresses the affordable housing issue for this
development, then that proffer could be accepted in lieu of a special use permit condition. If that proffer
does not fully address the affordable housing issue, then this Board has the ability to impose a special use
permit condition to fully address it as a condition of approval of this property.
Mr. Rooker said the Board does not need to make that decision today.
Mr. Boyd said he did not know about the $250,000. He thought the Board agreed to either 15
percent or a comparable cash contribution.
Mr. Dorrier said the 15 percent was a target, not a mandate.
Mr. Graham said there is also the question about the CDA. It is a real problem in that the County
has no policy for use of a CDA. In this case, the applicant has proffers with a CDA intermingled. The
proposed library site and the affordable housing are both contingent on a CDA. Since the County does not
have a CDA policy, it puts staff in a difficult position evaluating the proffers. Staff is concerned that the
County might be backing into a CDA policy if these proffers are accepted. Does that mean the developer of
every future by-right subdivision who wants to use a CDA, will be allowed to do so?
Mr. Dorrier said any CDA has to be approved by this Board as a legislative act; a CDA is not by-
right at all.
Mr. Rooker said the applicant has to ask to use a CDA. Mr. Graham said that is correct. But, if one
applicant is allowed to use a CDA why would they not be allowed for others? Mr. Tucker said staff is
worried about the precedent that might be set. Mr. Graham said he is concerned that the Board is backing
into a policy in this instance.
Mr. Rooker said from his perspective the proffers for this development cannot be contingent on a
CDA. Right now, based on the information he has seen, he would not support this development. When the
Board considered Albemarle Place, the CDA was proffered not as a way to build infrastructure, but as a
May 5, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
way to potentially make an additional contribution to transportation improvements over time if in fact the
County decided to set the CDA up. The same thing happened for the Hollymead Towne Center. Now, for
this development, the developer wanted to use a CDA to basically build his infrastructure. He is willing to
look at that, but is not willing to look at a series of proffers that the Board would expect to occur with respect
to this development with or without a CDA, and have it conditioned on a CDA. In reality, the Board could
approve this development and not have complete control over whether or not a CDA is done. There would
be a number of proffers the Board could not require to be implemented. He asked Mr. Davis if that is true.
Mr. Davis said Mr. Rooker is correct. What is basically being proposed are proffers contingent
upon creation of a CDA; creation of a CDA is a separate legislative action from the rezoning. The Board
cannot commit a future board to approving a CDA. The CDA created is based on a petition from the
landowners. Without knowing what that petition is and what development agreements would be required by
a future board to approve a CDA, this Board does not know if that petition and development agreements
would be acceptable to a future board. He agrees with Mr. Rooker’s concerns. It is difficult for this Board to
know if the impacts have been addressed by these proffers if the proffers are contingent on a CDA.
Mr. Rooker said it would be fine with him if the applicant had a whole series of proffers that are not
contingent on a CDA. If he sees a bunch of proffers that need to be done with respect to this development,
and they are conditioned on a CDA, personally, he would not support the development.
Mr. Boyd said Mr. Rooker had just said that based on the information he had seen he could not
support this project. He wonders if Mr. Rooker had added up the proffers and decided in his own mind that
they are not enough. He does even know what the proffers are yet.
Mr. Bowerman said it is the nature of the proffers that Mr. Rooker is talking about.
Mr. Rooker said from reading the staff report there are a number of proffers. Ultimately the Board
will need to go through those one by one, but he thinks there are proffers that need to be done with respect
to this development regardless of whether or not the developer decides to have a CDA and the Board
decided to approve a CDA.
Mr. Boyd asked if there is some number based on the amount of square footage. Is it based on the
number of houses. Is it based on the size of the project. How does the Board determine the correct
number of proffers. He does not know of any written policy or procedure saying every development
requires “x” amount of dollars in proffers.
Mr. Davis said focusing on this particular project, currently the affordable housing, the library and a
number of Route 29 improvements are conditioned on approval of a CDA.
Mr. Boyd said when the Board had that data, what would it be compared to? Has a standard been
set by Hollymead Towne Center and Albemarle Place? Is that a standard or precedent that the Board now
has to follow? If so, the Board needs to compare them to this development. He does not know how the
Board could identify whether the proffers are in line with the standard. What is the standard?
Mr. Rooker said there have been three large developments presented for approval in the space of
a year and a half. He is trying to be reasonably consistent in what is expected of a developer with respect to
the impacts of their developments. There is a discretionary aspect and the Board needs to be as objective
as possible. At its last meeting the Board started out by asking for a comparison for that very purpose. The
comparison may not be perfect, but will, hopefully, yield enough information to help the Board make that
discretionary decision.
Mr. Boyd said Mr. Rooker has answered his question by saying the Board has sort of established a
precedent on the other two.
Mr. Rooker suggested that this developer take the infrastructure CDA out of the picture, make a
proffer presentation comparable to what the County received for Albemarle Place and Hollymead Towne
Center, agree to the paragraph for those other developments which basically said he would join in a CDA
request based upon a tax increment not an assessment scheme, and, the CDA would be done at the
County’s option, then if the Board decided to do a CDA, those funds would be over and above the other
package of proffers on this project. If the applicant expects to do the Route 29 improvements conditioned
on a CDA, he personally could not accept that.
Mr. Boyd said to get back to Mr. Graham’s original thought that staff is looking for some directions
from the Board, he thinks there needs to be a comparison of proffers contingent on a CDA so there would
be a dollar amount. Then, the Board can deal with the differences of opinion based on what the two
opinions are.
Mr. Davis said it is important that the proffers address the impacts of the development. If a proffer
addressing those impacts is conditioned on a CDA, then there is no guarantee that the impact will be
addressed.
Mr. Rooker said personally he would be looking for proffers that address the impacts of this
development. Then if the developer ultimately does a CDA (which is really for his benefit), and agrees to
do certain things, then he thinks the Board can make a reasonable judgment about the value of the proffers
being given that are not contingent on a CDA.
Mr. Dorrier suggested looking at the proffers first, and then considering a CDA.
May 5, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
Mr. Davis said there are other proffer issues. Staff has addressed some of the proffer issues
several times. Basically, unless these proffers are changed, he does not think they will be something that
either he or staff would recommend that the Board accept. Some of the proffers are not legally valid.
Some of the proffers are things that are properly already required and are confusing and should not be
included in the proffers. Then there are some proffers that are contingent upon approvals by the County or
do not address the impacts at a level the County thinks is appropriate. At some point in time, if the proffers
stay in the shape they are now, staff’s recommendation would be that the proffers not be accepted, and the
project not be approved. That is an ongoing process, but that is the situation now.
Mr. Dorrier said at one time, the ad hoc committee was dealing with the proffers. It has now been
turned over to the whole Board. He suggested hearing from the applicant.
Mr. Chuck Rotgin said he would address the easy thing first. He was not at the ARB meeting, but
he would guess that Ms. Maliszewski was very charitable in her presentation to the Board today. The report
he got was that it was a real battle. When they looked at the conditions, they felt they could deal with all of
those. They review the ARB as an asset to help them design the buildings and take care of the landscaping
at such time as they are ready to go for a site plan. He hopes the Board will leave this meeting knowing
they understand the process of the ARB, and will be cooperative. With respect to seeing parking, driving
Route 29 northward at the main entrance to this development, cars are above the parking lot grade, but
they can shield the parking. With respect to the proffers, he will say it is not an “apples and apples”
comparison. They are going to prepare a proffer comparison if the County does not do one. To address
Mr. Rooker’s comments earlier, their proffers are broken down into two sections. There is one section that
is “pure vanilla” proffers they think address the requirements either in terms of timing or in terms of what
staff has asked them to do. He thinks those proffers are equal to or greater than those made by Hollymead
or Albemarle Place. His development has 8000 linear feet of frontage on Route 29. That is double what
the Hollymead Towne Center has. That is triple what Albemarle Place has. Theirs is a peculiarly shaped
piece of property and they do not own a lot of the frontage. The second part of the proffers addresses
issues which are not requirements or not impacts of North Pointe but are things which they would like to do
extra. They have been working with County staff for four years, and it has been difficult, challenging, and
sometimes excruciatingly painful to create a unique intergenerational type of development which is
pedestrian-oriented, where people can live, work, play, shop, and go to school without having to get in their
automobile, or without having to get on Route 29. With the help of staff, he thinks that has been
accomplished. Based on the ad hoc committee and the last two Board meetings, he thinks the Board
concurs with the ultimate design that respects and addresses virtually all of the tenets which were
recommended by DISC.
Mr. Rotgin said it has been a long process, but he thinks they have gotten to a point where from a
design perspective there is something that will be beneficial to the County. However, this design comes at a
price just as DISC said it would. To develop under the Neighborhood Model principles is more expensive.
What they are looking at from the CDA is a funding mechanism for all of the extra proffers they are making.
Everybody agrees that the tax district CDAs, as were approved with Hollymead and Albemarle Place, are
perfectly legal and they will provide a stream of revenue at some time in the future. He thinks the Board is
aware that there are no stand-alone tax district CDAs marketed in the state of Virginia. He said Mr. Rooker
has said at previous meetings that the County might end up taking the revenue streams and using them for
infrastructure. He said that amount of money might plant trees; it is not going to build a bridge across the
Rivanna River. What they propose is a tax assessment CDA and that gives them the ability to issue bonds
to fund infrastructure upfront. It is their job to convince the Board that the infrastructure they want to pay for
is over and above what Hollymead Towne Center agreed to and what Albemarle Place agreed to and the
general requirements of North Pointe. He said their proffers are styled that way.
Mr. Rotgin pointed to a map on the wall and noted a parcel of land that is not a part of the North
Pointe proposal. He said there is a lot of green area included. With Ms. Echols coaxing, the green area is a
preservation area and there is also flood plain on the property, but there is little development in that area.
They have agreed to build a costly road because it ties in with North Pointe Boulevard and gives the County
the parallel road that the November, 2002, VDOT/County Study suggested. Indicating on the map, he said
this site was the number one choice for the Baker-Butler Elementary School. The reason the school did not
go there was because VDOT told the County that the road they would have to build to get to the site would
cost $2.0 million. That killed that location as a possible alternative. They are now saying that if the County
wants this as a school site, they will build the infrastructure that goes in there. That is part of their basic
proffers. In order to create this intergenerational type of development they propose (they have been
working closely with the building community over the last two years) to try to accommodate what they feel is
a demand they can generate for this area.
Mr. Rotgin said the residential area of North Pointe is developed at virtually five units per acre,
which is at the upper range of the Comprehensive Plan’s holding capacity. He thinks Forest Lakes is
developed at 1.7 units per acre. He said all recognize that if there is any chance of protecting the rural
areas, the growth areas have to develop at the middle or upper ranges of the Comprehensive Plan holding
capacity. That is what they have tried to do. He then again indicated on the map the extra things they have
proffered and what they want to use the CDAs for relate to things where they do not own the property, but
think it is silly to come down here and stop a third lane and then start here and put a third lane. They want
to go all the way to Airport Road (although they don’t own this property either), and build the third lane all
the way and they want to build it now. He said Mr. Graham had said there is a timing issue with the road,
and he thinks he (Mr. Graham) is talking about (this one) which he wants as soon as possible. They have
been saying there is no revenue to support that road other than the apartments that will be built there, but at
some time in the future. In their proffers, they have said that with a CDA they will build that road before the
school goes in. That is just one issue.
May 5, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
Mr. Rooker said if they developed the lower part of the property there has to be a road. When the
upper part of the property is developed there has to be a road. The only thing that is missing is the little
connection between the two. He does not understand Mr. Rotgin’s position that the whole road is being
built for someone else’s convenience. The entire development is off of that road.
Mr. Rotgin said their entire development is not off of that road and they don’t need that road at all.
He indicated the road that they do have. The developers could come in and put in a cul-de-sac.
Pointing to an area on the map, Mr. Rooker said all that is being talked about is the piece from
there to there. Mr. Rotgin said that is a million dollar road. Mr. Rooker said the developer plans on
developing that area rather intensely. Mr. Rotgin said that is correct, and that is not “rather intensely”, it is
40 acres of land. Mr. Rooker said part of the land is in floodplain.
Mr. Rotgin said that is a legitimate question. He said before North Pointe came to the County, this
would have all been residential area. They put it together because they think it makes sense. He just
wants to separate proffers that may be legitimately required and what might be considered “the cream over
the milk” they need to sell the Board on. He said one other thing about the proffers made this process
difficult. They have been dealing with staff for four years on this. For the last three years they have been
dealing with proffers. They have filed a half dozen different proffer statements with the County. When they
received the last comments in April, it was the first time the concept of separating proffers from special use
permit conditions was mentioned. They had no idea where that idea came from. It was suggested that it
might be an attempt by staff to separate and denigrate the value of their proffers for the purpose of this
comparison that they are trying to put together. To them it makes no difference whether they are special
use conditions or whether they are proffers. The only thing that makes a difference is that they get credit in
the proffer comparison where they are comparing the funding mechanism of a CDA and what is required
under the general proffers.
Mr. Rotgin said it is a difficult issue. Everybody is working hard, but they need to see staff’s
response to address the legal issues that Mr. Graham mentioned. Until they see that response, he cannot
say what their position will be. They want the public to understand that there is $25.0 million in
infrastructure going in North Pointe. The public needs to be aware of what things cost. To the extent that
they have gone overboard in that regard, they will take a step back. That is one of the reasons why some of
that stuff is still in there.
Mr. Rooker said there is still a question as to whether that site is adequate, and the handling of
stormwater from the site. If credit is to be given (and there seems to be an issue as to the value of the
credit), the Board needs a school site that the School Board wants, and one the County knows will work.
Mr. Rotgin said they have worked with School administration and offered an easement down (to this
pond). He asked if that would not work. Mr. Graham said the question is who will pay for that pond.
Mr. Rotgin said there are stormwater possibilities (right here) and we have agreed to give an
easement to this pond. Mr. Graham has just brought up a legitimate point. The fact is that there is access
to the pond and that does not have to be an issue.
Mr. Rooker said the developer does not own that piece in white. How do you get the water from
point “A” to point “B”. Mr. Rotgin said you bring it over here. He said there are issues with the proffers and
some remaining design issues, so he would suggest that maybe the ad hoc committee be reconstituted for
a meeting, not to negotiate the proffers, but to discuss the form of the proffers and any of the questions the
legal department may have.
Mr. Dorrier said this is such a big decision for the whole project that he would suggest the Board
schedule a meeting to sit down with Mr. Rotgin to see if it is possible to reach an agreement. Mr. Rotgin
said he would prefer that. Mr. Dorrier said it is a big issue. He said Mr. Rotgin had mentioned $25.0 million
but it is more than that.
Mr. Rotgin said it is not just for North Pointe. This CDA is the funding mechanism. He said
Hollymead, Albemarle Place and North Pointe are fortunate to have commercial development that can
help to repay the bonds and can fund some of the infrastructure improvements. Where there is just a
residential development, it will be difficult to get those improvements funded. Public/private partnerships
are needed. How can the infrastructure be installed on a concurrent basis as development goes forward?
He thinks that is the bigger issue with North Pointe. He would be happy to sit with the Board and discuss
this.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Board agrees another meeting is needed.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks the Board needs more information from staff. She will have to depend
on what Mr. Davis says about the proffers. Her sitting down with Mr. Rotgin for many hours would not get
the Board a solution because she is not an expert on proffers.
Mr. Boyd said he thought staff was ready to present its viewpoints concerning the proffers to the
Board. Ms. Echols said staff just got the proffers last week and those proffers need to be compared to the
plan to know what is there. Also, there are new proffers, and the changes in those proffers have to go into
the proffer comparison. Staff is not ready.
Mr. Davis said from a process standpoint, he will advise the Board to identify the impacts of the
development. However, he would not advise the Board to negotiate proffers. Proffers by definition are
May 5, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
voluntary offers and it is not appropriate for the Board to engage in that sort of negotiation. At staff level,
staff can give input to Mr. Rotgin on how a proffer can be properly presented to the Board for its
consideration.
Mr. Dorrier asked if Mr. Davis is saying the Board either accepts the proffers or rejects them. Mr.
Davis said the Board identifies impacts and then the developer, in conjunction with staff, has to propose a
proffer that the Board may or may not accept.
Mr. Boyd said he found the statement “evaluate impacts” interesting. The fiscal impacts he has
seen are positive impacts on the tax rolls.
Mr. Rooker said there are impacts on transportation that are not reflected in the fiscal impact
analysis. There are impacts on other off-site facilities. There are also impacts on schools.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks staff is looking for some philosophical input from the Board on various
issues. The Board might go through those one at a time. He suggested Mr. Graham mention the items
staff wants addressed, then the Board can take a consensus to see if there is any support for each issue.
Mr. Rotgin said he would like to say something about one thing Mr. Davis mentioned in terms of a
CDA. He said Mr. Davis said this Board cannot obligate a future board. They submitted their petition to
create a CDA to the Board, so they want it to be created along with the approval if they get approval.
Mr. Davis said that in response to what Mr. Rotgin said, that petition is not something he would
recommend the Board approve. It does not have the detail for the financial commitments, agreements, and
the checks and balances that would be recommended by the County’s bond counsel. It is far from being a
document that is ready for this Board to review.
Mr. Rotgin said the County has had that document for about two years. Mr. Davis said that is
correct, and it has been staff’s recommendation not to approve the CDA as proposed.
Mr. Rotgin said at this point they need staff’s response to the application plan that was submitted a
couple of weeks ago. They thought they had incorporated almost everything that had been asked for. On
the proffers, they need the legal department’s response to their latest proffers. They are different this time
because when they got the response from the County Attorney’s Office the last time, they separated those
proffers into proffers and a special use permit. They balked at that. They think that from a comparison
standpoint they need to be given credit for those items they are calling special use permit conditions.
Compare these proffers to those of Hollymead and Albemarle Place to determine if there is enough cream
at the top to justify the funding mechanism of the tax assessment CDA.
Mr. Dorrier asked when those proffers were received. Mr. Davis said it was last Thursday. Mr.
Dorrier said there has not been enough time to do that.
Mr. Bowerman suggested that the Board ask staff to review this thing and make a
recommendation. If they can’t make a recommendation to approve it, then they say what would be needed
for the Board to approve it if they had their wish list.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks the Board needs a series of options.
Mr. Bowerman said this is not rocket science; the Board has been through this with two other major
applications. Staff knows what it is looking for. Mr. Rotgin knows what he wants to do in terms of his plan.
The Board needs to find out where the differences are and what can be done to make it approvable.
Mr. Boyd said there was no school proffer or library proffer involved with either the Hollymead
Towne Center or Albemarle Place.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board should decide if those proffers are acceptable.
Mr. Boyd asked if Mr. Bowerman was suggesting that staff make that interpretation.
Mr. Bowerman said it has to start someplace.
Mr. Rooker said in Hollymead Towne Center and Albemarle Place there was a cash proffer of
$3000 per residential unit over and above transportation and other proffers. For North Pointe that would be
close to $2.7 million assuming a comparable proffer was made. For that, Mr. Rotgin wants credit for the
school site. If the Board is going to accept the school site, a value must be put on it. Staff was requested to
make a fair estimate of the value of that school site, and whether or not the Board agrees with that
estimate, he thinks it needs that information.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board is not ready today to look at that proffer.
Mr. Rotgin said Albemarle Place proffered $1.5 million plus $3000 for every unit above 500 if they
build more than 500. Hollymead Towne Center’s proffer in the main section was $475,000 and if they build
to the maximum, that is $1500 a unit. That is one of the issues that make it difficult to make a comparison
of the three developments. He thought the County would like to have a school site, and have it now.
Mr. Rooker said that is an issue that has to be dealt with. The County has to put some value on
that site.
May 5, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
Mr. Dorrier said he agrees with Mr. Bowerman’s suggestion as to how to proceed. Send this back
to staff.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the Board needs another session like this one where that information is
brought forward.
Mr. Rotgin said there is one more issue. He said when the ad hoc committee discussed this
project, there was a North Pointe Boulevard coming in here. Under the new design that road is two lanes
with a median strip, bike lanes, curb and gutter, street trees, planting strip and sidewalks. Staff said they
want enough right-of-way for four lanes. They were under the impression, and what drove their redesign,
was Mr. Rooker saying he did not want a four-lane road to dictate the design of North Pointe. They then
spoke with VDOT who said that if the traffic study showed two lanes would handle the traffic, they would not
recommend four lanes. He thinks the Board needs to discuss that. They cannot afford to give up the 24-
feet that would be required to provide a four-lane highway for which they think there is no need. He does not
think anyone will use that road unless they are accessing North Pointe. He said that is a significant design
issue that needs to be addressed.
Mr. Rooker said based on the information the ad hoc committee had on traffic, it did not seem to
make sense to require a four lane right-of-way. That road is not going across the river, but will come back
to Route 29. He thinks having a four-lane road in the middle of the development will change its pedestrian
nature.
Mr. Dorrier asked if staff wants there to be four lanes. Mr. Graham said “yes” in so far as having a
right-of way that would be adequate for a four-lane road. He said VDOT is not of one mind on this issue.
The Resident Engineer thinks this is the County’s call. The Culpeper District Office said they believe there
should be a two-lane road built now, but there should be the ability to adapt to a four-lane section. Staff is
just now entering into a master plan for this area of the County. That master plan will have a transportation
component. Staff does not know what the long-term transportation plan will be for this area. Staff does not
know if a four-lane road will be necessary twenty years from now. Staff feels it should recommend that an
adequate right-of-way be available so there is that opportunity. If the transportation study that is done and
accepted by this Board says it can stay a two-lane road, the additional right-of-way can be given back.
Mr. Rooker asked if the design they are presenting has a median and bike paths, etc., so there
might be the ability to cram in another two lanes of road. Mr. Graham said as long as the Board was willing
to take out the streetscape being created, and create a road similar to Hydraulic Road, the answer is “yes.”
Mr. Rooker said he thinks having a four-lane road down the middle of that development is
inconsistent with the Neighborhood Model. There are competing goals f this is an integrated, pedestrian-
friendly community, and the internal road network is designed primarily to serve that neighborhood. He
does not see that as being a four-lane connected road. It is going to dead-end at the north end of this
development.
Mr. Dorrier said if the Meadow Creek Parkway is to be two lanes and the County cannot get the
money for that road, four lanes in the middle of this development is like shooting for the moon. Mr. Tucker
said it is the commercial entities that lose if the road is not adequately sized. If Mr. Rotgin makes a mistake,
he will lose tenants and customers in the commercial area.
Mr. Bowerman said the Hollymead Towne Center does not have a four-lane road in it. Ridge road
is a two-lane road. Mr. Graham said it is being designed as two-lane road, with the ability to modify it into a
four-lane road.
Mr. Bowerman asked if all the amenities could remain. Mr. Graham said there would be loss of
amenities.
Ms. Thomas said there is some thought that these parallel roads would be used for local public
transportation because Route 29 would be for through traffic. If the Board can stretch its mind to think
about a two-lane road plus a bus-way, then it is in the mode of using something that is four-lane. Crystal
balls are not that good, but she can see the need for a wider right-of-way in the future for the roads that
parallel Route 29.
Mr. Wyant said if tractor-trailers and delivery trucks come in, he would design it to be able to handle
such traffic and not mess up the streetscapes. He thinks it is more the developer’s call. The road better be
adequate or the curbs will be torn up and there will be maintenance concerns.
Mr. Rooker said the Board has to look realistically at the design. It is not intended that this road be
four-lanes all the way through the neighborhoods. There may be buses coming into that area to pick up
people, but he does not see that one-eighth of a mile going through the commercial area being a major bus
route serving things outside of this development.
Mr. Cilimberg said the potential area of widening would go past the school. He said Ridge Road in
Hollymead Towne Center was designed with two lanes, on-street parking and bike lanes. That on-street
parking and those bike lanes give the ability to convert to four-lanes at some time in the future. There is no
on-street parking on this road in North Pointe. Ms. Echols just told him that the developer might need that
on-street parking to meet parking requirements at the school end of the project. This idea is probably worth
more discussion.
May 5, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
Mr. Boyd said moving parking around to meet requirements is one thing, but he does not see that
the Board needs to require the right-of-way for a four-lane road. Mr. Cilimberg said because the road will
be an urban cross-section, the key is to be sure it is designed right. If buildings came right up to the road, it
would be difficult later to make any right-of-way into a wider road.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks all possible has been said about that issue today. He said if there was no
further discussion of this item the Board would move on to the next agenda item.
Mr. Graham said staff is currently reviewing the plans and the proffers, so they would review those
as if they are the final submission. Staff will then bring its recommendations on that review to the June 2
meeting.
Ms. Thomas said the Board did not respond to staff’s question about how much affordable housing
is adequate. She suggested that the Board members be thinking about that question. Ms. Echols
suggested that everybody read how that proffer is worded. It is not $250,000 free and clear. It relates to
challenge grants and to non-profits, so there are some other issues involved.
(Note: At 4:41 p.m., the Board recessed and reconvened at 4:55 p.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. CPA-2003-07. Crozet Master Plan, Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Items
1 and 2), Review.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff hopes to get the Board up-to-date on the happenings with the
Comprehensive Plan amendment re: the Crozet Master Plan and how it plays into the overall context of
growth management planning, strategic planning, and understanding how the plan is organized.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff wants to discuss today how Crozet relates to the County’s overall
Comprehensive Plan. In 1965 the original water source was established for the community. Then, in 1971
Crozet was designated as a growth area in the Comprehensive Plan. In 1979 there was a decision made to
build the Crozet sewer interceptor, in part to support the development areas as well as to address sewage
problems. Amendments changed the Crozet boundaries in 1980 to correspond to the South Fork Rivanna
Reservoir watershed boundaries and to what could be captured in the Lickinghole Creek sedimentation
basis. The actual construction of the sewer line occurred in 1988. The Lickinghole basin was built in 1993.
In more recent years, the Neighborhood Model was adopted and the Master Planning began in 2002. This
Crozet Master Plan was completed in 2003. He said staff is anticipating that the Comprehensive Plan
amendment to incorporate the Crozet Master Plan will be adopted in 2004. One thing that has already
occurred is an adjustment to the boundaries of Crozet reflecting the Master Plan.
Mr. Cilimberg said the 1971 Land Use Plan designated about 37,000 acres in the County as
development areas, not including the designated 14 villages. He said a rendering of that plan was posted
on the wall today so the Board could see what was intended to be development areas. That 37,000 acres
was out of a total of approximately 465,000 acres in the County. Less than 10 percent was designed for
development. The current Land Use Plan has five designated development areas and even including the
village of Rivanna the total acreage is 22,300 acres which is less than five percent. This points to how
important the designated growth areas are to achieving the goals of the County, i.e., to accommodate the
predominant amount of growth within the development areas, and to preserve and protect the rural areas of
the County.
Mr. Cilimberg said the total of public investments to date has been $63,750,000 for the Crozet
development area and the immediate support areas around it. In reply to a question, he said that current
assessed values were used to arrive at this figure. In the CIP there is now identified $27,480,000 for
transportation, neighborhood/pedestrian improvements, libraries and school needs. That is a total of about
$90.0 million in investments in Crozet. He said that some of the $27.0 million has been put into next year’s
CIP in anticipation of the Crozet Master Plan being adopted. A large part of that amount reflects what has
been in the CIP for Crozet for a long time. The by-right development that could occur in Crozet under
existing zoning would demand a significant investment in infrastructure. He said the Crozet Master Plan
should not be viewed as adding costs or needs. It is supplemented by certain facilities and infrastructure
that are important to support it, but needs exist under the current plan.
Mr. Cilimberg said one of the objectives from the 1996 Comprehensive Plan was the master
planning of all development areas. That was carried into the Neighborhood Model guidance for the
development areas by setting out “form” statements concerning the principles everyone is familiar with.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Board’s strategic planning and its priority regarding growth and urbanization
speaks to the need to develop and implement policies addressing that issue. It all points to how important
this master plan effort was for Crozet and ultimately master planning of other communities will be just as
dependent. He said Ms. Susan Thomas would talk more specifically about the Crozet Master Plan itself,
and some of its elements.
Ms. Susan Thomas gave a PowerPointe presentation and said she would not give a lot of detail
today. She said staff had never been through a process as thorough, extensive, or as well accepted by the
community. She said that at the first meeting in March 2002, there were about 200 people present. They
developed a set of guiding principles and these were posted at every meeting in order to reflect what had
been said at that first meeting. There were a series of themes identified by citizens that emerged during
subsequent meetings. First and foremost was that the downtown area is the center of the commercial,
May 5, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
cultural and historic life in Crozet. All roads and paths should lead there. Wherever new neighborhoods
are built, they should be connected to downtown in some fashion. There was a lot of emphasis on the
existing natural system because Crozet is an unusual and beautiful place. The Lickinghole Creek system
has many parts and weaves its way throughout the entire neighborhood. It is also a potential transportation
conduit that staff tried to make a part of the plan. The rural parkway character of the eastern portion of
Route 240 and Route 250 was identified. The Route 250 policy has been well-embedded in the Board’s
various policies and documents over the years.
Ms. Susan Thomas brought the Board’s attention to the “Green Infrastructure Map” (see copy on
file in Clerk’s Office) as the starting point for thinking about the Crozet Master Plan. It was chronologically
the starting point. The citizens were asked to help identify natural features and natural areas that were
important to them. By identifying those on maps, they began to organize neighborhoods around them.
There are many purposes served by the “green” system in Crozet. This green infrastructure preserves the
features valued by the community, but there are also the environmentally sensitive features. The water
quality in Crozet is of importance to the County because Crozet lies squarely in the South Fork Rivanna
watershed. What drains out of Crozet, even with the benefit of the Lickinghole Creek Basin, ends up in the
South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. She said the green areas on the map link the hamlets, neighborhoods and
downtown in a lot of different ways. In some ways they supplement roads, and in other ways they substitute
for roads. Where it would be difficult to make a vehicular or sidewalk connection a neighborhood can be
connected to downtown, or a neighborhood to another neighborhood via the greenway. Ultimately, children
may be able to get to school on these greenways because staff is committed to a complete system.
Ms. Susan Thomas said each neighborhood, even at full build-out, with the green infrastructure
system, would still have access to open space. Although people are living in a denser pattern, it would still
feel like Crozet. She said these greenways make the community more livable without a big public
investment. In many cases these are voluntary dedications or the areas are unbuildable. Finally, the open
space system makes the neighborhoods distinct. It creates green breaks between two developed areas.
Wherever one is in Crozet there is something that is natural that is ecological, that open space can be
accessed.
Ms. Susan Thomas said the green infrastructure map also describes the type of open space. A
greenway is shown, as is an area called “eastern park”, and an area in the Old Trails development called
“western park.” The map shows examples of smaller green areas. It is not fixed guidance, but a
suggestion of what could happen. In the upcoming CIP, there is funding included for both of these parks.
Staff knows they will be working with the private sector soon on how these things can happen. She said the
Green Infrastructure Map sets the stage for everything in the Crozet Master Plan.
Ms. Susan Thomas said the “Place Type Map” (see copy on file in the Clerk’s Office) would
traditionally be called a land use map. Each color on the map corresponds to a series of uses and
densities and development forms. However, this map is more flexible in that it offers a range of options for
each color as opposed to a short written description of what a color might represent. She pointed to
accompanying charts (posted on the wall in this room today and also a part of the files in the Clerk’s Office)
and said they will be useful to developers in thinking about what can be done with their land. It is not
mandatory since the Comprehensive Plan is an advisory document. It definitely will give guidance to staff
and to property owners.
Ms. Susan Thomas said downtown is the geographic, cultural and commercial center. Downtown
east is the ConAgra/Acme complex that has redevelopment potential. On the Place Map there is a purple
area indicating that employment opportunities exist in that area. One unusual thing about the Crozet Plan is
that it stresses the creation and retention of jobs in Crozet. Part of that is in response to its history and
character and the sense the neighbors have of being an independent community. Given the Board’s
commitment to retaining Route 250 as a scenic corridor, a practical reason for emphasis on job creation
and retention is that it cannot be accomplished if everyone commutes to Charlottesville to work. At the
same time that people are being encouraged to access I-64, the reality is that people in the eastern portion
of Crozet would probably not be interested in doing that because of the travel distance.
Ms. Susan Thomas said central to the workings of this map is the concept of “center to edge.”
Downtown is the center of the community. Route 250 and Route 240 are the edges of the community.
Each settlement, whether it is a hamlet, a neighborhood or downtown itself, also has a center, an
intermediate area and then an edge. The idea is that there is more activity, more intensity and more density
in the center. Moving out to the edge, there would be a more traditional residential pattern. That same
thing holds true for downtown. There are number of uses that could occur in downtown or downtown east
that are not encouraged under the guidelines for other places because that should be the activity center.
Ms. Sally Thomas asked about the town’s center. Ms. Susan Thomas said in reality it will probably
move. It will be more central in the development. She said these neighborhoods or hamlets may not occur
as shown. Eight neighborhoods and five hamlets may not be achieved, but it gives a sense of what could
happen and how areas could relate to each other. There is a hierarchy going on and downtown is the
center.
Ms. Susan Thomas said the street network is carefully proposed, but not many streets are
specified. The key streets are: Eastern Avenue (it used to be called the 240/250 connector); Western
Avenue (Galen Bates will build this road as part of the Old Trails development); there are no four lane
roads proposed in Crozet and the highest speed will be 35 mph. A new road, Main Street, is essential in
getting people downtown. It will provide a parallel way to access downtown because Route 240 is restricted
due to the railroad tracks and existing development. Most of Main Street would be built as the properties
traversed by it are developed. For instance, the Lumber Yard portion (Mr. Connelly is not enthusiastic about
it) would not happen until he is ready to convert the Lumber Yard to another use, or when the need was so
May 5, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
pressing the County became involved. In conversations with staff he has been agreeable to discussing
construction of the first block of Main Street from Crozet Avenue into the Lumber Yard because trucks are
becoming a real issue for him and the community.
Ms. Susan Thomas said another road that is a challenge, but is an important connection, is the
connector through The Meadows. It is hoped that over time there will be multiple connectors into Old Trails
from Crozet Avenue. The reality is that it is not easy to connect to Crozet Avenue on the western side.
There are topography and established settlement patterns, so it would not be easy. Most of the roads
shown in the proposed hamlets and neighborhoods are there to show that a connected system is desired.
They are not intended to be specific roads. The larger roads are very important to the success of the plan.
Ms. Susan Thomas said the Master Plan also recommends some locations for public facilities,
such as a school site in the ConAgra area and a library downtown (it is a key revitalization element. The
County is close to having a budget for that facility). An organized effort to work with the other landowners
on that block is needed now. It is anticipated that there would be some playing fields in the eastern part.
There is a beautiful knoll that would make a wonderful natural area. That was a high priority when citizens
were ranking recreational amenities. She then offered to answer questions.
Mr. Boyd asked if there are any developers stepping up to purchase property to build office or
commercial space in Crozet. Ms. Susan Thomas said Coran Capshaw is the one developer who is actively
engaged in more of a redevelopment scenario. He owns the ConAgra facility.
Mr. Boyd asked about other areas. Ms. Susan Thomas said Galen Bates’ contribution has been
the road. They have discussed the park or some of the other public features in the town center area. That
area has not yet been proposed for development. Working his way from north to south, there will be areas
that need to be rezoned, and she thinks staff would talk to him about some of the Plan’s goals then. He
participated consistently in the planning efforts.
Mr. Boyd said to maintain the integrity of the current Route 250, jobs will have to be created. How
does staff see that happening? Ms. Susan Thomas said staff sees a lot of redevelopment and infill
opportunities in downtown. There is some commercial zoning in downtown now that is not being utilized.
Adjacent to downtown are some vacant areas that have been recommended for non-residential or mixed-
use development by the plan. Staff would hope to get some job creation opportunities in the town center,
but they will be smaller and more retail-oriented.
Mr. Boyd asked how staff proposes to make this happen. Is the plan just going to be designed
hoping developers will pour in and develop commercial property, or does staff have some plan to solicit
people to do this
Mr. Cilimberg said that at next month’s discussion on the implementation measures staff will
recommend that someone work with the community and businesses on potential development
opportunities. In next year’s budget, a position was approved for a person to do some of that work. The
position still has to be defined. It was recognized in this plan that the County will need to take initiative and
work with potential developers and business people. Historically, that is not something the County has
done.
Ms. Sally Thomas said several people are already working to set up something using the new
technologies. Crozet could be a nice technological center offering things that are not available throughout
the County.
Mr. Boyd said that position was a planning specialist, not an economic development officer. He
asked if this person is going to be hired and specifically designated to work in Crozet. What about some of
the other areas in the County? Mr. Cilimberg said it was not the intent that this person would work only on
Crozet issues. There will be a variety of possibilities. Someone who knows that business language would
be helpful working on particular projects. Staff has had a fair amount of discussion regarding the library
and working with the property owners in that block. That library, some interests with the retirement housing
in Crozet, and the existing bank, gives a real opportunity in a redevelopment scenario, to become
something different and a catalyst in that part of Crozet. The County does not currently have staff with that
type of expertise.
Mr. Boyd said there is an opportunity for retail in that area.
Mr. Wyant said no large retail is shown at all. A couple of businesses have been bought out
recently, but they only had three to five employees. He asked how staff sees the Board’s role in this. Mr.
Cilimberg said staff wants to be sure the Board is comfortable with the plan and supports it. Being able to
understand and support gives the opportunity to talk to people about the opportunities they might have to
help the County succeed with the plan. In a sense, hopefully, the Board will become a champion for what
might happen.
Mr. Wyant said ConAgra and Acme employed about 2500 people when they were in business.
Now, Mr. Connelly at the Lumber Yard has 50 employees and he is the biggest employer in the area. He
said Coran Capshaw has also purchased the Acme Building. He is doing a lot of things, but there is a need
to get the jobs there so the people don’t travel on these roads. When he met with people in the Community
Association, it boiled down to getting jobs and the money for infrastructure in order to “stay ahead of the
game.” He said not having a plan is the worse thing the County could do. He thinks it is good that the
County has developed this master plan, but how to make it work is the question.
May 5, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
Mr. Cilimberg said that early in the process the community as a whole recognized that by-right
development would create the most impacts. That was in the absence of trying to accomplish something
like this Master Plan. This Plan provides a great catalyst to provide something different.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the master plan is a fabulous tool for the community because over time a
lot of it will be realized. Mr. Cilimberg said staff has seen people who are looking at the community for their
own development purposes and are becoming more invested seeing a plan like this. Mr. Galen Bates
talked to staff about how he could assist the County in the library block.
Mr. Boyd asked about some development the Kessler Group is working on. Mr. Wyant said it is on
the ConAgra property on the south side of the railroad. He has met with their representatives to talk about
how to get access either over or under that railroad. There are real challenges involved.
Mr. Boyd said they seem to be anxious to start that project if some of these problems could be
solved. He asked if there is anything the Board can do to help that project along. Mr. Cilimberg said one of
the first things to be done is top get the Master Plan amended into the County’s Comprehensive Plan so
there is some basis for the things staff tries to accomplish with any developer.
Ms. Sally Thomas said that is a place where a public investment in a bridge might be necessary.
Mr. Boyd asked if the Board should start looking at this and promote it. Mr. Cilimberg said it is
actually in the CIP to begin addressing that. Eastern Avenue was the Route 240/250 Connector, and that
has been in the plan for about 20 years.
Ms. Sally Thomas said she would like to hear more about the new area added into the Master Plan.
There are questions of water quality, of the Beaver Creek Reservoir, and the public facilities that may be
needed in the area.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Board needs to take any action today. Ms. Echols said “no.”
______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Appointments
Mr. Rooker offered motion to:
Reappoint Mr. Timothy Tolson as a member of the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Board of
Trustees with his new term to expire on June 30, 2008.
Reappoint Mr. Fred Copeland as a member of the Piedmont Virginia Community College Board of
Directors with this new term to expire on June 30, 2008.
Appoint Mr. Claude Foster as the White Hall District representative on the Board of Social Services
with said term to expire on December 31, 2007.
Appoint Mr. Clarence Roberts as the Rivanna District representative on the Albemarle County
Service Authority Board of Directors with said term to expire on April 16, 2008.
Appoint Mr. David C. Wyant as the Board’s liaison to the ACE (Acquisition of Conservation
Easements) Committee, with said term to run concurrent with Mr. Wyant’s term of office.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 22. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board had not decided whether there would be a public hearing advertised for
June 9 on the North Pointe development. Mr. Tucker said the work session is scheduled too close to that
date so he would recommend that it not be scheduled for that night. It was the consensus of the Board to
wait until after June 9 to pick a date for the public hearing.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the Lewis and Clark Festival was a big success. The video about Lewis and
Clark called “The Roots of a Legacy” was picked up by 70 stations. It received a bronze “telly.”
__________
Ms. Thomas said on September 17 there will be the unveiling of a book about birding in this
community. The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries also did it for the Tidewater area and
the mountain area. The idea is to have lots of local trails highlighted. She and Mr. Mark Shore have been
attending those meetings as well as Mr. Dan Mahon. This will be the first state in the Union that has birding
trails identified throughout the entire state. There will probably be a lot of bird watchers coming through the
area.
__________
May 5, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
Mr. Rooker said there is one thing about the Lewis and Clark Center of which the Board should be
cognizant. It is possible that site might be expanded to the point where it actually blocks the most logical
route for an Eastern Connector.
Mr. Bowerman said that thought came up at a Darden Towe Park Committee meeting. He and Mr.
Boyd are members of that committee and have looked at that issue.
Mr. Boyd said he was told the Lease Agreement requires that accommodations be made for the
road. They met with the people in Key West who are concerned about the road. The Lewis and Clark
Board passed a resolution saying they would not ask that the road go elsewhere.
Ms. Thomas said there is a lot of awareness of the issue. Both she and Mr. Dorrier are members
of the Lewis and Clark Board. She said the Planning Commission brought up a number of items and the
Lewis and Clark Board thinks they can accommodate most of those items. The worst problem is the
entrance to the Lewis and Clark site because Parks & Recreation says the entrance should be in one place,
while the Planning Commission wants the entrance in a different location. She hopes to get people
together and try for a compromise. The Eastern connector is the other issue. It may be that at some point
the Lewis and Clark site ends up looking at the underside of a bridge for an eastern connector. They want
the least impact possible because they need a sufficiently sized building in order to raise money by charging
an admission fee. The building’s size keeps shrinking, while the trails get more important. The proposal
had a rocky hearing before the Planning Commission. However, the Lewis and Clark Board is still
optimistic that it will get approval.
__________
Mr. Rooker said there had been many e-mails concerning the date for a public hearing on the issue
of the Thomas Jefferson Economic Development Partnership. He said this matter came before the board
about a year and a half ago. There was a lot of information provided to the Board members at that time.
There were a lot of e-mails from supporters of the County joining the Partnership. He, personally, met with
Ms. Jane Dittmar, with Mr. Leigh Middleditch and he also talked with Mr. Leonard Sandridge. He does not
think there is any new information to be presented on the issue. It was thoroughly debated. He wonders
whether it makes sense to have a hearing on the issue.
Mr. Bowerman said he is opposed to joining the Economic Development Partnership.
Mr. Rooker said the Board is talking about having a hearing and dragging all the people back in
here, having them spend a lot of their time on an issue they have already presented, and ultimately the
votes will not be there to do it. Why do it? Mr. Bowerman just spoke his mind, and if Ms. Thomas feels the
same way, in his opinion, this would just run three people through a nonsensical exercise.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks there have been enough changes in the Partnership that he would like to
have it presented again to this Board. There has been a complete redirection of what the University of
Virginia is doing in terms of economic development and in trying to attract people to this locality. He has a
bunch of new initiatives and thought processes he has never had the chance to present to the Board. He
does not care whether it is a public hearing or just a discussion among the Board members. He said the
County is talking about hiring the equivalent of an economic development person.
Mr. Rooker said he does not consider that employee to be an economic development person.
Mr. Boyd said he does not think one person should block this.
Mr. Rooker said part of his reasons for not wanting to join the Partnership is that it is not a public
body and is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act, or the Public Meeting Act. A member of this
Board of Supervisors cannot serve on that board as a matter of law. The County does belong to the
statutorily authorized Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission and it has an economic development
policy. He agrees with the mission of the Economic Development Partnership, just as agrees with some
things done by the Piedmont Environmental Council and Citizens for Albemarle and a number of other
private groups such as the League of Women Voters. All of these people do fabulous work for the
community, but he cannot be persuaded philosophically that the County should join those organizations, or
the Thomas Jefferson Partnership, all of which have good missions in the community.
Ms. Thomas said a work session on economic development was planned at one time, but it got
side tracked when there was a request to have a public hearing on the Partnership question.
Mr. Tucker said the Board has already approved the TJ Planning District Commission’s economic
development plan. Staff was to bring to the Board a review of the economic development section in the
County’s Comprehensive Plan but could not start on it due to its workload. The Board basically said to go
ahead and have a public hearing prior to review and sometime in June was suggested for that hearing. The
Clerk recently sent an inquiry to the Board members because a public hearing requires that a notice be
published in the newspaper. Instead of a public hearing, the Board could hold a work session/discussion to
discuss the things mentioned by Mr. Boyd and things staff has become aware of. Such a work session
might be beneficial to the entire Board.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks it is something that needs to be discussed. He thinks the County needs an
economic development plan. He continues to hear that businesses will not come here, and he was told
that the State economic development people would never recommend this area for new businesses.
Ms. Thomas said someone recently contacted the State economic development people, and they
May 5, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
refuted that thought.
Mr. Rooker said he has been in direct contact with those people because he has been working with
people on sites in other areas. He has never heard anybody say that.
Mr. Boyd said he is hearing it from people who are in direct contact with them all the time.
Mr. Wyant said the issue is whether to have a public hearing or a work session.
Mr. Boyd said he is agreeable to a work session. He thinks it is something that needs to be on the
table and discussed.
Mr. Rooker said he has no problem holding a work session.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to have a list of the last 100 companies that recently located in
Albemarle from somewhere else. He said State Farm has already started their move from here and the
County is doing absolutely nothing to stop it. It is in the economic development area to go after them.
Mr. Dorrier said there are two new Board members so the Board could at least discuss economic
development one time.
Ms. Thomas said she chaired the committee that regionally looked at what eventually became the
Partnership. She has been committed to this being a regional body for a long time. After the Partnership
was formed, she came up with a list of things that if changed slightly might allow the Board to join. She
could not recommend this the way it was presented to the Board. Personally, she has attended more
meetings of the Partnership over the years than any appointed person.
Mr. Boyd said he does not know what issues the Board has with joining the Partnership.
Ms. Thomas said it is much less a matter of principle than frustration that led her to not be
interested in joining. She and others worked for years to shape more of what they are doing into what
Albemarle County’s plans call for, and they have met a total stonewall. It is not for lack of conversations or
dealing with them. She thinks a work session is a good idea.
Mr. Tucker said he would give an example of a company that did not locate in Albemarle. It was
Nimbus Records. He met with their representatives. Planning Staff and others met with them. Nimbus
selected a site without talking to the County first. It was a beautiful farm with a beautiful mansion located in
Ivy just off of I-64. Staff told them the County’s Comprehensive Plan did not show any industrial land in that
location and there were no water/sewer utilities to the property, and none were planned in that location.
Nimbus “got in a huff” and went to Greene County where they found a farm that Greene immediately
rezoned. Staff found some other locations with utilities where Nimbus could have located, but they did not
want to work with staff. Because Nimbus was working with discs, staff felt they needed the public water and
sewer. A few years later, Nimbus had a major problem with a still that flowed into the North Fork of the
Rivanna River. He thinks that at one time the RWSA had to stop an intake on the North Fork Rivanna River
because of where it was located. The DEQ had to come in. That is one instance. He knows that people
hear lots of other things, but it is not fair when the County is blackballed and discredited unfairly.
Mr. Boyd said he appreciates what Mr. Tucker said, but he thinks everybody could come up with a
number of stories where things turned out to be disastrous. He thinks there will always be those issues, but
he does not think being proactive in attracting companies to Albemarle means the Board has to change in
order to accommodate them. He thinks the Board needs to put out the doormat. Recently, he was in a
meeting with representatives from the University of Virginia where they talked about their high-level and
concentrated attempts to become a major research university. To do that, they need to attract
organizations. Technology in the Crozet area is exactly what they want to bring in order to attract some of
the top researchers in the country. In their slide presentations, they showed logos from cities and counties,
but there was no logo from Albemarle County. Someone commented that they wished they could work with
Albemarle County.
Mr. Tucker said staff meets with the University people periodically. Staff has even gone to
Richmond and met with State representatives on certain requests.
Mr. Boyd said there is a wall there somewhere. There is a perception that the County is not willing
to work with them. That is what he means by the County not being proactive in economic development.
Mr. Rooker said there was word that Sperry had some problems. He, Mr. Tucker and Mr. Foley
went out to Sperry and met with the CEO to talk about their future plans. They spent a couple of hours
going through their plans.
Mr. Boyd said that is not an ongoing plan, but an ad hoc type of thing.
Ms. Thomas said there is an Economic Development plan in the Comprehensive Plan and the
Board just adopted a regional plan.
Mr. Dorrier said Mr. Wyant has to leave this meeting by six o’clock and this is an important
discussion. He asked that this matter be placed on the June day agenda to continue this discussion.
__________
May 5, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
Mr. Boyd said he is holding what he is calling a “town hall meeting” on May 20 at Sutherland Middle
School at 6:30 p.m. to discuss the growth with people from Forest Lakes and Hollymead. He has received
several telephone calls and got a petition from people wanting to know what is going on in the area.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 23. Adjourn.
At 5:55 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the Board
of County Supervisors
Date: 02/09/2005
Initials: EWC